Blagojevich and Fair Trial 1, Fitzgerald 0

I noted with satisfaction that the jury in Illinois convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of only 1 of 24 counts against him, and the least dire count at that.  I said at the time Patrick Fitzgerald announced his intention to seek indictments for Blagojevich that people are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and that includes hard-ball, even unsavory, politicians, who should not be run out of office just on a prosecutor's say so.

I knew Fitzgerald and his record all too well, having spoken out in USA Today (see last paragraph) and elsewhere about his getting a Federal judge to throw New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail for refusing to reveal her sources in stories Fitzgerald deemed pertinent to the Valerie Plame affair.   Any prosecutor who seeks to put a reporter in jail for not revealing her or his sources is in my book an enemy of democracy.   The First Amendment may in literal law allow that, but tossing reporters in jail, taking away their liberty, for failing to cooperate with the prosecution is deeply offensive to the spirit of the First Amendment*, and the jobs of reporters it seeks to protect - the job of bringing crucial information to the American people.   Lack of a Federal shield law, and a judge tone-deaf to freedom of information, is what enabled Fitzgerald to do his dirty work, but he still deserves the lion's share of the blame for bringing his request to a judge in the first place.

Just as Fitzgerald now deserves the lion's share of the blame for wasting millions of tax-payer dollars and years of time in an unsuccessful prosecution of Blagojevich.   Fitzgerald says he intends to press on with a second trial on the same charges.   Clearly they don't have much merit, if a jury presented all of the evidence collected by Fitzgerald over the years failed to convict.

I know nothing directly about Blagojevich's actions.   But it seems clear that the jury, under enormous public pressure, did mostly the right thing in this case.

*Restriction of communication by non-governmental public agents such TV networks that censor language or universities that prohibit certain speakers would be a different kind of violation of the First Amendment.

Blago Tells Maddow It Was a Golden Chance to Get Good Programs Passed: Is That Wrong?

I just saw Rachel Maddow's interview of Rod Blagojevich - I thought it was by far the best of the many I've seen on television the past few days.

The crux of at least one of the major issues was finally addressed in this interview. Rachel asked Blago what he meant when he said the chance to appoint a U.S. Senator was "fucking golden" (Rachel used the word "bleeping" - I try to avoid the use of the word "bleeping," whenever possible).

The inference that Federal Prosecutor Fitzpatrick and most people are making is that this was a golden opportunity for Blago to line his pocket.

But, in response to the question from Rachel, Blagojevich said it was a golden opportunity for him to get political leverage to pass legislation and get things done - such as health care - for the people of Illinois. That's way politics is played, Blagojevich said.

After the interview, Rachel smiled and said she thought she might have gotten Blago to admit some guilt on this point on the interview. Her next guest, former Federal Prosecutor Scott Mendeloff, thought not (though he clearly thinks Blago is culpable on other issues).

I was glad to hear Mendeloff say this, because it's pretty much what I was thinking when I saw the interview. If I were a governor, wouldn't I want to do everything I could on behalf of the people in my state? If groups of supporters came to me and said, please appoint this or that person, would I be wrong to ask them what their views were on various issues which I thought were important for the state? I would still, in the end, appoint the person I thought would make the best Senator, but I would do all I could in the political process to get the best results for my state. Maybe that's a good reason for me never to run for governor.

As for Blago, there are many charges facing him, and I would like to hear the complete tapes, in full context, before making a judgment.

But on the question of whether it is right to get something good for your state, in conversations about whom you might appoint for the Senate, I can't see what's wrong in Blago's explanation.

Blago May Not Be Entitled to Due Process, But He and We are Entitled to See that He Gets a Fair Trial

I know that Rod Blagojevich is technically not entitled to "due process," when the Illinois Senate tries his impeachment case starting tomorrow, so those of you who are quick to inform everyone of this legality when people discuss the Blago case, please consider me so informed.

But I also believe that Blago is nonetheless entitled to a fair trial by the Illinois Senate. And, surely, ability to call as witnesses those who are mentioned in the impeachment document, and whose names have been bandied about in the press as people Blago pressured for money, or other discussed the US Senate appointment with, need to be called to testify if the Illinois State Senate is to conduct a fair trial.

Otherwise, as I have been saying ever since these charges were first publicly presented by Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerald, we are giving a Federal prosecutor much too much control over our democracy. As person elected governor by the people of any state deserves better than to be thrown out of office on the basis of charges that have not stood up to any cross-examination - that is, the people of the state, and the people of the United States, deserve more.

If you doubt this, think what would have happened in the Joseph McCarthy or Richard Nixon era, had Federal prosecutors been able to in effect unseat governors, by getting state senates to remove them from office, on the basis of un-cross-examined charges.

Blago Refuses to Resign - I Think That's Good for the Process of Law

Rod Blagojevich just announced that he won't resign as Governor of Illinois, and will fight the charges that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made against him.

I think that's for the good of the country - seriously. Our laws say that people accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Not only has Blagojevich not been found guilty in a court of law, he has not even been indicted by a grand jury. All that has happened is a Federal prosecutor has brought very serious charges against him.

For all I know, the charges may well be true. But the point is that I don't know, and neither do most Americans. What we know is that we live in a society governed by laws. If a duly elected governor is obliged to resign because he is accused, not because he is found guilty, what does that say about our laws? Should a prosecutor have such power?

I think not, especially when that power could not only remove a governor, but stop the state of Illinois from sending one of its two Senators to Washington. I know that Harry Reid has said the US Senate would not seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich - but it's not even clear that the Senate would be sustained in court if they tried to do that in this case (those decisions can always be challenged in court, and I wonder if a judge would uphold voiding a Governor's appointment on the basis of his being accused not convicted of a crime).

Laws are designed to protect all of us. Let's not short-circuit them by behaving as if someone has been convicted, when he has only been charged.

Golden Opportunity Missed with Blag's Bleepin' Golden

Here's what may seem like a minor issue, regarding the Rod Blagojevich outrage, Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference about it yesterday, and the media's reporting of it.

Fitzgerald told us that he had a recording of the Illinois Governor, speaking of his duty to appoint someone to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, saying, "I've got this thing, and it's bleepin' golden."

Now, we all know that Blagojevich never said "bleepin," he said "fucking" about the big money he might make from the Senate appointment, and "fuckin'," about many other things, all in the complaint transcript, easily available online. My question is: why could not Fitzgerald have quoted Blagojevich verbatim - are we all five year-old children, who can't take hearing that word?

It's not as if "bleepin'" didn't tell us exactly what Blagojevich said, anyway. So its advantage is, what? Our ears are not singed by the real word?

I know, the FCC doesn't care much for that word on television, and has been inclined to fine networks that broadcast that word on television millions of dollars - even though we have a First Amendment in this country. CNN is apparently so desirous not to offend, that it added a disclaimer at the top of the above mentioned transcript: "This document contains language that some readers may find objectionable." Fox and MSNBC, to their credit, posted just the transcript.

Not that there's really anything wrong about posting the disclaimer, except that it caters to a worry that media should not have. Print, broadcast, web media should put up the truth on the page and screen, just as it is.

In an ideal world, Fitzpatrick would have spoken just what Blagojevich said, and the media would have broadcast that. And what would the FCC have done, gone after Fitzgerald and thousands of media outlets around the country?

Just something to think about, for next time.

See also Of Asterisks, Black Swans, Thom Yorke, and D*ck