Rod Blagojevich: Weaponization of Justice 'Started With Me'

[ThatRobGuy]

Rod Blagojevich: Weaponization of justice 'started with me'

"I spent 2,896 days—eight years—in prison for politics," the disgraced former Illinois governor told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

Better known in political circles as "Blago," the former Democratic governor of Illinois said the "weaponization" of the DOJ dates back to 2008, when federal prosecutors led by Patrick Fitzgerald—an acolyte of former FBI Director James Comey who was appointed U.S. Attorney by former President George W. Bush—indicted him on charges of corruption after he was caught on federal wiretap attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, who had just been elected to the White House.

"I didn't break a single law. I didn't cross a line. I never took a penny, no one even said I did," he said in an interview on Thursday. "It was all politics. Political conversations that were initiated by then-President-elect Obama to talk a political deal for the appointment of the U.S. Senator. He didn't do anything wrong, neither did I."

 

[Landon Caeli]

Interesting twist of events... Does anyone feel empathy for an innocent man, spending 8 years in prison for no reason?

...Seems like the Democratic Party has abandoned him. Sad, such coldness.

...I'm guessing the hierarchy of Democratic party was spellbound, and instantly fell in love with the idea of what just happened? Raw political power!

 

[Landon Caeli]

...And yet again, here's this raw political power being continuously exercised:

NYC Mayor Eric Adams believes federal charges against him are politically motivated: 'Did not break the law'

New York City Mayor Eric Adams sits down with 'The Story' to discuss the federal charges against him after he was indicted by a grand jury in September.

www.foxnews.com

...The elite-Left shall not be crossed! Or you pay the price!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Interesting twist of events... Does anyone feel empathy for an innocent man, spending 8 years in prison for no reason?

...Seems like the Democratic Party has abandoned him. Sad, such coldness.

...I'm guessing the hierarchy of Democratic party was spellbound, and instantly fell in love with the idea of what just happened? Raw political power!

No, because he wasn't an innocent man. Just another corrupt politician.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, because he wasn't an innocent man. Just another corrupt politician.

Maybe I don't know how law works... I know with "sin", you can make plans to sin, book the hotel, and have reservations with some mistress in preparation for an evening of cheating, but if you have a change of heart at the last minute, and just 'don't do it', then you haven't sinned...

...Apparently with law, if you talk about taking a bribe, or even think about it, then you're guilty before you even do it, even if you wouldn't have gone through with it.

I don't see how the law is fair.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Rod Blagojevich: Weaponization of justice 'started with me'

"I spent 2,896 days—eight years—in prison for politics," the disgraced former Illinois governor told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

Better known in political circles as "Blago," the former Democratic governor of Illinois said the "weaponization" of the DOJ dates back to 2008, when federal prosecutors led by Patrick Fitzgerald—an acolyte of former FBI Director James Comey who was appointed U.S. Attorney by former President George W. Bush—indicted him on charges of corruption after he was caught on federal wiretap attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, who had just been elected to the White House.

"I didn't break a single law. I didn't cross a line. I never took a penny, no one even said I did," he said in an interview on Thursday. "It was all politics. Political conversations that were initiated by then-President-elect Obama to talk a political deal for the appointment of the U.S. Senator. He didn't do anything wrong, neither did I."

lol, convicted felon continues to claim innocence. News at 11.

...And yet again, here's this raw political power being continuously exercised:

NYC Mayor Eric Adams believes federal charges against him are politically motivated: 'Did not break the law'

New York City Mayor Eric Adams sits down with 'The Story' to discuss the federal charges against him after he was indicted by a grand jury in September.

www.foxnews.com

...The elite-Left shall not be crossed! Or you pay the price!

You know it was Republicans who prosecuted Blago, right? Republicans at the time had a field day trying to tarnish Obama with that scandal.

Maybe I don't know how law works... I know with "sin", you can make plans to sin, book the hotel, and have reservations with some mistress in preparation for an evening of cheating, but if you have a change of heart at the last minute, and just 'don't do it', then you haven't sinned...

That’s a pretty myopic way of defining sin.

 

[Landon Caeli]

You know it was Republicans who prosecuted Blago, right? Republicans at the time had a field day trying to tarnish Obama with that scandal.

Yes.

That’s a pretty myopic way of defining sin.

It's not "defining" sin, and there's nothing myopic about it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not "defining" sin, and there's nothing myopic about it.

Sure it is. The prep work still requires sinning "in your heart."

 

[Landon Caeli]

Sure it is. The prep work still requires sinning "in your heart."

It's only venial. There are differences in the gravity of sins.

With venial sin, there is no loss of salvation. Law's should mirror this, and recognize that there's a real difference between thinking about doing something, and actually doing something. There's no good reason to condemn someone for thoughts.

In the case of the OP, Blago was condemned, and imprisoned for 8 years, for words/thoughts- That is an immoral form of justice.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe I don't know how law works... I know with "sin", you can make plans to sin, book the hotel, and have reservations with some mistress in preparation for an evening of cheating, but if you have a change of heart at the last minute, and just 'don't do it', then you haven't sinned...

Matthew 5:27-29
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "

What do you make of that? To my mind its a little severe. But there it is. And its not even at the level of intention. Its just desire.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's only venial. There are differences in the gravity of sins.

With venial sin, there is no loss of salvation.

This may just be a doctrinal difference. Some of us don't believe there's loss of salvation ever.

Law's should mirror this, and recognize that there's a real difference between thinking about doing something, and actually doing something.

Laws do mirror this. There's a difference between conspiracy to commit murder and murder.

There's no good reason to condemn someone for thoughts.

In the case of the OP, Blago was condemned, and imprisoned for 8 years, for words/thoughts- That is an immoral form of justice.

This is such a ridiculous argument.

1.) Words have meaning and can, rightfully, constitute crimes. Threats of violence, for example, are illegal.
2.) No, he wasn't imprisoned for "thoughts". He was imprisoned for actions. Some of his convictions on trading appointments for appointments were overturned, but some of the ones left standing involved trading official acts for campaign contributions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe I don't know how law works... I know with "sin", you can make plans to sin, book the hotel, and have reservations with some mistress in preparation for an evening of cheating, but if you have a change of heart at the last minute, and just 'don't do it', then you haven't sinned...

...Apparently with law, if you talk about taking a bribe, or even think about it, then you're guilty before you even do it, even if you wouldn't have gone through with it.

I don't see how the law is fair.

Sin is irrelevant here. (And I'm pretty sure the sin of "adultery by lust and intent" has already been committed, but that is a question for a priest, not the News board.)

 

[Yarddog]

Rod Blagojevich: Weaponization of justice 'started with me'

"I spent 2,896 days—eight years—in prison for politics," the disgraced former Illinois governor told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

Better known in political circles as "Blago," the former Democratic governor of Illinois said the "weaponization" of the DOJ dates back to 2008, when federal prosecutors led by Patrick Fitzgerald—an acolyte of former FBI Director James Comey who was appointed U.S. Attorney by former President George W. Bush—indicted him on charges of corruption after he was caught on federal wiretap attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, who had just been elected to the White House.

"I didn't break a single law. I didn't cross a line. I never took a penny, no one even said I did," he said in an interview on Thursday. "It was all politics. Political conversations that were initiated by then-President-elect Obama to talk a political deal for the appointment of the U.S. Senator. He didn't do anything wrong, neither did I."

Just another corrupt politician crying foul because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He was convicted on a number of counts by an Illinois jury. Nothing political except he was a corrupt politician.

 

[rambot]

Maybe I don't know how law works...

And yet you felt the need to provide more information.


Blago was convicted in a court based on evidence. There's nothing innocent about him.

There was an audio recording of him doing it.


Why is it SOOOOO many people are willing to accept "I was wrongfully charged" when it's a rich white guy saying it?

What is it about THIS criminal yellling "I'm innocent" that is sooooo captivating and worthy of our attention when there's HUNDREDS of other criminals who say the same thing?

 

[Landon Caeli]

And yet you felt the need to provide more information.

Exactly.

 

[Arcangl86]

Anybody else notice how Blago is just glossing over the fact that half the indictment had nothing to do with selling Obama's seat?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There was an audio recording of him doing it.

Not sure how much of this is true vs. how much is him trying to do a CYA move...

But in a recent interview, he stated that his defense attorneys wanted to introduce the full tapes into evidence, and the prosecution had them sealed, so only about 20% of the audio on the tapes was available to the jury, the remaining 80% was withheld (and the remaining audio was what he claimed gave his other statements context)

They touched on it briefly back in 2011

Blagojevich Fights Back, Claims Crucial Tape Is Missing

Gov. Rod Blagojevich continued efforts this week to try and bolster his claim that federal prosecutors built their corruption case against him by selectively releasing wiretap recordings of his wheeling and dealing, while omitting from the records the tapes that would exonerate him. In the...

abcnews.go.com

Other outlets have reported on it too since then

Why won’t Tribune release secret Blagojevich tapes? — Reverse Spin

www.reversespin.com

Court: Unplayed Blagojevich Tapes To Stay Sealed

An appellate court in Chicago says transcripts of FBI wiretapsnot played at Rod Blagojevich's corruption trials will remain sealed. The 7th U.S. Court of…

www.nprillinois.org

If he's the one asking for them to be unsealed, and they're refusing, that's odd.

And according to his side of the story, the Judge had originally agreed to allow his defense to introduce the rest of the tapes, on the condition that he take the stand and testify, and after he did so and held up his end of the bargain, the judge reversed that decision and didn't allow it to be introduced.

Not sure how true that is, just saying that's Rod's side of the story.

https://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/BlagojevichNYTimes.pdf

 

[Pommer]

Not sure how much of this is true vs. how much is him trying to do a CYA move...

But in a recent interview, he stated that his defense attorneys wanted to introduce the full tapes into evidence, and the prosecution had them sealed, so only about 20% of the audio on the tapes was available to the jury, the remaining 80% was withheld (and the remaining audio was what he claimed gave his other statements context)

They touched on it briefly back in 2011

Blagojevich Fights Back, Claims Crucial Tape Is Missing

Gov. Rod Blagojevich continued efforts this week to try and bolster his claim that federal prosecutors built their corruption case against him by selectively releasing wiretap recordings of his wheeling and dealing, while omitting from the records the tapes that would exonerate him. In the...

abcnews.go.com

Other outlets have reported on it too since then

Why won’t Tribune release secret Blagojevich tapes? — Reverse Spin

www.reversespin.com

Court: Unplayed Blagojevich Tapes To Stay Sealed

An appellate court in Chicago says transcripts of FBI wiretapsnot played at Rod Blagojevich's corruption trials will remain sealed. The 7th U.S. Court of…

www.nprillinois.org

If he's the one asking for them to be unsealed, and they're refusing, that's odd.

And according to his side of the story, the Judge had originally agreed to allow his defense to introduce the rest of the tapes, on the condition that he take the stand and testify, and after he did so and held up his end of the bargain, the judge reversed that decision and didn't allow it to be introduced.

Not sure how true that is, just saying that's Rod's side of the story.

https://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/BlagojevichNYTimes.pdf

But it doesn’t matter if the rest of the tapes were introduced or not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But it doesn’t matter if the rest of the tapes were introduced or not.

It should...

If the defendant says the other stuff on the tapes is what would exonerate him (to a degree), our legal system is structured around the principle of giving a defendant the best possible chance.


Just in a practical sense.

If there was a conversation between Dave and Joe, and they were in dispute over what was said in a phone call, and asking you to weigh in.

If Joe says "Pommer, I want you to listen to the entire 1-hour phone call so you can hear everything that was said and understand the context and background"
And Dave says "Pommer, I saved the 8 minutes of the call I wanted you to hear, but deleted the rest"

Which party is going to seem more suspicious/manipulative in that scenario?

 

[Landon Caeli]

It should...

If the defendant says the other stuff on the tapes is what would exonerate him (to a degree), our legal system is structured around the principle of giving a defendant the best possible chance.


Just in a practical sense.

If there was a conversation between Dave and Joe, and they were in dispute over what was said in a phone call, and asking you to weigh in.

If Joe says "Pommer, I want you to listen to the entire 1-hour phone call so you can hear everything that was said and understand the context and background"
And Dave says "Pommer, I saved the 8 minutes of the call I wanted you to hear, but deleted the rest"

Which party is going to seem more suspicious/manipulative in that scenario?

The sad part is that you actually had to explain that.