This guy is the gift that keeps on giving. Personally, I would love to see him go to jail so he has more time to work on his batshit crazy metaphors and perhaps, God willing, compose a little poetry.
Blogs like this may comprise the court of Public Opinion, but in the eyes of the law, he is still innocent. There's been no hearing or trial to ascertain the full truth, nor has the defendant had the opportunity to defend himself. Sorry, but at the moment, he's as innocent as any of us.
@bmoredlj: He's "innocent" in the sense that he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore can't be stripped of his office or thrown in jail. But we can still say that he's a clownish slimeball who we've heard on tape trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder and who deserves to end up in jail. We just can't throw him in jail until the courts finish having their say, but that's not what Gawker's trying to do here.
Illinois can take care of itself, my only wish is that most of these scandals include power, money, and sex (sounds like I'm Robert Penn Warren, huh?). Where is the sex part? Does his hair creep out at night to the local park and hide in shrubs waiting for a nice shag to come along?
@Rumpelstilskin: Be thankful you don't have to deal with a sex component of the scandal. Many of us New Yorkers are still trying to get past the mental image of Spitzer naked except for black socks.
To all those reading this post who are intrigued and asking "who is the one who voted against?":
Look closely at Gawker articles and you will find that some text is maroon colored (that's a dark red for those of you who don't know what maroon is when not paired with 5). The text is a different color because it's a link. If you click "One guy voted no" this amazing thing happens and an article appears telling you who he is.
I cringe even as I write this, but isn't the case against Blago a little...thin? (Unlike his hair, heh.)
I don't know the law here, but unless there's some purpose-built statute somewhere, I'd say we're dealing with an unconsummated conspiracy, and the key evidence showing that it rose to the level of conspiracy (i.e., not just a bunch of ill-advised individual statements) will come from dodgy co-conspirators who themselves are not a lot more trustworthy than Blago. What am I missing?
@skahammer: Nothing. I think that part of the issue here is that, whether or not he can be convicted, the AG is trying to ensure that Blagojevich's political career is ruined.
@skahammer: Illinois law is quite vague here, but unable to govern seems to be the main point. And there have been days of testimony of Blago ignoring subpeonas, refusing to respond to requests to explain why he gave $1,000,000 of State funds to a private school (which then bought a condo and gave Rezco the commission), refusing to explain why he spent $2,000,000 on foreign drugs that were not allowed into the US, expanding a health care program after the legislature shut it down, not handling any requests from districts whose representatives he hates, even when the requests come from private citizens...sigh.
The list of what he won't do is endless. The federal indictment is not needed to get him out.
@Weegee's bored: My endless rounds of litigation against Mountain Dew, which despite all advertising evidence just serves to make me sleepy and fat, say no.
@skahammer: you can do whatever you want, just don't get caught. that thing about the money going to the school was shady as fuck, but blago was tap-dancing his ass off to explain that away. and he pretty much was in the clear.
the straw that stirred the hemlock was blago being recorded on a federal wiretap saying "i needs my mothafuckin' money, mothafucka!" or something like that.
and with that, you have an impeachment and then a senate trial and then a guy with puh-lenty of free time to go jogging.
05/22/09
05/22/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/24/09
Do you have an example?
01/24/09
It's all far more tragic than we'd thought.
01/24/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
Blurgledy durble doo, flibbidy wibbledy floop.
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
Look closely at Gawker articles and you will find that some text is maroon colored (that's a dark red for those of you who don't know what maroon is when not paired with 5). The text is a different color because it's a link. If you click "One guy voted no" this amazing thing happens and an article appears telling you who he is.
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
I don't know the law here, but unless there's some purpose-built statute somewhere, I'd say we're dealing with an unconsummated conspiracy, and the key evidence showing that it rose to the level of conspiracy (i.e., not just a bunch of ill-advised individual statements) will come from dodgy co-conspirators who themselves are not a lot more trustworthy than Blago. What am I missing?
01/09/09
01/09/09
The list of what he won't do is endless. The federal indictment is not needed to get him out.
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/10/09
the straw that stirred the hemlock was blago being recorded on a federal wiretap saying "i needs my mothafuckin' money, mothafucka!" or something like that.
and with that, you have an impeachment and then a senate trial and then a guy with puh-lenty of free time to go jogging.
01/10/09
Wait -- Blago is my landlord, too?