High-level Obama staffers lead by example:
On Saturday morning, the list of subpoenas served by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Governor Rod Blagojevich case was made public. The list included one major surprise for the new administration.
A veritable “who’s who” of Obama staffers, surrogates and affiliates were among those served with subpoenas. Put simply, within one week of President Barack Obama’s administration taking office, it is already under significant legal scrutiny that will — at a minimum — take precious time away from dealing with the country’s monumental economic and foreign policy challenges.
And, once again, the mainstream media is AWOL, unwilling to report on this very newsworthy story.
Read the whole thing. The most interesting name on the list is Axelrod, because he’s the one person in the Obama administration who was not cleared by name in their internal investigation into potential wrongdoing.
Any ham sandwiches on the list?
Interesting, Dan, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up just because there are subpoenas.
I’m sorry, Slart, but what hopes would those be?
Boy,
I’ll tell ya, I’ve been watching politics for a long time, and this defaults into the
“bomb extraction” scenario.
This is equivalent to a time bomb being walked out of a building by the [Obama] bomb disposal unit. They are just trying to get it out of the building before it goes off.
I don’t think they are going to make it.
I’m guessing: the hope that there will turn out to be irony in “leading by example”.
Could be wrong, though. God knows I’ve had enough practice at that.
Damn. I had 6 days in the pool.
I have seven points in the second quarter for next Sunday; if I see anybody going for a two point conversion I’ll really go nuts.
The moonbats are going to have a really hard time painting Fitzgerald as a racist Rethuglican tool.
But they will try.
And will the MSM begin a drumbeat of “What did the Mr. Obama know, and when did he know it?”
So, my fears of a Chicago-Little Rock Axis of Corruption are being realized.
BuddyPC: is there a pool on the order in which each senior Obama administration official goes under the bus? If not, we should start one.
I’m thinking either Axelrod or Emanuel for the first candidate at this point.
Most Ethical Congress/Administration EVAR!
How long, I wonder, before we see another reprint of “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce”?
The term frogmarching has been strangely absent from the MSM over the past six weeks.
B-B-But Obama said that his entire staff had been cleared?!?
The one!: “I’m dissapointed in
Josef GoebblesDavid Axelrod, this is not theJosef GoebblesDavid Axelrod I knew for all those years…The wheels on the bus go round and round…
How is this fiasco going to affect his criminal trial, is what I want to know. How do the rules of evidence and procedure in an impeachment hearing compare to criminal court? If they are a lot slacker, and Blago gets impeached, wouldn’t his defense team have a fair argument that it was extremely prejudicial?
Dunno, how do you appeal an impeachment ruling? I thought that you only get booted from office if convicted by an court of impeachment. The Illinois State Senate can’t send him to jail, can it?
Looks like the trolls are avoiding this thread like it’s Kryptonite.
Maybe Axelturf has been too busy to send out the list of talking points today.
Heh.
Isn’t this one of those topics they’ve pretty much ceased commenting on? Since the first flurry, it appears this story has been given the “starve it of oxygen” treatment.
Related? news:
Massachusetts House Speaker to resign:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/26/dimasi_will_resign?mode=PF
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi plans to resign from his powerful post tomorrow and depart the North End legislative seat he has held for three decades, saying yesterday that he is proud of his record and is departing with his “head high†despite ongoing ethics controversies swirling around him.
Time to play: NAME………THAT…………..PARTY!
Croat Peasant’s Party?
Spanish Falangist?
Hungarian Monarchist?
House Party?
8. Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/26 @ 11:03 am #
BuddyPC: is there a pool on the order in which each senior Obama administration official goes under the bus? If not, we should start one.
I’m thinking either Axelrod or Emanuel for the first candidate at this point.
Put me down for either $1 billion TARP dollars on Axelrod, or an online $250 Obama 2012 contribution on someone else’s credit card for Jarrett.
I’d say Jarrett’s more expendable.
Comment #12:
“The wheels on the bus go thumpety-bump, thumpety-bump …”
I want to play a square this week of Axelrod, Jarrett, Emanuel, and Barney Frank.
Obie has spent his entire adult life surrounded by thieves, liars and con-artists. They say if you play with crap long enough you’re bound to get some on you.
His day is coming.
#12 Bob Reed:
The road that bus is on seems to be bumpier than a Michigan highway in winter.
And it’s gonna get bumpier Mikey NTH, trust me on that one…
I don’t know how an impeachment conviction in a state legislature would affect a federal criminal trial. Impeachment proceedings are inherently political, not criminal. And the rules of evidence used in an impeachment may be very different from those in a criminal trial or a civil trial.
Without the evidentiary safeguards and procedures in place in a trial, the record evidence from an impeachment proceeding may not be permitted in a criminal or civil trial. For example, evidence of a conviction in a criminal assault trial can be entered in a civil trial for assault because the evidentiary standard in a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) is much higher than the evidentiary standard required for a finding of liability in a civil trial (a preponderance of the evidence).
I’d say Jarrett’s more expendable.
Probably.
On the other hand, we sure haven’t heard much from Rahm lately, have we?
I’ll go with the order:
Emanuel
Axelrod
Jarrett
Last man standing: Hillary Clinton.
30 posts in, no trolls.
Funny, innit?
Strange SBP,
I wonder why they don’t wanna jump on this train?
More like a bus, I’d say, Bob.
Last man standing: Hillary Clinton. LOL
She’s may be smart enough to resign first and take up golf…
Oh Man!
I gotta learn to quit reading these threads while intaking fluids…
I don’t know how much more this laptop is going to take…
I don’t know how an impeachment conviction in a state legislature would affect a federal criminal trial. Impeachment proceedings are inherently political, not criminal. And the rules of evidence used in an impeachment may be very different from those in a criminal trial or a civil trial.
Without the evidentiary safeguards and procedures in place in a trial, the record evidence from an impeachment proceeding may not be permitted in a criminal or civil trial. For example, evidence of a conviction in a criminal assault trial can be entered in a civil trial for assault because the evidentiary standard in a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) is much higher than the evidentiary standard required for a finding of liability in a civil trial (a preponderance of the evidence).
Which is my point. The criminal trial should come first, because of the stricter standards. If Blago gets impeached first in a highly publicized, highly political show trial with weak standards of evidence, isn’t that going to prejudice any jury in the criminal case?
#35 BMoe:
It may – likely will – influence the jury pool. Like massive media attention is used as an excuse not to sit jurors as they have heard about the trial and may have their deliberations influenced by that media coverage. The first O.J. trial is the gold standard for that.
The question of what is admissible evidence is a different question, a procedural question, and that was what I was commenting on. The seating of the jury would come first, then questions of evidentiary admissibility. It may very well be that nothing from the impeachment is actually admissible evidence and cannot be used in trial.
Two different questions – sorry I went after the minor point rather than the major point.
No, it wasn’t a minor point, to me it they are both fairly important. I appreciate your expertise, thank you.
Oh – a follow up:
Tactically speaking, you do not want to file a civil case for damages due to an assault and battery until after the criminal assault trial is concluded. Because of the different evidentiary standards, a not guilty verdict isn’t going to affect the verdict in the civil trial, while a criminal conviction will mean you have a very strong case, due to the stricter criminal standard as opposed to the more lenient civil standard.
In the O.J. case the civil trial did not take place until after the criminal trial was done, and resulted in a finding of liability against the defendant, O.J. Simpson, when he was found not guilty in the criminal case.
If the civil trial had gone first, then because of the weaker evidentiary standard that finding of liability could not have used in the criminal trial.
BTW – Double jeopardy does not come into play, because that is a prohibition to being tried twice for the same crime after a ‘not guilty’ verdict is given. It is not a prohibition against a discrete citizen or group of citizens filing a civil case after the state authorities are done with their case.
A criminal case is a case of the public as a whole, the state, against an individual or group of individuals. A civil case is a cause of action between a citizen or group of citizens against another citizen or group of citizens.
Different complainants, different laws, different evidentiary standards, different cases. No double jeopardy because it is not criminal and the parties to the case are not the same. In civil law the principle of res judicata takes the place of double jeopardy – that court has already ruled on that question with regard to these parties. Appeal if you want, but unless an appellate court calls for a re-trial, you are left with that court’s decision.
How close do the laws and procedures of a typical civil case track with a state impeachment trial? Will there even be a real judge presiding, or do one of the senior Senators? I just can’t help but think if Blago turns this into a circus it is going to play hell with Fitzgerald’s case.
41 comments, no trolls.
Maybe all threads should be about Blago?
#40 BMoe: I don’t know that.
That is an issue for evidentiary purposes, for the criminal chrages are in federal court, but impeachment isn’t in a state court, it is in the state legislature. State courts are constrained to recognize federal rights because of the Fourteenth Amendment – that Amendment makes federal rights controlling on the actions of any state of the union. Federal rights become the floor beneath which no state can go in criminal trials (a state may grant more rights to a defendant with respect to state laws and criminal trials than federal law respects, but the state cannot respect less rights than the federal government respects).
But impeachment trials are outside of the normal trial procedures and, at the state level, are guided by that state’s own constitution, rules, and laws.
Alcee Hastings is a member of Congress, but Congress had earlier impeached him as a federal judge and convicted him. Impeachment is a different thing altogether than a criminal trial. All a conviction by impeachment does is remove the offender from that office, unless that state constitution says different. But that is not necessarily a criminal conviction in federal court.
I am not a law professor*, and this entire thing should be a boon to law professors/lawyers who are experts on how this area of the law meshes with federal criminal law – much face time on TV for them.
*And I am commenting off the top of my head without doing any research. I am just ‘issue-spotting’ as they say. This is not my area of practice (though I clerked in criminal law for a few years, i am now doing utility law).
Yeah, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Thomas Fitzgerald, no relation to Patrick.
#43 AKA Pablo:
That doesn’t answer the evidentiary questions which will come up in any possible federal criminal trial regarding the prior impeachment proceedings.
Perhaps Maj. John, or any other Illinois bar member can expound on that issue. I am tapped out at this juncture just noting the possible issues that I can see off the cuff.
And if you want to get into ‘procedural due process’ versus ‘substantial due process’ I am going to have to dive into the law books again and start charging.
Mikey, I wasn’t speaking to that, but my best IANAL summation of the impeachment situation is that it has nothing to do with the criminal problem, and the evidentiary standards are nothing alike. It appears that the Senate can do as it damned well pleases, and that Fitzy will have a much higher bar to clear than they do. After all, the impeachment can only cost Blago his government job, while the Federal case can cost him his freedom. That said, I don’t like Fitzy’s chances of getting a conviction based on what I’ve seen so far. If Blago is impeached and then acquitted at trial (or perhaps not indicted at all), there’s going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces.
On the other hand, Pablo, he might be sent to jail on the basis of differences in recollection with Scooter Libby.
#45 AKA Pablo:
Oh, there will definitely be egg on faces. Gov. Blagojevich is not going to go quietly, he is going to take everyone who has turned on him down with him if he can do so. Legally and politcally speaking, he is going to try and make Rorke’s Drift look like a genteel tea-party.
What exactly does he have to lose now? His reputation? His job? everything he has worked for? His life?
Perhaps the last, but if he is too radioactive he may be untouchable that way. He isn’t Warren Hooper.