Blagojevich's 18 convictions included allegations of trying to leverage his power to appoint someone to President Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat to raise campaign cash or land a high-paying job... ...Blagojevich had told the judge that he made "terrible mistakes" and acknowledged that he broke the law when he tried to sell an appointment to the Senate seat.
Blagojevich's attorneys admitted for the first time Tuesday that he is guilty of corruption and accepts the verdicts against him, but said the sentence of 15 to 20 years prosecutors wanted was too harsh. The defence also presented heartfelt appeals from Blagojevich's family, including letters from his wife Patti and one of his two daughters that pleaded for mercy.
Eighteen felony convictions: The jury bought off on them, and it seems nobody was saying they did a bad job. To the contrary, they were eating the humble pie Blago should have been eating for the last nearly ten years.
Should Obama and company have been drawn into this? I believe so. Is it unfair to take down Blago for what he was trying to do? I don't think so, and when a jury buys into what the prosecutors is saying these days, it's a fairly reasoned thing to think there was good reason. Look at the cases these days that wind up exhonerating the guilty, because the jury acts in an almost unbelievable manner.
You got the cart in front of the horse. The bad verdicts (OJ, Casey Anthony, etc.) are the direct result of jury nullification. Blago's defense didn't dare attempt jury nullification, as to do so would have directly involved the President of the United States. No lawyer since John Dean has gone there...