Is Rahm Congressman A?

The Blago indictment describes a previously unreported failed extortion attempt of Congressman A. Congressman A seems to be Rahm Emanuel. If that’s true, then it means Rahm will be dragged into the trial (and discovery) of this case. But it also shows that he resisted Blago’s advances even before it became clear Blago was under suspicion for corruption.

Extorting Congressman A

The indictment describes this extortion attempt in 2006.

22. It was further part of the scheme that in or about 2006, after United States Congressman A inquired about the status of a $2 million grant for the benefit of a publicly-supported school, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed defendant HARRIS not to release the grant until further direction from ROD BLAGOJEVICH, even though ROD BLAGOJEVICH previously had agreed to support the grant and funding for the grant had been included in the state’s budget.

23. It was further part of the scheme that, in response to inquiries by a high-ranking state official as to whether the grant money could be released, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed the official that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted it communicated to United States Congressman A that United States Congressman A’s brother needed to have a fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

24. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Lobbyist A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was giving a $2 million grant to a school in United States Congressman A’s district and instructed Lobbyist A to approach United States Congressman A for a fundraiser.

25. It was further part of the scheme that after defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH learned from defendant HARRIS that the school had started to incur expenses that were to be paid with the grant funds, ROD BLAGOJEVICH initially resisted the release of the grant money, and then ultimately agreed to the release of certain of the grant funds to cover incurred expenses, but only on a delayed basis, even though no fundraiser had been held.

Note, it’s clear from the last paragraph that Congressman A did not hold a fundraiser for Blago, and that at least some funds were provided to the school in any case. So Congressman A definitely blew off Blago’s attempt at extortion.

Jesse Jackson Jr is Senate Candidate A

Congressman A does not appear to be Jesse Jackson Jr, another of the male Congressmen who got pitched during the Senate sale this year.  We know JJJ had worked with Fitzgerald to expose two earlier attempted corruption schemes from Blago–a $25,000 scheme involving JJJ"s wife, and an attempt to open a third airport in Peotone, IL. But if JJJ had been a target of this third extortion attempt, why wouldn’t it have come out earlier when he revealed the earlier contacts?

Also, JJJ is mentioned elsewhere as Senate Candidate A.

It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 4, 2008, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed defendant ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH to contact a representative of Senate Candidate A, and advise the representative that if Senate Candidate A was going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat, some of the promised fundraising had to occur before the appointment.

It’s unlikely they would refer to  JJJ as both Senate Candidate A and Congressman A.

Congressman A matches details on Rahm in the complaint

In addition to the attempted extortion in 2006, Congressman A is also described in context of the attempt to sell the Senate seat last year, specifically in regards to a demand to set up a 401(c)4 in exchange for the appointment of a Senate candidate.

On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,


defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 624), in which they discussed presenting to United States Congressman A a proposal by ROD BLAGOJEVICH that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that the connection between setting up this organization and the awarding of the U.S. Senate seat would be "unsaid”;


On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,


defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication
in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 627), in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor B to call Lobbyist A and ask Lobbyist A to present to United States Congressman A ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s proposal that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that, while it would be unsaid, this would be a "play” to obtain a benefit for ROD BLAGOJEVICH in return for the awarding of the United States Senate seat; [my emphasis]

Note, neither of these passages say the Senate appointment would go to Congressman A (which would make it more likely it was one of the other Congressmen, like Danny Davis, who were in the running for the seat). 

While the described events are slightly different, the complaint describes the following discussions about pitching a non-profit in the context of Blago’s larger pitch to Obama, and then a specific conversation (indirectly, through John Wyma) to Rahm.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH raised the issue of the 501(c)(4) organization and that contributors and others can put “10 to 15 million in it so I can advocate health care and other issues I care about and help them, while I stay as Governor, she’s (believed to be Senate Candidate 1) a Senator.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH noted that the President-elect can ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and others for money for the organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH states he will ask “[Senate Candidate 6]” to help fund it as well. HARRIS said that funding the 501(c)(4) would be a lot easier for the President-elect than appointing ROD BLAGOJEVICH to a position. ROD
BLAGOJEVICH said, “They could say ‘hey, we get [Senate Candidate 1]. Let’s help this guy have a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy organization. Let’s fund it to the level that he’s asked for and then we’ll get [Senate Candidate 1].’” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that he will control the 501(c)(4) organization through a board of directors while he is Governor, and then a position in the 501(c)(4) would be waiting for him when he was no longer Governor.


On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with one of his Washington D.C.-based advisors. ROD BLAGOJEVICH explained the 501(c)(4) organization idea to the advisor, and that “[the President-elect] gets these Warren Buffett types to [fund it].” The advisor asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the 501(c)(4) is a real effort or just a vehicle to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that it is a real effort but also a place for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to go when he is no longer Governor.


Later on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor A to call Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to “[President-elect Advisor].” Advisor A said that, “while it’s not said this is a play to put in play other things.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded, “correct.” Advisor A asked if this is “because we think there’s still some life in [Senate Candidate 1] potentially?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said, “not so much her, but possibly her. But others.” [my emphasis]

The conversation on November 13 appears to be the same conversation, though Advisor A from the complaint is named Advisor B in the indictment, and Individual A named Lobbyist A. Nevertheless, the key details–a November 13 call to an advisor to have a lobbyist pitch the non-profit to an Obama associate–are the same. The role of Lobbyist A in the Children’s Hospital scheme in the indictment–to which Wyma, Individual A in the complaint, was central–supports this argument.

Rahm refused Blago’s extortion

So why should we care? After all, if Rahm is, in fact, Congressman A, then it would mean he had totally refused Blago’s extortion attempt in 2006.

First, it would mean that Rahm would be dragged into the trial and–more importantly–discovery process of this trial. Blago at least tried to have conversations with Rahm about his House seat, he has already tried to blame Rahm for one of the charges in his impeachment, so Blago would be sure to try to embarrass Rahm going forward. 

But it would also demonstrate that Rahm–at a time when it was much less clear that Blago was under investigation (and probably before John Wyma was cooperating)–blew off Blago’s attempt at extortion.

48 replies
  1. emptywheel says:

    Individual A (complaint) is definitely lobbyist A (indictment), since they have the same role in an October 8 conversation pertaining to the hospital. So Rahm is almost certainly COngressman A.

  2. nextstopchicago says:

    Politico also mentions a grant of $2 million to the Chicago Academy, in Rahm’s district (actually in Portage Park) which fits the timeline. I think they’ve got him.

    I’d also mention that it’s interesting that this wasn’t in the criminal complaint. It’s possible that Rahm mentioned it in his discussions last fall, and that they were able to interrogate Harris about the conversations after being tipped off by Rahm that he had been pressured.

    • emptywheel says:

      True, this could have come from either Harris or Rahm. I’m wonder whether Wyma had told them about it, though, or whether Rahm did?

      I can see him saying, “I wouldn’t deal with that fuck, he tried to cut off funding for kids.” Also, the 2006 extortion attempt probably coincided with Rahm’s break from Blago.

  3. nextstopchicago says:

    On the other hand, I’d also add that it’s not clear from the indictment that anyone spoke to Rahm about this. One could easily interpret those passages to mean that on a Wednesday at 10:00 am, Blagojevich told Harris to extort money from Emanuel; at 2:00, a “high ranking official” asked whether he could release the money, and Blagojevich said not until I hear from Emanuel; at 2:30, he talks to Lobbyist A and says the same; but then at 3:00, “high ranking official” comes back and says, look, the school is already spending that money because we already told them they could have it; Blagojevich says “I still want the fundraiser first”, but ultimately, with the school already spending the money, those Blagojevich aides who commuicated that the grant was safe are unwilling to tell them their grant is now blocked, so Rahm is off the hook without ever committing, possibly without ever hearing of the attempt.

  4. nextstopchicago says:


    Possibly. I think that we learn very little about Rahm here. I think it’s a Rohrschacht test, and your exegesis is uncommonly for you somewhat partisan. I think you’re reading your own opinion of Rahm into this. (And perhaps you know him well enough that you have a valid reason for that.)

    I have a dimmmer view of his political antecedents, the people already imprisoned for their role in his original election. But again, that’s pretty circumstantial on my part as well. Bottom line for me is we’ve as yet learned nothing about Rahm, and have no reason to suspect him.

    I think you’re on firmer ground when you point to the likelihood he’ll be involved in discovery and possibly testifying at the trial than when you give him a clean bill of health. But equally there’s nothing here that sullies him.

    • emptywheel says:

      I am not giving him a clean bill of health–far from it–and the notion that my feelings about Rahm are “partisan” is nonsensical.

      I’m saying this indictment is quite clear–from “attempted extortion” through teh rest of the details–that on this level Rahm did nothing.

      As to why I think it’s him, well, maybe because details from the complaint describing him show up here describing Congressman A. That’s not partisan either. It’s called reading.

  5. nextstopchicago says:

    Josh at talkingpointsmemo brings out something I liked at first read, then forgot about:

    “The Blagojevich Enterprise”

    I sense an indie band forming in a garage in Schaumburg.

    And the more substantive point Josh draws out — it’s interesting to see the governor’s office of Illinois labeled a Racketeering-Influenced or Corrupt Organization under the RICO statutes.

    Fun, fun, fun!

  6. fatster says:

    O/T, or back to spies:…..38;emc=rss

    “A withering internal report [by the Inspector General] made public on Wednesday criticized the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for bureaucratic bloat, financial mismanagement and a failure to end the turf battles among America’s spy agencies that led to disastrous intelligence failures in recent years.”

  7. nextstopchicago says:

    official response from the (self-)esteemed Senator:

    To Blagojevich’s credit, he decided as a final act it was important to appoint someone with an exceptional reputation of integrity and superior public service to the U.S. Senate seat. Blagojevich gave Illinois the chance to accomplish three worthy goals — save the taxpayer’s (sic) an expensive special election, give the state a representative of proven experience, and show the rest of the world Illinois has good officials to take us beyond our tainted image. His last words were, ‘Please don’t let the allegations against me taint this good and honest man,’ Blagojevich said at the time.

    Is Burris the biggest putz ever? What a jamoch! (to use a good Chicago neighborhood term.)

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        Oops I got the A’s mixed up…
        He probably said Candidate A.
        All I know is that Repugs will have a field day citing “Chicago politics”
        A sure-bet-candidate to replace “at the end of the day”, “business model” and “mark to market” jargon

      • SparklestheIguana says:

        Senate Candidate A is undoubtedly JJJ. Which makes it highly unlikely that they would also describe him as Congressman A.

        Except that before Senate Candidate A became a Senate Candidate, he could/would have been a Congressman. So perhaps the different labels refer to the same person at different points in time?

        I also note this from Capitol Fax Blog:

        “…Blagojevich personally continued to trade his actions as governor for personal benefits, including, for example, delaying a state grant to a publicly-supported school while trying to leverage a U.S. Congressman, who supported the school, or the Congressman’s brother, to hold a campaign fundraiser for Blagojevich…”

        We know that JJJ’s brother was a campaign fundraiser for JJJ. Would either of Rahm’s 2 brothers hold a campaign fundraiser for him?

      • joanneleon says:

        In the complaint, “Senate Candidate 1″ is Valerie Jarrett, no? And in the indictment, “Senate Candidate A” is JJJ?

        Just trying to keep it straight, and wondering why they use numbers and letters, and why candidate 1 isn’t candidate A, since individual A became lobbyist A, etc.

        ROD BLAGOJEVICH raised the issue of the 501(c)(4) organization and that contributors and others can put “10 to 15 million in it so I can advocate health care and other issues I care about and help them, while I stay as Governor, she’s (believed to be Senate Candidate 1) a Senator.”

        An aside, I have to say that I’m surprised that this indictment only included members of Blagojevich’s circle. It’s hard to believe that nobody else that they dealt with did anything wrong.

        • nextstopchicago says:

          >I have to say that I’m surprised that this indictment only included members of Blagojevich’s circle.

          It’s the prostitutes that get sent to jail, while the johns go free. If they send a few of the bribers to jail it might have a greater effect in Illinois. Part of the problem is that a small conspiracy like this is hard to crack. And they had power, and people needed things, and felt they had to give. If you made sure that the givers knew they might be subject to prosecution, these conspiracies would meet with a lot less success.

          Which would have a revolutionary effect. For example, we’d have had Governor Vallas for 8 years if Blagojevich hadn’t been able to raise a gazillion back in ‘02. Keep in mind that while the indictment only charges that the conspiracy began then, Rezko and Kelly were already on board. Rezko directly and indirectly provided a lot of the money for the original campaign.

  8. nextstopchicago says:

    When I said you were giving Rahm a clean bill of health, perhaps I was misinterpreting what you meant by saying “the 2006 extortion attempt probably coincided with Rahm’s break from Blago.”

    This seemed to imply that Rahm would have had a visceral, outraged reaction at the impropriety of being strong-armed for a contribution. I seriously doubt he would, but perhaps that’s not what you meant.

    I don’t even see evidence of a break in 2006.

  9. nextstopchicago says:

    As to “partisan”, I didn’t mean democratic, but just swayed by one’s politics, but again, maybe that’s not fair either.

    But in your reply, you still say that “this indictment is quite clear–from “attempted extortion” through teh rest of the details–that on this level Rahm did nothing.”

    I don’t believe so. The indictment doesn’t say he did anything. But it also doesn’t make clear that he did nothing.

    Outside a court of law, when it comes to making simple personal judgments of people, I actually think the indictment is quite damning — Rahm had Blagojevich’s seat. The two had been intimately involved going back to the 2002 campaign, which Rahm says he was the brainchild behind. If Blagojevich believed in ‘06 that he could extort Rahm for a contribution over a piddling $2 million grant to a school, there was probably a method to his madness.

    Again, that isn’t an inference allowable in a court of law. But we aren’t required to think well of someone until their susceptibility to corruption is proven beyond all doubt.

    • emptywheel says:

      Okay, so you prefer to make generalizations based on vague details counter to the facts before us, and I prefer to make very narrow comments about particular actions for which we have some evidence. I’m just commenting abotu whether or not Rahm took Blago’s extortion. Now, I will absolutely grant you that Rahm does not appear to have reported this in 2006. Yep. And that’ll come out at trial. Yes, I think Rahm is a shit. But I don’t think he committed a crime here, at a time when many many people in Chicago may well have.

      I guess you consider that partisan.

  10. prostratedragon says:

    Especially with indications that Rahm might not see himself as in the adminstration for the long haul (expecting a 5th cd seatwarmer, which if reasonable at all, wouldn’t be for many years), it’s seemed to me for a while that his most important role might have been precisely dealing with Blagojevichian importunings. One might expect those to die down to a level manageable by a standard issue factotum after a couple years. Meanwhile, doing the job itself’d be easier for Rahm if he’d held himself clear of the splash.

  11. nextstopchicago says:

    >I’m just commenting abotu whether or not Rahm took Blago’s extortion. Now, I will absolutely grant you that Rahm does not appear to have reported this in 2006. Yep. And that’ll come out at trial.

    Slow down. You already conceded above that the indictment offers no evidence that Rahm even heard about the extortion attempt, yet you’re again trying to make it sound like he refused it.

    • emptywheel says:

      Wow. You totally read your own reading onto my statement that–at least to me–clearly supports the notion taht Rahm PLUS either Wyma or Harris was involved in this (as it would be to get into a Fitz-approved indictment). Wow.

      Look, I know you’ve got your biases partisanship here. But you are BOTH trying to read general statements into my very narrow statement about the extortion attempt AND making assumptions that tend always to assume certain things about Rahm. I think the guy is an asshole. But he is a smart asshole. SO to assume–as you apparently are–that even evidence that suggests he avoided taint (though not the moral weakness of letting extortion pass unnoticed) suggests, in your mind, that he is tainted is just making shit up where there is no evidence.

      I am NOT making a moral endorsement of Rahm Emanuel. If you have half read shit I’ve written over the last six months that would be clear. But neither do I believe that Fitz would have interviewed Rahm and not dealt with this, or put an allegation that will require solid witnesses into an indictment based exclusively on two people who have cooperation agreements of some kind, in Harris’ case a pretty big one.

  12. nextstopchicago says:

    Well, Abdon Pallasch of the Sun-Times disagrees with you. He says, as I do, that there is no evidence that the extortion attempt got to Rahm:

    “As with some of the other alleged Blagojevich schemes, it’s unclear whether his aides ever followed through on his purported orders to shake down then-U.S. Rep. Emanuel.”…..09.article

  13. nextstopchicago says:

    Just going back, I want to make sure I understand. When you said “True, this could have come from either Harris or Rahm”, that was your way of clearly stating that it came from “Rahm PLUS Wyma or Harris”?

    At least now I know why I’m having trouble understanding!

    • emptywheel says:

      You didn’t notice that there is more in that comment than what you’ve cited? No wonder you misunderstand. THere’s a difference between “started” and totality of evidence, and there’s an additional sentence in that comment. And there’s sort of a general rule that USAs don’t charge something for a charge they’ve only got one witness to.

  14. nextstopchicago says:

    A more fun way of approaching the issue – the Trib has a “White House aide” as a second source on the extortion attempt.

    The White House aide likewise won’t confirm that Rahm found out. But then, as Marcy would point out, of course not, since if Rahm did find out as she believes, and didn’t pass along the extortion attempt at the time, that would be a bit of a problem.

    But the really fun part – the Trib article is by none other than Trib Editor A (or however he was mentioned in the original complaint) – John McCormick, the man Blagojevich wanted fired!

  15. SparklestheIguana says:

    Trib reports:

    Blagojevich also allegedly told a high-ranking state official that Emanuel’s brother needed to host a fundraiser for him. The indictment does not say which of two brothers was mentioned, but the White House aide said it was Ari Emanuel, a high-powered Hollywood agent active in political fundraising.

  16. SparklestheIguana says:

    Personally I hope Rahm does get dragged through the mud. I hope he loses his White House job and is shunned by society and has to come back and audition for the Joffrey Ballet again.

  17. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    OT, but I’ve been wondering when something like this would turn up, and I suppose the G-20 gave the NYT its grand opportunity to combo the IHT and the NYT:

    Interesting times in which we live.

  18. Mary says:

    This Trib story indicates that prosecutors on this case don’t seem nearly as bound by omerta as on Libby’s case:

    Emanuel, a confidant to both Blagojevich and President Barack Obama, is described by prosecutors as “Congressman A,” an identity confirmed by a White House aide.

    EW got it from 1 + 1 vs sources, but it looks pretty much confirmed

  19. Mary says:

    32- that Keller, what a funny guy. He didn’t really compare reading a Judy Miller piece on the front page of the NYT with googling for accuracy, did he? If the man can sit there and equate saving NYT with saving Darfur, there’s not much more to say.

    8 -thanks for the link. I’m not sure that what it takes to address something like this:

    American officials in recent years have unveiled a series of initiatives intended to improve intelligence analysis in the wake of a botched 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which concluded that Saddam Hussein’s regime was stockpiling unconventional weapons.

    will be found in the establishment of an internal analyst networking system. I think it would need a very different kind of unveiling to address that, and its the kind of unveiling we won’t be getting from the Dept of Justus or the Obama admin.

  20. nextstopchicago says:

    >And there’s sort of a general rule that USAs don’t charge something for a charge they’ve only got one witness to.

    They’ve got three without Rahm – lobbyist A, Harris and “a high ranking state official”.

    And for each line in the indictment, Emanuel couldn’t be a witness, since he wasn’t present for any of the things alleged. Each relevant line mentions the governor telling someone to tell Congressman A something. So Rahm’s testimony could only be hearsay – essentially “the intermediary told me that the governor instructed him …” Therefore, Emanuel is extremely unlikely to be the witness for any of that.

    And you’ve been suggesting this idea that Rahm gave valuable testimony for months now. All without any evidence that it happened.

    And yes, there is more to your comment at #5 — there is the flat-out false “the extortion attempt probably coincided with Rahm’s break” with the governor. There is no evidence of such a break in 2006.

    He actively supported Blagojevich in both elections that year. In January, Rick Pearson in the Trib calls Rahm Rod’s “mentor”; There was a credible primary challenger whose parents are major Dem contributors, and Rahm blew him off. He broke with the county board president and endorsed a primary challenger, but didn’t do so in the governor’s race. Rahm had a press conference with Rod in April ‘06 and followed it up with releases praising him; hosted a July ‘06 fundraiser for him in DC; had press events with him in August, went to a bill-signing ceremony with him in December. There’s no break.

    So you’re saying that Rahm broke with Blagojevich long ago, something that would make him seem either honorable or wily, though there’s no evidence of that; and you’re saying that Rahm gave Fitzgerald some valuable testimony about him, again though there’s no evidence of that.

    Again, I’m sorry if I’ve somehow misinterpreted these things as going light on Rahm.

    • emptywheel says:


      You have been misrepresenting what I say pretty consistently here–and ignoring both the history of who gave testimony when and what will happen going forward. ANd quite simply misrepresenting what I say–I love the way you include stuff in quotation marks that is not what I said!!! HOnesty incarnate.

      Now some details for you, that you seem to be unable to keep in your head.

      Saying that Rahm apparently did nothing wrong in one instance (though nothing really honest, like turning him in) is not a clean bill of health (it only is if someone has a really simplistic idea of the way peopel work). Rahm could be an ax murderer (I don’t think he is) but on this instance have ignored an extortion attempt, but that wouldn’t mean that that made it impossible for him to ignore an extortion attempt. There is ZERO correlation between an assertion I make about one instance, and Rahm in general–you have only made it a point of argument by saying Marcy said A, I’m simple so believe in spite of logic that A > B, therefore MArcy said B. YOU’RE the one asserting that if Rahm didn’t do something in this one instance I am exonerating him, or saying that if Rahm distanced himself from Blago (as sveral reports document) in 2006 than I am asserting he’s gods gift to ethics. Jeebus, have you read NOTHING I’ve written about Rahm where I suggest quite the contrary or can you just not hold something of that complexity in your head???

      Now I’d be willing to continue this conversation with someone who could keep little details our even THINK about what it means that Fitz has named Rahm in this indictment for Blago (and not, btw, named the high-ranking state official in the same way). THINK about it. You don’t name the COS of the President without fully expecting he will be called to testify, either by you or the defense, and being without damned sure he doesn’t hurt your case (which Rahm did if he said he didn’t know anything about it). ANd you don’t add a charge based on two cooperating witnesses who are deeply involved in this criminality without another more credible witness to corroborate the crooks.

      SOrry you couldn’t carry on such a conversation, but you seem to be unable to.

      • nextstopchicago says:

        I said you exonerated Rahm once and haven’t said it again since you said you were not.

        I’ve said you’ve gone easy on him in some very specific assertions of yours that I think are dubious. You’ve asserted for months that Rahm is cooperating and providing useful things to Fitz. There was no evidence of it when you said it before, though it was a possibility. The only “evidence” now is your assertion that a prosecutor, coming across a situation like that I outlined in #3, sustained by 3 witnesses, would ignore it. I don’t find your description of what any prosecutor would do convincing, and I suspect others may not either. Nonetheless, you may be right. I hold that we learned quite little about Rahm, while you seem convinced that you can read deeply into the indictment. Perhaps you’re right.

        Second, I question your assertion that Rahm broke with Blagojevich in ‘06, and the implication that he might have done it because of outrage that “that fuck tried to cut off funding for kids.” Perhaps you were merely saying that you could hear Rahm feigning that kind of moral outrage, as the reason for a break that you thought might have happened. So I’ll back off the idea you were imputing moral outrage to him.

        At any rate, that break didn’t happen, as you no doubt now know because you haven’t mentioned the idea again. So perhaps, you’ve backed off from that the way I’ve backed off from the “clean bill of health” that I intemperately mentioned.

        • freepatriot says:

          So perhaps, you’ve backed off from that the way I’ve backed off from the “clean bill of health” that I intemperately mentioned.

          or perhaps you are a dickhead who needs to get a fucking life

          if you’re so fucking smart, start your own blog

          and have fun pulling your pud by yourself

          if ya want to stick around here, maybe you should develop some respect for the site

          and stop telling people what YOU THINK they said

          nobody gives a fuck what YOU THINK SOMEBODY SAID

          we all KNOW you’re a moran

          stop trying to prove it

          help the discussion along or get the fuck out

          we ain’t got time to straighten up your fucked up understanding of simple fact

  21. nextstopchicago says:

    Again, there’s a more interesting question being overlooked in the effort to suggest that Rahm broke early and/or gave valuable testimony. That’s the identity of “high ranking state official.”

    Is this a Blagojevich administration official, meaning a deputy gov or someone like that? At least one deputy gov is already mentioned – as deputy gov A, so it seems unlikely that it’s such an official. Is it a lower-level aide? Could it be the Treasurer, Giannoulias, who would make disbursements, or someone in his office? The term for constitutional offices in Illinois is “officer” rather than official, so I don’t know.

  22. freepatriot says:

    you ARE my muse, and I ain’t gonna argue nuts an bolts with ya (note to “others” here, even I ain’t that stupid)

    but I ain’t buyin this one:

    it also shows that he resisted Blago’s advances even before it became clear Blago was under suspicion for corruption.

    blagoff was the governor of fookin Illinois. There was never a time when he WASN’T a suspect

    Illinois is THE MOST CORRUPT STATE IN THE UNION (sorry bmaz, Louisanna an Alaska can kiss my ass). If the governor of Illinois AIN’T suspect, WHO IS ???

    I didn’t just fall off a turnip truck last night

    and neither did anybody who had dealings with blagoff

    we now return ourself to our previously shceduled devotion …

      • freepatriot says:

        the last 4 Illinois governors are battin .500 on corruption charges

        or something like that …

        (numbers, anybody)

        any candidate for the office is an even-money bet to be a crook

        (an the House is prolly gonna go broke giving people odds like that)

    • nextstopchicago says:

      I’m just amazed that you knew. I mean, it’s my mother’s maiden name and all, and I certainly feel like one — I’ve vacationed with them forever. I’m not one to think that I’m only a part of my father’s family because I share their name. I’m just surprised anyone who knew me only as nextstopchicago could figure out, and with the certainty that you had. At first, I wondered whether it was just an idle statement – a bit of anti-Irish bias that you let slip. But you’ve come back and confirmed it. You really did know I was a Moran!

      Really tremendous sleuthing. Maybe YOU should start an investigative blog. I do in fact respect Marcy’s investigations, which is why I come back here. But you, sir! You’ve really proven yourself! You could be another Clouseau!

      Or perhaps you’re a moron.

Comments are closed.