[Iran Press TV Latest] The former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, who is on trial for corruption, has pleaded not guilty to all charges leveled against him.
Blagojevich, 53, pleaded not guilty to 24 counts including racketeering, wire fraud, attempted extortion and bribery.
Among other charges, he and his co-defendant brother, 54-year-old Tennessee businessman Robert Blagojevich deny scheming to sell or trade Barack Obama's seat in the US Senate after he was elected president.
On Wednesday, attorneys close to the case said Blagojevich's defense has also subpoenaed White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as a witness. The attorneys spoke on condition of anonymity because the subpoena had not been made public.
Should Emanuel take the stand, he would be asked about what effort, if any, the White House made to get Blagojevich to appoint Obama's friend Valerie Jarrett to the Senate seat.
That would be three elections for Congress that the White House attempted to meddle in... that we know of. The president might as well have taken credit for giving up smoking, given all the free second-hand stuff he's been breathing since the last election.
Jarrett had been mentioned as a candidate but withdrew to become a presidential adviser. She also has been subpoenaed by the defense, a White House official said Wednesday on condition.
If convicted, Blagojevich faces a maximum of 415 years in prison and fines totaling USD 6 million.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
From charges of trying to shake down a children's hospital for campaign cash to trying to peddle President Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for profit, the case will once again put Illinois politics on trial.
For Democrats, the trial represents a long-feared day of reckoning after 18 months of a Blagojevich-fueled circus. The challenge is to weather months of testimony involving pay-to-play charges as the party tries to maintain its control of state government, led by Gov. Pat Quinn
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"worst" implies that there are good aspects of Illinois politics...
#2
I kinda sorta thought the present occupant of the White House was highlighting the worst aspects of Illinois politics. At the very least, He is showing what works for running a corrupt city political machine fails to work in an international setting.
#3
Thought it was the best of Illinois politics; that is people simply paying for senate seats at a rather cheap price (spit) in my opinion. Not like the director of education found shot and floating.
"There have been oodles of Chicago aldermen indicted, and county and state officials, even four governors, but never a Chicago mayor. Isn't Chicago lucky that the fifth floor of City Hall is a magical, corruption-free zone?"
(CNSNews.com) - Three top House Republicans sent a letter to the White House counsel Wednesday saying they believe that a memorandum the counsel released Friday purporting to explain the administration's actions in offering to appoint Rep. Joe Sestak (D.-Pa.) to a federal position in exchange for Sestak declining to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Arlen Specter (D.-Pa.) presents a set of facts that appear to violate the law.
White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer released a memorandum on Friday afternoon about the Sestak incident. It says the White House made "efforts" in June and July of last year to "determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary," and that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recruited former President Bill Clinton to offer Sestak a position on such a panel.
On Wednesday, Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee; Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Bauer requesting that he produce all the documentation created and collected by his office in investigating the Sestak matter.
The letter expressed the congressmen's view that the facts presented by Bauer's memo appear to represent a violation of federal law.
"Even if we suspend our disbelief that the White House asked a former U.S. president to call on a member of Congress to offer a mere unpaid advisory position in exchange for dropping out of a Senate race, the facts alleged in the Sestak memorandum still appear to violate several sections of the United States Code," the letter said.
The sentence in the letter carries a footnote that cites 18 U.S.C. Sections 211, 595 and 600 and 5 U.S.C. Sections 1501-1508. These statutes deal with corruption in federal appointments and interfering with elections.
Issa told CNSNews.com Wednesday that he expected public pressure on the administration to mount to the point where it would have to name a special prosecutor, a request the Justice Department has already turned down.
"The FBI is at some point going to say we believe we should investigate that and they are going to put it in a memo and that memo will eventually become public," Issa said. "Secondly, we believe U.S. attorneys are undoubtedly already asking the attorney general, 'Don't you think we should investigate this?' That pressure might take months. It might not even occur until after the election. But I don't believe the series of events or series of questions, I don't think they're going to go away until we get answers that are acceptable to the press."
The Associated Press reported Wednesday that unnamed administration officials said the White House had also "dangled the possibility of a job," as the Associated Press put it, to Democrat Andrew Romanoff "in the hopes he would forego a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet" in a Colorado primary.
Issa said that people he knows who worked in the White House do not consider this business as usual.
"They all shiver when they hear this is business as usual because all of their ethics training tells them that you don't even smile and wink when somebody says, 'You know I hope the administration is going to give me this appointment for all that I'm doing,'" Issa told CNSNews.com.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It says the White House made "efforts" in June and July of last year to "determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board
Why would Sestak be interested in a low level unpaid advisory position in exchange for stepping away from running for U.S. Congress. Seems like that is an insult to Sestak's intelligence.
Gov. Rick Perry today was joined by local government and business leaders to decry Washington's latest attempt to extend federal control over the state's authority, an action that would undermine Texas' successful clean air programs and cost the state thousands of jobs. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its efforts to take over Texas' federally delegated, successful Title V permitting program and replace it with a less effective Washington-based, bureaucratic led, command and control mandate.
Last week, the federal government sent the very clear message that it seeks to destroy Texas's successful clean air program and threaten tens of thousands of good Texas jobs in the process. The EPA seems to believe that federal controls and bureaucracy are more important than clean air results.' Gov. Perry said. Texas' common-sense approach to air quality permitting works because it avoids the damage caused by Washington's command and control approach, while cleaning the air, helping create jobs and growing our state economy.'
In response to the EPA's announcement last week, Gov. Perry sent a letter urging President Barack Obama to stop the agency's excessive overreach into Texas' permitting process, which would kill thousands of Texas jobs and derail a program that has effectively cleaned Texas' air.
I am eager to get back to the drawing board and have constructive, law and science based discussions with EPA, discussions that should have been finished 16 years ago' Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Executive Director Mark Vickery said.
The air Texans breathe today is significantly cleaner than it was in 2000. As Texas added much of the nation's job, population and economic growth, the Texas clean air program achieved a 22 percent reduction in ozone and a 46 percent decrease in NOx emissions, compared to an eight percent reduction in national ozone levels and a 27 percent reduction in national NOX levels between 2000 and 2008. Additionally, no county in Texas is in nonattainment for fine particulate matter, one of the pollutants with the greatest impact on human health.
The Houston Port Region's petrochemical industry employs more than 30,000 direct jobs and an additional 300,000 in indirect jobs, Chad Burke, president/CEO of the Economic Alliance Houston Port Region said. If we allow the EPA to chase the 30,000 jobs away, the 300,000 jobs will follow.'
Texas is a national leader in reducing emissions and known pollutants and advancing renewable energy sources, all while remaining a leader in the nation's energy production. We have successfully balanced the need for environmental improvements with fostering economic growth, new investment and job creation. Texas continues to advance new, clean energy technology by using market incentives and stable regulation, not costly mandates and taxes.
#1
successful, but:
creating jobs, curbing emissions, businesses are making money, and it's not under the thumb of teh Fed EPA. Ergo, It must be stopped!@
Also, Secretary Lisa Jackson is a know-it-all power hungry bitch
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/04/2010 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Feds are a bunch of out-of-control control freaks. Central government giveth away and taketh away.
Congressman Joe Sestak's post-primary bounce appears to over, and he now trails Republican rival Pat Toomey by seven points in the U.S. Senate contest in Pennsylvania.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Toomey with 45% support, while Sestak earns 38%. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate in the race, and 12% are undecided.
Two weeks ago, just after his widely covered primary victory over longtime Senator Arlen Specter, Sestak posted a modest four-point lead lead over Toomey.
Prior to the primary, however, Toomey tended to enjoy modest leads over Sestak.
The current polling shows that 19% of Democratic voters are undecided or prefer some other candidate. Only 7% of Republicans fall into this category. That suggests Sestak has some work remaining to unify his party following the primary battle.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Pennsylvania was conducted on June 2, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Nearly three-out-of-four voters in the state say they have been following news stories about the secret Obama White House job offer to Sestak in hopes that he would drop his primary challenge of Specter, and 52% say that offer is at least somewhat important in terms of how they will vote. Forty-one percent (41%) view the job offer as unimportant. This includes 29% for whom it is Very Important and 20% who say it's Not At All Important.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of those who say the offer is Very Important to their vote prefer Toomey. Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters who regard it as Not At All Important favor Sestak.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of all the state's voters favor repeal of the national health care bill that Sestak voted for as a member of the House, while 38% oppose repeal. This is slightly lower than support for repeal nationally. In Pennsylvania, this includes 42% who Strongly Favor repeal of the bill and 28% who Strongly Oppose.
Toomey earns 81% support from those who Strongly Favor repeal. Sestak picks up 80% of the vote of the smaller group that is Strongly Opposed.
The Republican now holds similar modest leads among both male and female voters. Voters not affiliated with either party strongly prefer Toomey but 34% of the unaffiliateds remain uncommitted to either candidate.
Sestak, a former Navy admiral who is currently a first-term congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs, is viewed Very Favorably by 16% of Pennsylvania voters and Very Unfavorably by 16%.
For Toomey, a conservative activist and former congressman, Very Favorables are 21% and Very Unfavorables 13%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters in Pennsylvania now approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 52% disapprove. This is basically unchanged from two weeks ago
I confess upfront that I'm not neutral in this year's Illinois Senate race. For numerous reasons I'll stipulate, I'm rooting for GOP Rep. Mark Steven Kirk over Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.
That said, the flap over Kirk's misstatements about his military service is reaching ridiculous proportions -- exaggerated into a mini-scandal by Democrats and both local and national media.
And now, the left is peddling sleazy allegations that Kirk is gay as payback for his vote -- cast for defensible reasons -- against repeal of the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I've known Kirk for nearly 10 years, since his first term in Congress, and in 42 years in Washington, I've rarely encountered a Member with a greater range of expertise or better judgment.
He's the leader of the moderate Republican Tuesday Group and has formed in-depth bipartisan back-bench study groups on Iran and China that don't just study, but actually affect, U.S. policy.
Kirk persuaded the Bush administration to install the most advanced U.S. anti-missile radars in Israel to provide a (temporary) cushion against Israel's need to launch a military strike against Iran's growing missile arsenal.
He's also the original author of a bill -- passed overwhelmingly in both chambers -- to convince Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program by cutting off its gasoline imports.
He has developed relationships with top-level Chinese officials who have made him at times better informed about turns in Chinese policy than Bush and Obama cabinet officers.
And, as a one-time employee of the World Bank, Kirk has deepened his expertise in global finance, enabling him to worry knowledgeably about the dangers of America's debt burden.
Moreover, if Kirk got elected to the Senate, he'd bolster a "big tent" GOP center that's deeply challenged by right-wing "purifiers."
He'd join serious players such as Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine in developing nonideologically-driven alternatives to Democratic policy.
At the same time, he enjoys the esteem of serious conservatives such as Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
As a House Member, Kirk bucked his party to support embryonic stem cell research and expanded children's health care. He also opposed -- wrongly, in my view -- oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Beyond national impact, Illinois would benefit from having a revived two-party system. Corrupt Republicans disgraced their party into impotence, and now Democrats -- led by impeached former Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich -- are reaping the consequences of having near-absolute power.
I do not know Giannoulias, 34, but his record suggests that he deserves to be trailing Kirk, 50, in a heavily Democratic state -- by 5 to 8 points, depending on the poll.
A basketball buddy of then-state Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), Giannoulias got elected state treasurer with Obama's backing on the strength of his background as chief loan officer of his family's apparently successful Broadway Bank.
But now the bank has collapsed because of shaky mortgage investments -- and, the Chicago Tribune has documented, $20 million in loans to two convicted organized crime figures.
And, as state treasurer, Giannoulias presided over the loss of $160 million in citizen funds invested in the state's college savings program.
There's evidence that the Obama White House wanted Giannoulias to withdraw from the race in favor of a more-electable candidate, but Kirk thinks Obama's inability to oust Rep. Joe Sestak (D) from the Pennsylvania Senate race has weakened his persuasiveness.
So, in what looks like a desperate effort to gain footing, Giannoulias and the Democratic National Committee are making a mountain -- with media help -- out of what Kirk admits were misstatements of his military record.
The substance is that Kirk has said -- more than once -- that he was named the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year in 1999 for his role during the air war against Serbian forces in Kosovo.
In fact, his unit received the Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award from the National Military Intelligence Association after being officially nominated by the Navy.
This misstatement is being likened to Democratic Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's implication that he served "in" the Vietnam War when he actually served "during" it -- in the United States.
Democrats are also charging that Kirk has claimed he was "the only Member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom," which would be closer, but Kirk actually has made it clear that he served "stateside" during the Iraq War.
However, Kirk, a Navy Reserve commander, actually has flown in hostile environments in Iraq (during pre-war no-fly-zone operations) and Kosovo and has devoted time during Congressional recesses to serve twice in Afghanistan and often in the Pentagon.
Giannoulias has never served in the military.
Politico's Mike Allen sneered that "under the logic" of Kirk's unit award, "since I once worked at the Washington Post, I could say I won the Pulitzer Prize!"
Except, that Kirk actually was "the team leader" of the group that won the intelligence award, his commanding officer wrote at the time, and Kirk exhibited "unmatched managerial and planning skills" and "unmatched knowledge of foreign capabilities."
One superior wrote in a fitness report that Kirk was "head and shoulders above any other intelligence officer I have ever met."
In a statement issued in response to the flap, retired Capt. Clay Fearnow said Wednesday that, "when I nominated Mark for the Rufus Taylor Award, I thought it was more specific to Mark and not the team. In reality, there would have been no team without Mark Kirk's leadership and certainly there would have been no award."
On top of the military charges -- or rather, out from under a rock -- Michael Rogers, a professional "outer" of gay politicians, mainly Republican, is claiming that Kirk is gay. His blog post is gaining circulation.
It shouldn't make any difference if Kirk were gay -- married for 10 years, but divorced last year, Kirk has flatly denied it -- but Rogers' claims clearly have malicious intent and, if ever proven, could lead to Kirk's ouster from the military.
Rogers acted, he said, because Kirk voted against repeal of the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the House last week.
Kirk said he did so because the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commandant of the Marine Corps all said that any policy change should await the outcome of a Pentagon study of allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.
Even Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who supports the change, has said he wishes the House had waited to pass the bill until the study was complete.
Kirk told me he's waiting for the study to determine his position on gays in the military. That's entirely defensible.
On the merits, I think there's no question who ought to get elected in Illinois -- on talent, experience and judgment. But Illinois often plays by rules that have nothing to do with merit. I hope this year is different.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
