Posted on 07/21/2010 10:05:11 AM PDT by Scythian
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1 Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich leaves federal court following opening arguments at his trial June 8, 2010 in Chicago.
The trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is coming to a sudden and unexpected end on Wednesday, as defense attorneys announced that Blagojevich was not taking the stand, despite repeated promises over the past 19 months that he would.
The former governor's defense team then rested it case. Blagojevich will make a statement later today and you can watch that here on cbs2chicago.com.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel asked Blagojevich if it was his decision not to testify.
"Yes, judge," Blagojevich said.
"Have you deliberated in your own mind as to what your decision should be?" Zagel asked.
"Yes, I have," Blagojevich said. "It is my decision, judge. On the advice of my attorneys I made the decision freely and voluntarily."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs2chicago.com ...
I was just thinking this over, and the thought occured to me that Obama is in good standing with the Chicago thugs, but Blagothe-itch is lucky to be standing.
This is just like Godfather II. What Blago knew about Rahm and Obama was just too much, and now he’s mum.
As I recall reading the judge told the defense that Blago would have to take the stand before other witnesses could be heard. IE, as in Rahm ‘Deadfish’ Emanuel. Obama skates again.
Saving it for the appeal.
“Mr. Hagen, who is the gentleman sitting next to Mr. Corleone?” - Sen. Pat Geary
“He’s Mr. Pantageneli’s brother from Sicily. He speaks no English.” - Tom Hagen
I had heard this too.
How can a judge compel a defendant to testify when a defendant has a right not to testify?
How can a judge say that a defendant cannot call defense witnesses until the defendant testifies first?
The fix is in. This much is obvious.
Obama is being protected as usual.
1. There was absolutely no reason for him to testify, so it’s not a surprise that he didn’t
2. The prosecution / Patrick Fitzgerald produced incredibly weak case, relative to what they could do. They limited almost everything to IRS case.
Blago can skate or receive a very lite sentence in what could have been a blockbuster case by Fitzgerald, but this was not a Liddy / Rove / Bush case, so he went with the minimum effort, just to get a “win” on the resume.
It appears to me that Blago has grounds for appeal as large and wide as an ocean.
I need some extra money and have a feeling such a policy will have to pay soon.
What a conundrum:do you spill your guts knowing the mobsters will kill you in revenge,OR do you keep quite hoping they will keep their promise not to kill you when all the while your death would end any chance of your testimony?Or do you hope they think you have a trusted person waiting to release the info anonomously in case of your demise,and hope the mob won't find out who that is? Especially when the mob has access to ,or is part of the government ?
.............. blow hard
No conundrum. "Spilling his guts" would not help him one iota in his case, could only hurt him with Oba-maoists on the jury... and testimony could be limited / shut down for "irrelevance" to his case (i.e., "they are also crooks" is not a "relevant" defense)
Can I buy life insurance on Blago?
There may be some LDS / VDS (life / viatical default swaps) on Blago, but I doubt they would pay off.
He does, but it also appears that those in positions of power are doing their best to stack the deck against him. If I was Blago, I’d be worried about what new and unique rules will be encountered at the appelate court.
I also would not be surprised if he is found not guilty, because from what I have understood, the prosecution presented a pitiful case, but I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.
I would not want to be him. He’s surrounded by bad guys, but that is because he is a bad guy too. However, I do believe that he did not receive a fair trial. I believe he received a kangaroo court.
The defendant is not compelled to testify, nor is he required to present any witnesses. However, if the defendant chooses to testify, he has to go first. If he chooses not to testify, he can still have other witnesses testify. Defense strategy is that the prosecution's case is weak and they'll win an aquittal. Obviously Blago testifying would open him up to cross-examination and he is not willing to either perjure himself or incriminate himself.
Thank you, I really appreciate that clarification. I can certainly understand why Blago would not want to be vulnerable to a cross exam, but I am almost certain that I heard that the judge had stated that Blago could not call any witnesses unless he testified prior to that. I must have misheard this, because I cannot imagine how that could be the case.
If only one man would have the utter balls to pin the tail on the Obama-donkey.....
Yes, the case presented is weak and was made so because prosecution went out of its way to limit the outside political overtones (except for "Blago corruption" as a profit motive).
From Blago once offered Holder a $300K job / Witness charts money flow in Blagojevich case - FR, 2010 June 17
Some jurors seemed to strain to follow the testimony, some yawning, their hands pressed against their cheeks, with even some defense attorneys appearing to tire and shut their eyes for several minutes.The evidence amounted to lots of dots, but prosecutors stopped short Wednesday of connecting them directly to Blagojevich. His name did not appear on the graphic display, though former fundraisers Christopher Kelly and Tony Rezko did.
Case presented was ad minimum. Blago had nothing to gain by putting himself on the stand.
Now it would make sense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.