Oh my: Blagojevich’s defense lawyers move to subpoena Obama

posted at 5:42 pm on April 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

I doubt it’ll happen, but just the idea of The One sharing a flurry of news headlines with America’s most loathsome governor makes me giddy.

The only thing that could make it more awesome is if Blago did the direct examination himself.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.

On the day before he was elected president, then-Sen. Obama personally called a union official about his desire for Blagojevich to appoint Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett to replace him in the Senate, according to Blagojevich’s defense filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago…

The statements by the union official to the FBI — as relayed through Blagojevich’s lawyers — had never been made public before now.

They appear to slightly differ from Obama’s recollection of events regarding Jarrett and regarding Blagojevich’s authority as governor to appoint someone to fill Obama’s Senate seat.

The punchline here? Blago’s electronic defense filing blacked out all the portions related to Obama, but they did such a poor technical job of it that all you had to do was copy/paste the document into a new file and the redacted portions appeared. Mediaite has all the “secret” passages compiled and condensed for your reading pleasure, but I recommend this piece from NBC Chicago instead, irresistibly titled, “The Six Secrets You Need to Know from the Obama Subpoena Request.” Quote:

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president…

6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.

There’s also a reference to Tony Rezko trying to extract a favor from Obama in return for fundraising, but even Blago’s lawyers acknowledge that The One refused the request. In fact, at no point does the subpoena filing accuse him of wrongdoing; even so, I’m highlighting the two points excerpted above because they may show that Obama’s lying. Remember after the Blago scandal broke big how Team Barry conducted an internal review to see who had had contact with the governor’s office? Supposedly, Rahm Emanuel was the only one, but if this filing is accurate, then that’s essentially untrue. Rahm may have been the only one who had direct contact with Blago’s team but The One was passing messages to them through — ta da — a labor crony. Then again, how likely is that? Obama surely knew how shady Blagojevich was even before he was arrested in December 2008. If he was going to try to influence him, why not farm the task out to one of his own staffers so there’d be a fall guy handy in case this blew up?

As for the December 1 phone call between Obama and Blago himself, I think that’s old news. Judicial Watch discovered evidence of it the following month, but both men have a legit excuse for the contact: Blagojevich was in Philly for the national governors’ meeting with Obama and Biden and supposedly they were only talking about the economy. Although I guess that’s why the subpoena is needed — to find out from The One himself precisely what was said.

Exit question for our attorney readers: Are the chances of this subpoena being issued slim or well and truly none?

Update: Assuming that it is indeed Blago’s defense team that’s responsible for the redaction glitch and not the court, what are the odds that they flubbed this purposely knowing that the media would uncover the “secret” parts and that it would blow interest in the subpoena request sky high?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

The only thing that could make it more awesome is if Blago did the direct examination himself.

If that were pay-to-view, I would pony up.

AUINSC on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

You can’t really force a President to testify, because no judge can punish him for not complying. You’d have to impeach him first. So, I predict the response will be “no thank you.”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Heh.

rob verdi on April 22, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Ace busted out the Flaming Blago Skull for this.

Heh.

Christien on April 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Knives…guns…meh. meh heh, heh heh hehehehehe.

Too rich isn’t it?

DanMan on April 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM

they may show that The One’s a liar

No worries. We have plenty of other proof that this is true.

thevastlane on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Corruption, thy name is the Democratic Party 2010.

rickyricardo on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Exit question for our attorney readers: Are the chances of this subpoena being issued slim or well and truly none?

Not an attorney but the court document itself says the SCOTUS has long held presidents can be treated like other citizens in the subpoena process.

Blagojevich’s defense seems to have some pretty good arguments for requiring more information. Like why they haven’t been provided with requested information about the interview of the president by federal authorities.

That said, I doubt he’ll ever testify. After Lewinsky any judge is going to cautious to put the president on the spot again. Even though Judge James B. Zagel is a Reagan appointee.

My favorite part from the filing:

24. President Obama has pertinent information as to the character of Mr. Rezko. President Obama can testify to Mr. Rezko’s reputation for truthfulness as well as his own opinion of Mr. Rezko’s character. See, Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) and 608. Mr. Rezko and President Obama became friends in 1990. According to President Obama, Mr. Rezko raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama.11

25. Based on the relationship that President Obama and Mr. Rezko had, President Obama can provide important information as to Mr. Rezko’s plan, intent, opportunity, habit and modus operandi. See, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406. For example, in June 2005, President Obama purchased a house for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. On the same day Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid full price — $625,000 — for the adjoining land. In January 2006, Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for a strip of the adjoining land. The transaction took place when it was widely known that Mr. Rezko was under investigation.12 President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko is relevant and necessary Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406 evidence.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

So, I predict the response will be “no thank you.”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Nawwh. It’ll be, “you’d think they’d be thanking me for not testifying.”

Gratitude.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

The punchline here? Blago’s electronic defense filing blacked out all the portions related to Obama, but they did such a poor technical job of it that all you had to do was copy/paste the document into a new file and the redacted portions appeared.

Are you sure they were “incompetent” on purpose?

Maybe this was a purposely veiled leak.

portlandon on April 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM

You can’t really force a President to testify, because no judge can punish him for not complying. You’d have to impeach him first. So, I predict the response will be “no thank you.”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Not sure, but even if that’s true, that would mean Democrats going into the midterms with a president who quite publicly demonstrated he has no respect for the court system or justice.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM

The very fact of the plausibility that Obama could have been involved with Blago reveals how little credence anyone gives to the man having any integrity.

INC on April 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Blago’s team but The One was passing messages to them through — ta da — a labor crony. Then again, how likely is that? Obama surely knew how shady Blagojevich was even before he was arrested in December 2008. If he was going to try to influence him, why not farm the task out to one of his own staffers so there’d be a fall guy handy in case this blew up?

Oh I think it’s very likely. First, Obama does NOTHING without the union label. Second, Obama wouldn’t want to trust this to a staffer. He’d want people carrying this out who’d have as much to loose, if anything came to light, as he would. Also, Obama came with a “team” in place already who, feasibly, had been doing this kind of back and forth “messaging” for years. You’d want someone who knows the back channels, and was comfortable in them. Always go with the known than the unknown. A patsy could botch the whole thing up so badly that the “fall” wouldn’t be just his to have, and then the dominos would begin to fall.

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Tony Rezko unavailable for comment.

jukin on April 22, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Exit question for our attorney readers: Are the chances of this subpoena being issued slim or well and truly none?

When we see Obama making Air Force One his main office, flying around never touching land and getting air fueled, we’ll all know the answer.

portlandon on April 22, 2010 at 5:52 PM

loose = lose

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Blago is the gift that keeps on giving. He is such an attention whore and he’d love nothing less than to cross examine, er, question or whatever the hell a lawyer does to a witness, the POTUS in this case. You could put it on pay per view.

Popcorn, please.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I wonder if this has anything to do with Andy Stern stepping down last week? There’s something that a “union leader” had a meeting with Blago and/or Obama er something. Hmmmmmm.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Maybe POTUS won’t testify, but ol’ Val Jarrett sure would have to, right?

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM

IIRC, the WH communicated to Blago that Barry wanted to keep the process of selling of his seat to Valerie Jarrett using Blago as broker “one step removed from the president.”

Christien on April 22, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Blago is a wild and crazy kind of guy. This should be fun. What has Blago got to lose? He might as well sing loud and air the dirty laundry.

The timing is great, too. Drag it out until the November elections. Unfortunately the MSM won’t report on the trial. More people would be watching than the OJ trial. Great ratings and possibly great for the country. Witness the horror in the WH.

Cody1991 on April 22, 2010 at 5:57 PM

You can’t really force a President to testify, because no judge can punish him for not complying. You’d have to impeach him first. So, I predict the response will be “no thank you.”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

The President is not above the law and therefore subject to the same process as you ro I. See Paula Jones v. Wm. Clinton.

thomasaur on April 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM

We are certainly in uncharted territory here.

Has anyone ever subpoenaed a sitting Emperor before?

MB4 on April 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Good point, ted. I totally forgot about that.

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM

ObamaRahmBlagoSternJarrett

Sound about right?

Christien on April 22, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I wonder if this has anything to do with Andy Stern stepping down last week? There’s something that a “union leader” had a meeting with Blago and/or Obama er something. Hmmmmmm.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM

I’m wondering the same.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 6:00 PM

It has been patently obvious for some time that laws don’t apply to democrats, so this is just smoke.

Vashta.Nerada on April 22, 2010 at 6:01 PM

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM

dear leader will do everything in his power NOT to let that happen…

cmsinaz on April 22, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Blago should avoid Fort Marcy Park.

BHO Jonestown on April 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Vashta.Nerada on April 22, 2010 at 6:01 PM

amen V

cmsinaz on April 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Of the two I would take Blago over Obama and also beleive Blago over Obama. Chicago politics is a cesspool and these are two of the bottom dwellers.

duff65 on April 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM

First Question (Odds on the Subpoena): The issue of whether he will testify will be more a question of relevance. There is no Executive Privilege that would stop him. In fact, there are two cases involving Presidents (Nixon and Clinton) that make it clear that the President does not have any unique protection from subpoenas. But, as a practical matter, the court will likely impose a higher standard on the relevance issue to avoid turning the trial into more of circus than necessary. You could look at how the Rhode Island Supreme Court did something similar when Rhode Island’s Governor was subpoenaed to testify in a high profile criminal matter.

Second Question (technical glitch): Attorneys make all kinds of stupid mistakes with technology. So no, this was not a likely ploy. Indeed, this mistake could get the attorneys in hot water.

RedSoxNation on April 22, 2010 at 6:06 PM

That’s the first time I’ve ever seen the phrases “if you know what’s good for you” and “and nobody gets hurt” in a subpoena.

viking01 on April 22, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Obama lied. He said both he and his people did not speak with blago about an appointment. The tapes say Obama lied. Obama said he did his own investigation.
Andy Stern spoke with Blago and wanted to push his fav candidate. I posted last week that this was one of the more problematic issues Stern was freshly exposed in.
Daley, rahm, jarrett, Axelrod, rezco Michelle, Barry, are a small circle of trouble that works as a unit. Read Michelle malkins book.

seven on April 22, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Blago
Start wearing kevlar ,
and
when you see a black SUV coming your way
RUN

macncheez on April 22, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Allah-

Subpoena issues.

Prosecution moves to quash.

Fight ensues over relevance and materiality of evidence defense argues is targeted by subpoena, possibly including prosecution stipulations to fact that would make the testimony unnecessary.

Hard to predict at this point where it winds up, but if Obama doesn’t want to testify, and a federal judge thinks his testimony is essential to providing the defendant with a fair trial, it could be blog ratings gold.

novaculus on April 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM

I don’t believe it !

The official White House response said “if you know what’s good for you” and “and nobody gets hurt” as well.

viking01 on April 22, 2010 at 6:09 PM

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Thanks for posting that. Google a 2007 (I think) WaPo article on the topic, and you’ll read that Obama had an appraisal in hand that said that the parcel he paid $104,500 to Rezko’s wife was worht only $40,500. I’ve seen an interview on TV in which Obama acknowledges that he had the appraisal. Why is that significant? This was a gift to Rezko, and why was Obama making it? Indeed, it was a taxable gift that Obama should have reported on a federal gift tax return. So far as I know, Obama has filed no gift tax return reporting that $60,000 gift.

On a conspiracy theory note, I’d really like to know whether Obama got his seller channeled a $300,000 payment from some supporters. Why? Because the seller might not have had enough exclusion ($500K if married filing jointly). If the seller got $300K under the table, he would have saved $45,000 in capital gains taxes.

It never made any sense that Obama’s seller would give away $300K in a seller’s market–even if he had to pay the capital gains taxes.

BuckeyeSam on April 22, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Drama Queen vs. Wannabe Deity….

Who will WIN Thunderdome? Two men enta, one man leave!

upinak on April 22, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Just to be clear, that “higher standard” I referenced was not a higher legal standard, but rather, a higher standard as a practical application by the judge. The standard remains the same; the application can depend on the situation. And trial judges have great leeway in applying many of the evidentiary standards.

RedSoxNation on April 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM

This will be an interesting issue…

RedSoxNation on April 22, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Democrats going into the midterms with a president who quite publicly demonstrated he has no respect for the court system or justice.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Clinton demonstrated the same thing, and was “rewarded” by leaving office with a high “job approval”.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Beginning of the endgame for the thug from the south side. This will either bring an impeachment or at the very least breakup his inner circle.

jbh45 on April 22, 2010 at 6:15 PM

i wonder if any judge would be afraid of making dear leader testify for fear of falling under the bus…dear leader’s has many friends…

cmsinaz on April 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM

The President is not above the law and therefore subject to the same process as you ro I. See Paula Jones v. Wm. Clinton.

thomasaur on April 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Clinton could’ve easily refused to testify, but he didn’t, because it would’ve helped the Jones case. Clinton didn’t believe there was anything that he couldn’t lie his way out of, and but for one stained blue dress, he was right.

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM

November. Second. Twenty Ten.

Key West Reader on April 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Clinton could’ve easily refused to testify, but he didn’t, because it would’ve helped the Jones case. Clinton didn’t believe there was anything that he couldn’t lie his way out of, and but for one stained blue dress, he was right.

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM

He tried to refused but was compelled to do so. However the attorney for Jones agreed to a taped deposition and BJ’s inability led to his Impeachment. Too bad not enough Republicans voted for conviction on the Articles of Impeachment and sadly teh Fredwas one of them.

thomasaur on April 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Clinton demonstrated the same thing, and was “rewarded” by leaving office with a high “job approval”.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2010 at 6:15 PM

That was after Republicans tried to remove him from office. Americans don’t necessarily like someone and may vote against them, but they’re not big fans of having their choices removed from high offices.

There’s probably a reason no American president has ever been convicted and removed.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Sometimes there aren’t words.

Key West Reader on April 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Key West Reader on April 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

indeed…thank you for posting

cmsinaz on April 22, 2010 at 6:33 PM

I guess I picked the wrong day to drop out of Law School…

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2010 at 6:34 PM

You can’t really force a President to testify, because no judge can punish him for not complying. You’d have to impeach him first. So, I predict the response will be “no thank you.”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Wasn’t Clinton forced to testify concerning Paula & Monica?

Tasha on April 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM

you know, Brain dead Joe Biden slipped up on 4/19/10 and he quoted: “On October 18th, 2010…”

He was referring to the 4/18/10 takedown of terrorists. But he quoted the date of this Mission Accomplished as “On October 18, 2010, the US….”.

Mark that date. October 18, 2010.

And if anyone has that clip of Biden announcing Obama’s muslim kill factor on 4/18/10, please post it.

Key West Reader on April 22, 2010 at 6:37 PM

There’s probably a reason no American president has ever been convicted and removed.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

There is always a first time for everything
:D

macncheez on April 22, 2010 at 6:37 PM

ChicagoGate

FontanaConservative on April 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Blago must be a racist to try and subpoena Obama.

katiejane on April 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM

They appear to slightly differ from Obama’s recollection of events regarding Jarrett and regarding Blagojevich’s authority as governor to appoint someone to fill Obama’s Senate seat.

You GOTTA be kidding me.

tgharris on April 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM

thomasaur on April 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM

The point is, if he didn’t show up to testify, there’s nothing they could really do to him, short of impeachment proceedings. They can’t lock up a sitting President for contempt of court.

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM

they may show that The One’s a liar
No worries. We have plenty of other proof that this is true.

thevastlane on April 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Yes but this would reach a lot of the other sophisticated electorate who only believe what they read in the tabloids!!

PaCadle on April 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM

I have always, always, always thought that there is more to the whole Blago thing with Obama than what has come out. I’ve always thought Obama and his minions suddenly withdrew the drumbeat for Jarrett b/c they figured out something was going on and voila! All of a sudden she is going to be a senior adviser. I don’t think it’s crooked, necessary (well, I think Rahm may have crossed the line in some of his conversations), but it could be quite embarrassing.

God, I hope so, and I hope it all comes to light, just at the midterms! What fun.

lizzieillinois on April 22, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Much ado about something that will never happen.

albill on April 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM

I’m highlighting the two points excerpted above because they may show that Obama’s lying.

Even if all Blago can prove is that Obama lied, that makes him at least as guilty as Scooter Libby, who was fined a quarter million for a lesser crime.

Everybody knows that Blago is corrupt, but what if Obama was threatening Blago to blackmail him into appointing Jarrett as Senator, and Blago became the “fall guy”? As for the precedent of whether a sitting President can be subpoenaed, these alleged wrongdoings occurred BEFORE Obama was President, so why couldn’t he be subpoenaed?

Bring it on, Blago!

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

Steve Z on April 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM

And if anyone has that clip of Biden announcing Obama’s muslim kill factor on 4/18/10, please post it.

Here ya go

Joe Biden Oct 18th Video

William Amos on April 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM

November. Second. Twenty Ten.

Key West Reader on April 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM

…and the summer that preceded it…or would it be more accurate to say “preseeded”?

What a seedy bunch altogether.

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Blago’s team but The One was passing messages to them through — ta da — a labor crony. Then again, how likely is that? Obama surely knew how shady Blagojevich was even before he was arrested in December 2008. If he was going to try to influence him, why not farm the task out to one of his own staffers so there’d be a fall guy handy in case this blew up?

Allah- I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.
We know from Fitzgerald’s original filings that an SEIU official- later identified by many to be Tom Balanoff, Head Of SEIU In Illinois- met with Blago to push Valerie Jarrett.
The new information here (if true) is- Balanoff was working with Andy Stern, and Obama was telling them to do it.
All along, either Jarrett or Obama had to have been working with the labor crony to get Jarrett the seat.

MayBee on April 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM

OF COURSE obama is lying.

He can’t take a breath without lying.

But the chances of him testifying are very low.

He will avoid it if he wants to. But there is a slim chance that because the retard is so arrogant, he may want to strut around in front of a jury just to show what a genius he is.

notagool on April 22, 2010 at 7:17 PM

So many fun parts, but I picked one out:

Obama surely knew how shady Blagojevich was even before he was arrested in December 2008. If he was going to try to influence him, why not farm the task out to one of his own staffers so there’d be a fall guy handy in case this blew up?

This move requires sophistication and finesse, neither of which is a characteristic of Chicago politics. When the crooks are in charge, they don’t think that anyone will ever question them later. They leave a trail that Barney Fife could follow… of course, in Chicago, Barney’s on the payroll, so they don’t worry about him, either.

n0doz on April 22, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Clinton demonstrated the same thing, and was “rewarded” by leaving office with a high “job approval”.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2010 at 6:15 PM

That was after Republicans tried to remove him from office. Americans don’t necessarily like someone and may vote against them, but they’re not big fans of having their choices removed from high offices.

There’s probably a reason no American president has ever been convicted and removed.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Well, in Clinton’s case, he had 3 things in his favor.

1. The media was totally in the tank for him, so depicted Ken Starr and his successor as crazed, out of control zealots. They also manufactured biased polls to convince the American sheeple that he was still “doing a good job” as President. This despite the fact that his Presidency’s only “accomplishments” in the years 1999 and 2000 were enabling the rise of al Qaeda, starting a War of Choice without UN approval, and having Columbine happen on his watch.

2. He had the best lawyers other peoples’ money could buy. They worked gratis and were only paid years later, after he left office. Wish I could do that!

The Impeachment Managers were rusty; some of them admitted they hadn’t tried a case in 25 years. Clinton’s lawyers ate them for lunch.

A sub-part of this Clinton Advantage was that the Congress Republicans inexplicably caved. The House, for example, started investigating Chinagate, but were shut down. By the Republicans.

Lifelong Democrat David Schippers, who was Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, had been part of Bobby Kennedy’s Organized Crime Strike Force in the 1960s, but was shocked with what he found when he started digging into the Clinton mess. He was even more shocked when Dick Gephart and Newt started leaking to the press that the probe (sorry) would mainly be about sex. Didn’t help.

Schippers:

When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.

We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.

That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.

I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a Senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.

The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.

And Clinton Advantage #3, namely 900+ FBI files illegally obtained.

Once again, Schippers.

I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be Speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?

But everybody knew that if the President had it he would use it. There was always that Sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.

Oh, and here’s Schipper’s resume, in his own words:

I went to work in 1962 with the Department of Justice Organized Crime Section [created by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy]. In 1964, I became Chief of that unit, stayed there until leaving in 1967 and have been in private practice ever since.

My roots are very heavily in the Democratic Party. I’ve been a registered Democrat since I’ve been old enough to vote. My family has been in the city of Chicago since about 1840. They, too, are lifelong Democrats.

Over a decade after his report came out, the Left is still desperately trying to discredit Schippers. Most brain-dead Democrats these days don’t even know about his investigation against Clinton-only that he might be a Troofer. This of course ignores that he issued the report years before 9/11, and had a full staff helping him with it. It also ignores what is in the report.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM

What are the odds of Blago’s defense intentionally doing this to raise the media temps?

That would require individuals who were: a) competent, and, b) under-handed. He has plenty of the latter, but I’ve seen little evidence of the former.

It would be an interesting spectacle to see a sitting President take the stand and plead the 5th. Fun would be had by all.

Popcorn, must get more popcorn.

ajacksonian on April 22, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Is Blago’s book ready for pre-ordering yet? I can’t wait.

Connie on April 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Obviously it’s a win-win for Blago. If Obama opts out, then Blago can look like he’s taking the fall, and if Obama does show up, he’ll be asked if he thought he was involved in some kind of “pay off” to Blago. “Payoff? Heavens no! That would never even occur to me….”

RBMN on April 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Then again, how likely is that? Obama surely knew how shady Blagojevich

Well to get something done, he had to use a shady person, since that is the only ones who he associated with in these discussions…Blago may have been the least shady of anyone else Obama has access too.

right2bright on April 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Word’s I would like to hear….Obama, you’re fired!!

right2bright on April 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Hey, yall, the story’s a movin’

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM

I wonder if this has anything to do with Andy Stern stepping down last week? There’s something that a “union leader” had a meeting with Blago and/or Obama er something. Hmmmmmm.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM

That is curious now isn’t it?

scalleywag on April 22, 2010 at 8:16 PM

“I did not have a sexual relationship with that Governor.”

percysunshine on April 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM

That the president and other government/congressional elites have special privileges not available to the ordinary citizen is a big part of what is wrong in this country. How can you expect to have government by the people when all people are not equal.

docdave on April 22, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Legal note: Many presidents have had to testify. Thomas Jefferson had to answer to a subpoena re Raymond Burr’s trial. Long held SCOTUS view is we do not recognize our President to be above the law or the people – no right of kings, etc.
Also – Obama wasn’t POTUS during the events he is called to testify about. Even if there was exec privilege, it wouldn’t apply.

The redaction mistake is pee your pants funny. Christmas in April =)

I guess that rules out a composed, dignified denial there is anything to this from O camp.

ace tomato on April 22, 2010 at 9:04 PM

No problem for Obama. If he did testify, he would just lie.

mobydutch on April 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM

I think the new redaction controversy needs it’s own thread above the fold on the site.

Leave it to Allahpundit to pile on a bunch of slow burner stories above this.

selias on April 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Judge called an emergency meeting tonight, they could be still conversing now.

What are the options at this point? Lawyers in trouble?

Coastal Paradise on April 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM

No problem for Obama. If he did testify, he would just lie.

mobydutch on April 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Just like the husband of his Secretary of State did.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Obama is amazing… in an attempt to outdo previous administrations, he’s managed to compile Enron, Whitewater and Watergate into a single event. Nice work, The One (Termer).

Texas Rainmaker on April 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM

The thing that is very scary is that there are still some people in Illinois who actually support Blagojevich and would most likely be absolutely giddy beyond measure if he somehow could wind up back in office.

The problem is that Illinois has become such a cesspool of political corruption that there are actually some folk in the state who feel it is a fact of life that the guy you elected to office is most likely a dishonest crook who is going to end up fleecing you.

pilamaye on April 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM

RICO investigation.

Odie1941 on April 23, 2010 at 11:09 AM

i wonder if any judge would be afraid of making dear leader testify for fear of falling under the bus…dear leader’s has many friends…

cmsinaz on April 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM

SCJ’s “That’s Not True” comes to mind./snark

ProudPalinFan on April 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM

It was OK for obama to lie. he said he did his own investigation and neither he nor any of his staff had communicated with guv Blago or Blago’s people. It is OK because Obama said some stuff and was not under oath and had not been sworn in. He was just jivin’ like they do in chicago.

seven on April 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM