April 2008
ArchPundit
And the Wall Starts to Crumble
Let me issue a challenge to Hynes on this. Dan is a good public servant, competent, steady, able. But he never takes that next step to lead and stand out. This is his chance. Connecting the dots on the state’s fiscal condition and the corruption and mismanagement of this administration is tailor made for him. This is a good start, but pound it and pound it and pound it.
There is no more need to pretend that anyone has to work with this guy, Blagojevich is on his way out whether he realizes it yet or not. Hynes has always been seen as too cautious which isn’t a bad characteristic in a public official dealing with the state’s fiscal condition, but it doesn’t move you up the ladder.
It was clear that in November the Lege could have impeached him for violating the Constitution and I urged them to do so then, but now we have boring corruption reasons to do so and it’s not a hard case to make to the public now. Let’s get this over with….
Can We Impeach Him Now?
Blagojevich was also initially identified as “Public Official A” in the separate corruption case against Rezko. The judge in that case eventually identified “Public Official A” as Blagojevich, and the governor’s name has repeatedly come up in testimony at the trial.In the plea agreement, Ata said he met with Rezko and Public Official A at Rezko’s Chicago offices and gave them a $25,000 check.
“Public Official A expressed his pleasure and acknowledged that the defendant had been a good supporter and a good friend,” the agreement said. “Public Official A, in the defendant’s presence, asked Rezko if [Rezko] had talked to the defendant about positions in the administration, and Rezko responded that he had.”
According to the plea agreement, Ata was interviewed in December 2005 and falsely told agents that he was not aware of any role Rezko had played in his appointment. He also falsely claimed that he got nothing in return for donations to Public Official A.
“Defendant then knew such statement and representation was false, namely, that in fact he did receive something for those contributions, specifically employment with a state agency,” the plea agreement said.
According to the document, Ata met with Public Official A in 2000 or 2001, and Ata agreed to support Public Official A in a run for higher office.
“Thereafter, defendant Ali Ata observed that Antoin Rezko was close to Public Official A and was very involved in fundraising for Public Official A’s campaign, including overseeing defendant Ali Ata’s own fundraising efforts on behalf of Public Official A,” the plea agreement said.
As early as 2002, the document said, Rezko was speaking to Ata about a state job should the candidate be elected.
In August 2002, Ata held a small fundraising event for Public Official A that the candidate attended. Before the event, Ata said he promised Rezko the fundraiser would generate $25,000 for Public Official A, and it did. Ata said $5,000 of the goal came out of his own pocket.
This isn’t even at issue in the current Rezko trial. Cal and I agree on this and that’s not your typical day where we agree on much.
Madigan should move to impeachment and put Jones on the spot to do it. No one can walk away from this without suffering at the polls.
Make the Primary End
I just want it over…..
Kjellander Tried to Oust Fitzgerald
What’s amazing is that both Kjellander and Hastert were attempting to get Fitzgerald and they couldn’t do it because of the Plame investigation. Under any other situation, the Bush administration would have rid Illinois of Fitzgerald.
More bombshells were lobbed in the Antoin “Tony” Rezko trial even before the jury was seated this morning and they involved a purported attempt to pull strings with the White House to fire U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald. In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton said she believed Ata would testify to conversations Ata had with his political patron, Rezko, about working to pull strings to kill the criminal investigation into Rezko and others when it was in its early stages in 2004.
“[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed,” Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.
That sentence is loaded with a who’s who of political heavyweights. Bob Kjellander was the veteran Republican National Committeeman from Illinois who was a sometimes business associate of Stuart Levine, who has pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rezko to rig state boards for contracts.
Karl Rove for years was President Bush’s chief political strategist as well as an old friend of Kjellander. Patrick Fitzgerald was and is the U.S. attorney in Chicago who pressed the investigation of Rezko. Hamilton said the conversation she hoped Ata would testify to was about having Fitzgerald replaced by someone else, she said, “so individuals who have been cooperating in this investigation will be dealt with differently.”
Just Start Banging Your Head on the Wall Now
Apparently some twits seem to be up in arms about sample ballots.
Philly-resident Atrios has an explanation of what this is all about. These are not actual ballots. Rather, they are “sample ballots,” handed out by a given candidate’s supporters, basically telling voters who to vote for and how to vote for him or her.
To be clear, the Hillary campaign is not alleging irregularities around this. The Hillary camp sent over the Obama-only sample ballot only to clarify that this is happening on both sides and that it isn’t irregular. The Obama campaign is not alleging irregularities around the Hillary-only sample ballot, either.
While I’m strongly against literacy tests and the sort, we might have found a standard by which to judge if someone is competent to vote.
Oddly Familiar
Ozinga’s new logo:
Similar to…..
Nothing wrong here, just amusing.
More On Hearsay
Some pedant (just kidding SS–it’s a good point) in comments pointed out that hearsay is often allowed in criminal trials and that is certainly true. Wikipedia gives you the dumbed down version.
The particular bill Wilhelmi is putting forward is especially problematic though:
Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D- Joliet) has offered an amendment to the state’s code of criminal procedure, backed by State’s Atty. James Glasgow, that would allow hearsay testimony if the witness who made the statements was not available to testify in person because the defendant had a hand in that person’s absence.
Neither Wilhelmi nor Glasgow’s office would comment on whether the measure was inspired by the Peterson case, but the senator said the state’s attorney requested the amendment earlier this year. Glasgow’s office has been immersed in the investigation with a special grand jury since late last year.
Under the proposal, if prosecutors can convince a judge that the defendant, for example, bribed, threatened or killed a witness to prevent testimony, the judge could allow the statements the witness made to others to be heard in court.
Essentially this bill would require the Judge make a determination about the guilt of the person potentially under trial under these circumstances. This can result in two things:
1) The hearsay is never admitted in trial because the judge cannot make such a determination
2) The admittance of such information is prejudicial towards a defendant because it requires a finding that the defendant was responsible for at least a portion of the crime the defendant is charged with….
Neither is a good result. The law is not entirely crazy in terms of legal theory as making a witness unavailable is something that can allow hearsay, but in this case, the entire justification is the issue at question.
Ms. Strangelove
Hillary wants some sort of common defense umbrella in the Middle East:
Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.”
If Obama said this, we’d be hearing how dangerous he was and, well, it would be true.
1) Israel has the ability to deter anyone in the region with estimates of 200 – 400 nukes. They even have them deployed on submarines. If a nuclear attack were to be made upon Israel, Israel could largely wipe out any attacker or group of attackers in practical terms.
What’s bizarre is the infantilization of Israel by many who seem to forget that Israel is the strongest country in the region by an incredibly wide margin. Israel has far better defense technology and some of the best trained troops in the world. And a whole lot of nukes with multiple ways of delivering those nukes.
2) While the US has lost some of its ability to act as an honest broker in the Middle East, such a commitment would lead to the US having virtually no ability to facilitate peace negotiations.
3) US intelligence suggests Iran is not actively seeking a bomb. Apparently she continues to not read the intelligence reports.
4) It is far from clear that Iran is the most likely nation to attack Israel in the region. Syria and Israel are facing increasing tension and competition for water that especially affects Syria.
It further diminishes the role of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which the US is essentially in violation of with both Israel and the new deal with India. The way to effectively deal with non-proliferation issues is to stress the international framework created to deal with that issue. After the Bush administration has played cowboy and weakened NPT with the India nuclear tech transfers and other moves, a united world on the issue of NPT is vital to long term US security interests–not more saber-rattling.
‘See, It Asks a Question’: A Mind So Open His Brains Dripped Out
JONESVILLE, S.C. — The sign in front of a small church in a small town is causing a big controversy in Jonesville, S.C.
Pastor Roger Byrd said that he just wanted to get people thinking. So last Thursday, he put a new message on the sign at the Jonesville Church of God.It reads: “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?”
Byrd said that the message wasn’t meant to be racial or political.
“It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” he said.
When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, “I don’t know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not. But I don’t know. And it’s just something to try to stir people’s minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody.”
Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.Despite some criticism, Byrd says that the message will stay on the sign. He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.
Byrd also said he doesn’t want it to look like controversy forced him to take the sign down.