It's not as if there's any hope of his staying in office, after all.
Presumably, he's just holding out for a better deal. But from whom? Fitzgerald has him dead to rights, by all accounts. He loses nothing by an impeachment.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If he did all this because he was having financial problems I could see why he would want to collect as many of his remaining paychecks as possible. No reason to leave before you have to, right?
Why should he? What does he have to lose?
One reason not to resign: Blagoyevich is an SOB. This is what he does.
I agree it is likely he is holding out for a better deal. Remember, its the only card he currently holds, and he is currently holding it against Fitzgerald, the US Senate, Illinois, and anyone who has anything to do with him. Even Obama, because it is a very unwelcome distraction and only feeds the wingnuts.
Impeachment would take too long. Trial and conviction too. Blagoyevich knows it.
Once he resigns, he loses his only remaining bargaining chip, and (more or less) will be seen as an acknowlegement of his guilt.
CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT:
Could he be waiting in order to see how he can negotiate for a Presidential Pardon from Obama?
Why resign now? Why not hold out until Jan. 20th, when an Obama Administration Justice Department will be desperate to put this to bed? Blago will have more leverage with them than with the Bush Justice Dept. Fitzgerald can't put Blago in the dock before then.
The bargaining chip is in how many other people he can bring down with him, and how high up they go. He can deal it to the prosecutor for reduced time, or to those he has the goods on for favors once he gets out of Club Fed. This is pretty standard stuff for Chicago politics.
He's looking to call the legislator's bluff: He's betting they won't vote to impeach him anytime soon. It's a good get.
Blagos crime's differ from the rest of the state's political establishment only in their suicidal brazeness. Since they can't be sure what Blago has on them to trade with Fitz, they can't be sure they won't be burned by a Blago desperate to cut a deal with the Feds.
They're idiots to think that he won't do that anyway, but they want to push that off as far as they can for another reason.
It's not yet clear who will benefit (and suffer) the most from ousting Blago, so until they work it out in the back rooms, keeping Blogo avoids a a potentially devasting scramble and fight among the remaining crooks for spoils in the new order.
And some may be hoping to pick up ambassadorships to non-extradition countries from Obama.
It is my understanding that if he resigns or is impeached, the (Democratic) Lt. Governor gets to appoint a Senator. The Illinois state senate can strip that power, but only by calling a special election, which a Republican might just concievably win in this climate.
That concievably gives him a bit of leverage a(if, as seems to be true, he can't easily be impeached); he's just detached enough from reality to think he can get something for it, and who knows, maybe he can.
agreed with all here: Blago has nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing people to remove him from office. It's Obama and his people who lose the more Blago is in the news.
Besides, given the crassness of his actions, Blago has no dignity in him. Reminds me of Kwame Kilpatrick in detroit--brazenly refusing to resign despite his blatant wrongdoing.
And yet: Kiplpatrick resigned. Are Detroit wrongdoers more moral than Chicago ones?
Oh, and Emmanuel is on the firing line right now.
One signficant way that Blagojevich's troubles with the law differ from those of his predecessor George Ryan is that while Mrs. Ryan was never a target of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigations, Mrs. Blagojevich certainly is. Governor Blago then has to worry not only about saving himself from being sent to person; he has also to worry about saving his wife from a possible prison term.
Therefore, Blago's refusal to resign is not only about using whatever leverage he has to save himself; it is also about using whatever leverage he has to save his wife Patti. Blago may wind up deciding that in order to save his wife, he may have need to negotiate a plea bargain with Pat Fitzgerald. In exchange for Blagojevich pleading guilty, promising to testify against other prominent politicians, and resigning from the governor's office, Fitzgerald would probably be prepared to let Patti Blagojevich go.
This is a lot more simple than many are making it seem. Why won't he resign?
Simple, he needs the money. Defense Attorney Genson does not come cheap. Blaggo probably blew a weeks pay just meeting w/ Genson Sunday.
'Cause he knows where the bodies are buried and the Chicago Clowns don't want him to tell?
He's been successful so far doing what he does the way he does it. Why should he think it won't work this time -- it's The Chicago Way!!
It worked for Obama didn't it?
Can I be really cynical?
[Phone Rings]
Blago: Hello?
Unknown Masculine Voice: Hey, I think we may be able to do some business...
B: Hmm, I dunno, the heat is on...
UMV: What if I can solve that impending problem?
B: How?
UMV: Well, you know what we want...
B: Yeah, but what will I get?
UMV: How about a pardon? Just need to hold on for a bit...
People are reading way too much into things.
People in power rarely see any reason to give it up, especially someone like Blago who could, legally, appoint himself or anyone else to the Senate today (though they'd probably get expelled). Also, he's an asshole who'd probably make them kick him out even if he were powerless just out of spite.
Adam--Kilpatrick was an A**hole too, and had a congressman mother to help him out. Yet enough pressure was put on him to force the resignation. I think there is more than just Blago being Blago---though, not knowing him, your argument may very well be right.
I still find it sadly hilarious that THIS is the scandal people start questioning Obama about. Heavens to murgatroid.
Kristan,
Obama has been called many things, but "astonishingly stupid" and "completely politically incompetent" are not usually among them.
I don't know, Rob--he's done some conventionally completely politically incompetant things and skated away from them, with no or little questioning by the press and his cult. Like Blago, he could be emboldened by the lack of checks on him.
Heck, he might just make him wait a few years for it.
I can see, in 8 years, Blago receiving those midnight pardons. Along with Ayers and Dorn.
May I offer the concise theory that he is, simply, an asshole?
If you were under charges for criminal offenses, would you admit guilt? That's what he would be doing, in essence, if he resigned.
I can see, in 8 years, Blago receiving those midnight pardons. Along with Ayers and Dorn.
No doubt, but by then, Obama will have passed the apex of his career, so it won't matter. I had in mind a Jan. 21 pardon, which would be crippling.
This was just classic:
Blago's departure would be a great convenience for any number of people. Those people will need to pay for that convenience.
Couldn't be any simpler, really.
Rob, I hope you are right that a Jan. 21st or anytime before his final days pardon would cripple Obama.
Then again, I thought excusing terrorist activities because you wrote books on how racist American schools are would do him in;
I thought going for 20 years to an ignorant preacher who danced with joy when talking about September 11th would do him in;
I thought stating that genoicide was not a good enough reason to invade a country would do him in;
I thought wanting to meet with oppressive dictators with no preconditions, like a first year college democrat would, would do him in;
I thought buying your own home as part of a recent shady real estate deal by a famous real estate con would do him in;
I thought calling children a punishment and declaring FOCA his first act would do him in;
I thought havign avice president who blantantly lies in his interviews would do him in;
Frankly, I thought a lot of things would do him in. I have little faith that a pardon here would do him in; the left in this country would just think Blago is wrongly accused by those right wingnuts. Obama is always right, because right is always Obama.
See also Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers.
And other since Bill Clinton certainly is not astonishingly stupid" and "completely politically incompetent", explain to me Marc Rich? And the Puerto Rican terrorists? I mean, you need to carefully define those terms.
Further, if couched in repentance, resignation and a walk away from political life, Blogo could walk off with no job, a tarnished legacy but no jail time, no investigation. This would also kill the story in about 2 weeks to be buried until next election when the 'bad sports' can be told to just 'Move On'.
Kristan,
Obviously we agree Obama does some incredibly stupid things and gets away with them.
But Clinton pardoned at the end of his term--and was the first president to really be called on them. Even Salon.com jumped on him for that.
Clinton didn't do it at the beginning. Rob has that point. Though I agree--given the current state of the American psyche, I think Obama could do it on day one and skate off. Sadly and scarily enough.
No, just gays in the military, with a walk back to DADT. Plus how many Attorney General picks until he picked a winner with Janet Reno?
Kristan:
Agreed. Clinton made some stupid moves at the beginning--moves that partially led to the 94 Republican sweep. But even I would parse agonizing liberal moves like gays in the military or signing FOCA with shady Nixon-like moves like an opening day pardon of a political connection. The difference being: the former are policy, the latter involves illegal activity that Obama is tainted by (at the very least).
But, like I said, given the current political clime, Obamessiah just might do it and get away with it. I have that little faith in people at this point.
Short answer #1: Resignation is usually something that's "on the table" in a plea bargain, and if you're being investigated for political corruption you wouldn't give that up easily.
Short answer #2: He's just a jerk.
Short answer #3: Some combination of #1 and #2.
Also, lest be honest, there is a bit of political calculus here:
Which is more damaging to Obama: A large federal investigation into Chicagoland or the pardon? Also, given that a pardon takes the problem out of all of Illinios politician's hands, they could be very, very happy, and thererfore grateful.
If he wants to add to the political theatre, he could pardon Bush administration officials for whatever to take that out of Pelosi's / Reid's / Waxman's hands. Say something to the effect, yes the past was messy. Let's just put it behind us, and try to start a new. That would be a change.
Basic Fact and Kristian:
All of the things you list Obama doing piss off right-wingers like me, but either appeal to or are neutral to left-wingers. Plus the vast bulk of the public doesn't really know about them, and none of them were undertaken as official acts from the Oval Office.
Pardoning a guy who was trying to sell his Senate seat--especially in the first 100 days or so--would both piss off a goodly number of decent left-wingers and cause the public to sit up and take far more notice than they have. All eyes will be on him early on.
He might be able to get away with it after Blag does some jail time, but I don't think he can halt the prosecution without it looking extremely bad for him.
Hey, I'm just being cynical. If I could pass an amendment to the consitituion, it would be that upon leaving office, every federally elected office holder or senate confirmed official should have an unpardonable jail term of 1/2 their term of service.
Look, the Chicago thing is hurting Obama, he needs a solution. Though, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd are probably happy they are not going to be the front page news for all of Christmas break.
Basic Fact and Kristian,
Blago should not count on Obama to save him (via a presidential pardon) for 2 reasons.
1) It would not be in Obama's political interest to do so. Pardoning Blago would not only provide ammo to the vast wing political propaganda machine to use againt Obama, it would also alienate Obama's supporters on both the left and in the center, dooming any chance of enacting any of his agenda. Even if the pardon were done during Obama's lame duck period, it would hurt Obama, since much of his agenda would have to be completed by his successors. Pardoning someone as odious as Blago would taint Obama and programs associated with Obama, and undermine any political capital held by Obama's successor (assuming that Obama's successor is another Democrat sympathetic to Obama's aims.)
2) Blago has been caught on tape referring Obama as a mothereffer, and saying F*** Obama. Do you really think that Obama is really going to be inclined to pardon someone who disparaged him in this way? (Obama's response to a pardon request for Blago would probably be "F*** me? No, f*** you! Your crooked ass can stay in jail!")
Eltoro:
1. Obama's shown a remarkable ability to get a free pass on extremely odious issues.
2. For a president to state that his "agenda" must be completed by others is both short sighted and shows remarkable weakness.
3. It might be in Obama's interest if an investigation, via the US attorney's office, would turn up more worms than Obama wants. Right now, we've caught the Obama team--and perhaps Obama himself--lying to the American public on this issue in at least one instance. Plus the suddenly opaque "internal review" going on and the sudden inability of Obama to find a microphone is making Obama's shadiness even shadier.
3. Your second reason is spurious. Politicians don't react to political situations with personal invective. They react in the best interests of getting reelected. If I were a corrupt politician, and pardoning someone would take care of a potential issue like simony, I wouldn't care if the guy had called me Satan incarnate. he'd be outof jail on my first day.
eltoro, you assume Obama is squeaky clean on this. If he is, then letting Blago rot is what will happen. If he is not, however---if he or one of his staff is tainted through either being involved in the sell off or not reporting what they knew to the US attorney's office---then, yes, pardoning is not out of the question. It may, in fact, be right on the table, considering Blago's style and what he would know about who, in the Obama team, is on the take.
"Look, the Chicago thing is hurting Obama, he needs a solution."
Kristian,
The solution he needs, however, does not involve pardoning Blago. Pardoning Blago would only make Obama's problems worse, since it would taint Obama in the way that the pardon of Nixon tainted Gerald Ford. No, the solution that Obama needs is to publicly and transparently show that none of his people did anything that even remotely reeked of favor trading, to have Pat Fitzgerald state that Obama and his people did not play ball with Blago, and to keep Fitzgerald on as the US Attorney for Northern Illinois.
So what if Fitzgerald takes more Illinois politicians down, including even Mayor Daley? As long as Fitzgerald does not tie anything illegal to Obama, Obama will come out alright in the end.
He will be able to argue that he had nothing to hide, that he did not play poltics with the Justice Department like Dubya and Rove did, that justice mattered more to him than politics, and that if he did anything wrong, Fitzgerald would have nailed him in all that time. At the same time, he will have eliminated most of his old school political rivals in his home state, leaving him free to shape the next generation of Illinois politicians in his image, who will carry on the implementation of Obama's New Deal.
Eltoro:
1. Ford pardoning Nixon didn't taint Ford, except among lefty types who wanted Nixon to burn (rightly so, IMO). Ford lost in '76 because of Nixon exhaustion (like Gore for Clinton) and because the economy was hurting and because he was portrayedas a bumbling buffoon.
2. "No, the solution that Obama needs is to publicly and transparently show that none of his people did anything that even remotely reeked of favor trading, to have Pat Fitzgerald state that Obama and his people did not play ball with Blago, and to keep Fitzgerald on as the US Attorney for Northern Illinois."
---I agree this is what Obama would need to have happen IF HE WERE SQUEAKY CLEAN. You assume he is. If he is not, however, he cannot do this. At this point, I do not believe Obama and staff are clean.
And Obama can't order Fitzgerald to state anything. To do so would compromise Fitzgerald's independence. In any circumstance, Obama is now forced to keep Fitzgerald on in Chicago, because removing him's going to look awfully bad in any case.
3. "At the same time, he will have eliminated most of his old school political rivals in his home state, leaving him free to shape the next generation of Illinois politicians in his image, who will carry on the implementation of Obama's New Deal."
----Hahaha. I forgot you were a kool-aid drinker. Right. Obama's New Deal: a dead baby in every womb, sucked out with a vaccuum, and taking wealth from the hard working and giving it to the con artists, the race baiters, and the lazy.
Obama had no old school rivals. For crying out loud, he hasn't even been a senator for a full term.
"Obama's shown a remarkable ability to get a free pass on extremely odious issues."
Basic Fact,
There is nothing remarkable about it. If you can't produce an actual smoking gun, all of the assertions by members of the VRWC like yourself won't amount to a hill of beans.
"Ford pardoning Nixon didn't taint Ford, except among lefty types who wanted Nixon to burn (rightly so, IMO). Ford lost in '76 because of Nixon exhaustion (like Gore for Clinton) and because the economy was hurting and because he was portrayedas a bumbling buffoon."
Ford would not have suffered from Nixon exhaustion if he hadn't pardoned Nixon; the pardon tied Ford (fairly or unfarily) to the tarnished legacy of Nixon. Remember, Ford was not elected to the vice presidency as part of Nixon's ticket in 1968 or 1972, he was appointed to replace Spiro Agnew, and thus Ford was never really a part of the Nixon administration during Watergate, and had no ties to it, UNTIL the pardon.
1. Oh, please. You think Ford didn't suffer because Nixon and Agnew were bad guys? The American people threw the corruptors out. Same with Gore and Clinton--Clinton fatigue was a popular term at that time. Gore suffered partly for Clinton's sins--and this is from a guy who dislikes Gore's policies. The party in power was replaced because people were sick of the scandals. In a healthy democracy, that happens.
I think Nixon should have been tried, etc. But clearing Nixon and trying to put him behind was Ford's attempt to clear the decks. Didn't work, but like I said, only strong lefties are bitter about that.
2. "There is nothing remarkable about it. If you can't produce an actual smoking gun, all of the assertions by members of the VRWC like yourself won't amount to a hill of beans."
---Yes, Wright, Ayers, Rezko are nothing. Keep telling yourself that, and then be shocked (shocked!) when at least one head rolls from Obama's transition team. See ym above list of documented Obama odiousness.
"For a president to state that his "agenda" must be completed by others is both short sighted and shows remarkable weakness."
Basic Fact,
Obama has stated many times that our problems require long-term solutions, and that many of these solutions will require tough choices that will pay off down the road.This does not show short sightedness or weakness. It shows the ability to see political reality, and to have a long-term vision, both of which are strengths shared by our greatest presidents. For you to view this as weakness shows how degenerate and decadent that conservative political thought has become.
"And Obama can't order Fitzgerald to state anything."
I didn't say order Fitzgerald. I said have Fitzgerald say that Obama and his people did not play ball with Blago. Obama can have Fitzgerald do this by actually showing that he and his team did not play ball with Blago. If Fitzgerald is convinced of this, he will state that Obama and his team did not play ball with Blago.
"eltoro, you assume Obama is squeaky clean on this. If he is, then letting Blago rot is what will happen. If he is not, however---if he or one of his staff is tainted through either being involved in the sell off or not reporting what they knew to the US attorney's office---then, yes, pardoning is not out of the question. It may, in fact, be right on the table, considering Blago's style and what he would know about who, in the Obama team, is on the take."
I am not assuming anything. Pat Fitzgerald himself stated that he found no evidence that Obama was involved in Blago's attempt to sell the Senate seat. That means that Obama is clean on this issue. Now, it is possible that one of Obama's people either conspired with Blago's wrongdoing, or failed to report it. Pat Fitzgerald did not say that nobody on Obama's team was involved in Blago's crimes, so that possbility remains open. Knowing these facts, how would pardoning Blago help Obama in any way? The evidence against Blago so far vindicates Obama. Letting the indictment against Blago run its course will further cement the idea that Blago is the bad guy, and that Obama does not play ball with bad guys like Blago. Pardoning Blago, however, will tie him with Blago, and will cement the idea that he does play ball with bad guys like Blago. Moreover, even if Blago is pardoned, Fitzgerald still will have evidence to use against any members of Obama's team who violated the law. So Blago's pardon does not benefit Obama in any way.
"Hahaha. I forgot you were a kool-aid drinker. Right. Obama's New Deal: a dead baby in every womb, sucked out with a vaccuum, and taking wealth from the hard working and giving it to the con artists, the race baiters, and the lazy."
Basic Fact,
If anybody is a Kool-Aid Drinker, it is yourself. Your statements above prove this. The fact that you are unable to see the irony in uttering statements which paint you as a right-wing nutcase dead-ender while complaining that someone else is a Kool-Aid Drinker further proves how intellectual degenerate the VRWC has become.
"You think Ford didn't suffer because Nixon and Agnew were bad guys? The American people threw the corruptors out."
Basic Fact,
Ford was never one of the corruptors. He was not part of the Nixon administration until he was appointed to replace Agnew, and he had no involvement in Watergate, UNTIL THE PARDON. The pardon, instead of clearing the deck, tied Ford to Watergate, when no such tie existed beforehand.
You have a lot of nerve calling yourself Basic Fact, when you can't even grasp basic facts such as this.
Pat Fitzgerald did not say that nobody on Obama's team was involved in Blago's crimes, so that possbility remains open.
All Obama needs now is a bus, preferably with studded snow tires. Really, chucking an advisor or two under it would be politically MUCH smarter than a pardon as part of an attempted whitewash, especially because he doesn't know exactly how much Fitz knows.
An attempt to protect a subordinate from responsibility for participation in a serious crime would be much worse than any of Clinton's little missteps.
Oh, but Obama would NEVER throw someone under a bus.
Stop laughing, Rob.
"All Obama needs now is a bus, preferably with studded snow tires. Really, chucking an advisor or two under it would be politically MUCH smarter than a pardon as part of an attempted whitewash, especially because he doesn't know exactly how much Fitz knows."
Rob Lyman,
The Republican Party clearly needs more people like you to counter the Kool-Aid Drinkers like Basic Fact. Keep up the good work, so that the GOP can become the responsible governing party that it was back in the days of Bush I.
Oh, eltoro, how I love you little cultists. You make Micahel Moore's "arguments" seem well thought out:
1. "Obama has stated many times that our problems require long-term solutions, and that many of these solutions will require tough choices that will pay off down the road.This does not show short sightedness or weakness. It shows the ability to see political reality, and to have a long-term vision, both of which are strengths shared by our greatest presidents. For you to view this as weakness shows how degenerate and decadent that conservative political thought has become."
----No, moron, it shows weaslelling. First: only Obama and his minions decide what a problem is. Sorry, buddy, but what a bunch of knee-jerk left wing socialists think is a problem is seldom a problem. Sorry, the problem you see of people who are lazy and unqualified for jobs not getting those jobs is not a problem, it's a solution. Poverty is a great motivator.
Second, it basically gives him an out. Anytime one of Obama's proposed solutions fail, it will be because it will take several presidents to complete the job, not because Obama's idea was stupid or poorly carried out.
To not be able to see political weaselling is short sided, buddy boy.
2. "I didn't say order Fitzgerald. I said have Fitzgerald say that Obama and his people did not play ball with Blago. Obama can have Fitzgerald do this by actually showing that he and his team did not play ball with Blago. If Fitzgerald is convinced of this, he will state that Obama and his team did not play ball with Blago."
---Fitzgerald won't merely state something because Obama shows him he didn't play ball with Blago. How many US Attorneys are going to categorically rule out any future prosecution? The only ways Fitzgerald would state this would be if he gets pressure--from a higher up. US attorneys aren't in the image protection business, idiot; that's Obama's spin team's job. For you to assume Fitzgerald will automoatically protect Obamessiah is your Stupid Thought of the Day.
3. "Pat Fitzgerald himself stated that he found no evidence that Obama was involved in Blago's attempt to sell the Senate seat. That means that Obama is clean on this issue."
---No, moron, it merely means that Obama didn't personally try to get involved. But did Obama know about it is another question.
"Now, it is possible that one of Obama's people either conspired with Blago's wrongdoing, or failed to report it."
---Hooray, a liberal coming to logic!
"Pat Fitzgerald did not say that nobody on Obama's team was involved in Blago's crimes, so that possbility remains open. Knowing these facts, how would pardoning Blago help Obama in any way?"
--If Obama knew about the scandal and kept his mouth shut, and Blago knows this, Blago has a chip to use for a pardon. For example, if Blago was assured by Emmanuel that Obama was "on board" with Blago's plan, that would be politically damaging to Obama. So Blago could bargain--get me out of prison, or within this term, or I go public.
Or if one of Obama's closest friends is in on the scheme--someone who could deliever dirt on Obama--then nipping this thing in the bud to keep the friend/advisor from coming to light is also a byproduct of a quick pardon.
tit-for-tat, as they say.
"The evidence against Blago so far vindicates Obama."
---Correction. The evidence against Blago so far does not implicate Obama. But Obama's already lied on this issue, so he's already suspect.
"Letting the indictment against Blago run its course will further cement the idea that Blago is the bad guy, and that Obama does not play ball with bad guys like Blago."
---True, except if Blago has something on Obama. Again, if Obama is clean, I agree, this happens. If not, however, the longer Blago is in court, the more chances he has to sing.
"Pardoning Blago, however, will tie him with Blago, and will cement the idea that he does play ball with bad guys like Blago."
---Unless Blago has info on Obama acquiescing or not reporting the deal. Then, if Blago sings, Obama has much worse to go on than merely bad p.r.; he has impeachment issues.
"Moreover, even if Blago is pardoned, Fitzgerald still will have evidence to use against any members of Obama's team who violated the law."
---No, not really. Without Blago naming names, it could be much harder to nail Obama and co. Remember: the Indictment came down against BLAGO, not OBAMA OR HIS TEAM. If Fitzy had Obama, he would have created a much bigger splash by indicting him or or one of his team. He didn't, so as of right now, he doesn't have the goods.
"So Blago's pardon does not benefit Obama in any way."
----Proved you wrong their, jackass.
4. "If anybody is a Kool-Aid Drinker, it is yourself. Your statements above prove this. The fact that you are unable to see the irony in uttering statements which paint you as a right-wing nutcase dead-ender while complaining that someone else is a Kool-Aid Drinker further proves how intellectual degenerate the VRWC has become."
----Yes, Obama didn't say babies were a punishment, and doesn't want to force religious hospitals to perform abortion and remove all parental notifications. He doesn't want to spread the wealth around, and give to people who haven't earned it. He doesn't have a 100% rating from the NARAL and didn't get money from ACORN. Always believe what Joe Biden tells you.
5. "Ford was never one of the corruptors. He was not part of the Nixon administration until he was appointed to replace Agnew, and he had no involvement in Watergate, UNTIL THE PARDON. The pardon, instead of clearing the deck, tied Ford to Watergate, when no such tie existed beforehand."
---oh, the stupid, how righteous they think they are.
Ford was part of the party that the corruptors were. He was tied to them because of party affiliation. No one believed Gore had anything to do with Whitewater or Documentgate or the Lewinsky Affair. But he got punished because the american people threw the corruptors--i.e. the party in the white House who had led so many scandals--out.
The fact that you can't grasp this basic fact is so sad, young one. Rhetoric. look it up.
Ford had no involvement with Watergate period. he was never tied to it by anything more than party affiliation (aside from conspiracy theorists who try to find connections), and he tried to get it OFF THE NEWS by removing any chance of prosecution. No news on Watergate, so the rationale went, the better chances would forgive Republicans for it. That didn't happen.
it wasn't a good move morally speaking. But Ford was never tied to Watergate as a person; his party affiliation was enough.
Please learn to think, boy. And get ahold of some basic facts yourself.
No doubt when Obama does start pardoning Ayers and Blago and Dohrn and the rest of them, eltoro will rant and rave about how brave he is and how these guys are just victims of the VRWC.
lol moron.
excuse me: I meant short-sighted, not short sided. Too much stock market info today. But liberals don't really understand that big evil market anyway.
I expect Blago to argue that his actions are the meat of politics and therefore he was simply doing his job, albeit clumsily.
eltoro: "Obama does not play ball with bad guys like Blago."
----Wright. Ayers. Dohrn. ACORN. Daley. Rezko.
You're right, he doesn't hang out with scum at all.
I'm inclined to suspect a medical explanation for Blagojevich's behavior, perhaps some form of frontotemporal dementia.
It may be worth Blago's while to remember that Bills of Impeachment of the old English model which the framers of the US and (I assume) Illinois Constitutions had in mind included some pretty stiff penalties, up to and including beheading. He may not 'have nothing to lose from impeachment.'
hi
51oll9xiwz9crx47
good luck
hi
51oll9xiwz9crx47
good luck