F***ing Blagojevich Indictment Threatens Nation With Asterisk Shortage

Dave Weigel blogged (blagged?) the federal indictment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) for, among other things, thinking about selling the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Barack Obama. Given that the moth-to-a-TV-camera prosecutor in the case is Patrick Fitzgerald (he of Plamegate infamy), it's worth waiting to see what sticks to Gov. Blago's Spandex hair before convicting the guy of anything more than being a run-of-the-mill jackass pol (more on that in a second).

What cracks me up in this so far is the way the MSM (M*M?) has to transcribe the foul-mouthed Land of Lincolnoid because, you know, we've got protect adults from foul language as if they were 12-year-olds stumbling through the streets of San Andreas or Liberty City.

From an ABC News account:

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing..." [said Blagojevich].

Told by two other advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this "motherf***er [the president-elect] his senator. F*** him. For nothing? F*** him."

The governor is heard saying he will pick another candidate "before I just give f***ing [Senate Candidate l] a f***ing Senate seat and I don't get anything."

More here.

Ironically given the charges of corruption, among the relatively legal but totally f***headed things Blago was known for nationally was his campaign against the video game Grand Theft Auto and other fictional depictions of official corruption. As he told CBS News, "There are hidden dangers in these games." And in the Illinois statehouse, too.

Watch and read Blago bitching about video games here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Naga Sadow||

    To paraphrase Xeones:

    Yo! F$#K Blagojevich!

  • The Quotable Blago||

    On the Chicago Tribune:

    "Get these motha'f*king reporters of my motha'f*king back!"

  • ||

    I see that the traditions of Illinois politics are very strong. I think Wikipedia needs a new article: "Criminals who've held office in Illinois".

    -jcr

  • Don Siegelman||

    Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty.
    Unlike me who was convicted on multiple Federal counts of corruption in office.

  • cunnivore||

    Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty.

    From a strictly legal standpoint, yes. From a court of public opinion standpoint, not so much. Everyone loves it when a guy with a ridiculous hairpiece gets his comeuppance.

  • MAX HATS||

    Unlike Libby, Blagejovich doesn't have an entire federal apparatus dedicated to covering his ass, and a president who will do anything to keep the dirt hidden.

    I hope.

  • ||

    I hope the trial is a circus.

    Any chance Daley gets caught up in this?

  • ||

    This story just made my day.

    Or, translated in to Illinois-speak:

    This f**kin' story just made my mutha-f**kin' day!

  • ||

    I am shocked and appalled that a governor would demand compensation for a major political appointment. What kind of country do we live in when politicians want shit for favors?

  • cunnivore||

    While Libby shouldn't have lied to investigators, keep in mind that the person who committed the crime -- Richard Armitage -- Fitzgerald was supposed to be investigating, never got prosecuted. I'm not a fan of investigations that result in no prosecutions except for crimes caused by the investigation.

  • Sam||

    Get these motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking airplane.

  • Geotpf||

    I'm pleased that Obama wouldn't play ball, and Blago called the president-elect a motherfucker because of his refusal to bribe him. Being called a motherfucker by Blago is a good thing for Obama, IMHO.

  • ||

    Unlike me who was convicted on multiple Federal counts of corruption in office..,.

    And then released by a federal judge before the appeal was even heard based on the strength of the case asserting the prosecution was politically motivated and corrupt.

    Do you have any idea how high the burden of proof is to get a convicted felon releases before his appeal is even heard?

  • Shirtless Joe||

    Sounds like Blagojvich has been taking English lessons from Ozzie Guillen.

  • ||

    cunnivore | December 9, 2008, 2:08pm | #

    While Libby shouldn't have lied to investigators, keep in mind that the person who committed the crime -- Richard Armitage -- Fitzgerald was supposed to be investigating, never got prosecuted...


    According to Fitzgerald, no one else was prosecuted BECAUSE people lied to investigators.

    Sort of a variation on the old "killing my parents then asking for mercy because I'm an orphan" theme.

  • SIV||

    I hope the SEIU gets caught up in it big time.
    Between them and the UAW Obama might be a bigger union-buster than Ronald Reagan.

  • EJM||

    My favorite quotes (so far) have come from the FBI's Robert Grant.

    As quoted by the "Chicago Tribune"...

    "If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Grant said. "Even the most cynical agents in our office were shocked."

    As quoted by DPA...

    Grant said Blagojevich's illegal activities surprised his agents despite Illinois' long history of corruption. 'Even the most cynical agents in our office were shocked,' Grant said.

  • Don Siegelman||

    Siegelman was convicted of mail fraud arising from a pay-for-play scheme in which he exchanged official acts and influence for cash, property, and services from Alabama businessman and consultant Clayton "Lanny" Young. The jury found that Siegelman took thousands of dollars in bribes from Young to aid Young's business interests, including the awarding of contracts to companies controlled by Young. The jury also found Siegelman and Scrushy guilty of crimes arising from a bribery scheme in which Scrushy paid Siegelman $500,000 in laundered funds to obtain a seat on a state regulatory board governing HealthSouth.

    My appeal is tomorrow! Thanks to Moonbats like joe for all their support.

  • ||

    I like how MSM forget to mention that he is a Democrat.

    But it is pretty easy to spot...if it was a Republican they would have started the article:

    "Conservative Republican Governor whoever was arrested today."

    If there is no party affiliation then one should simply assume it is a Democrat.

  • libertarian democrat||

    Yes joshua, just like the cnn article.

  • ||

    Thanks to Moonbats like joe for all their support.

    You're welcome, Don, but I couldn't have done it without a federal appeals court judge finding the case against you so weak that he not only allowed it to go forward, but pre-emptively released you from prison.

    What a moonbat. Do you think he started lining his robe with tin foil when he was first appointed as a federal judge, or when he was elevated to the circuit court?

  • Virgil||

    "I like how MSM forget to mention that he is a Democrat."

    Ooh, darn that evil, monolithic MSM! Like the big, bad NYTimes, where his party affiliation comes at the start of the second sentence.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/10Illinois.html?_r=1&hp

    Same for the Wall Street Journal.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122883415161091395.html

    In the Chicago Tribune, it's in the middle of the second sentence.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-illinois-governor-7,0,5113440.story

    At the Washington Times, the poor reader has to live in fear and confusion all the way to the third sentence.
    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/ill-gov-blagojevich-arrested-federal-charges/

    Even the super-evil commie-pinko London Times has it at the start of the second sentence.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5313762.ece

    You've got to pretty much be illiterate to think that the MSM is "forgetting to mention" that he's a dem.

  • Mike M.||

    Count me as a Patrick Fitzgerald fan. Here's a guy who obviously doesn't give a crap what party you're connected to, and would rather go after the big boys than settle for the little soft targets that don't have the resources to defend themselves against the feds.

    If we had a bunch more guys like him, we might actually have a halfway decent representative government in this country.

  • ||

    Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty.

    Pet Peeve Time:

    Blago is not "innocent until proven guilty." This isn't Schrodinger's Court; his guilt or innocence isn't an unresolved wave function until the jury rules. He either did it or he didn't, regardless of what the verdict says when it is unsealed.

    He is "presumed innocent", meaning that the state has the burden of proof. But he's not actually innocent until proven guilty.

    According to Fitzgerald, no one else was prosecuted BECAUSE people lied to investigators.

    Eh. Maybe. But if you can convict people for lying, doesn't that mean you have enough evidence of what the truth was to get a conviction? And if you have that much evidence, why not go for the underlying crime as well?

    Perhaps because, in the Plame case, there was no underlying crime, just an investigation that should never have been brought flailing around trying to justify itself.

  • ||

    """While Libby shouldn't have lied to investigators, keep in mind that the person who committed the crime -- Richard Armitage --""""

    There was no crime in the Plame affair which Fitzgerald felt he could prosecute. If Libby would have told the truth he wouldn't have broken the law for which he was found guilty. Actually if Libby didn't take notes about his meetings with journalists, Fitzgerald probably wouldn't have had enough evidence for a conviction.

    """"I like how MSM forget to mention that he is a Democrat.""""

    At least the didn't put a R next to his name. Fox news still thinks Larry Craig was a D.

  • ||

    libertarian democrat | December 9, 2008, 2:25pm | #
    Yes joshua, just like the cnn article.


    The article links to an ABC site....

    there is no link to a CNN article on the post or in the thread.

    Oh i see, you searched and searched and searched and you found one article among 1000s that actually says he is a democrat.

    Good job cuz one article among thousands sure proves me wrong.

    Jack Ass

  • Jennifer||

    "F-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk?" What does that mean? What word has been removed? I am scratching my head in consternation, for these bowdlerized news stories do such an excellent job of protecting my innocence, I am utterly incapable of figuring out what the fuck the governor actually said.

  • ||

    RC,

    But if you can convict people for lying, doesn't that mean you have enough evidence of what the truth was to get a conviction?

    Not necessarily, in terms of having enough evidence to get a conviction in the underlying case. If you look at the case against Libby, it wasn't "You said you didn't out Fitzgerald, and I can prove you did," but "You said you didn't talk to Russert, and you did," and the like. Things that were highly suggestive, but didn't prove the underlying crime.

    Fitzgerald's report concludes that a crime was committed in the outing of Plame, but that lying by the people he interviewed made it impossible to prosecute.

  • vm||

    virgil - look at the source of that post. look at the source.

  • ||

    Oh i see, you searched and searched and searched and you found one article among 1000s that actually says he is a democrat.

    Word of the Day: Prebuttal.

    pree-BUT-tul.

    Virgil's comment was a stinging prebuttal to joshua corning's rant.

    Prebuttal.

  • ||

    But if you can convict people for lying, doesn't that mean you have enough evidence of what the truth was to get a conviction? And if you have that much evidence, why not go for the underlying crime as well?

    Uhmm, no. It means that you have enough proof that what you were told is false (like notes that contradict testimony, or wiretaps that contradict testimony) -- but that sure doesn't follow that you have enough evidence to convict (or even get an indictment) of the underlying crime.

    That's why people lie, and it is called "Obstruction of Justice" -- because all the people lying and covering up the real crime makes it quite hard to get at and prove the truth, even if you know what the truth is.

    It's really not that hard, unless you are being willfully obtuse (which is exactly what you are doing in this case)

    Just because I can prove you are not being honest with me doesn't mean I should be able to prove what the truth is, or what your angle is.

  • ||

    "F-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk?" What does that mean? What word has been removed?

    F-R-A-K. What, you don't watch Battlestar Galactica?

  • libertarian democrat||

    lol josh. Yes, I searched thousands of articles. I couldn't have just used the one I saw first on this story, as I like CNN best for my news.

    Anyway, Virgil sure beat you with that. Perhaps you should have read their response before making an even greater fool of yourself.

    I also believe jackass is traditionally one word, but I could be wrong.

  • ||

    It hasn't been this f+++ing bad since the Nixon tapes were released. (anyone have any asterisks?)

  • Kolohe||

    I don't know if anyone has said this already, but:

    separated at birth?

  • Kevin B. O\'Reilly||

    Nick's attempt at witticism here ("moth-to-a-TV-camera prosecutor") is deeply misguided. Fitzgerald just happens to make big cases against lying, corrupt public officials. That tends to get TV coverage. Shouldn't this be, you know, *applauded*. Oh, and by the way, he also led the prosectuion against the '93 WTC terrorists in court, instead of say occupying another country that didn't have a thing to do with it. So all in all, the snark fails on this one.

  • ||

    Sure, sure, I'll grant that there is a narrow zone where you can prove enough to get a perjury conviction for lying about a material fact, but not enough to get a conviction on an underlying crime.

    Still doesn't change my mind that these "process" convictions unhitched from any allegation or proof of an underlying crime aren't a blight on the justice system.

    That's why people lie, and it is called "Obstruction of Justice" -- because all the people lying and covering up the real crime makes it quite hard to get at and prove the truth, even if you know what the truth is.

    But "knowing" what the truth is, so you know the perjurer lied, isn't enough. You have to prove the perjurer lied (about a fact that is material), which means you have to have some proof of what they lied about.

    If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fact X occurred, and fact X is (as required) material to proving that crime Y occurred, then how do you not, in most cases, have enough to bring an indictment for crime Y?

  • ||

    Oh, and by the way, he also led the prosectuion against the '93 WTC terrorists in court, instead of say occupying another country that didn't have a thing to do with it.

    Proving that the pure law enforcement approach to dealing with international terrorism is an abject failure.

  • Russ 2000||

    "F-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk?"

    F*** draws the eye in a lot more than Fuck.

    And it draws attention to the language rather than the actual corruption.

    As in "OMG! He said FUCK!" rather than "OMG! He's selling public offices as if he owns them!"

  • ||

    RC,

    If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fact X occurred, and fact X is (as required) material to proving that crime Y occurred, then how do you not, in most cases, have enough to bring an indictment for crime Y?

    Because the fact that X is material to proving that Y occured does not mean X is sufficient to prove that crime Y occured.

    The killer left a Marlboro cigarette butt at the crime scene. Do you smoke Marlboros?

    Nope. I smoke Camels. Never smoked a Marlboro in my life.

    OK, then. You can leave.

    2 days later: hey, boss, look, I've got a picture of that guy smoking a Marlboro a day before the murder!

    Perjury. Material fact that could influence the outcome of a case. Not enough to prove the underlying crime, enough to prover perjury.

  • ||

    """"But if you can convict people for lying, doesn't that mean you have enough evidence of what the truth was to get a conviction?""""

    With respects to Libby's encounters with the media, Fitzgerald did know enough of the truth. Reporter A say the enounter went down like X, Reporter B says the encounter went down like Y. Libby's own notes says the encounters went like X and Y, but under oath Libby says it went down like Z. It was Libby word vs the reporters, and Libby's written word.

    Libby got Libby convicted. Fitzgerald already knew via Libby's own notes and reporter interviews what the deal was. The deal being Libby's encounters with reporters.

  • ||

    All these f***ing asterisks are f***ing bulls***, for f***'s sake!

  • ||

    """If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fact X occurred, and fact X is (as required) material to proving that crime Y occurred, then how do you not, in most cases, have enough to bring an indictment for crime Y?"""

    Libby was NOT found guilty for lying about who outed Plame. Your analogy would make more sense if that was true. It would be hard to prove he lied about who outed Plame without proving someone outed Plame.

    Libby lied about the details of his media contacts, and Fitzgerald proved it to a jury. That, in and of its self, has little to do with Plame being outed or not. If Libby would have been honest about his contacts, his fate probably would have been the same as Rove's, and Armitage's, no charges filed.

    We could run around saying person X is a covert op, but you can't be charged with the crime unless you KNOW it's true and the govt. would have to prove you knew it to be true. That's how the law is written. That's a tall bar, one that chiefs of staff in the Whitehouse know how to limbo, except when they decide to contradict their own notes.

  • ||

    It would be totally awesome if some of this spilled over to stain Obama. NOT because I think he's a crook, NOT because I like Republicans, but just because so many people are worshipping him as their personal savior. We need something to shake the faith of those who believe in benevolent government, and knocking Saint Obama off his Pedestal of Supreme Goodness is a start.

  • ||

    Libby lied about the details of his media contacts, and Fitzgerald proved it to a jury. That, in and of its self, has little to do with Plame being outed or not.

    IOW, these do not appear to have been lies about a material fact, and thus not perjury.

  • ||

    Since the case was about administration officials telling media figures about Valerie Plame, how exactly is information about Libby talking to media figures about Valeria Plame not material facts?

  • ||

    It is totally awesome that none of this spilled over to stain Obama. NOT because I whorship him, NOT because I like Democrats, but just because so many people are demonizing him as some kind of crook. We need something to shake the faith of those who believe in universal corruption, and dashing the hopes of people assuming the inherent evil of Barack Osama is a start.

  • Rod Blagojevich||

    Obama was a huge supporter of me. Which says a lot about his ability to judge who to pick as friends and allies.

  • ||

    """IOW, these do not appear to have been lies about a material fact, and thus not perjury.""

    I stand with joe's 4:14 post.

    It's not like he was investigated about a land deal then asked about his sex life.

    """""It is totally awesome that none of this spilled over to stain Obama."""""

    Yet.
    I'd wait till the end of the investigation before making a statement like that.

  • ||

    Rod Blagojevich | December 9, 2008, 4:22pm | #

    Obama was a huge supporter of me.


    Really? Because the Chicago media are saying that it was his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmenuel who dropped the dime on you.

  • LGF Fan||

    "Really? Because the Chicago media are saying that it was his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmenuel who dropped the dime on you."

    Um...He's throwing him under the bus because he has no loyalty! Yeah, that's it...

  • LGF Fan||

    He turned him in because he was afraid something about him would come out, first! Or something.

  • ||

    Throwing people under buses isn't a new kind of politics.

    CHANGE! I'm incredibly clever, because I typed the word CHANGE!

    Progressives must be so incredibly, unbearably disappointed.

    Wait a second, one Democrat doing something that harmed another?

    Why, it's like a CIVIL WAR!

  • LGF Fan||

    Once they start squeezing the Governor, he will throw Obama under the bus! Yeah! Just you wait!

  • BDB||

    In all seriousness, this is a pay-to-play scandal in which there is evidence on tape that the Obama team refused to play. You have to be living in a bizzaro alternate universe if you think this counts as being implicated.

    Blago: If you want you're preferred successor, there's gonna be a price, what will you give me?

    Obama team: Nothing but our thanks.

    Blago: Fuck you! If you don't do it, JJ Jr. gets the seat!

    Obama team: Um, whatever. You'll be in jail soon.

    Blago: No no...wait! I'll appoint myself! Then run for President!

    Obama team: ROFL! *click*

    That was about it.

  • ||

    You can't believe what Blago was saying about Obama on the tape - the guy's a damn liar.

    Now, what he says to the police post-arrest about a bigger political fish than himself: that's tighter than when you get your head stuck in the Cheetos bag.

  • Long Legged Mack Daddy||

    Good for Obama, it's better that he throw a corrupt politician under the bus than his own grandmother.

  • ||

    """"Once they start squeezing the Governor, he will throw Obama under the bus! Yeah! Just you wait!""""

    I agreed with up to the point I realized the Gov will need Obama for a pardon. So maybe he won't. This guy knows the value of favors. I'll keep my mouth shut in return for a pardon.

  • ||

    Maybe I was wrong about the Clinton's getting Obama elected. I'm starting to believe it is a Karl Rove plot to destroy the Democratic party.

  • ||

    Damned apostrophy.

  • Russ 2000||

    Really? Because the Chicago media are saying that it was his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmenuel who dropped the dime on you.

    If true, then Obama IS the corrupt prick some are making him out to be. "Gimme what I want or I my big brother will beat you up" is the exact same way Blago operates.

  • Russ 2000||

    this is a pay-to-play scandal in which there is evidence on tape that the Obama team refused to play.

    Seems like both sides are running the pay-to-play game. Pay up Rod, or we'll make it difficult for you.

  • ||

    Here's how it went down:
    Obama's people: We own the party now and we want Number one.
    Blago: The f*** you do! I'm getting some F***ing cash for this.
    Obama's people: You do know you've been wired like a motherf***er.
    Blago: So f***ing what, you can't touch me.
    Thus, today's arrest.

  • Fresno Bob||

    Careful joe. Rahm Emmenuel has sharp elbows.

  • Voton||

    Blagojevich complain he has to give this "mother*ucker [the president-elect] his senator. *uck him. For nothing? *uck him."
    ...for a net savings of 9 asterisks!

  • Voton||

    I mean 6 asterisks. I never was any good at math.

  • ||

    Mothaf*^%ing snakes on a mothaf&^%ing plane!

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Is that BLAH-go-yay-vich or BLAA-guh-juh-vich?

    Everyone loves it when a guy with a ridiculous hairpiece gets his comeuppance.

    So true! We all had a field day with Traficant.

  • ed||

    What cracks me up in this so far is the way the MSM (M*M?) has to transcribe the foul-mouthed Land of Lincolnoid

    I heard more than one network bobblehead yesterday explain it thus: "Because we're a family show..." Right. All the little kiddies gather around the TV with a bowl of popcorn to watch Hardball, Countdown and Hannity and Colmes.

  • Dave W.||

    My theory is that the Governor was involved in a high level conspiracy to sell the seat.

    In this case, the conspiracy was detected and and is now being prosecuted.

  • VM||

    Art - it's "monchichi", for the record...

  • ||

    Amazing logic upthread.

    The fact that Obama wouldn't go along with a corrupt act, and the fact that his Chief of Staff might have been the one to blow the whistle, are actually evidence of their corruption.

    Do you people actually manage to make yourselves believe these things you write, or do you just not care whether the things you put your names on are remotely credible?

  • VM||

    "Do you people actually manage to make yourselves believe these things you write, or do you just not care whether the things you put your names on are remotely credible?"

    my guess is that they drift in and out as they type...

  • Dave W.||

    Notwithstanding joe,/i.'s cruel words, I still think the Governor was involved in a high level conspiracy to sell the seat.

  • Dave W.||

    better close my tag b4 I am mistaken for some kind of loony.

  • ||

    Interesting:

    In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama's rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

    Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.


    Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich's efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama.


    My only concern now is that Obama is going to turn out to be too clean. Washington is an ugly enough place, nevermind dealing with governments around the world. I hope he's not one of those ineffective, Jimmy Carter choir boy types.

  • ||

    Is it just me? I've skimmed the comments and it seems so:

    Blago is probably guilty. But what the hell has happened when we cheer some Spitzer'esqe federal prosecutor taking out a governor of a state with a flimsy assed two count indictment, filled with STATE crimes, connected only by the all encompassing "interstate wire fraud" tentacle that the feds yank out every time they want to overreach.

    If he's commited a crime, let Illinois deal with it and ask Fitzgerald to kindly grab his binoculars and be a good federal cop and go watch the border.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement