Blago found gulity

[sactoking]

wait.. werent the jruy deadlocked the 20 counts last time?

prosecutors actually retried him???
normally they dont retry hung jury cases

and why did they overwhelmingly succeed this time when they only got 1 conviction last time?

According to CNN this morning the prosecution retried it and felt they had a better chance b/c the dumbed it down. The first time through they got super-technical with everything, the jury got confused, and they hung b/c they couldn't even agree on what was at issue.

This time the prosecution eliminated 4 of the more confusing charges and kept the evidence and testimony simpler so that the jury could understand what he was actually accused of.

 

[Anarchist420]

Sending him to jail for this is ridiculous in my opinion. The Constitution only defines three federal crimes, and this wasn't even close to one of them.

As waggy points out, no one should have to pay for this.

 

[Skitzer]

The man does not deserve this, for this.

The seat WAS his to fill, and it WAS golden. Political favors are what MAKE politicians. Literally, not figuratively. They do not exist separately from trading action for political support.

If he deserves sentencing, then every single President, Congressman, Senator, and Governor deserve the same. That they are not means he was singled out. Selectively targeted in a land of supposed equal treatment.

He is only guilty of being a victim from the media pouncing on him. They've taken the rest of his life from him, not by the rule of law, but by the rule of mob.

Go ahead and celebrate today, for tomorrow they'll be done with him and there is no law stopping the mob from feasting on you next.

 

[Thump553]

Lot of silliness here. First of all, hung juries are normally retried and only on very rare occassion does the prosecution abandon them. Secondly, anarchist420-do you honestly think the only crimes that can exist under US law are the three specifically mentioned in the Constitution? What is the basis for this great legal and scholarly brainstorm. Thirdly, no way Blogo is going to get a 100 year sentence. There are federal sentencing guidelines that the judge must follow except in very limited exceptions. Blogo will get a heavy sentence but not essentially a life term. Without looking up the sentencing guidelines or exactly what he is convicted of, my guess would be a decade or so as a sentence.

Finally congrats to the people of IL. FOUR recent govenors convicted of crimes?? Good lord.

 

[Anarchist420]

Lot of silliness here. First of all, hung juries are normally retried and only on very rare occassion does the prosecution abandon them. Secondly, anarchist420-do you honestly think the only crimes that can exist under US law are the three specifically mentioned in the Constitution? What is the basis for this great legal and scholarly brainstorm. Thirdly, no way Blogo is going to get a 100 year sentence. There are federal sentencing guidelines that the judge must follow except in very limited exceptions. Blogo will get a heavy sentence but not essentially a life term. Without looking up the sentencing guidelines or exactly what he is convicted of, my guess would be a decade or so as a sentence.

Finally congrats to the people of IL. FOUR recent govenors convicted of crimes?? Good lord.

Yes, I believe that the only Federal crimes should be the 3 mentioned in the Constitution if there have to be any at all.

Retrying him is also a violation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Thump553]

It is centuries old settled law that retrial after a hung jury does not constitute double jeopardy under the Constitution. Retrial after an acquital would be.

As for there only being three federal crimes possible, that is another one of your delusional fantasies.

Making stuff up doesn't make it true.

 

[Craig234]

If you want an injustice against a governor that deserves protest, read bout Don Siegalmen who was pursued by Karl Rove using the US Justice Department.

75 former state attorney generals, many Republican included, signed a petition for the case to be reviewed.

http://donsiegelman.org/

 

[nonlnear]

Craig234 and Jaskalas, how do you feel about insider trading?

 

[woolfe9999]

If you want an injustice against a governor that deserves protest, read bout Don Siegalmen who was pursued by Karl Rove using the US Justice Department.

75 former state attorney generals, many Republican included, signed a petition for the case to be reviewed.

http://donsiegelman.org/

What does the Siegalmen case have to do with Blago? You clearly think that Siegalmen was railroaded. Are you trying to say that is the case with Blago?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll take what we can get. Guy is a guiltless, corrupt politician. Don't cry for him, don't you dare.

I cry for a country ruled by mob instead of law. If I must do so alone, then so be it.

 

[Howard]

I cry for a country ruled by mob instead of law. If I must do so alone, then so be it.

Did America convict an innocent man in the case of Blagojevich?

 

[Jaskalas]

Wow this is a terrible post. lol.

For the majority of P&N, I understand you don't agree with my protest, maybe you think politicking as usual is hereby criminal.

Well then I expect you to honor this and vote against your currently elected President, Governor, Senator, and Congressman for doing the exact same thing. Hell, it probably goes down to your city council and local school board.

You'll never vote for an incumbent the rest of your life. Or maybe you enjoy mob rule, and figure you'll merely assail those who get pounced on.

Blago is no hero, is an unscrupulous character, and may very well be a criminal. That does not mean the audio tapes proved anything. Yet they were used as such. You don't just mark a man and throw him to the wolves because you didn't like him.

I'm sure the jurors had evidence I am not aware of, maybe you've heard something I haven't, but from where I stand there was no crime. Just an unpopular man cast down and set upon.

 

[Jaskalas]

Craig234 and Jaskalas, how do you feel about insider trading?

That law has a need, and might fulfill it, but I find it is largely used on innocents. It is too general a crime, casting a wide net and capturing too many.

In short, I think its abused to selectively choose victims.

 

[nonlnear]

That law has a need, and might fulfill it, but I find it is largely used on innocents. It is too general a crime, casting a wide net and capturing too many.

In short, I think its abused to selectively choose victims.

My hat is off to you good sir. I applaud you for your consistency.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234 and Jaskalas, how do you feel about insider trading?

Huh? Where did that come from? I'm against it. It's a crime for a reason.

I don't recall insider trading coming up as an issue for Siegalmen.

He was convicted on a trumped up corruption charge, prosecuted by a US Attorney who was the wife of his election opponent's campaign advisor, who had worked with Rove for decades.

 

[nonlnear]

Huh? Where did that come from? I'm against it. It's a crime for a reason.

I don't recall insider trading coming up as an issue for Siegalmen.

I didn't mean to imply that either case had anythign to do directly with insider trading. Actually my comments have nothing to do with Siegalmen, just Blago.

He was convicted on a trumped up corruption charge, prosecuted by a US Attorney who was the wife of his election opponent's campaign advisor, who had worked with Rove for decades.

Tsk tsk Craig. I even gave away the obviously correct answer and you still failed to see the parallels. So it doesn't mean anything to you at all that the two crimes are almost perfectly analogous? They both involve breaching a mandated trust for personal gain, and are both enforced capriciously, often as a result of a political vendetta. In your nobler moods I would expect you to affirm that a public trust is infinitely more sacrosanct than a measly corporate one but we all have flaws. At least you were predictable enough to be entertaining.

 

[Zeze]

Soo.. what's he looking at realistically after all said and done?

10 yrs? 20? 30? Mere probation and fine?

 

[nonlnear]

Soo.. what's he looking at realistically after all said and done?

10 yrs? 20? 30? Mere probation and fine?

Pundits seem to be pegging a likely sentence at 10+-5 years. My money's on a year or two, followed by a long, symbolic, unenforced probation - along with a starring role on The Good Wife (which might start before he's released).

 

[Craig234]

I didn't mean to imply that either case had anythign to do directly with insider trading. Actually my comments have nothing to do with Siegalmen, just Blago.
Tsk tsk Craig. I even gave away the obviously correct answer and you still failed to see the parallels. So it doesn't mean anything to you at all that the two crimes are almost perfectly analogous? They both involve breaching a mandated trust for personal gain, and are both enforced capriciously, often as a result of a political vendetta. In your nobler moods I would expect you to affirm that a public trust is infinitely more sacrosanct than a measly corporate one but we all have flaws. At least you were predictable enough to be entertaining.

My, my, but you are being an ass tonight.

I didn't comment on the Blago situation at all. You are just putting words in my mouth and then making snotty attacks against what you said.

Your insinuation that I approved of violating the public trust is garbage. The question with Siegalmen is, did he? You need to show he did before discussion how to respond to it.

If he did, then I'll respond to that. What I've seen falls short of that.

Try discussing an issue, rather than making dishonest attacks, which lead to not caring to respond to you if that's how you are going to post.

Your post is like responding to me that a man was wrongly convicted, that I condone crime.

 

[dmcowen674]

Soo.. what's he looking at realistically after all said and done?

10 yrs? 20? 30? Mere probation and fine?

The 17 counts have a maximum of 305 years

They are asking for 1/3 or about 100 years

 

[zinfamous]

The 17 counts have a maximum of 305 years

They are asking for 1/3 or about 100 years

no way that will happen.


...but it would be awesome.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't think he deserves more than 6 months.

 

[nonlnear]

My, my, but you are being an ass tonight.

I have my moments.

I didn't comment on the Blago situation at all. You are just putting words in my mouth and then making snotty attacks against what you said.

Your insinuation that I approved of violating the public trust is garbage. The question with Siegalmen is, did he? You need to show he did before discussion how to respond to it.

If he did, then I'll respond to that. What I've seen falls short of that.

I didn't mean to imply that you are okay with violating a public trust. Only that you are indignant at the capricious enforcement of violations of public trusts when the target is somebody you like, railing against the injustice of inconsistent enforcement while, on the other hand, applauding capricious enforcement of virtually identical prosecutorial tools when the "victims" are corporate fatcats with whom you, understandably don't sympathize at all.

Even that may have been a stretch because, looking back on the thread I see you are right. You didn't comment on Blago at all. I apologize. In my mond I was conflating your position with Jaskalas's. If you aren't actually all that sympathetic to Blago in the first place then my contention is completely misplaced.

Try discussing an issue, rather than making dishonest attacks, which lead to not caring to respond to you if that's how you are going to post.

Your post is like responding to me that a man was wrongly convicted, that I condone crime.

Even if you are sympathetic to targets of inconsistent enforcement I wouldn't say that's quite the same as condoning crime. For example I kind of (begrudgingly) agree with Jaskalas that the politicization of incidents like this, coupled with the tacit acceptance of the political establishment that this is the way it's done as long as you don't leave any evidence, makes the execution of such sentences a sign of structural injustice even though the crime itself does deserve punishment.

It's a subtle distinction, and certainly not one that I communicated effectively with my misguided attack. My apologies.

 

[ichy]

Pundits seem to be pegging a likely sentence at 10+-5 years. My money's on a year or two, followed by a long, symbolic, unenforced probation - along with a starring role on The Good Wife (which might start before he's released).

I think that light of a sentence would be close to impossible with federal sentencing guidelines.

 

[guyver01]

The man does not deserve this, for this.

When i first read your post... i thought your name said Jackass... cuz.. it fit.