That was my professor last semester. AWESOME prof.

Is conspiracy no longer illegal?

Submitter fails as this article is in reference to Jesse Jackson Jr. not Bagodicks.

When this broke I told my wife that it is probably legal to sell a senate seat, often my crackpot theories pan out and yes you may subscribe to my newsletter

El_Frijole_Blanco: When this broke I told my wife that it is probably legal to sell a senate seat, often my crackpot theories pan out and yes you may subscribe to my newsletter

The damning evidence is the fact that Blago was discussing what he could get in exchange for the appointment. Without that tidbit, unless they have him on tape specifically telling a candidate or their representative "You give me X, and I'll appoint you", it's hard to prove there was an actual bribe, and not just one Democrat helping another.

I was looking at this too, and I'm concerned as well. At worst, they appear to have a good case for conspiracy, but otherwise I'm concerned that a bribery or solicitation charge won't stick.

Can he still be impeached regardless?

Being Famous Sucks: Is conspiracy no longer illegal?

Submitter fails as this article is in reference to Jesse Jackson Jr. not Bagodicks.

Depends. Conspiracy to share a sandwich with someone is a conspiracy to commit a perfectly legal act. And subby doesn't fail as part of it has to do with soliciting campaign contributions, which appears to be ok.

The transcripts show a lot of blustering and tough talk, but it doesn't have a smoking gun of evidence where he said, "Give me x dollars and the seat is yours." So it's going to be a tough case to prosecute.

This is something I've been wondering as well. I think Volokh puts it particularly well in the piece linked to:

But my sense is that political deals of the "I appoint your political ally to X and you appoint me to Y" variety are pretty commonplace, though perhaps done with more subtlety than seemed to be contemplated here. Should these deals indeed be treated as criminal bribery? Have they generally been so treated?

Surely politics lives on precisely this kind of deal (you scratch my back, I scratch yours). I can see that a "gimme $500,000 and the seat is yours" deal would be pretty easy to prosecute, but a "hey, I'm very interested in your suggestion that so-and-so should succeed you in your seat; on an unrelated matter, would you be interested in appointing me to be your Secretary of Getting A Big Salary?" deal? I can't see how that sticks. I particularly can't see how it sticks unless someone from Obama's camp is willing to testify to the exact wording of Blago's (or Blago's minions') statements.

Lando Lincoln: The transcripts show a lot of blustering and tough talk, but it doesn't have a smoking gun of evidence where he said, "Give me x dollars and the seat is yours." So it's going to be a tough case to prosecute.

A lot of people are mistaking what Blago was willing to say to his aides with what he might have been willing to say to Obama or the potential Senate aspirants. In fact if you look at the wiretaps in more detail, you'll see that Blago is very clear about not making any "quid pro quo" statements, and not linking the seat to any specific reward. I've got a feeling that this part of the indictment may well disappear before this case ever gets to court.

Which, in a way, is a pity, because the nutjob righties will claim until their dying day that it got "buried" by people covering up for Obama.

Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

DeltaXi65: I was looking at this too, and I'm concerned as well. At worst, they appear to have a good case for conspiracy, but otherwise I'm concerned that a bribery or solicitation charge won't stick.


I havent read the complaint, but a lot of the now infamous quotes aren't direct evidence of solicitation. saying something like "this thing is valuable and i'm going to get something for it" is certainly repulsive, but the abstract desire for something is quite different than actually asking for it.

Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

The legal question at stake doesn't really hinge on the transaction taking place. That is, if the action isn't criminal in the first place, it hardly matters whether or not it has taken place.

Snot Monster from Outer Space: Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

The legal question at stake doesn't really hinge on the transaction taking place. That is, if the action isn't criminal in the first place, it hardly matters whether or not it has taken place.

When there is a clear cut conspiracy, absolutely correct. If the quid pro quo is only implied, and nothing concrete is assured beforehand, then perhaps the only way to prove the corruption is to let the transaction go forward.

Nabb1: Snot Monster from Outer Space: Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

The legal question at stake doesn't really hinge on the transaction taking place. That is, if the action isn't criminal in the first place, it hardly matters whether or not it has taken place.

When there is a clear cut conspiracy, absolutely correct. If the quid pro quo is only implied, and nothing concrete is assured beforehand, then perhaps the only way to prove the corruption is to let the transaction go forward.

I think you're missing the point: or, at least, conflating two separate points.

On the one hand there are some acts described in the indictment that are almost certainly crimes (such as selling the office for a straight cash payment). So it may be that if Fitzgerald had let this drag on a little longer he might have been able to catch someone handing over a briefcase full of cash.

On the other hand, though, there are some acts that are detailed in the indictment as crimes which it isn't clear are in fact crimes at all. That is, in my view, the question that the linked article is really interested in. Would it actually be a crime for Obama to name Blago to some administrative position as a reward for Blago installing an Obama loyalist into his senate seat?

I'm not saying that this would have been a "good thing" (and it's clear that Obama wanted no part of any such a deal). What I'm interested in is the question of whether such a transaction would ever be prosecutable in a court of law? If so, surely every President's administration (Democrat or Republican) has participated in corruption. People are always being appointed as "Undersecretary of This" or "Ambassador to That" as a reward for some act of political support or other (fundraising, helping push through some key initiative etc. etc.). This practice only ever becomes controversial if the person receiving the appointment is considered incompetent for the position, but it has never, to my knowledge, resulted in a charge of bribery.

I just don't see how such a case could be made to stick unless you had someone in Obama's camp willing to say "he came to us and said, give me the position of so-and-so, and I'll appoint your pick, otherwise, I'll appoint someone else." And the transcripts we have make it very clear that he had no intention of saying anything that direct.

Corruption and conspiracy aside, he should spend 10 years in Federal PMITA prison for that haircut.

Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

I read that they had to move in now because the Chicago Tribune had compromised the existence of the wiretaps and bugs. (Can't find the link, but IIRC it was from Brian Ross at ABC).

Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

I can't think of any circumstances that would have pushed him to act sooner than he would have wanted to.

Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

and how do you get rid of the new appointed obviously corrupt US senator?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corruption and conspiracy aside, he should spend 10 years in Federal PMITA prison for that haircut.

He's also a big fan of Elvis. That alone should earn him an extra 10 years.

Kanemano: Nabb1: Interesting. Perhaps Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon, but why do that? If you think he's really going to sell the Senate seat, wait for the crime to actually happen. Otherwise, you're just asking for the prosecution to fail.

and how do you get rid of the new appointed obviously corrupt US senator?

elect them president?

Um, since when is it illegal in American politics for sitting representatives to sell anything to the highest bidder? If the system wasn't set up that way, then what would happen is that the will of the collectively citizenry would come to pass, meaning that all of our votes mattered. And I don't think anybody wants that.


This is a non-story, nothing more than manufactured outrage over conspiracy and bribery, which are most certainly not illegal activities within the government. The charges will likely be dropped by lunchtime tomorrow.

Maybe I missed something...

Is anybody actually DEFENDING Blagojevich, here?

lunchinlewis: I can't think of any circumstances that would have pushed him to act sooner than he would have wanted to.

To prevent the appointment.

Being Famous Sucks: Is conspiracy no longer illegal?

In America there is no such thing as a conspiracy and any such talk is a crazy conspiracy theory. This is business and nothing more. Russia however is infested with illegal conspiracies. maybe China now too!

bartink: To prevent the appointment.

I thought Fitzgerald specifically said this was the reason.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Maybe I missed something...

Is anybody actually DEFENDING Blagojevich, here?

Rocky. (pop)

Lando Lincoln: The transcripts show a lot of blustering and tough talk, but it doesn't have a smoking gun of evidence where he said, "Give me x dollars and the seat is yours." So it's going to be a tough case to prosecute.

I agree.

Honestly, this kind of stuff is commonplace. It usually isn't so blatantly quid pro quo.

But the guy's at least got an argument that his statements were just bluster, since none of them seem to be directed *at* the would-be recipients of the offer.

It will be an interesting case to watch.

So, somebody explain to me at what point in the following sequence a crime has been committed, and under what statute.

I'm a Governor.

A senator in my state has just resigned his seat.

I say to my aides "If the President-Elect would nominate me his Secretary of Getting Paid, I'd be happy to appoint his favorite as successor, but not otherwise!"

I say to the President-Elect's representative: "Hey, I hear that the P-E wants so-and-so as a successor. Well, I'll definitely consider that option. By the way, has the President picked a Secretary of Getting Paid yet? You know, that's a position I'd really be interested in filling."

Snot Monster from Outer Space: Which, in a way, is a pity, because the nutjob righties will claim until their dying day that it got "buried" by people covering up for Obama.

Then again, since they're going to scream and cry either way does it really matter whether they're even close to having a valid concern or not ?

Sorry, but crying wolf every time the neighbor's poodle barks can build your reputation for you ... like it or not.

Rann Xerox: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corruption and conspiracy aside, he should spend 10 years in Federal PMITA prison for that haircut.

He's also a big fan of Elvis. That alone should earn him an extra 10 years.

Man, that's a farking wig:

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Maybe I missed something...

Is anybody actually DEFENDING Blagojevich, here?

Everyone has a right to a legal defense.

DamnYankees: Everyone has a right to a legal defense.

Yep, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. So he gets to stay in office and retain all of his duties unless and until there is a conviction?

lunchinlewis: DamnYankees: Everyone has a right to a legal defense.

Yep, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. So he gets to stay in office and retain all of his duties unless and until there is a conviction?

Why wouldn't he? Seems horribly unfair for someone to lose their job because they are merely accused of something.

Now, if you know you are guilty and have even an ounce of dignity, you should resign. But I doubt that will happen here.

DamnYankees: Why wouldn't he? Seems horribly unfair for someone to lose their job because they are merely accused of something.

Not disagreeing, just stepping this along to the next logical conclusions.

I predict this episodes ends dramatically over the weekend, or next week is going to become very very nasty.

Snot Monster from Outer Space: So, somebody explain to me at what point in the following sequence a crime has been committed, and under what statute.

I'm a Governor.

A senator in my state has just resigned his seat.

1. I say to my aides "If the President-Elect would nominate me his Secretary of Getting Paid, I'd be happy to appoint his favorite as successor, but not otherwise!"

2. I say to the President-Elect's representative: "Hey, I hear that the P-E wants so-and-so as a successor. Well, I'll definitely consider that option. By the way, has the President picked a Secretary of Getting Paid yet? You know, that's a position I'd really be interested in filling."

That's a tough one, and I don't think you can answer it the way you framed it.
The answer might be that both 1. and 2. have to happen for it to be a crime, but maybe not.

If my best friend and I talk about how much I hate my wife and that I plan to have her killed and I want him to help me, everyone would say "Conspiracy to commit murder", even if I later decided not to follow through.

If my best friend and I plan an evening of driving around town and egging houses, nobody would claim that's a crime. Legally however, it seems that's a cut and dry case of conspiracy to commit vandalism, even if later we decided not to do it.

What I'm saying is 1. is a crime, even if what he does in 2. is not criminal, or even if he called off the plan altogether.
Am I wrong here?

DamnYankees: lunchinlewis: DamnYankees: Everyone has a right to a legal defense.

Yep, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. So he gets to stay in office and retain all of his duties unless and until there is a conviction?

Why wouldn't he? Seems horribly unfair for someone to lose their job because they are merely accused of something.

Now, if you know you are guilty and have even an ounce of dignity, you should resign. But I doubt that will happen here.

Even before all this, he had virtually no support from anyone outside his administration. He had an approval rating of 4%. I would imagine that it is even lower now.

Part of his job is to work with other politicians. No one will want to work with him now. Because of this scandal, he is unable to perform his job. He should resign. But he probably won't.

Chuck Wagon: Even before all this, he had virtually no support from anyone outside his administration. He had an approval rating of 4%. I would imagine that it is even lower now.

Part of his job is to work with other politicians. No one will want to work with him now. Because of this scandal, he is unable to perform his job. He should resign. But he probably won't.

How the hell does a guy so hated win not only an election, but a re-election? How do you even win a primary?

lunchinlewis: Yep, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. So he gets to stay in office and retain all of his duties unless and until there is a conviction?

I think that would depend on whether Illinois has a recall mechanism, and/or what the standards for impeachment are under the state constitution. For better or worse, the law tends to tread carefully around political questions.

So he's basically going with the Nixon Defence here?

1. I didn't do it!
2. Nobody saw me!!
3. You can't prove a farking thing!!!

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable: Snot Monster from Outer Space: So, somebody explain to me at what point in the following sequence a crime has been committed, and under what statute.

I'm a Governor.

A senator in my state has just resigned his seat.

1. I say to my aides "If the President-Elect would nominate me his Secretary of Getting Paid, I'd be happy to appoint his favorite as successor, but not otherwise!"

2. I say to the President-Elect's representative: "Hey, I hear that the P-E wants so-and-so as a successor. Well, I'll definitely consider that option. By the way, has the President picked a Secretary of Getting Paid yet? You know, that's a position I'd really be interested in filling."

That's a tough one, and I don't think you can answer it the way you framed it.
The answer might be that both 1. and 2. have to happen for it to be a crime, but maybe not.

If my best friend and I talk about how much I hate my wife and that I plan to have her killed and I want him to help me, everyone would say "Conspiracy to commit murder", even if I later decided not to follow through.

If my best friend and I plan an evening of driving around town and egging houses, nobody would claim that's a crime. Legally however, it seems that's a cut and dry case of conspiracy to commit vandalism, even if later we decided not to do it.

What I'm saying is 1. is a crime, even if what he does in 2. is not criminal, or even if he called off the plan altogether.
Am I wrong here?

I don't think "1" is a crime, is it? I mean, you and a friend making a plan to kill your wife is one thing, but you saying to your friend "jeez, I wish someone would just kill my wife" is not a crime.

In step #1, Blago is just listing the circumstances under which he'd take a certain action (an action that is entirely at his discretion). Now, you and I may not like the idea that basis on which he'd decide who to appoint is whether or not someone gives him something, but I can't see that there's any legal opposition to him choosing those grounds (he could also say "I'll give it to the girl with the biggest tits" if he wants).

Step #2 is not a crime, it seems to me, even in the light of step #1, because he does not make the quid dependent on the quo. I think it's almost certainly a crime for him to say "If you make me Sec of Gettin' Paid, then and only then will I make the appointment you want"--but we know from the transcripts that he had no intention of saying anything so direct, and unless he was a complete and utter moron, why would he? Surely there's no law against him asking if Obama will appoint him to a given post, is there? Nor can there be a law against him delaying the decision to appoint a successor until after such time as Obama has indicated whether or not he's interested in appointing him to a certain post.

So...again: where's the crime?

(P.S. I want to make it clear that I think Blago's a creep who ought to be behind bars. I'm also pretty sure that the "pay to play" aspects of the scandal will stand up in court. It's only the specific part of the indictment that has to do with getting appointed to a certain position that I find hard to imagine standing up in court--no matter how sleazy the maneuvering may be).

czetie: So he's basically going with the Nixon Defence here?

1. I didn't do it!
2. Nobody saw me!!
3. You can't prove a farking thing!!!

Bart Simpson has also had good luck with this defense.

Seems Brock's memory isn't so good?

He said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But this story says different.

vonster: Seems Brock's memory isn't so good?

He said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But this story says different.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 4:04 p.m.

KHQA TV wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last month on our website ConnectTristates.com. The story, which discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama'in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk radio and on blog sites Wednesday.

The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place. Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on that date.


Debunked story is debunked.

czetie: So he's basically going with the Nixon Defence here?

1. I didn't do it!
2. Nobody saw me!!
3. You can't prove a farking thing!!!

No. It's in fact the exact opposite of this.

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable: Legally however, it seems that's a cut and dry case of conspiracy to commit vandalism, even if later we decided not to do it. Am I wrong here?

Legally, I believe you are wrong. For criminal conspiracy charges to stick, a crime must be attempted. The reason why murder conspiracies can be prosecuted, even if abandoned, is that unlike with most crimes, it is a crime to even plan a murder. Not so with vandalism.

It gets worse with politics, because there is such a long history of misuse of criminal statues for what are essentially political disagreements. Both the left ("jail Bush") and the right ("jail Clinton") have tendencies in this direction, but the courts know that left unchecked, this quickly leads to tyranny. So the "I'll appoint your boy to Senate if you appoint my boy to [position]" is almost certainly legal, even if "my boy" happens to be me.

Sleazy? Well, yes. But that's political hardball in the real world. It makes me even more impressed that Obama wasn't interested. In fact, as an ex-Republican, I'm worried that our new President may be a little too idealistic, too weak. But I could be misjudging him, as Hillary did, for instance.

DamnYankees: Chuck Wagon: Even before all this, he had virtually no support from anyone outside his administration. He had an approval rating of 4%. I would imagine that it is even lower now.

Part of his job is to work with other politicians. No one will want to work with him now. Because of this scandal, he is unable to perform his job. He should resign. But he probably won't.

How the hell does a guy so hated win not only an election, but a re-election? How do you even win a primary?

As difficult as it may be to believe, his opponent for the office was actually worse, from what I've been given to understand.

DamnYankees: Chuck Wagon: Even before all this, he had virtually no support from anyone outside his administration. He had an approval rating of 4%. I would imagine that it is even lower now.

Part of his job is to work with other politicians. No one will want to work with him now. Because of this scandal, he is unable to perform his job. He should resign. But he probably won't.

How the hell does a guy so hated win not only an election, but a re-election? How do you even win a primary?

The first election he won because the previous Republican governor was corrupt. George Ryan was eventually convicted on corruption charges. Blago was running against Jim Ryan in the general election. Even though Jim Ryan and George Ryan were not related, it's entirely possible that many voters confused the two.

The Republican Party in Illinois was, and still is, in shambles. The entire Jack Ryan debacle, no relation to the other 2 Ryans, proves it. Jack Ryan was running in the senate against Obama, the scandal came out with his ex wife and he was pulled from the ticket. The strange thing is the scandal did not have much of an impact on the poll numbers, but republican leadership didn't like him. So they decided to replace Jack Ryan with Alan Keyes. That didn't work out so good.

Blago won his re-election against Judy Barr Topinka. She was the head of the Illinois Republican Party. She was state treasurer for many years. Since 2002, she has been the only Republican to hold a state wide office in Illinois. Since 2005 when she stepped down as treasurer, there have been no republicans in state wide offices.

flavor of the month: I havent read the complaint, but a lot of the now infamous quotes aren't direct evidence of solicitation. saying something like "this thing is valuable and i'm going to get something for it" is certainly repulsive, but the abstract desire for something is quite different than actually asking for it.

Even if I assume the something is hookers and blow I can't prove that in court he could have meant that he expects to get an honorable senator who will follow the wishes of the citizens of Illinois.

damn it those monkeys went and flew out my but again

Mr.Insightful: Simplest Quantum System Conceivable: Legally however, it seems that's a cut and dry case of conspiracy to commit vandalism, even if later we decided not to do it. Am I wrong here?

Legally, I believe you are wrong. For criminal conspiracy charges to stick, a crime must be attempted. The reason why murder conspiracies can be prosecuted, even if abandoned, is that unlike with most crimes, it is a crime to even plan a murder. Not so with vandalism.

It gets worse with politics, because there is such a long history of misuse of criminal statues for what are essentially political disagreements. Both the left ("jail Bush") and the right ("jail Clinton") have tendencies in this direction, but the courts know that left unchecked, this quickly leads to tyranny. So the "I'll appoint your boy to Senate if you appoint my boy to [position]" is almost certainly legal, even if "my boy" happens to be me.

Sleazy? Well, yes. But that's political hardball in the real world. It makes me even more impressed that Obama wasn't interested. In fact, as an ex-Republican, I'm worried that our new President may be a little too idealistic, too weak. But I could be misjudging him, as Hillary did, for instance.

If you're right (and I suspect you are--obviously) then the followup question would be: "why is this even on the indictment"? Is the idea for this to be a bargaining chip at some stage? "O.K., we'll drop this charge if you'll cop a plea to that charge"? It just seems like such weak sauce.