Is it now in Donald, he Trusts, for Rod?

What a surprise – the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday let it be known it was not inclined to do anything with regards to the case of former governor Rod Blagojevich.

BLAGOJEVICH: Hair color long gone

The governor (a.k.a., inmate no. 40892-424), who is roughly half-way through the prison sentence he’s now serving at a federal facility in Colorado, had hoped the Supreme Court would consider his legal argument that federal judges in Chicago judged him too harshly.

IN HIS WILDEST fantasies, I’m sure they would have given him a prison term so short that it could be said he had already served his time. He’d be going back home to his wife and daughters immediately.

But no, the Supreme Court seems to believe there are no great legal questions that need to be decided in the Blagojevich Affair. Meaning there’s no reason for them to do anything at all.

Which also means that Blagojevich’s 14-year prison term remains in place. That’s the one that (if he qualifies for all the good behavior provisions for early release) would have him out in May 2024.

Just over six years from now. Blagojevich (the governor whose criminal behavior seems to be that he expected to be rewarded for his actions – particularly for the appointment he was entitled to make when Barack Obama gave up his U.S. Senate seat in 2008 to become president) will be free.

CONSIDERING THAT HE’S already served just over six years in prison, it could be said it’s just a matter of time – that the worst of things is over.

Although during those past six years, Blagojevich was clinging to hope that the courts would “see the error of their ways,” so to speak, and give him some ruling that he’d claim to be vindication. Now, he’s going to have to go through the next six years thinking of himself as “just another criminal.”

For it seems the number of legal appeals possible for Blagojevich have run out. Unless he could come up with some new, and previously unknown, evidence, there’s no reason for a judge to consider his case again.

TRUMP: Rod's last-ditch hope for sympathy

And even if he did, the argument most likely would be made that it’s too late; he should have said something earlier in the process.

LITERALLY, ABOUT THE only option for Blagojevich is some form of federal clemency from none other than the president himself.

Considering how erratic the behavior and thought process of Donald J. Trump is on so many issues, there’s certainly no guarantee that he’d be inclined to even consider acting on any measure related to Blagojevich.

I’m also sure that even if Trump were to think of any kind of pardon, it probably would be used to discredit the president. It would be regarded as being amongst his most stupid of actions – and this is a man who during first 16 months of his presidency has made many lunatic decisions. Bottom line? Anybody who needs to rely on Trump for a favor is truly desperate.

Now it’s always possible that a future president could grant some sort of action favorable to Blagojevich. Although that likely would come someday after his release from prison. There’s likely nothing left to be done to get him out of prison early.

DESPITE THIS ATTITUDE, I have to admit it disgusts me the level to which certain people seem compelled to demonize Blagojevich – who during his time as a public official in Illinois was more a goofball than a truly corrupt figure.

Disgusting? Or ha ha-type funny?

In particular, I can’t help but agree with one-time First Lady Patti Blagojevich, who called “disgusting” what I’m sure Gov. Bruce Rauner thinks is a joke (as in, funny, “ha ha”) the filter he paid to have created on SnapChat.

One that allows people to put a comical version of Blagojevich’s now-history coif of hair on a picture of themselves – along with a placard depicting Rod’s federal inmate number.

Maybe the people inclined to rant and rage that Rod Blagojevich was shown too much mercy by the courts will think it funny. Perhaps they’d also like to see an image with a dunce cap superimposed on the current governor?

rod  -30-

How will the Blagojevich tale end?

It will be interesting to see just how seriously the federal appeals court based in Chicago takes the latest argument made by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich – who desperately wants that 14-year prison sentence he’s serving changed to something he considers more reasonable.
 

BLAGOJEVICH: 7 more years?

Perhaps something like time served?

ATTORNEYS FOR BLAGOJEVICH were at the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, spending about a half-hour arguing why U.S. District Judge James Zagel was wrong when he re-sentenced the former governor to the same prison term that he had originally received when found guilty of various crimes.

Admittedly, the court that found some of the charges he was found guilty of to be improper, but also said that those charges were lesser enough that they didn’t automatically ensure a lesser prison sentence.

That caused Zagel to hand down the same sentence, despite the many letters and statements that Blagojevich’s attorneys had presented to make an argument that the former governor is actually a model inmate at the federal corrections facility in Colorado where he has been held since 2012.

Zagel at the time made a point of saying he disregarded what those people thought about Blagojevich’s conduct while in prison because they did not know him back when he was Illinois’ governor and held a position of power that required people to trust his judgment and conduct.

BLAGOJEVICH’S ATTORNEYS ARGUED on Tuesday that Zagel ought to be required to take those people (many of whom are inmates who have had contact with Blagojevich during his incarceration) and their thoughts into account.

“Judge Zagel dismissed it in effect as being irrelevant,” attorney Michael Nash argued before the appeals court. “It is an important factor that should have been considered. The judge dismissed it out of hand.”

I’m not sure how eager the appeals court will be to decide on what amounts to a judgment call on the part of the trial judge.

ZAGEL: Judging the judge's ruling

Because part of what his job includes is to decide what information that comes up during a trial is relevant, and what is not. In some cases, it is his task to keep lesser details from being blown out of proportion, and irrelevant facts from swaying a verdict one way or the other.

I CAN APPRECIATE why attorneys for Blagojevich are eager to have people say nice things about the man; particularly since here in the outside world – and particularly in that political universe known as Chicagoland – the only talk we hear about the man is negative.

Creating the image of a man who no longer poses a threat to our society, or our political structure, is key to making an argument that the five years Blagojevich already has served in prison is sufficient.

Which, if you want to be totally honest, is more time than most people who get politically-connected criminal convictions wind up getting.

If it were just about anybody else, particularly someone with a less-bloated ego than our former governor had, he’d have got the 18 months at a minimum-security facility and he’d be well on his way to turning into a “Whatever became of …” story.

INSTEAD, BLAGOJEVICH SEEMS determined to live on in our mindset at least until that May 2024 date on which he qualifies for early release – provided he really remains as well-behaved an inmate as his attorneys contend he is.

That means several more appearances in coming years by former first lady Patti trying to claim that her man deserves to be free – does she think she’s becoming Winnie Mandela, who spent those decades her activist husband Nelson was in jail traveling the world to argue for his cause?

PATTI: Speaking out for husband

Calling him an “eternal optimist,” Patti Blagojevich on Tuesday told reporter-types of her husband, “he’s always hoping this is going to come out the way it needs to come out.”

The sad thing is I could see where if THAT outcome were to become reality, it would be the nightmare for many of us in society who wish it were possible that we could just quit paying attention to the Illinois political nonsense of those year that is only topped by the state fiscal stupidity of the current era.

  -30-

Same day voter registration now a back-and-forth politically-partisan battle

We, the electorate of Chicago and the rest of what comprises Illinois, are about to become the political equivalent of a yo-yo.

This 'judge' might make a more sensible ruling than the real ones have done

Up-and-down. Back-and-forth. Some lawyer types may even try to do “tricks” with us for their own legal amusement. While political activist types will guide them for their own partisan benefit.

I’M NOT ABOUT to predict how this will all turn out. For all I know, the situation may change dramatically between the time I write this commentary and the point in time that you actually read it.

What will be the end result on Election Day? You’d have a better chance of placing a safe bet on whether or not the Chicago Cubs can actually make it all the way through the multiple rounds of playoffs to even get to the World Series – let alone win it!

What’s at stake are the laws in Illinois that literally allow someone to just show up at a polling place on Election Day and fill out a form to register to vote that very day.

No more of this having to make sure you’re registered in advance (Tuesday will be the deadline, if the courts ultimately say so) if you have hopes of being able to vote for your pick for president and other political posts.

THE GENERAL RULE of thumb is that Republicans hate these kinds of measures. They spew a batch of rhetoric about how they encourage voter fraud, but the reality is that they don’t want a lot of people casting votes if they’re not the type to be motivated.

I remember back to when I was a Statehouse correspondent in Springfield, one time then-Senate President “Pate” Philip engaged in a rant about “motor voter” (the measure that allowed people to register to vote when they renewed their driver’s licenses).

He said that registering to vote is a simple matter of visiting your neighborhood village clerk, and he didn’t understand why people should feel a need to accommodate those would-be voters who couldn’t be bothered to make that one trip to Village Hall.

What 'tricks' will lawyers try on same-day registration issue?

Actually, I kind of agree with Pate on that point. But the degree to which some people are willing to fight this is appalling. Because it makes it clear they only want certain people to even be able to vote.

THE COURT BATTLE we’re now enduring is one in which a federal court judge from downstate Illinois was found to strike down the same-day voter registration measure, which does not exist in all 102 counties of Illinois.

Many rural counties that operate on a small scale say it would be too much of a hassle for them to have to permit same-day registration. Which was then used as an argument to say that same-day registration discriminates against rural voters!

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals based in Chicago overruled that lower-court judge. Meaning that as I write this, you will be able to show up at the polling place on Election Day and cast a ballot that will be counted – even if you’ve been too lazy to register yourself to vote.

But I don’t doubt there will be a back-and-forth as someone is bound to try to find a judge to overturn the appeals court. This has the potential to wind up before the Supreme Court.

THE ONLY TRICK is whether there will be enough time for the high court to rule before Nov. 8, and which side will have the final say. Just like how there always are certain candidates whose ballot spots are being challenged in the courts – and we don’t know until Election Day proper whether a vote for them will be legitimate, or the equivalent of one cast for “Mickey Mouse” or “Lara Croft.”

Because if the “final” say is that same day registration is wrong and the Supreme Court comes in and rules after Election Day that it is proper, the effective result is a victory for those who want to cut off certain types of people from voting.

In my own case, I had to change my voter registration this year. I moved recently, although only to a temporary residence. I expect to be doing another move in the near future.

Because I want to be sure I have a say in this particularly-egregious partisan battle of an election, I didn’t want to take the chance of showing up at a polling place on Election Day – only to be forced to say to future generations that back in the ’16 election cycle, I couldn’t vote! That would make me feel stupid.

  -30-

Firearms shops soon to come to Chgo?

I’m sure some would call it a quirk of Chicago that, despite the reputation the ideologues want to tag on the city as a haven for violence, one can’t actually purchase a pistol or any other kind of firearm within the city limits.

EMANUEL: He's angry. What will he do about it?

Not that it is impossible for a Chicago resident to obtain a firearm. Gun dealers tend to set up shop in many of the communities that share borders with the city.

AND POLICE HAVE said that it is not unusual in a gun-related crime in the city for the weapon itself to turn out to have been legally purchased somewhere in Indiana.

Not that it means our city’s criminal element is driving to places like Hammond and Gary to buy weapons at firearms shops or sporting goods stores that stock weapons as well.

Invariably, it turns out the legally-purchased weapon gets resold a time or two, and somewhere in the chain of people someone gets lax in determining whether the purchaser is the type of individual who ought to have a firearm.

That is where the emphasis of law enforcement ought to be placed – on punishing those gun-nut types with a carefree attitude about where the weapons are going.

SO IT IS why I’m not getting all worked up over the federal judge’s ruling on Monday that said the city ordinances that prohibit any firearms dealer from legally operating a store in Chicago are flawed.

There won’t be any immediate issuing of licenses to such businesses, since Mayor Rahm Emanuel made it clear his attorneys are studying the issue this week.

As it is, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang put a stay on his own order, preventing it from being enforced in any way until Monday.

Presuming that city government files a lawsuit to challenge Chang’s ruling, it will be a long time before anything changes in terms of the day-to-day practices of the city.

ALTHOUGH CONSIDERING THAT the courts in recent years (taking their lead from a federal Supreme Court that has its own ideological biases) have been inclined to nit-pick at Chicago’s attempts of recent decades to restrict firearms ownership, perhaps Chang’s ruling isn’t the least bit surprising.

We may someday wind up with little storefront gun shops in the Chicago neighborhoods (even though my own opinion about such shops is similar to what I think of casinos – only communities that are incapable of attracting anything else in the way of economic development go for them).

Perhaps we ought to be focusing on the restriction end of such businesses – similar to how the anti-abortion crowd focuses less on trying to overturn “Roe vs. Wade” (the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state laws that tried to call abortion a criminal act instead of a medical procedure) and more on imposing so many restrictions that it becomes next to impossible for some women to actually obtain an abortion.

If there is anything about the Chang ruling that concerns me, it is the part that says it is legal for people to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale – so long as the recipient is 18 or older and has a Firearm Owners Identification card.

THAT IS THE part of the process where the problems usually arise, and where the criminal element winds up obtaining the weapons they use to try to terrorize the populace – because without them, they really are just dumb thugs.

The answer to that problem ought to be a crackdown by THE LAW!

It certainly isn’t the arming of everyone else so that these so-called reputable citizens can have an opportunity to shoot someone they feel is intimidating to themselves.

Because in the end, a crook is just a crook who wants money or something else of value. The person with the itchy trigger finger is the one who ought truly to be feared (and restricted) by our society.

  -30-

Blagojevich took his time to tell us the same ol’ tale – I’m innocent!

I understand the concept of using every bit of time available to ensure that something is of the highest quality possible.

BLAGOJEVICH: I didn't do it!

And when the potential outcome is regaining one’s freedom, I also comprehend that the stakes for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich with his latest criminal appeal are all important.

BUT I HAVE to confess. When I learned that Blagojevich’s attorneys were pushing the 12:01 a.m. Tuesday deadline before filing (and wound up filing the documents with about one hour to spare), I was hopeful that we’d get some new piece of information.

Something of significance that would actually have the potential to convince people that the conviction and 14-year prison sentence received by Blagojevich was seriously flawed.

Something that would enlighten us observers into having a better comprehension of this particular criminal case.

But it didn’t happen.

INSTEAD, WHAT WE got was something that bears a strong resemblance to so many other criminal appeals I have read throughout the quarter-century that I have been a reporter-type person.

Incompetence, combined with negligence, all meant to keep “the truth” from coming out and making us realize that Milorod didn’t do it!

Specifically, the 91-page appeal contends that U.S. District Judge James Zagel was too eager to favor the prosecution.



ZAGEL: Did he blow it?

The appeal continues to harp on all those tape recordings that Blagojevich thinks would have made him appear to be an innocent in the eyes of a jury. His appeal contends that the judge deliberately excluded the bulk of those 33 recordings – while permitting the use of 70 recordings by prosecutors that made Blagojevich look bad.

PERSONALLY, I’M INTRIGUED at the other issue Blagojevich’s attorneys brought up – claiming it is a flaw that Zagel did not provide jurors with a specific definition about how “campaign contributions” and “bribes” are different when it comes to “political deal-making.”

I suspect that there are people who would have interpreted any such definition as political double-talk, and might well have taken it as a negative that they were supposed to even consider such a distinction.

Although when one thinks about it, what is the difference between the two concepts?

Because one can argue that a campaign contribution is bribe-like in that it is money meant to gain some personal attention to oneself. Except that in a bribe, the promise of a “payback” is much more explicit. Sometimes, very specific.

WHEREAS WITH A contribution, it is more vague, and in theory may never be made. You could be giving your money to a political candidate and get nothing to show for it – except the knowledge that for a few seconds, the candidate thought of you as he cashed your check.

My point being that this issue may be so vague that it would be confusing to try to overly define these concepts. It may even offend some that they’re expected to acknowledge a difference.

I’m not convinced that any of this is going to sway anyone. I’m not convinced that the outcome will change one bit as a result of this appeal.

Largely because the arguments made in the appeal are the same ones we have heard all through the Blagojevich saga. If this is what the appeal was going to amount to, why couldn’t it have been filed long ago?

AS MUCH AS I think the length of Blagojevich’s prison term is too much (and yes, one possible outcome of this appeal is that the conviction is upheld but the sentence is reduced), I’m not sure if any Court of Appeals judges will be swayed.

Although in the end, it doesn’t matter what I (or any other would-be pundit) think. It’s just those few judges who will determine whether or not Zagel screwed up seriously-enough to warrant a chance in the Blagojevich verdict.

  -30-

What if we're no closer to resolving 'gay marriage' by week's end than now?

There were those people who, while Illinois spent time this spring trying to figure out what to do with the issue of making marriage a legal option for gay couples, gave as their reason for wanting to wait the concept that we should see what the Supreme Court of the United States would do.

For the issue was among the cases that the nation’s high court heard this spring, and is expected to issue a ruling on some time later this week (maybe even as early as Tuesday).

BUT WHEN I learned of the court’s ruling Monday with regards to affirmative action, I couldn’t help but wonder if those people felt a little bit foolish for waiting.

Probably not! Many of those individuals have no factor for feeling shame. Many of them just want to delay the issue – perhaps out of some misguided belief that it will go away if they don’t think about it.

Now what do affirmative action and gay marriage have to do with each other?

It just seems that the high court was desperately trying to avoid doing something that would be seen as definitive in the case involving admissions policies at the University of Texas.

THE CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGUES who want to do away with policies that try to balance out the factors in our society that can hold back certain individuals from achieving their full potential would have loved it if the Supreme Court had upheld a lower court’s ruling that found flaws in the university’s policies.

Instead, the Supreme Court told that lower court to reconsider the way it reviewed the case. The Supreme Court seemed to imply there might be flaws in the lower court’s rejection.

It’s as though the Supreme Court doesn’t want to be the entity that strikes down attempts to restrict affirmative action policies. But they also don’t want to do anything that could be interpreted as giving “aid and comfort” to those policies as well.

Are we going to get another ruling later this week that manages to take the same attitude toward gay marriage?

IF I HAD to put money down on a bet, I’d be willing to say the answer is “Yes.”

Perhaps this case will wind up being thrown back to the individual states to resolve for themselves. Perhaps Illinoisans are going to have to figure out for ourselves what to do with this issue.

Which would mean that all that was accomplished with the failure to pass the bill in the Illinois House of Representatives this spring was that several more months of time were wasted.

And our state managed to lump itself for a few months in with the states of the Old Dixie that probably will take a certain amount of pride in being the final states of the Union to take up the issue.

ILLINOIS CERTAINLY ISN’T going to be at the forefront of this issue.

Now for those people who are going to start citing political strategy at me to defend the failure of the Illinois House to even vote on the bill, don’t bother. I get it.

Having some sort of vote just for the sake of putting people on the record as being opposed might have resulted in an overwhelming defeat that would have given the same “aid and comfort” to those ideologues and their personal hang-ups about our society.

At least this way, there’s still a bill pending in the Illinois House that already has Illinois Senate approval. The whole legislative process doesn’t have to start over.

I SHOULD STATE one thing here. I don’t know for a fact that the Supreme Court of the United States will take this same attitude toward gay marriage. Nobody knows what the high court will ever do until they literally do it.

Way too much of what passes for reporting about appeals courts borders on predictions that are about as legitimate as those funky people who read tarot cards at sleazy carnivals.

All I know for sure is that it is likely that those people who were expecting a definitive direction from the Supreme Court on this issue are likely to be among the disappointed by week’s end.

  -30-