In the Summer of 2002 I was working as the editor of a weekly newspaper in Illinois and had the opportunity to meet and listen to Illinois gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich. After suffering from the likes of former Governor George Ryan, who was later convicted on corruption charges, Blagojevich seemed like a breath of fresh air.
I recall at the time, I compared him to a Kennedy because he seemed like someone who really cared about the people he wanted to represent. He had a boyish charm; he was young, well-spoken and seemed intelligent.
I had also interviewed Ryan on one occasion and walked away thinking, “this guy is a crook.” The reason I got that impression was because he seldom gave a straight answer to a question. However, the thing that bothered me most about Ryan was the fact that he would not look me in the eye. In fact, when asked something controversial, he would look toward the ground when answering. Blagojevich actually answered questions, even if he had to pause a moment to think about it. To me, and the majority of Illinoisans at the time, Blagojevich seemed like an honest man.
Blagojevich left a good impression on me in 2002, and today I am disturbed by this because I realize it was not the man I was impressed with, it was the idea of the man I was impressed with. I have watched the events unfold over the past two years in disbelief.
Before the trial, I watched in amazement as Blagojevich played the court jester, appearing on such television shows as The View, David Letterman, The Today Show and many others. He admitted he actually considered appointing Oprah Winfrey to the US Senate, but did not make her the offer because he felt she would refuse. He quoted poetry, said he would be exonerated and hinted at conspiracies.
After 12 days of deliberations a jury returned with verdicts on only two of the 24 counts the government indicted Blagojevich on. The judge in the case ordered the jurors back to consider the evidence further.
When you look into this case, there are many inconsistencies, not only on the part of Blagojevich, but also on the part of the government. To convict someone of a criminal offense there can be little doubt as to that person’s guilt; I find much too much to doubt about in this case.
After taking the Oath of office in January 2003, Blagojevich was convinced, it seems, by Tony Rezko, to keep one of Jim Ryan’s men on. Blagojevich appointed Stuart Levine, who had raised a great deal of money for his former opponent’s campaign, to some important state boards. Rezko and Levine went on to raise a lot of campaign cash for Blagojevich.
Later, Rezko and Stuart both fell under government indictments. Levine pleaded guilty to charges of defrauding the State’s Teacher Retirement Fund out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but he apparently struck a deal with prosecutors and testified in 2006 against Rezko during his bribery and fraud trial.
Interestingly enough, both of these men are thought to have made a deal with government prosecutors, but neither have been sentenced yet. It was thought they would both be brought to testify against Blagojevich, but neither of them was used.
The Government’s best argument against Blagojevich seemed to be a taped phone conversation whereby the former governor said, “I’ve got this thing, and it’s (expletive) golden, and I’m not going to give it away for (expletive) nothing.”
The claim is, Blagojevich was trying to sell President Obama’s Illinois Senate seat, but because the tape recording does not tell us this specifically, we cannot know that is what Blagojevich was referring to. The evidence against Blagojevich seems rather circumstantial, and I’m sure that is what the jurors are thinking. Reasonable doubt does exist.
Blagojevich tells us the conversation was taken out of context, maybe it was, and maybe it wasn’t, but that is the point – maybe. You cannot convict a man when reasonable doubt is present in criminal law.
There are many questions left unanswered in this matter. Why did Blagojevich agree to keep Levine? Did he do so because he owed a favor to Rezko, or because he knew the two of them could raise a huge amount of campaign cash for him?
Why, after four years, have Rezko and Levine not been sentenced? It was thought they were not sentenced because the government had made a deal with them to testify against Blagojevich, and prosecutors wanted to make sure Rezko and Levine kept their part of the bargain. However, the government did not use them.
Was the taped Blagojevich conversation about the senate seat, or about something else entirely? Maybe Blagojevich had been approached by the government to testify against Rezko or Levine, and he had been uncooperative. Rezko and Levine could have been the golden egg he was referring to; Then again, maybe not.
It will be interesting to see what the jurors will come up with in the coming days. It’s likely the Defense will seek a mistrial. It is also likely the judge will push the jury for a firm decision, but no matter what happens I will not be convinced by either side of the argument because I do not believe the whole truth has come out.
Blagojevich is guilty of something, but what, I am not sure, and neither is the jury. One thing I am sure of, Blagojevich is not dim witted; he’s sly like a fox.
I disagree. He is not sly as a fox- he is quite stray forward and honest – that is my impression even in listening to his tapes. He is naive and he was selfish, wanting to obtain a position for himself. I wouldn’t do business the way he did but I have no way of comparing his methods with others in Illinoise since no one else was recorded. But I think he was a sincere governor and cared about the people as evidenced in caring for the vunerable (children and elderly). I won’t pin someone as guilty unless there is absolute proof -or shatter my own ideals unless there is proof they are wrong. The proof I have so far is he is a sincere but imperfect man.
Read his book and read the tapes all published on the Chicago Tribune website.
There is little doubt in my mind that he tried to help the people of Illinois, but I think his ambitions got in his way. I also, and I hate to say this, but I think there is a bigger conspiracy here than we understand.
It seems many politicians begin with good intentions, but power tends to corrupt people, and I think this is what happened to Blago.
The point of the column was not to judge him as this or that, but to question his motives and the motives of his accusers. The biggest question is whether he is guilty, and what exactly is he guilty of. Maybe he was used, or he was using others. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions.
By the way, I voted for Blagojevich in 2002.