PDA

View Full Version : Former Illinois governor Blagojevich guilty on one count: Lying to the FBI



ralph wiggum
08-17-2010, 05:36 PM
http://images.nymag.com/daily/intel/20081210_rodday_250x375.jpg

A federal jury today convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of one count against him: lying to the FBI. The jury was deadlocked on the other 23 counts against the former governor, and all four counts against his brother.

LINK (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/14th-day-for-blagojevich-jury.html)

SarasotaRepub
08-17-2010, 05:57 PM
God only knows how many DU threads there will be tonight...:D

m00
08-17-2010, 10:11 PM
Was it perjury, or just lying?

I didn't know lying to the FBI was a crime (unless you are under oath). Not saying Blagojevich is anything other than a scumbag crook. But that seems like an odd thing to be guilty of.

Kay
08-17-2010, 10:39 PM
The worst part about this is that we will have to endure him being interviewed on
every talk show again, with clips played over and over. He needs to just go away.

PoliCon
08-17-2010, 11:03 PM
Dead lock generally means mistrial. Clearly some jury tampering took place.

Kay
08-17-2010, 11:49 PM
So I guess then they will proceed to the sentencing phase on that one charge
that he was found guilty of with this same judge and jury won't they?

Kay
08-17-2010, 11:55 PM
Dead lock generally means mistrial.
Clearly some jury tampering took place.

They say it came down to only one lone holdout.
Just one person hung the jury on the other 23 counts.
That's the one that must have been paid off. Story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/attorney-lawyers-blago-case-summoned-court/

lacarnut
08-18-2010, 12:16 AM
I did not think he would be found guilty on any counts because the Prosecutor is a political hack. Blago was tried in his home town which gives him a slight advantage. Why did the prosecutor charge him with 24 counts? When you go over the top like that, it diminishes the prosecution case in my opinion. If he would have been charged with 3 or 4 counts, it would have made the jurors job much easier. If he had been convicted of the most serious charges, he would have been looking at 20 to 40 years. BTW, I think Blago is a liar and a crook.

RobJohnson
08-18-2010, 12:19 AM
I voted for Rod the first year he ran, seven times! :p:D

Jfor
08-18-2010, 12:39 AM
This the same prosecutor that got Libby for lying under oath? Fitzgerald seems to be pretty incompetent. He should have to pay back all the money the .gov has spent trying these two cases.

PoliCon
08-18-2010, 12:49 AM
They say it came down to only one lone holdout.
Just one person hung the jury on the other 23 counts.
That's the one that must have been paid off. Story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/attorney-lawyers-blago-case-summoned-court/

It only takes one hold out to hang a jury. The fact that there was only one makes it clear that that person was either paid off - or is a partisan who would happily ignore any and all evidence.

m00
08-18-2010, 12:58 AM
I did not think he would be found guilty on any counts because the Prosecutor is a political hack. Blago was tried in his home town which gives him a slight advantage. Why did the prosecutor charge him with 24 counts? When you go over the top like that, it diminishes the prosecution case in my opinion. If he would have been charged with 3 or 4 counts, it would have made the jurors job much easier. If he had been convicted of the most serious charges, he would have been looking at 20 to 40 years. BTW, I think Blago is a liar and a crook.

I agree with his.

Honestly, if I was sitting on a jury on a case like this and the prosecution went through like 20 overblown nonsense charges and 4 valid ones, I might just be obstinate to send a message that federal prosecutors need to only bring charges that are actually reasonable. Instead of making it be about legal rhetoric and the shotgun approach. I really hate lawyers, especially lawyers that work for the government because their "unlimited budget" is my tax dollars.:p

lacarnut
08-18-2010, 02:35 AM
I agree with his.

Honestly, if I was sitting on a jury on a case like this and the prosecution went through like 20 overblown nonsense charges and 4 valid ones, I might just be obstinate to send a message that federal prosecutors need to only bring charges that are actually reasonable. Instead of making it be about legal rhetoric and the shotgun approach. I really hate lawyers, especially lawyers that work for the government because their "unlimited budget" is my tax dollars.:p

Same here. Ex Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, was tried several times by over zealous prosecutors who brought a bunch of charges against him. They finally got him on the third or fourth try. His crookedness would put Blago to shame. The federal prosecutor screwed it up by bringing so many charges up. Also, when a prosecutor shows a hatred for the accused, that does not go over big with the jurors.

I don't think that a juror was bought off. I was on a rape and armed robbery trial where the evidence was overwhelming. A retired teacher was hesitant in finding him guilty because she did not want him to spend the rest of his life in prison without the chance of parole. We convinced her our duty was to determine guilt or innocence. The judge handled the sentencing part not us. You get some whiny ass liberal as a juror and this kind of thing can happen.

Satanicus
08-18-2010, 06:49 PM
I called this when he was indicted by Fitzgerald , he didn't have the evidence.

djones520
08-18-2010, 06:51 PM
I called this when he was indicted by Fitzgerald , he didn't have the evidence.

You said one juror would have their head up there ass and would deadlock 23 of 24 counts?

Well look at that, it's raining gold bricks. :rolleyes:

Blago is still guilty boy. Now they just have to do a retrial to get the rest of the counts finished.

Satanicus
08-18-2010, 06:53 PM
Now they just have to do a retrial to get the rest of the counts finished.

Ya, ok ...

djones520
08-18-2010, 06:54 PM
Ya, ok ...

Guess you missed the part where the prosecuter said he was going to push for a retrial.

And Blago is still guilty.

PoliCon
08-18-2010, 10:21 PM
I called this when he was indicted by Fitzgerald , he didn't have the evidence.

Wow. There's nothing you won't defend when it's a leftist who's guilty is there. I'll bet you think Rangol is innocent too don't ya. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
08-18-2010, 11:40 PM
Guess you missed the part where the prosecuter said he was going to push for a retrial.

And Blago is still guilty.

The government spent 20 million and could get only one conviction. Like I said, the prosecutor screwed the pooch by bringing so many counts. Spending another 20 million will result in another hung jury.

Blago is guilty but so is members of Obama's Administration. Some people might think that is not fair to send him to jail and others like Rambo E. skate free.

Odysseus
08-18-2010, 11:59 PM
I called this when he was indicted by Fitzgerald , he didn't have the evidence.

I believe that you predicted acquittal on all counts. And given that the jury deadlock was 11-1 across the board on the other charges, it's pretty obvious that the prosecutors did have the evidence, but that the lone holdout l was either completely incapable of examining the evidence, or was tampered with. As stated in the article:


News broke later Tuesday that there was just one holdout juror blocking a conviction on the charge of trying to sell the Senate seat. The jury deadlocked 11-1 on that charge, according to another juror, Erik Sarnello of Itasca, Ill.

Sarnello, 21, said the holdout, a woman, "just didn't see what we all saw." He said the counts around the Senate seat were "the most obvious."

Satanicus
08-19-2010, 06:45 AM
Wow. There's nothing you won't defend when it's a leftist who's guilty is there. I'll bet you think Rangol is innocent too don't ya. :rolleyes:

You mean found innocent in a court of law.

Satanicus
08-19-2010, 06:46 AM
I'll bet you think Rangol is innocent too don't ya. :rolleyes:

Yes , thats how it works.

Charlie is innocent till found guilty in court.

Just like Tom Delay.

Rockntractor
08-19-2010, 09:29 AM
Yes , thats how it works.

Charlie is innocent till found guilty in court.

Just like Tom Delay.

http://image.bayimg.com/daojgaach.jpg

ralph wiggum
08-19-2010, 09:51 AM
Blago is still guilty boy. Now they just have to do a retrial to get the rest of the counts finished.

They will. Fitzgerald's team didn't necessarily present the best case. But they've learned a lot from what the jury has said publicly post-trial and will have a pretty good opportunity to convict him on the second try.

PoliCon
08-19-2010, 12:00 PM
Yes , thats how it works.

Charlie is innocent till found guilty in court.

Just like Tom Delay.

Tom Delay was found innocent. Shall we go back over your old posts here and dig up every time you called Delay guilty before he was even brought to trial? Humm?

Odysseus
08-19-2010, 02:00 PM
Yes , thats how it works.

Charlie is innocent till found guilty in court.

Just like Tom Delay.
Who you repeatedly slammed as guilty. Does reversing yourself that quickly ever cause whiplash? Have you noticed any neck or shoulder pains? Just curious...

Tom Delay was found innocent. Shall we go back over your old posts here and dig up every time you called Delay guilty before he was even brought to trial? Humm?

Oh, please do. A puppy only learns not to make a mess when you rub his nose in it.