Chicago Trib posts some audio and transcripts from today's Blagogate proceedings:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...56.storygallery

This sort of stuff is scary to me. Here’s a guy who’s in total denial of any wrongdoing. Is this typical of his generation? I'm beginning to think I’m a pathetically naïve old man who hasn’t a clue as to how the world really works. It pisses me off that we’re wasting taxpayers’ money to get him out of there.

Chicago Trib posts some audio and transcripts from today's Blagogate proceedings:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...56.storygallery

he is nuts, but entertaining if u don't live there; re his allegation he can't call witnesses, is it because he missed the deadline for a witness list or is there really some limitation on his calling witnesses? i saw one article that said the former, i saw another that said the legislature had limitations. and does anyone know why the fbi won't release the whole of the tapes?

I imagine because the tapes are part of a criminal investigation, but who knows.

It is a funny trainwreck to watch, if you don't live in illinois, and can suppress your gag reflex.

The Governor will be addressing the Senate. They will give him 90 minutes to present his case/give a closing argument.

The Governor will be addressing the Senate. They will give him 90 minutes to present his case/give a closing argument.

Make that the former Governor.

Make that the former Governor.

Indeed. Blago ended up giving a 60 minute speech but it didn't change anyone's mind. The vote to convict was unanimous. The vote to impeach was unanimous minus one. The one who voted against impeachment was Blago's sister-in-law.

Get the facial expression in the pic that goes with today's Times item on him. Straight out of Tenniel's Alice illustrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30sce...tml?_r+1&hp

The tapes sounded bad, duh, but I haven't heard anything criminal, for a fact, yet. The impeachment in the senate was a different standard, but it is offensive because there is a criminal case that he wasn't able to access the whole of the tapes for the impeachment trial. Use the part that the government wants us to hear. Martha was convicted essentially of erasing part of her computer records, then telling the gov that she had done it, and that was obstruction, even thought she told it herself. After the trial, the gov brought perjury charges against one of the gov witnesses that convicted her. You figure.

So we all think he's guilty, we don't like him, we think his remarks are suspect. But for one I think it's outrageous that you can release just a small portion of the evidence and then oust him based on that. Re the tape about the donation before the end of the year before he signed the bill re the race track; the guy never gave the money, he signed the bill anyway. If it had been in 2 conversations, each not discussing the other, save wink and a nod, he'd been fine; he was just more brazen.

Don't misunderstand, I'm no fan, but it troubles me that you can do anything with just a portion of wiretaps that the gov gives u, and that u don't get the whole.

There's another thread on the site re the gov of Ala and how Rowe orchestrated his being jailed. Other reports reflect that the gov prosecuted others after being informed that they had counsel, and yet denied them the right to speak to their lawyer. I don't know all the facts re Blago, save he appears to be somewhat nuts and the butt of jokes and as otherwise said here. But it just doesn't seem fair on the facts.