Fitzgerald may share tapes, transcripts with impeachment panel
posted at 1:45 pm on December 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Rod Blagojevich must have hoped that Patrick Fitzgerald would decline to cooperate with the Illinois House’s impeachment panel while his investigation continued into allegations of pay-for-play involving the governor and Barack Obama’s open Senate seat. If so, he only got part of his wish. Fitzgerald has ruled out working with witnesses for appearances at the impeachment panel, but he left the door open to sharing wiretap tapes and transcripts:
U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald is telling a special Illinois House committee weighing the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich that his office won’t help the panel with witnesses members want to question and documents they want to see because it might compromise “an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Fitzgerald did leave open the possibility that the 21-member House panel could get copies of secretly recorded tapes of Blagojevich from the governor’s campaign office and from his home telephone that were the basis of Blagojevich’s Dec. 9 arrest. Federal prosecutors will decide that issue perhaps later today.
The special House impeachment panel wanted documents and to question witnesses in the federal government’s case against Blagojevich, which included several pay-to-play allegations. Top among those was the accusation that the governor wanted to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
That’s a mixed bag for the House, but mostly bad news for Blagojevich. The reports of the wiretaps contain the worst of the allegations against Blagojevich. The House has plenary authority to determine the threshold they will use for impeachment, and having the governor’s own words on tape and on paper demanding serious quid pro quo will make it easier for them to prevail politically.
Fitzgerald’s reluctance to grant access to witnesses and other documents outside of the tapes and transcripts is understandable. He may have several other targets in this investigation and he doesn’t want to tip his hand. Even worse, public revelations might drive potential witnesses away and dry up potential lines of inquiry into other corrupt activities. Fitzgerald has to protect his overall effort to clean up Illinois politics and not get too focused on one individual, at least not at the moment.
Access to the tapes could speed the impeachment process considerably. Blagojevich has given every indication of fighting this tooth and nail, but the legislature will want some sort of resolution quickly in order to fill the empty Senate seat with no taint of scandal. Democrats especially want to clear the way for an appointment from Pat Quinn rather than hold a special election. This hint of cooperation with Fitzgerald might give them a glimmer of hope.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What basis does Fitzgerald have to keep his witnesses and documents away from a state impeachment hearing. If the state subpoenas Fitzgerald to produce documents, can he quash the subpoena? I don’t know the answer. If it was a criminal trial and a state subpoena, I don’t think Fiztgerald could withhold information.
RedSoxNation on December 23, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Allowing his witnesses to speak would also subject them to questioning from people with political motives and would/could create a record that could be used by a defense attorney to question their credibility should they say something in a slightly different way.
infidel2 on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Taxpayers have paid for the tapes, we need to hear the tapes.
Firebird on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Don’t be fooled: the Illinois State Legislature wants to stop Fitzgerald before he goes any further. And this fight over information and documents will be at the heart of this battle. The Illinois Legislature is desperate to find out what is going on behind Fitzgerald’s closed doors so they can get their stories straight and begin building a defense. At the very least, they want to stop the bleeding. So, while the procedural posturing over documents will look innocuous to the public, it will, in reality, constitute a major fight between federal and state power.
This has only just begun. It is not going away no matter how much the media want it to go away.
RedSoxNation on December 23, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I don’t think its necessary to add more fuel the fire, the issue is that no matter what anybody does (short of spiritual intervention) ol hot Rod has plenty of time to really muck things up for the Democrats unless the Dems are willing to grease Blago’s wheels on the way out.
Speakup on December 23, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I’m willing to wait until the investigation is complete.
Especially if revealing the evidence now could compromise a continuing investigation.
MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I’d like to hear Victoria Toensing’s take on this latest outlandish maneuver by Fitzy.
fogw on December 23, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Uh, maybe it’s because the impeachment hearing is a STATE issue, whereas the charges against Blago are federal, hence the appointment of a U.S. Attorney.
RMCS_USN on December 23, 2008 at 2:15 PM
This Democrat Tool Prosecutor will do everything he can to protect the criminal Obama administration.
notagool on December 23, 2008 at 2:16 PM
why, the obambi administration is not crooked. biden said so.
kelley in virginia on December 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM
It doesn’t help Blago but at the end of the day I expect some sort of deal to be cut. I can’t imagine the Illinois Democrats on the impeachement committee will want their buddy Obama slammed as a result of their investigating the Gov.
I still expect Blago to be in office on January 20th but Emanuel to not move into the White House. We’ll get a hint at whether I am right when Obama releases his internal review — which will probably be worth a few yucks.
grdred944 on December 23, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I think what they are really afraid of is Blagojevich spilling the beans on deals with Democrats in the state legislature. My guess is that any testimony taken from Blago is going to be in private deposition and not in public hearings.
crosspatch on December 23, 2008 at 2:28 PM
This whole mess is starting to stink………..from both sides!
grapeknutz on December 23, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Maybe Blago just misspoke all along? Just let him clarify what he really meant.
the_nile on December 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I think this was a wise call by Fitz; he doesn’t want to tip his hand any more than he already has. Besides, as Ed says, there are probably other fish about to be reeled in, and I don’t think he wants to let The Big One get away.
Vic on December 23, 2008 at 2:35 PM
A witness is a f*****g valuable thing.
pedestrian on December 23, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I’m very uncomfortable with Federal indictments against a sitting state governor. The Separation of Powers in our Constitution extends to the States as well, but unfortunately there is little respect for the Tenth Amendment these days.
Fitzgerald should indeed share what he has, and let the Legislature deal with it. If Blago is removed, the Feds can step in after he’s no longer Governor.
oddball on December 23, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Maybe the House wants the tapes because they’re worried about who else is caught on the tapes.
Done That on December 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
What if Fitz only gives them the tapes implicating Blagojevich, and holds back those implicating others, possibly including the Big O himself? Fitz might still have a few things up his sleeve…
Merry Fitzmas! Time to stand up and sing!
Time to give Bla-gone-evich Fitz!
Steve Z on December 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Play the tapes, just as if he were a Republican. What is fair for one should be fair for ALL!
DL13 on December 23, 2008 at 5:21 PM
back on the chain gang with you Blogo
kirkill on December 23, 2008 at 5:44 PM
What is your point? I was asking a question.
The federal government is not immune from responding to a subpoena issued by a state court unless there is a legal ground to quash the subpoena. Sometimes the federal government has grounds to quash it, sometimes they don’t.
So, my question here is simple: does anyone know whether a STATE subpoena issued by the Illonois State Legislature (regarding an impeachment hearing) to a U.S. Attorney compel the U.S. Attorney to produce documents and information concerning a pending grand jury investigation?
RedSoxNation on December 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I don’t see it that way regarding the 10th Amendment. A politician, even a sitting State Governor, should still be held accountable to all applicable laws. Do you agree, or am I misunderstanding you?
Red State State of Mind on December 25, 2008 at 8:53 PM