home

Rod Blagojevich Requests Subpoena for President Obama

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich filed a motion (available here) to have a subpoena issued to President Obama to testify at his upcoming trial. The issue: The vacant Illinois Senate seat. From the motion:

President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation. President Obama’s testimony is relevant to three fundamental issues of that allegation. First, President Obama contradicts the testimony of an important government witness. Second, President Obama’s testimony is relevant to the necessary element of intent of the defendant. Third, President Obama is the only one who can say if emissaries were sent on his behalf, who those emissaries were, and what, if anything, those emissaries were instructed to do on his behalf. All of these issues are relevant and necessary for the defense of Rod Blagojevich.

[More...]

Tony Rezko is one of the government’s main witnesses.8 Mr. Rezko’s credibility is extremely relevant in this trial. In many instances, Mr. Rezko is the government’s crucial witness to prove up their allegations.9 Mr. Rezko wrote a letter to a federal judge stating “the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been a party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes.”

So, who is the labor union official the Government claims was pushing for Blago? It's Tom Balanoff. As for Senate Candidate B, it sounds like Valerie Jarrett. Both Jarrett and Obama were interviewed by the FBI. Blago says he's requested the notes from the interview but the Government hasn't provided them. At least, Blago points out:

“There’s no allegation that the president elect – there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving president elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it.”

MSNBC reported this detail about the Jarrett-Balanoff conversation back in 2008, which was contained in a report prepared by Greg Craig on the Senate seat appointment (available here):

"Ms. Jarrett recalls that Mr. Balanoff also told her that the Governor had raised with him the question of whether the Governor might be considered as a possible candidate to head up the Department of Health and Human Services in the new administration. Mr. Balanoff told Ms. Jarrett that he told the Governor that it would never happen. Jarrett concurred."

The report adds, "Mr. Balanoff did not suggest that the Governor, in talking about HHS, was linking a position for himself in the Obama cabinet to the selection of the President-Elect’s successor in the Senate, and Ms. Jarrett did not understand the conversation to suggest that the Governor wanted the cabinet seat as a quid pro quo."

Asked in the conference call about Balanoff raising this Blago-for-HHS idea, incoming White House counsel Greg Craig responded that Jarrett "thought it was ridiculous for the governor of Illinois to be talking about being appointed to Barack Obama's cabinet, at a time when he was under investigation ... for a variety of problems."

The Sun Times reported over a year ago that Balanoff later decided to cooperate with the feds.

Balanoff had discussions with Blagojevich on Nov. 3, Nov. 6 and Nov. 12, records show. A report released by Obama outlines his people's contacts with Blagojevich and any discussions about the Senate seat. It indicates Balanoff and Jarrett met on Nov. 7th -- a day after one of the Balanoff-Blago meeting. According to the report, Balanoff told Jarrett that Blago hoped Obama would give him the Health and Human Services appointment. Jarrett laughed it off, according to an Obama official.

But Blagojevich and Balanoff then spoke again, on Nov. 12. That's when the then-governor allegedly tells Balanoff he could expedite Jarrett's appointment in exchange for being appointed the head of a charity. Blago tells Balanoff to run the proposition "up the flagpole," according to the criminal complaint.

Blago also wants Obama to testify about Rezko's "plan, intent, habit", etc. He brings up the house deal in his motion:

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.

Blago cites the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses. But, it's not absolute and a witness can have a competing constitutional right -- such as the right not to incriminate himself -- or in Obama's case, some other legal privilege. Blago's right may or may not trump the witness' rights. Blago takes a pre-emptive swing at executive privilege:

Here, President Obama is a critical witness. All of President Obama’s testimony would entail evidence he witnessed before he became president and does not involve Executive Privilege.

He says Obama is a "percipient witness."

President Obama is a witness to the conduct alleged as well as an impeachment witness to at least two of the government’s critical witnesses.

Finally, Blago says he is willing to accept Obama's testimony by video conference or at a deposition instead of a live appearance.

So, which side is subpoenaing Rahm Emanuel?

< About Those Fears of Marijuana Mass Production | Appeals Court Rejects Roman Polanski's Bid Over New Evidence of Judicial Misconduct >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not sure what it will take to convince (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:47:45 PM EST
    squeaky of that.

    Most of us who are/were very apprehensive about his qualifications for POTUS at this point in his life, and this moment for the country are not praying for him to have personal problems distracting him from listening to us. We want him healthy and alert while he reads our cards and letters :)

    Good one... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    considering you're obviously not the leader.

    You know (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    The WH wants this to go away, and badly.  Obama won't be forced to testify, but they don't want Rezko coming up again.

    Why's That (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    Are you insinuating that Obama has broken the law somehow in his dealings with Rezko?

    Or is this just a reflexive cheap shot for the fun of it.

    Rezko sang for his supper, and Obama was not in the lyrics.

    Parent

    More to the point (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    would be to ask why the heck Blago is bringing sale of the house into it -- much as I also think there were a lot of oddities in the sales of the house and adjacent property (as well as in designation of the house as historic and qualifying for federal tax credits just before Ms. Obama resigned from the body that awarded the designation, just before the Obamas bought the house).

    That aside, the point that I must be missing is what the Rezko deal has to do with Blago attempting to snare a Senate seat.  

    Sorry if I'm wasting cyberspace because the connection is obvious to others, but it is not so to me.

    Parent

    Seems To Me (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    That Blago is grasping at any straw that will get him a shot at getting out of his mess, imo. If he drums up a case for Obama to testify and Obama does not, perhaps he thinks he can call a mistrial or something.

    Parent
    You think Blago is that smart? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    I think he is trying to send the message that he is just a bit player who got pushed out of office, and that he wasn't alone in being used. Maybe he thinks the same people who were helping Obama were the ones hurting him.

    Could he think Obama knows something about a conspiracy against him?

    Parent

    Even though Blago is a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    he has a team of lawyers writing these motions. It's not a question of Blago being smart or not, because he's not representing himself, but what the team decides they can get some mileage or traction from. He's consulted and weighs in, but he's not hitting the law books, and we know from Celebrity Apprentice he doesn't know how to use a computer, so he's not typing them -- his lawyers are.

    Parent
    If you read the comment I responded to (none / 0) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:40:47 PM EST
    my use of Blago and "he" will make more sense.

    I'm sure he has very good attorneys. I just hope the country doesn't get bogged down again in something as empty as Whitewater.

    Parent

    It's (3.66 / 3) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:01:08 PM EST
    a warning shot: if I go down buddy, you're going down with me type thing.

    Anyway, none of this surprises me. I knew when something came out of the Chicago Sewer that Obama was going to get dragged in.

    Parent

    Virtually every politician in Chicago (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:11:38 PM EST
    gets splashed whenever something emerges from the Chicago sewer. Obama has not been charged with any crimes, though it's true he did not help himself by appearing to engage in a quid pro quo with Tony Rezko.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    Who knows what will come out of it? It'll probably be somewhat damaging simply because the press seems to think that anythign that comes out of an investigation is worth taking as some biblical truth instead of weighing whether it's junk or not and then repeating it ad nauseum.

    Parent
    Ah, yes, it's such deja vu (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    all over again, as Yogi Berra would say, as we can count on journalists not having learned anything from the coverage of the Clintons in the 1990s.

    And, amazing to me, we can count on a lot of people not seeing the parallel to discount the coverage -- or even not being aware of what went down then.  It's difficult to imagine that to a lot of voters, perhaps especially younger voters, the 1990s are so, y'know, 20th century.

    Parent

    This thing may not be much like the (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    "20th century" at all.

    Mainstream journalists reviled Clinton and gleefully fanned the flames that led to his impeachment.

    Those same journalist, and their successors, are anything but critical of Obama and pigs will fly before they give any support to the notion that Obama ought to be subpoenaed.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#40)
    by Spamlet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    (Guess what "evidence" just got disappeared . . . unbelievable!)

    Parent
    Wait and see midterm election results (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    as those worms can turn.  They like winners.  And if Repubs gain a lot of seats in Congress. . . .

    Parent
    Yes, the press does like winners... (none / 0) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    But, more particularly, the press likes their corporate brethren.

    The "winners" of the midterm elections will be determined by who best represents their mutual interests.

    Parent

    You are on a roll today (4.33 / 6) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    With the strawmen and wild accusations.

    It's almost the weekend - why are you so angry and hateful?  You need to chill and just talk about the topic.


    Parent

    Wild Accusations? (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:14:21 PM EST
    The WH wants this to go away, and badly.  Obama won't be forced to testify, but they don't want Rezko coming up again.

    How many months were you and your pals aching for some dirt to come up showing Obama has been involved in criminal dealings with Rezko?

    Sounds to me that you are still playing that tune. To suggest that Obama wants Rezko to go away is a clear insinuation that Obama has something to hide.

    And do you have any reason to opine that the WH wants this to go away, and badly? No you don't, it is just more baseless insinuation.


    Parent

    Maybe for the same reason the (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    '90s would have been so much better without Whitewater, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Linda Tripp, et al.

    Cheap distractions hurt all of us in the long run.


    Parent

    Lie down with dogs, (4.20 / 5) (#9)
    by Spamlet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:44:36 PM EST
    get up with fleas.

    President Obama brought this unsavory development on himself, through his own (and I quote the president) "boneheaded mistake."

    I don't hear President Obama blaming any commenters on TalkLeft for what has to be unwelcome attention to his past behavior. I wonder why you feel compelled to do so.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:51:03 PM EST
    The horse has been beaten to death, Rezko turned government witness and Obama has come out of this clean. A boneheaded mistake is miles away from insinuating criminal behavior.

    Fanning the flames with innuendo of a criminal behavior is a cheap shot.

    Parent

    Actually, accusations (4.50 / 6) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    were laid to rest pretty fast in the mainstream, and no one really got answers to anything. It's probably why you are so sensitive to topics that continue to come up. When you can't answer the question, frustration rises.

    If it was beaten to death, and you know exactly what took place, perhaps you would share the information so we can all be as comfortable as you are about Rezko.
     

    Parent

    not so (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:30:33 PM EST
    accusations were put to rest by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzerald. Obama did nothing illegal with Rezko. It's Blagojevich that Rezko is cooperating against, not Obama.

    Please stay on topic which is: Blago/Obama and Blago/Rezko. The only relevance between Obama/Rezko is Blago's assertion that Obama may be able to impugn Rezko's. He's not claiming Rezko would besmirch Obama. His motion says:

    President Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko is relevant and necessary Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406 evidence.

    I wonder, did he mean 404(b) or 405(b)?

    I've deleted sniping comments without substance. If commenters want to attack each other, please share your email addresses with each other and do it privately.

    Parent

    Ah, impugning Rezko's credibility (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:41:28 PM EST
    as a witness -- okay, now I see the connection to the house sale.  But it would seem a reach that a judge may not allow? especially if there are others who can and will do so.  We will see.

    Parent
    Hilarious (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    Your sincerity is disarming... lol

    Parent
    Popcorn! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Spamlet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    This has always sounded to me like a veiled threat:

    . . . the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the "wrong" things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been a party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes.


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    Sounds like "I'll take the fall now, someone on or out of power is going to owe me big time for keeping my mouth shut!"

    Parent