This is one of those must reads for politicos.
There was never a shortage of loops and flips and headlines when former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was in office, or when he used his ‘charm’ to convince the nation of his ‘innocence’ leading up to his trial. There seems to be one more act to his show–but I must say this one is far more compelling as it deals with a most serious federal judge.
Any day now, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is due to put out its ruling that could answer the most fundamental of questions: Were Blagojevich’s actions in fact criminal?
During appellate arguments, which I watched in December, U.S. Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook, formerly the chief judge of the panel, grilled government attorneys on some of the basics of the case. It was almost jarring to watch justices question the very essence of charges that had been under a public microscope for five years. Easterbrook appeared incredulous after asking if prosecutors could cite “any criminal conviction in U.S. history” other than Blagojevich’s in which a politician was convicted for trying to trade one job for another.
“I’m aware of none,” responded prosecutor Debra Bonamici.
“Where is the line that differentiates legal horse-trading from a federal offense that puts you in prison?” another appeals judge, Illana Rovner, asked.
It wasn’t that cut and dried, Bonamici said. The jury concluded Blagojevich was trying to obtain more than a job. Still, it was clear the appeals judges had issues with fundamental aspects of the case.
Easterbrook recalled the 1952 presidential election, when Earl Warren offered to use his position as California governor to “deliver California” for Republican candidate Dwight Eisenhower in return for a seat on the Supreme Court. “If I understand your position, Earl Warren should have gone to prison, Dwight Eisenhower should have gone to prison,” Easterbrook told the U.S. Attorney’s Office. “Can that possibly be right?”
Easterbrook was adamant: “It would be an act of shysterism to try to say that was OK and what Blagojevich did … was not OK.”
It was a stunning 180 from what those of us who had covered the legal case for so long had heard from jurists in that very same building. But we had heard the very same anecdote used in the past—from Blagojevich himself.
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 