Sunday, December 28, 2008

Sunday Blagojevich Blogging

State Senator Lou Lang (D-Skokie) on Genson's request to call Emanuel and Jarrett as witnesses.
Genson is demanding the lawmakers subpoena Rahm Emanuel, Obama's incoming chief of staff, as well as longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett, saying Blagojevich can't get a fair impeachment hearing without them.

"This is a smoke screen," said Lang, whose committee will meet again Monday. "He's asking for subpoenas of witnesses he knows the U.S. attorney does not want us to have, and I, for one, am not going to allow him to turn this into a circus or sideshow."
Neither Genson or Fitzgerald run the impeachment hearing. Lang and his fellow Blagojevich supporters from 2006 run it. They owe Illinoisans an explanation why Blagojevich can't defend himself now. Don't blame Fitz. The Legislature can call whom they wish. They don't need Fitz's blessings.

Rahm's word: Rahm the Enforcer
In her 2007 book about the Clintons, “For Love of Politics,” Sally Bedell Smith describes an incident in which an unnamed Clinton administration official colorfully denigrates then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, at the time one of Washington’s most powerful Democrats, after Moynihan criticized Clinton’s transition.

“Big deal,” a ‘top administration official’ told Time magazine, adding, “he’s not one of us … he couldn’t obstruct us even if he wanted to. The gridlock is broken. It’s all Democratic now. We’ll roll right over him if we have to.”

Emanuel called the senator’s office after the story appeared, promising to fire whoever gave the quote to Time. A horrified Clinton echoed the promise, saying “We know it was someone who didn’t know us.”

But as the late senator’s personal papers showed, Emanuel’s promise was disingenuous, to say the least. At a dinner with the Time reporter, Moynihan was told that the “big deal” quote came from none other than Emanuel.
The disingenuous need Genson's cross examination.

Legal Insurrection on the NY Times Clinton Blagojevich double standard.
Why the difference in treatment? Why not give Blagojevich the same presumption of innocence given President Clinton? Both Clinton and Blagojevich were accused of using executive power to garner campaign contributions, both were accused but not yet convicted of crimes while in office, and both presided over a government impeded by the scandals surrounding their offices.

Just a guess. In the Clinton case, the NY Times was protecting Clinton, so Clinton could not be thrown overboard. In the Blagojevich case, the NY Times is protecting Obama, so Blagojevich should go quickly and quietly.
Tell me it ain't so.

1 comment:

coffee fiend said...

Blagojevich is the embodiment of political crookedness