Post User Polls

Blagojevich verdict: What do you think?

After a jury found former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty of one count of lying to federal agents on Tuesday, a federal judge says he intends to declare a mistrial on the remaining 23 counts in the political corruption trial.

By Jon DeNunzio  |  August 17, 2010; 5:45 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: What 90s TV star mash-up would you most like to see? | Next: Should travel to Cuba be more accessible for Americans?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



What do you mean, WHAT DO I THINK OF THE VERDICT? Are we going to have propositions and vote on jury verdicts now?
The guy is innocent on the other 23 counts until he is convicted, and I am wondering how many shots the prosecution is going to think it is entitled to on this "open and shut case."
There wouldn't be so many conspiracy theorists out there if there weren't so many things to be suspicious about.

Posted by: pfuidear | August 17, 2010 6:01 PM

Seriously, what PFUIDEAR said - a poll on jury verdicts is bad enough, but a poll without any possibility of answering either "hell if I know, I wasn't there to hear all the evidence or to listen to the judge's instructions about the definitions of the applicable laws," or "this case never should have been brought because the evidence just wasn't there"? Instead all the answers are written in ways that assume guilt, but put the blame on jury, or incompetent prosecutors, or clever clever defense lawyers. I am starting to hate the Post.

Posted by: sam44 | August 17, 2010 6:07 PM

So lying to the Feds is a crime. What about when the Feds lie to the people who elected them. Obama is a "Fed" and lies through his teeth every day. We are "Fed" up. How about prosecuting him?
When a politician lies to their constituents they say they misspoke.
I guess Blago misspoke?

Posted by: nychap44 | August 17, 2010 6:08 PM

Just as I predicted--- the problem was that Fitzgerald purposely ended the investigation too early to protect Obama and Emanuel. You heard it here first.

Posted by: hz9604 | August 17, 2010 6:12 PM

IDIOTS.

Posted by: jimmychooboots | August 17, 2010 6:14 PM

The felonious lie: telling feds that campaign contributors don't influence public policy.
Hmmm...maybe we should apply this standard to members of Congress, as well as the executive branch.
Most are just as guilty.

Posted by: mtpeaks | August 17, 2010 6:21 PM

I haven't been there as a juror - but I have followed this case and the man charged. To me he represented the maladies we suffer in today's world. If our present judicial system is unable to function to serve the public interest and protection, I suppose it teaches a lesson to all of us.
In a nut-shell it looks to me like this:
The honest and decent are the fools who pay for everything and everybody including the deadbeats and crooks. This world is up-side down.

Posted by: annemarie5 | August 17, 2010 6:22 PM

This is a poetic justice, isn't it. Patrick Fitzgerald failed again and should apologize and retire. He lacked the cojones to indict Cheney and Rove for clearly outing a CIA agent. Now he overreached trying to convict Blago for doing what every politician do: quid pro quot. He wasted our money shamelessly. get lost..

Posted by: rappahanock | August 17, 2010 6:22 PM

c'mon Sam44, didn't you hear the phone conversations?....if Blago were a Republican he would've been guilty even before the trial....in any case we have two more to go, Rangel and Waters

Posted by: braveheart1313 | August 17, 2010 6:26 PM

Remember folks, the bozo government lawyers prosecuting blago (who defeated them on 23 of 24 counts) are the same type of bozos that "You Lie!" hussein wants to prosecute the 911 terrorists! When blago gets off with a minor slap on the wrist, will "You Lie" hussein just give up his charade and let the 911 murderers go free also? (After all, they're special because they're muslins.)

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | August 17, 2010 6:27 PM

Well, we knew he lied so that one was a slam dunk. It would be interesting to know how the jury was divided on the other counts. The poll question and choices are really dumb since they are so polar. Chances are the case will be retried since the evidence was significant. The judge's jury instructions could have confused some jurors. Maybe another prosecutor can tie the case together better.

Posted by: pjohn2 | August 17, 2010 6:29 PM

I never quite understood that Blagojevich's despicable actions were different in kind from the usual horse-trading politicians do. I thought, well I'll let the jury decide. But obviously they, too, have had a hard time distinguishing how a politician legally and illegally benefits from a juicy political plum like an open senate seat, especially when there's no cash passing directly. I think the government might have overstepped.This is the kind of behavior that should get you defeated, not jailed.

Posted by: JosephGAnthony | August 17, 2010 6:32 PM

Who on earth would spend the time to pay attention? That's what the jury is for. They sit all day in the courtroom, week after week. No one could depend on the press for all the details necessary to make an informed opinion one way or the other.

In the Watergate era, wrongdoers became ministers or went to work for the disadvantaged to atone for their wrongdoing. Nowadays we reward bad or crazy behavior by giving them a reality TV show or worse yet, re-elect them.

Posted by: MNUSA | August 17, 2010 6:39 PM


The Feds lie to the People ALL THE TIME.

Who's going to arrest, try, convict, and jail THEM?

We have dirty Black Muslims in front of the polls intimidating good Citizens from their franchise and the Black Trash in Charge at the Justice Department SEES NO EVIL! What a turd!

Blago For President! (He wouldn't be great, but a helluvalot better than the TRASH in there now.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: notinvt | August 17, 2010 6:45 PM

Blago WILL go to jail.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | August 17, 2010 6:50 PM

Pfuidear is exactly right. Unless one has been following the case as closely as the jury (I certainly haven't!) how wouldknow?

Now, the worst response award goes to the guy signing himself teaparty patriot. But, maybe he's really just trying to make people think that all TPers are blithering idiots! Very tricky reverse psych!

Posted by: buckcameron01 | August 17, 2010 6:59 PM

The supposed lie happened five years ago, without benefit of a courtroom recorder.
This charge, number 24 of 24, was that federal agents remember him saying that contributors don't influence public policy.
Given the political swamp that we now find ourselves swimming in, look for a deal to diffuse this highly-charged situation.
And so it goes. The way it's going, no one knows.

Posted by: mtpeaks | August 17, 2010 7:01 PM

Since he was found 'Guilty' on 1 count, through THIS trial, how is it a 'mistrial?'

Posted by: justiceseeker51 | August 17, 2010 7:13 PM

The prosecutors are incompetent. You need only read the number of counts (24) to realize why. They need to pick their most solid 3 or 4 counts and present evidence only on those. By bringing SO many counts, if any were weak or the evidence on any was weak, then it likely tarnished their entire case. NO good prosecutor would bring that many counts in this case.

Posted by: dolph924 | August 17, 2010 7:15 PM

Lesson learned: As long as the AG remains a political appointee, justice will be politicized.
Justice politicized, is justice pulverized.

Posted by: mtpeaks | August 17, 2010 7:22 PM

I agree with MTPEAKS..we need to clean out the henhouse before we can expect anything close to justice. This man is the poster boy for Chicago dirty politics and his cohorts in the WH made sure he would be safe from penalty.

Posted by: chrissygleason | August 17, 2010 7:33 PM

Blago did nothing more than most politicians do every day. He is guilty of nothing. Fitzgerald thinks he is Elliot Ness. The money spent on this trial should have gone for school lunches. A complete and utter waste of time and money.

Posted by: chippersql | August 17, 2010 7:59 PM


Obama SOLD a Supreme Court seat to the Lie-beral Progressives.

That's MUCH WORSE than anything Blago was even accused of having done, and, Obama actually fulfilled his sale.

He is assured of unlimited riches post-Presidency, may that occur ASAP, via fees and other future engagements with the Left, instead of having selected the best qualified candidate.

Ultimately, it is the Public who are responsible for their descent into moral and economic poverty, having elected those who debauch the Constitution daily.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Posted by: notinvt | August 17, 2010 8:06 PM

This is nothing short of perversion of justice. This IL politician is but one more example of what the majority of Americans grind their teeth in frustration--and outrage--about. If we don't, via the majority of the voters, get a wholesale change in the way this country is operating then the Blagojevich's of this country are going to suck it dry of its heritage and status in the world. We just may have a front row seat in the process of making the United States irrelevant on the world stage. I'll vote--but I'll also be actively looking to relocate if his ilk remain in office.

Posted by: 65tarheel | August 17, 2010 8:16 PM

So how does the political justice system work?
Do they root out the most corrupt, as most would assume?
My experience from working five years on Capitol Hill is that the answer is: no.
They root out political enemies, those who are out of favor with the ruling regime.
It's an ugly game, with ugly consequences.

Posted by: mtpeaks | August 17, 2010 8:42 PM

They let him off so he didnt drag Obama into it !!

Posted by: yourmomscalling | August 17, 2010 8:43 PM

We have a system where overzealous law bending prosecutors are allowed to pad their resumes and raise their profiles by going after celebrities on trumped up charges and wasting taxpayer money. And it is a huge waste of your time to have to sit on a jury like this.

Posted by: jazbond007 | August 17, 2010 8:43 PM


Leave the guy alone. He made a political mistake and he has paid for it politically -- impeached and removed from office. Enough is enough. We can't turn political mistakes into crimes. It is offensively arrogant for the prosecution to insist on trying him for ever until they get a conviction. Is this the best way to use public fund in these very difficult times? Somebody should tell Fitzgerald that he has had his day in court and should respect the view of the jury. That is how our system works and until we get something better, we must continue to respect the views of a properly constituted jury.

Posted by: cyorji | August 17, 2010 9:43 PM

Whatever happened to the presumption of INNOCENCE until proven guilty?

From the start I believed that feds stopped this case WAY TOO EARLY. Why they did is worthy of investigation itself. If the Washington Post wants to be worthy of its reputation, it needs to get someone on THAT investigation TODAY.

Posted by: drossi2 | August 17, 2010 10:31 PM

OMG -- Yes, this is a stupid, biased poll with nonsensical options. Yes, they beleaguer the point. BUT -- every response that I've read (I admit I quit after about 30 -- couldn't stomach them) was also just marketing their own point of view. I'm afraid I'm throwing in the towel -- no one seems above any of this. What does it take for us to get together to solve problems. I think very few of us are committed to the real principals that founded this country. We seem only to be committed to hawking our particular point of view. With no one to make a choice based on reason. We're doomed.

Posted by: LJKingMT | August 17, 2010 11:25 PM

Good for the holdout! If the government can waste his time, he can certainly waste the government's too!

Posted by: antispy | August 17, 2010 11:37 PM

You cannot convict a person for being stupid and Blago was (is?) stupid.

And, talking like a fool is not illegal, as of now.

Perhaps to the jury, that is how the prosecution's case appeared.

Posted by: Chatelaine | August 17, 2010 11:46 PM

Blago should not be on trial. Of course he did everything he is charged with. But he is not very smart. This is an example of the "Circus ripe case" where the midget took advantage of the giant lady. For the midget and Blago, the question is, "Who put him up to it?"
When I lived in Chicago in the cold winter we used to walk on the frozen Chicago River. We could look through the ice and see the remains of people who had been scheduled to testify against Al Capone. Has Chicago politics changed that much?

Posted by: hurleyvision | August 18, 2010 12:52 AM

so he was convected , his partner in crime will pardon him at the end of his presidency , what a jock.

Posted by: nhelewa | August 18, 2010 1:42 AM

Response to:


So lying to the Feds is a crime. What about when the Feds lie to the people who elected them. Obama is a "Fed" and lies through his teeth every day. We are "Fed" up. How about prosecuting him?
When a politician lies to their constituents they say they misspoke.
I guess Blago misspoke?

Posted by: nychap44 |
-------------------
Dear nychap44,

Please learn to read accurately and respond to the question being asked. The question does not concern your feeligs about President Obama, it solely concerns the trial of Rod Blagojevich. Unfortunately, you got intoxicated on your hot air and are now in the never-never land of prosecuting President Obama. For what? I have not seen a single bit of evidence that President Obama is lying to the American public every day, but even if he were, that would not be a crime. You cannot prosecute a politician for not telling the truth to the public. You can vote against him or her---that's what elections are for. Federal prosecutions are for crimes. Blagojevich lied to federal prosecutors. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | August 18, 2010 2:45 AM

Response to :

"Obama SOLD a Supreme Court seat to the Lie-beral Progressives.

That's MUCH WORSE than anything Blago was even accused of having done, and, Obama actually fulfilled his sale."

Response: Let's see now, President Obama sold a Supreme Court seat to a coalition of Progressives. They bought the seat. Does that mean that all of them will try to sit down in that seat at the same time? This doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Ok, and where are the records for this sale? The credible news reports? Of course, they don't exist. You are making things up, or you are intentionally lying.

You are a perfect example of why the right-wing has to be kept out of power in this country. It has descended into sheer lunacy, its message propagated by unstable fanatics.


Posted by: GeorgeSanders | August 18, 2010 2:53 AM

the washingtonpost poll reads, "What do you think of the verdict in the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich?"

---------------

yet, the washington post has NOT POSTED the text of the trial.

LOL

so, the washy post wants your opinion before any facts are out.

gee.

this seems to be a common way for the washy post to work.

LOL

they work in a VACUUM from the entire world.

washy post says, "what?"

i say... "exactly!"

Posted by: SPYvsSPY | August 18, 2010 3:53 AM

The prosecutor didn't do his job - most of the politicians are guilty in some way or another and should be thrown in jail for at least theft and lying ....

Posted by: cmecyclist | August 18, 2010 3:57 AM

"Blago should not be on trial. Of course he did everything he is charged with. But he is not very smart.."

------------------

what?

blago is the one laughing all the way to the bank. he is now free to go do his reality television show.

barry obama was the one that is responsible for blagojevich to go free.. obama's rating are in the PITS.. and he didn't want any ties to blago.. even though there were MANY.

Posted by: SPYvsSPY | August 18, 2010 4:05 AM

This is normal Chicago politics...nothing REALLY WRONG with bringing indictments up against an innocent office holder, hey...that's Chicago. There was a Mayor, Jane Byrne...same deal... You know, I was at college in West Lafayette...boy, Chicago's a fast town and pretty near. If you know the neighborhood, you shouldn't be dismayed that his trial was cooked up. By whom? Oh, heck...anybody who wanted him out... Hey. "THAT'S CHICAGO"!

Posted by: j-seale | August 18, 2010 4:21 AM

This typifies what is wrong with the US today.

Guilty unless proved innocent.

Vote choice 1, 2 or 3 and, surprise, surprise the result is the same.

Perhaps when America is a couple of thousand years older there will be a few signs of maturity instead of most of the population behaving like six year-olds.

Perhaps.

Posted by: crlchild | August 18, 2010 4:45 AM

My understanding is that on at least some of the no-decision counts, there was only one holdout juror. Could be a number of reasons. Corruption: it's Chicago, after all, and the one conviction covers for the major fraud. Jury fixers know you need only one not-guilty vote holdout. Personal arrogance. A Blagojevich sycophant..... A number of possibilties, but one can't even speculate reasonably without having been there.

Posted by: stuck_in_Lodi | August 18, 2010 5:14 AM

Hey...Chicago jury - what did you expect?? Re-try and hope for a BETTER jury...blago whats-his-name is a typical lying, deceiving Chicago political thug...Where do you think obummer got his *Training Day*?? Eventually - What goes around...Comes around!!

Posted by: gombey100 | August 18, 2010 6:02 AM

@Dear nychap44...Blago's going inside to see Bubba...And Obummer is going down!! Won't be too long!!

Posted by: gombey100 | August 18, 2010 6:08 AM

RE: so he was convicted, his partner in crime will pardon him at the end of his presidency , what a jock....Ain't it just a GREAT system we have - one crook pardons another...ONLY in The USA!!!

Posted by: gombey100 | August 18, 2010 6:12 AM

Probably difficult to find twelve honest souls to fill a jury box, or twelve who can't be intimidated. It is Illinois, after all.

Posted by: Lilycat11 | August 18, 2010 7:02 AM

The only thing keeping us from becoming another Banana Republic is the right to a trial by jury.

It seems we want to put people in jail for having differing political ideas, and juriers aren't going for it.

Posted by: Cdgaman | August 18, 2010 7:16 AM

I wonder about the lone juror who held out? Is it possible that they got to him? 11 to 1 in favor of guilty seems pretty ominous to me.

Posted by: txengr | August 18, 2010 7:30 AM

WHAT THE?? How the hell do we know who did or did not do their job?? We weren't lawyers on the case or jurors in the case. Please stop posting these stupid polls.

Posted by: rusty6 | August 18, 2010 7:39 AM

How can anyone believe "the jury didn't do their job"? The jury just weighs the evidence and then follows the law in accordance with the judges instructions. The burden is on the prosecution and in this case the failure to call prosecution witnesses was probably the reason one or more jurors were not convinced (it takes a lot of proof to convince some people). Don't blame the jurors, they were just doing their civic duty as best they could.

Posted by: johnthebog | August 18, 2010 8:00 AM

Illinois and the Democrats that run it should be embarassed. They are proud to be crooks. And the people of Illinois continue to elect them to office. Blago dodged a bullet. And the Democrats should cleanse Illinois of all of this graft and corruption. If they don't then they should not expect the people of the United States to embrace them for National office.

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 18, 2010 8:00 AM

Given the track record in Chicago, the holdout of a single juror smells an awful lot like bribery lurking in the background. You can bet the feds will be crawling up every single orifice of the holdout until they find the money trail and add a charge of suborning a juror. Good luck, Blago - too bad they closed Alcatraz.

Posted by: jpost1 | August 18, 2010 8:02 AM

Uppity, little big mouth boys are united this morning! If it feels good...post it?

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | August 18, 2010 8:14 AM

For those of you who may be lawyers and actually know the facts of the case, you may be surprised to learn that the jury instructions in this case were 137 pages long. Blago's attempts to sell the senate seat were a total failure, so his lawyers crowed that he never made any money. The problem is that the jury couldn't understand that the ATTEMPT to sell the seat itself was a crime. Something the average juror, not being a lawyer, can't get his or her arms around.

As for the other charges: extorting the race track owner and the children's hospital executive, I read the phone transcripts and it was pretty clear that he committed extortion.

Scott Turow has an op ed in the NYT where he says that this verdict is jury nullification and shows that people really don't care about corruption. I disagree. Something went terribly wrong here.

The lawyers in the case will get permission to interview the jury and then we will get the answers. There are indications that one or more jurers just refused to vote one way or another.

Fitzpatrick didn't try this case, his underlings did. Maybe once they figure out how the jury messed up they will learn how to conduct the next case. This is Fitzpatrick's first big loss. He is one of the most straight up federal prosecutors in the country, with no political agenda. I am sure he will retry Blago.

Posted by: Afraid4USA | August 18, 2010 8:28 AM

The jury did the job the Mob paid them to do.The DOJ also did the job the Mob paid them to do.

Posted by: Imarkex | August 18, 2010 8:44 AM

Al Capone would be PROUD of those jurors.
Washington DC and Chicago continue fighting it out for NUMBER ONE in CORRUPTION.

Posted by: rdorff | August 18, 2010 8:46 AM

Even if one is guilty , our system demands that we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. The prosecution not only did not , it is obvious even to me that it was politically motivated. It is also obvious to me that he is not guilty of the only count for which he was convicted. It is also obvious to me that Fitzgerald is an expensive and inefficient lawyer. The jury should be commended for seeing the farce through so well. Our judicial system is deteriorating and we are increasingly compromising with our values: everyone is innocent unless proven guilty and everyone is entitled to a day in court. Everyone.

Posted by: acpress | August 18, 2010 8:52 AM

What do I think of the 23:1 verdict?

Not too surprising -- considering. "The Fix is in", might not be unique to Chicago (or even original. I believe 19th century New York holds that distinction) but it moved west with the waves of immigrants who created Chicago's foundation 1875-1920. Those people are long gone. But their way of doing business here -- how their Chicago worked then -- remains; an ineradicable part of its structure.

I live in Chicago. I have grown familiar with Chicago's ethnic politics, obscure to outsiders because it has its own logic and creates its own neologisms. Against this peculiar "us vs. them" mindset nothing that we take for granted as "Americans" applies, and no outsider need apply either. The Prohibition era gangster Al Capone became so difficult to bring down in no small measure because of this, and the same tensions that made Capone almost untouchable remain.

Some 2nd generation Serb-Americans I know feel so defensive about the "Blago" subject that they refuse to discuss it beyond describing it in terms of "victimization" (his, and by extension, theirs). Others, with more to lose should he start revealing facts about delicate subjects (to lighten his sentence), obviously took steps to make sure that a conviction didn't happen.

Posted by: hogsmile | August 18, 2010 9:04 AM

Our Jury system is a complete and utter joke. How do I know? Because I am one of the lucky professional jurors. I've sat on three trials in eight years and do you want to know what the single most important factor is in determining someone's guilt?

How soon they will get to go home. The longer a jury has been sequestered, the less likely they will be to seriously consider evidence. People are paid twenty five dollars per day to get ripped from busy lives. In my last forced obligation, I lost five thousand dollars in income sitting in on a BS case and wound up being the alternate to top it off.

Jury's are unreliable, bored, and stupid. They don't want to be there. They didn't even vote on 22 of the 24 counts. They wanted to go home.

Our jury system needs to be scrapped.

Posted by: burtonpaul | August 18, 2010 9:12 AM

I like the Scottish system, where a jury can render three verdict:

1)Proven Guilty.
2)Proven Innocent (no double jeopardy)
3)Not Proven Guilty (double jeopardy ONLY if new substantial evidence is discovered, as determined by an evidentiary hearing).

The Chicago jury could've gone for #3 if their doubts were high.


Posted by: OttoDog1 | August 18, 2010 9:34 AM

Until Mr. Fitzgerald starts indicting the Rahm Emanuels of the world, it's not surprising that some jurors will refuse to selectively enforce the laws.

Posted by: Itzajob | August 18, 2010 9:46 AM

With the tens of millions that the retrial will cost, at least SOMEONE will be WORKING.

Complete waste of money.

Posted by: pbnj | August 18, 2010 9:53 AM

Only thing worse than an Obama, Reid, Pelosi politicain nowadays is a child molester. In my plus 70 years of living, I would have never dreamed that I would see happening in this nation what we have now! We cannot survive!! It is not possible for any nation, so fraught with total, abject ignorance, to survive what we confront; blatent and absolute, widespread ignorance and apathy. Disgusting. I am not unhappy that I soon face death. Give me liberty ~ the founding Father's United States ~~ or give me death!! The creeps who are in control of this military industrial dictatorship are the most vile and corrupt of all humans on earth. Period.

Posted by: wilsonccjr | August 18, 2010 10:01 AM

BuckCameron01 wrote:

"Now, the worst response award goes to the guy signing himself teaparty patriot. But, maybe he's really just trying to make people think that all TPers are blithering idiots! Very tricky reverse psych!"

*****

I disagree. NoTinVT wins the award for most moronic weirdo on this site HANDS DOWN.

Posted by: chert | August 18, 2010 10:06 AM

A public 'vote' on whether a jury did well is ludicrous. We did not sit on the jury and did not participate in the apparently deeply thought out jury deliberative process. The jury responded, no doubt, to the facts as they were presented and the way the case was prosecuted.

Our 'reality TV' perceptions in which all are 'experts' and all input is equally valid degrades everything it touches. I guess the next target has become, even with its faults, one of the strengths of our country; that is, our jury based judicial system. I'd bet we can go a long way to further compromising and dragging that down as well.

And for all those posters who use every incident to write so absurdly and vindictively on how Obama is to blame for everything or anything they either don't like, can't accept or, simply, do not understand...take a little reality break and read something other than that which validates your own views. The novelty might be amusing.


Posted by: DrLou1 | August 18, 2010 10:24 AM

Wow, that sure sounds like an guilty man. Not "I didn't do anything wrong," Blagojevich said, "They could not prove I did anything wrong."

Posted by: paul6554 | August 18, 2010 10:33 AM

I don't want our tax dollars spent any more on this case. This is overkill and unfair prosecution of a kooky politician. I don't get the values displayed by Fitzgerald: destroy Blago, for trying to commit fraud and failing to commit the crime - which the jury saw - every time, or let Cheney and Rove go, when their offenses clearly harmed the country.

Your poll should have this choice: was there a case to begin with and is this a waste of tax dollars?

Posted by: eeave | August 18, 2010 10:56 AM

Another corrupt democrat hiding in the most corrupt state in America.

Posted by: triedofdems | August 18, 2010 11:08 AM

At least the poll could have included a fourth option: "I do not know". But that wouldn't bring out all the nuts voicing opinions as if they were present, viewed all the evidence, and had politically unbiased "opinions". Silly poll with little actual value.

Posted by: clairevb | August 18, 2010 11:17 AM

One juror of the 12 held out against conviction on the other counts. One. I think we'd all love to know why she did.

Posted by: emacco | August 18, 2010 11:24 AM

What nonsense, Bag-of-spit started his criminal activity as soon as Obama was nominated for POTUS and the bush administration did nothing ... end of story.
The entire trial was an attempt to embarrass Obama before he was even elected.
Some ole republican dirty politics.

Start investigating the lies which led up to 9-11, letting OBL escape Tora Bora, Billions paid to Musharraf in NUCLEAR Pakistan, Iraq invasion, BILLIONS unaccounted for in Iraq, Humvee's without armor, troops without armor vests ... Blago was another republican diversion to cover up for cheney/bush.

Posted by: knjincvc | August 18, 2010 11:24 AM

What do you mean, WHAT DO I THINK OF THE VERDICT? Are we going to have propositions and vote on jury verdicts now?
The guy is innocent on the other 23 counts until he is convicted,...
Posted by: pfuidear
****************************************************
WRONG, pfuidear! He must be PRESUMED (look it up) innocent. He can be guilty as sin despite one juror holding out against all evidence to the contrary. Just because he has not been convicted yet doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes.

Posted by: lgaide | August 18, 2010 11:32 AM

Not being present in the courtroom makes comment superfluous, as clairevb notes. Nonetheless, my inclination is to say that even the conviction on one count is dubious. The jury, I think, realized the significance of the trial and could not bring themselves to give Blagojevich a white-wash.

As to blaming the jury's decision on politics, get real. Judge James Zagel's comments might be of some interest, however. I do not find that he made any post-trial comments, either in the Chicago TRIBUNE or on the web.

Posted by: mini2 | August 18, 2010 11:32 AM

I don't blame the jury at all. The laws can have very specific definitions as to what actions qualify for what charges. Lying was something that very obvious to decipher. But the rest of those charges could be very open to interpretation. Either the prosecution didn't explain the laws very well or the defense did a heck of a job explaining the law and how Blago didn't quite step over the line.

Posted by: forgetthis | August 18, 2010 11:38 AM

There seems to be two "blithering idiots" commenting today: NOTINVT & Teaparty Patriot... Jeez people, what is wrong with you?

Posted by: MaxInJax | August 18, 2010 11:38 AM

Another corrupt democrat hiding in the most corrupt state in America.

POSTED BY: TRIEDOFDEMS | AUGUST 18, 2010 11:08 AM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Use nevah hoid a New Joisey or Vode Islan?

Posted by: mini2 | August 18, 2010 11:40 AM

like the Scottish system, where a jury can render three verdict:
1)Proven Guilty.
2)Proven Innocent (no double jeopardy)
3)Not Proven Guilty (double jeopardy ONLY if new substantial evidence is discovered, as determined by an evidentiary hearing).
The Chicago jury could've gone for #3 if their doubts were high.
Posted by: OttoDog1
***************************************************
Their doubts were NOT high, 11 of the 12 jurors voted to convict on all of the counts. One lone juror, held out for not guilty despite all of the evidence.

Posted by: lgaide | August 18, 2010 11:41 AM

Well, we knew he lied so that one was a slam dunk. It would be interesting to know how the jury was divided on the other counts...
Posted by: pjohn2
*********************************************************
The Jury was split 11-1 on ALL of the undecided counts. The same juror adamantly blocked a guilty verdict on all of the other counts. It makes me wonder why she, alone, didn't think there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Or did the evidence matter at all in making her decision?

Posted by: lgaide | August 18, 2010 11:49 AM

The vast majority of these comments make it obvious that most of these people haven't read any reports of the jury deliberations. The jury was not undecided on all of the other counts. It is not that they didn't understand the law or the facts. 11 or the 12 jurors voted to convict on ALL of the counts. It was one holdout who, for unknown reasons, refused to acknowledge the evidence against Blago.

Posted by: lgaide | August 18, 2010 11:54 AM

I think the whole business is being played upon as a huge DIVERSION of attention and energies that really SHOULD be directed toward the really SUBSTANTIVE problems of this society.

"We" have a WHOLE ENERGY-DIET PARADIGM CHANGEOVER to embrace and ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT. That is already, and will CONTINUE to be, a HUGE disruption to much of "our" entire Economy. Folks need to actually GET BUSY DOING THINGS THAT ARE GENUINELY USEFUL instead of vicariously fixating on the likes of THIS bird!

Posted by: BirdsAbound | August 18, 2010 12:16 PM

Maxinjax wrote:
"There seems to be two "blithering idiots" commenting today: NOTINVT & Teaparty Patriot... Jeez people, what is wrong with you?"

I agree, and would add to that TRIEDOFDEMS, who is apparently too stupid to even spell his handle correctly.

Posted by: Pamsm | August 18, 2010 12:55 PM

A harsh judgement, but since has been done before in Chicago, it looks like someone got to that one juror. And even fixed it so that she would allow a vote on a single count, thinking -- erroneously -- that the one conviction would mean no re-trial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The prosecutors ought to move for a change of venue. Blagojevitch won't fare so well elsewhere in Illinois....

Posted by: JPMcC | August 18, 2010 5:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company