Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
Powered by Squarespace
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.


Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below


Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude


Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1


KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

« More Financial Sector Scum Confirmed/Confessed | Main | Bit by Bit, Good Economic News Continues »

Blagojevich Wants To Subpoena Obama: Redactions Accidentally Revealed

NBC Chicago

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's lawyers have plans to issue a subpoena to President Obama in the governor's corruption case. The document was supposed to be heavily redacted, but apparently a simple copy and paste of it into a new document has revealed it's concealments.


The revelations include:

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko.

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarrett for his Senate seat.

3. An Obama supporter may have offered a quid pro quo for Jarrett's appointment.

4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates.

5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat.

6. Obama and Blagojevich had a secret phone call.



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (29)

The Chicago Way.

April 23, 2010 at 10:39 | Unregistered CommenterMachiavelli

Lol. All of these "may have's" are according to Blago. Too funny. But perfect headlines for WorldNutDaily or Glenn Beck's show.

April 23, 2010 at 11:09 | Unregistered CommenterChoy Lee Mu

All of these "may have's" are according to Blago.

I'm thinking Blagojevich may be connected enough to know where the bodies are buried.

April 23, 2010 at 11:15 | Unregistered CommenterMachiavelli

Anyone think it was an accident that Blago's people failed at redaction efforts?

Sunlight MIGHT actually hit the scurrying Chicago cockroaches.

April 23, 2010 at 11:19 | Unregistered Commenterduff, man

History has shown us what happens when Chicago gangsters double cross each other...ain't purty.

April 23, 2010 at 11:21 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

And this kind of 'stuff' connected to Obama is surprising to whom? I'm sure with his popularity so sky high he can shake this off.

April 23, 2010 at 11:27 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Well, that's how the system works.

One quibble, GrayRider...Blago's lawyers haven't issued a subpoena. They've filed a motion requesting that the court issue a subpoena. There's obviously a big difference between the two; attorneys can file motions for just about anything, but it means nothing unless the court concurs in the motion.

If Blago's lawyers convince the judge to approve their motion, so be it. History suggests that they'll have an uphill battle, but we shall see.

April 23, 2010 at 11:39 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

There is no way in hell Dear Leader will be (or will allow himself to be) compelled to appear in this case. Period.

April 23, 2010 at 12:10 | Unregistered CommenterThe Dude Abides

And rightly so, by the way...

I'll assume that there are a myraid of constitutional provisions regarding situations where a stitting President may or not may not be involved in a criminal case.

Dear Leader is unquestionably every bit the narcissistic, ego-maniacal sociopath Blago is, but that doesn't necessarily mean the guy should have to drag his sorry ass into a courtroom.

April 23, 2010 at 12:21 | Unregistered CommenterThe Dude Abides

There is no way in hell Dear Leader will be (or will allow himself to be) compelled to appear in this case. Period.

How about if Obama just pulls a Bush and claims "executive priveledge" on everything to avoid investigations?

April 23, 2010 at 12:26 | Unregistered CommenterChoy Lee Mu

Well, Dude, the "experts" in the article I link suggest that one big factor is that Obama is not a defendant, but rather a defense witness; they suggest that this differs significantly from Clinton's deposition in the Jones case, because Clinton was a defendant in that case. The only other Presidential involvement they mention is Reagan's deposition in the Iran-Contra investigation. That isn't a lot of precedent, so we may see some interesting arguments going both ways.

To some degree, I think that a chunk of this is grandstanding. For instance, the motion talks about "supporters" passing messages, as well as Emanuel's involvement, but (as far as I can find) Blago's lawyers haven't requested subpoenas against any of them. I suspect that, as one of the experts suggested, the judge will ask something like "well, why aren't you asking for subpoenas against them?" Blago's lawyers will have to be VERY convincing, I think...

April 23, 2010 at 12:36 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

It's not a stretch to believe that Obama and Emanuel attempted to hand pick Obama's successor. Blagojevich gets caught trying to sell the seat, then felt betrayed and wants to sing about his enemies' involvement for the sake of revenge and an attempt to possibly lessen the severity of his legal troubles.

But, I agree...Obama's not likely to comply.

April 23, 2010 at 12:51 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

"executive priveledge"

It's called spell check for a reason, bright boy.

April 23, 2010 at 13:24 | Unregistered CommenterThe Dude Abides

Let's just agree to end the spelling/grammar flames now, OK? *chuckle*

April 23, 2010 at 14:01 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

Hey now...

Mine was a typo!!!!!

But enough with the whole f*cking "but Bush!!!" crap. If the kid can't defend Dear Leader without resorting to that sh*t, then I'll be happy to do flame his ass over more than just his spelling.

April 23, 2010 at 14:08 | Unregistered CommenterThe Dude Abides


While economy crumbled, top financial watchdogs at SEC surfed for porn on Internet: memo

Read more:

This is why we need more gov't agencies watching over us. They are so proficient at what they do.

April 23, 2010 at 14:32 | Unregistered CommenterTijuana

In the executive privilege Hall of Fame sits Bill Clinton i.e. "I assert executive privilege over my security detail" in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So bow down the king boys.

Why can’t Obama do a deposition in the WH? Selling a United States Senate seat that the current President resided in doesn’t rise to the level of importance for a simple deposition?
It’s a PR mistake for Obama to stonewall this issue. With his prior involvement with the main characters (Rezko and Blago) people are rightly suspicious.

April 23, 2010 at 15:02 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Personally, TM, I think he should give a deposition IF the court issues a subpoena. I would only have two general concerns, one for Blago's lawyers and one for claims of executive privilege (which I would expect to be made on general Executive principle - Presidents ALWAYS try to claim executive privilege these days):

1) Blago's lawyers are going to have to come up with a LOT more than "it may have been him" if they want that subpoena, and they're going to have to come up with more than Emanuel and "Obama supporters" (or the judge will say, "well, subpoena THEM, not the President.")

2) Executive privilege is not retroactive. I would expect Obama, in general, to give a deposition about actions/events before he took office (or, perhaps, before he started transition activities?), but a privilege claim would seem to carry greater weight if/when they start poking around with events after he took office. (How do the alleged events measure against the election/transition/inauguration timeline?)

April 23, 2010 at 15:43 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

How do the alleged events measure against the election/transition/inauguration timeline?

Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges on December 9, 2008, well before the innauguration.

April 23, 2010 at 16:45 | Unregistered CommenterMachiavelli

Wow. So Obama thought Valerie Jarrett would be a good pick for Senate and be a good Senator for the people of Illinois who could get re-elected? Such shocking stuff here!

Rahm Emmanuel floated Cheryl Jackson for the Senate seat? Wow! Is Cheryl Jackson the head of NAMBLA or something? If not then who cares?

Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates? And this is surprising why?

An Obama supporter may have offered a quid pro quo for Jarrett to be made Senator? Same question that I've been asking for over a year now, and you think that this doesn't happen everyday in every both political parties? You think it is a coincidence that people in leadership positions in both parties generally tend to be the ones with the largest fund raising networks?

Do you really believe that every President for the past 70 years hasn't gotten legislation passed by saying hey, if you vote for this I'll do a fundraiser for you or campaign for you?

I remember saying when Blago was impeached and removed that Democrats would probably come to regret dispensing with him so quickly, no matter how much they disliked him.

April 23, 2010 at 16:52 | Unregistered CommenterkwAwk

Yep, kwAwk, I think that the judge is going to have some LONG discussions with counsel before making his decision, and a lot of it will be tossing out the Emanuel/Jarrett stuff. Blago's lawyers are going to have to come up with some serious AND unique needs that only Obama's testimony can fill, if they're serious about this subpoena.

April 23, 2010 at 17:10 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

"Do you really believe that every President for the past 70 years hasn't gotten legislation passed by saying hey, if you vote for this I'll do a fundraiser for you or campaign for you?"

Or bribes for WH jobs. See HC legislation.

April 23, 2010 at 17:12 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

I see Kwawk still doesn't understand why federal corruption is wrong.

April 23, 2010 at 17:18 | Unregistered CommenterMachiavelli

Mach - A few years ago the right was complaining that the left was trying to criminalize politics. A lot of this stuff you guys are complaining about really is trying to criminalize politics.

All politicians appoint their political supporters to government positions. This is why they are called political appointees. All politicians work to fund raise for each other based upon their political connections. It isn't criminal it is politics.

Was it criminal when Bush appointed one of the Swift Boat Veteran's biggest donors to be the ambassador to Belgium? No.

April 23, 2010 at 17:25 | Registered CommenterkwAwk

kwAwk, of course we all understand that. And that's fine and the legal prerogative of an elected official. What's at issue here, is that Blago may be trying to implicate the president in an illegal quid pro quo.

April 23, 2010 at 17:30 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

Kwawk, would you characterize it as criminal, or politics, if Obama and his supporters had orchestrated Blago's downfall so Obama could get someone he wanted in his senate seat?

April 23, 2010 at 18:21 | Unregistered CommenterMachiavelli

Gray - My contention would be that the reason we're not hearing more about this from the Republican political apparatus is that they know damn well that this is an everyday occurrence in US politics whether it be at the Federal or the State level.

It may appear as a revenge motif Blago may be trying to bring down Obama but this type of activity is almost expected in American politics, that political leaders work to get their own people nominated to various positions. I'm still not seeing the there there.

This activity pales in comparison to the K-Street project if indeed this is criminal behavior, and I probably don't need to remind you that the reaction from the right was utter silence at best, and at worst blind defense and loyalty about the issue when confronted with it.

Is this really a can of worms you want to open for the prospect creating President Biden?

April 23, 2010 at 23:39 | Unregistered CommenterkwAwk

Mach -- Blago orchestrated his own downfall by being pretty hard headed about a lot of issues while in office. He fueded with Mike Madigan for years over budget issues and refused to move to Springfield to live in the governor's mansion.

He was considered to be aloof, disrespectful and arrogant to the people in the Illinois legislature so they used this opportunity to get rid of him. It really didn't have much to do with Obama and had a lot to do with Lisa and Mike Madigan.

April 23, 2010 at 23:42 | Unregistered CommenterkwAwk

Is this really a can of worms you want to open for the prospect creating President Biden?

If only...

April 24, 2010 at 00:00 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>