McHenry County Blog

When I was serving as County Treasurer in this Old Courthouse on the Woodstock Square I heard that Eugene Debs was not locked up all the time he spent in Woodstock County Jail, which is attached to the Courthouse, that Debs was seen out and about.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff John Harris will serve his ten days behind bars at the McHenry County Jail.

The Robinson Library has this about Eugene Debs’ time in Woodstock:

“When Debs and other ARU leaders refused to back down, they were arrested for failing to comply with a federal court injunction; they subsequently spent six months in the McHenry County Jail, in Woodstock, Illinois.”

Here is a summary of the changes in the government’s indictment changes in its case against impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich. They were presented to Judge James Zagel today.

Discussion.

At the status hearing held on December 16, 2009, the Court requested that, should the grand jury return a Second Superseding Indictment, the government file a brief on the Second Superseding Indictment and attach the briefs filed in the Supreme Court related to Weyhrauch v. United States.

On February 4, 2010, the grand jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment in the instant case. The Second Superseding Indictment maintains all of the original charges against defendant Rod Blagojevich and defendant Robert Blagojevich. [FN 1]

The new charges in the Second Superseding Indictment are based on the same underlying criminal conduct that supported the charges in the superseding indictment. However, because the defendants’ illegal conduct violated multiple criminal statues, additional statutes are charged in the Second Superseding Indictment.The Second Superseding Indictment presents the following eight new charges against various defendants.

• Count One charges defendant Rod Blagojevich with substantive racketeering in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c).
• Count Fourteen charges defendant Rod Blagojevich with attempted extortion of United States Congressman A and United States Congressman A’s brother, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 1951.
• Count Sixteen charges defendant Rod Blagojevich with bribery in relation to the Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital, and Children’s Memorial Hospital, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666.
• Count Eighteen charges defendant Rod Blagojevich and defendant Alonzo Monk with conspiracy to commit bribery in relation to Racetrack Executive, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
• Count Twenty charges defendant Rod Blagojevich with bribery in relation to Construction Executive, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666.
• Count Twenty-One charges defendant Rod Blagojevich and defendant Robert Blagojevich with conspiracy to commit extortion in relation to the appointment of a United States Senator, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
• Count Twenty-Two charges defendant Rod Blagojevich and defendant Robert Blagojevich with attempted extortion in relation to the appointment of a United States Senator, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
• Count Twenty-Three charges defendant Rod Blagojevich, defendant Robert Blagojevich, and defendant John Harris with conspiracy to commit bribery in relation to the appointment of a United States Senator, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Regarding Weyhrauch, per the Court’s request, the Weyhrauch briefing is attached to this filing as Government Exhibits A, B, and C.

The Second Superseding Indictment is fashioned in such a way that, should the Supreme Court rule Title 18, United States Code, Section 1346 unconstitutional, the charges, or section of charges, of the Second Superseding Indictment related to Section 1346 can be easily dismissed. Such dismissal would do little to effect the trial in the instant case as the underlying illegal conduct charged in the Section 1346 counts is alleged in other counts of the Second Superseding Indictment. [FN3]]

Accordingly, other than effecting the number of counts under consideration by the jury, the Weyhrauch decision should have minimal effect on the instantcase.

Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney
By:
REID J. SCHAR
CHRISTOPHER S. NIEWOEHNER
CARRIE E. HAMILTON
Assistant United States Attorneys
219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois

= = = = =
FN 1 The Second Superseding Indictment does not name William F. Cellini, Sr. as a defendant and it is the government’s current intention to proceed to trial against defendant Cellini based on the previously returned indictments.

FN 2 Certain counts have been renumbered from the superseding indictment to the Second Superseding Indictment:

• Count One of the superseding indictment (racketeering conspiracy) is now Count Two of the Second Superseding Indictment.
• Counts Two through Twelve of the superseding indictment (wire fraud) are now counts Count Three through Thirteen of the Second Superseding Indictment. Count Sixteen of the superseding indictment (attempted extortion of Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital and Children’s Memorial Hospital) is now Count Fifteen of the Second Superseding Indictment. Count Seventeen of the superseding indictment (extortion conspiracy related to Racetrack Executive) remains
• Count Seventeen in the Second Superseding Indictment.
• Count Eighteen of the superseding indictment (attempted extortion of Construction Executive) is now Count Nineteen in the Second Superseding Indictment.
• Count Nineteen of the superseding indictment (false statements to the FBI) is now Count Twenty-Four in the Second Superseding Indictment.

FN 3 Defendants Harris and Monk have been charged with violating statutes that will be unaffected by the Weyhrauch decision and are not dependent on the validity of Section 1346. Neither defendant Harris nor defendant Monk are expected to proceed to trial on the new charges.

John Harris, former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff, has plead guilty to “participating in a scheme to commit wire fraud, including through the deprivation of honest services.”

Harris admits that

“from approximately October 2008 to on or about December 9, 2008…together with co-defendant Rod Blagojevich and others, participated in a scheme to deprive the people of the State of Illinois of their intangible right to the honest services of Defendant and Rod Blagojevich.”

“It was part of the scheme,” the plea agreement continues, “that beginning in or about October 2008, and continuing until on or about December 9, 2008, Rod Blagojevich, with the assistance of Defendant and others, sought to obtain financial benefits for Blagojevich and his wife, in return for the exercise of his duty under Illinois law to appoint a United States Senator to fill the vacancy created by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

“At times Defendant assisted Blagojevich’s efforts to carry out the scheme by suggesting means by which Blagojevich could secure personal benefits for himself in exchange for appointing a United States Senator, conducting factual research relating to the scheme at Blagojevich’s direction, and counseling Blagojevich on carrying out the scheme.

“At other times, Defendant expressed opposition to Blagojevich’s efforts to enrich himself through his appointment of a United States Senator, and/or did not follow instructions from Blagojevich to assist in those efforts.

“Specifically, starting in December 2005 and continuing until December 2008, Defendant served as then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff.

“Over the course of many months in 2008, Defendant participated in and was aware of discussions involving Blagojevich and others about the possibility that Blagojevich might have the ability to appoint someone to replace then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama if he won the general election for the President of the United States.

“By early October 2008, Defendant participated in regular conversations with Blagojevich about what personal benefits Blagojevich could obtain in exchange for naming someone to the U.S. Senate seat should Obama win the Presidency.

“As one example, around October 6, Blagojevich asked Defendant what Blagojevich could get in exchange for the U.S. Senate seat.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the appointment could either reward an ally or make a new ally but that Blagojevich could not trade the Senate seat for something for himself.

“In other discussions with Blagojevich, Defendant and others told Blagojevich that he could not receive money (either campaign money or other money) in exchange for naming someone to the Senate seat. Blagojevich ignored Defendant’s statements.

“Shortly before and immediately after the November 4, 2008 election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, Blagojevich’s discussions with Defendant about Blagojevich’s appointment of a replacement Senator became more frequent and more detailed.

“Defendant participated in numerous discussions with Blagojevich and others about this issue.

“Defendant was aware that Blagojevich was also talking to a small group of internal and external advisors about this issue.

“Throughout the course of these discussions, Blagojevich made it clear to Defendant that Blagojevich was not focused on what was in the best interest of the people of the state of Illinois but instead was focused in large part on what Blagojevich could get personally in exchange for the Senate appointment.

“Around the time of the November 4 election, Defendant learned that Senate Candidate B was interested in the Senate seat. Blagojevich discussed with Defendant that he wanted to use Senate Candidate B’s interest in the Senate seat as a way to get something for himself from President-elect Obama.

“Initially, Blagojevich wanted to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services.

“On or about November 6, 2008, Blagojevich met with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Official A, who had been presented to Blagojevich and Defendant as an emissary working on behalf of President-elect Obama with respect to filling the Senate seat. Prior to the meeting, Defendant helped Blagojevich strategize regarding how to ask SEIU Official A for the HHS position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“After the meeting, Blagojevich told Defendant and others that during the meeting, he asked SEIU Official A for the HHS position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“During discussions with Defendant, Blagojevich expressed interest in an ambassadorship from President-elect Obama in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“On or about November 5, 2008, Blagojevich directed Defendant and Deputy Governor A to research ambassadorship options for him. Blagojevich also directed Defendant and Deputy Governor A to research private foundations where he might be able to get a high-paying position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the private foundation option would give President-elect Obama a buffer, meaning that it would not be obvious that Blagojevich was getting a position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant suggested that the foundation would need to be a group that was dependent on federal funding, so that President-elect Obama would have enough influence to get Blagojevich a position. Blagojevich was very interested in this idea and told Defendant to look into options right away.

“Deputy Governor A asked whether Blagojevich was thinking about a position with a private foundation for 2010 (when his term as Governor ended) or now.

“Blagojevich said that he wanted the position now and wanted to know how much the position paid. Deputy Governor A responded that the salary was likely $200,000 to $300,000.

“Blagojevich seemed disappointed in that salary and asked something like, ‘Oh is that all?’

“At that point, Defendant said that he thought the salary was more like $300,000 to $500,000.

“Blagojevich had a more positive reaction to that salary.

“Blagojevich suggested that SEIU and other labor unions provided funds to some private foundations and suggested those foundations be the ones Defendant and Deputy Governor A research. Defendant understood that Blagojevich’s personal financial circumstances and security were a significant consideration for Blagojevich in his analysis of whom he should name to the Senate seat.

“Blagojevich told Defendant that if he could not get a position directly through President-elect Obama in exchange for picking a desired candidate, then Blagojevich would seek a position through supporters of President-elect Obama in exchange for naming someone to the Senate seat. Blagojevich asked Defendant to develop a union-based option for him.

“The next day Defendant responded to his assignment by presenting Blagojevich with an idea by which Blagojevich could become the national coordinator for an organization named ‘Change to Win.’

“Change to Win is an organization associated with a number of labor unions, including SEIU. Defendant suggested to Blagojevich that SEIU Officials A and B, whom Defendant and Blagojevich believed were already acting as emissaries between Blagojevich and President-elect Obama for purposes of picking a desired Senate candidate, could get Blagojevich the Change to Win position in exchange for Blagojevich agreeing to make Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that the benefit to SEIU would be that SEIU would have helped President-elect Obama by getting Blagojevich to appoint Senate Candidate B to the Senate and in exchange, President-elect Obama would look favorably on SEIU’s agenda in President-elect Obama’s administration.

“The benefit to Blagojevich would be a paid position as National Coordinator with Change to Win. Defendant further explained that the benefits to President-elect Obama would be that Blagojevich would appoint Senate Candidate B to the U.S. Senate seat, and SEIU Officials A and B would act as a buffer between President-elect Obama and Blagojevich.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that the Change to Win position would keep him politically viable, pay him a salary, and provide him with union support and connections for whatever he wanted to do down-the-road. Blagojevich said that he thought it was a great idea, but was concerned that he would have to make the Senate appointment first, which meant that SEIU could withhold the Change to Win position later.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that part of the advantage to the Change to Win idea was that this was something that SEIU Officials A and B could promise to Blagojevich now and Blagojevich could believe that they would follow through on later, while part of the disadvantage to the Change to Win idea was that it was not politically acceptable for Blagojevich to step down as Governor to take that position.

“In response, Blagojevich suggested the possibility of having his wife take a position now and then Blagojevich could take the national position later.

“Defendant told him that this was not a good idea. Blagojevich asked Defendant what the Change to Win position paid and asked whether he could get extra income if he sat on other boards. Defendant speculated that the position would pay no more than SEIU Official A’s salary.

“On November 7, 2008, Defendant participated in a conference call with Blagojevich and Advisor A, in which Blagojevich solicited Advisor A’s thoughts on the Change to Win idea.

“Defendant knew that Advisor A was an outside consultant whom Blagojevich trusted and upon whom Blagojevich relied for political advice. During the call, Blagojevich told Advisor A what had happened at the November 6 meeting with SEIU Official A.

“Blagojevich then directed Defendant to tell Advisor A about the Change to Win idea. Defendant explained the idea and Advisor A responded in a very positive way.

“Advisor A analogized the Change to Win deal to a three-way trade in baseball because it allowed President-elect Obama to stay out of Illinois politics because he would have a buffer and there would be no obvious quid pro quo for Senate Candidate B. Blagojevich told Advisor A that he was looking for $250,000-$300,000 in salary and also to sit on some boards.

“During the call, Defendant understood that Blagojevich was focused on obtaining money and maintaining his political viability in his analysis of whom to name to the Senate seat.

“After this call, defendant and Blagojevich learned that SEIU Official A’s salary was approximately $125,000 to $150,000 annually. Upon learning this, Blagojevich was disappointed and wanted to know if he could be paid more than SEIU Official A.

“On or about November 12, 2008, the media reported that Senate Candidate B was going to work at the White House. Defendant participated in a number of conversations with Blagojevich about this development.

“Defendant believed that Senate Candidate B’s decision to go to the White House caused Blagojevich to become anxious about losing leverage for what he might be able to ask of President-elect Obama with respect to a position for himself.

“At this point, Blagojevich began to express greater interest in the possibility that supporters of President-elect Obama would establish and fund a 501(c)(4) organization for the benefit of Blagojevich in exchange for a Senate seat appointment.

“Blagojevich asked Defendant to reach out to United States Congressman A about this possibility.

“Defendant believed that this was a direct quid pro quo and Defendant did not make any calls to further Blagojevich’s request.

“Defendant concealed from Blagojevich that he did not follow Blagojevich’s directive to contact United States Congressman A about the 501(c)(4).

“Blagojevich later told Defendant that he had approached SEIU Official A about the 501(c)(4) idea and Blagojevich said that SEIU Official A was going to ‘run it up the flag pole,’ which Defendant took to mean that he was going to check with representatives of President-elect Obama.

“At this time, Blagojevich also pressed Defendant to have an ‘off campus’ discussion with Senate Candidate D. Defendant knew that this was a reference to Blagojevich’s prior directive to Defendant to ask Senate Candidate D for Senate Candidate D’s remaining campaign funds in exchange for appointing Senate Candidate D to the U.S. Senate Seat.

“Sometime in the summer of 2008, Blagojevich told Defendant that if he appointed Senate Candidate D to the vacant Senate seat, he would want and expect Senate Candidate D to give Blagojevich some or all of Senate Candidate D’s campaign funds.

“Blagojevich raised this topic, which was often referred to as ‘he off-campus discussion’ with Senate Candidate D, in several phone calls with Defendant.

“Defendant believed that Blagojevich was again raising this issue because Blagojevich believed that a deal with representatives of President-elect Obama involving Senate Candidate B was no longer a possibility.

“In response to Blagojevich’s directives to him, on November 12, 2008, Defendant met with Senate Candidate D in his Springfield office.

“During the meeting, Defendant had a discussion with Senate Candidate D about his plans for his campaign funds that could not be converted to personal use.

“Defendant did not directly tell Senate Candidate D that Blagojevich was going to ask Senate Candidate D for his campaign funds.

“Based on what Defendant did say, however, Defendant believed that Senate Candidate D was on notice that, in relation to the Senate seat, Blagojevich was going to talk with Senate Candidate D about Senate Candidate D’s campaign funds.

“On or about December 4, 2008, Blagojevich told Defendant that Senate Candidate A, through a third-party, had offered to raise $1.5 million in campaign funds for Blagojevich in exchange for the U.S. Senate appointment.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the offer to raise funds should not be a factor in his decision, although it was clear to Defendant that a large part of Blagojevich’s consideration for appointing Senate Candidate A to the Senate was the offer of campaign funds.

“Defendant had previously advanced an argument in favor of Senate Candidate A, listing all of the favorable points of a Senate Candidate A appointment, in response to which Blagojevich had dismissed all of the points Defendant made and had refused to even entertain the idea of appointing Senate Candidate A.

“Although Blagojevich was previously not willing to consider Senate Candidate A, Defendant believed that Blagojevich was now seriously considering Senate Candidate A because of the offer of campaign funds.

“In addition, Defendant was aware that, from time to time, in the course of considering options to fill the open Senate seat, Blagojevich considered appointing certain other individuals or appointing himself to the open Senate seat, often with personal benefits to himself as part of Blagojevich’s consideration.

“For instance, with respect to appointing himself, Blagojevich expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including to possibly avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, to obtain greater resources if he was indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor, and to facilitate his wife’s employment as a lobbyist.

“In or about the spring of 2008, around the time that Blagojevich’s wife passed her Series 7 examination, which allowed her to sell financial securities, Blagojevich told Defendant that Blagojevich wanted to get Blagojevich’s wife a job using her Series 7 license with an entity that did business with the State of Illinois. Defendant told Blagojevich that his wife could not work for an entity that did business with the State of Illinois.

“Despite this, Blagojevich asked Defendant to set up informational or networking meetings for his wife with financial institutions that had business with the State of Illinois in hopes that those businesses would assist in getting Blagojevich’s wife a job.

“Defendant subsequently arranged a meeting between Blagojevich’s wife and an official at a financial institution that had business with the State of Illinois.

“Defendant also spoke with an official at another financial institution that had business with the State of Illinois concerning that official helping Blagojevich’s wife develop possible employment opportunities.

“When Blagojevich concluded that officials at these institutions had been unhelpful in finding his wife a job, Blagojevich told Defendant that he did not want the institutions to receive further business from the State of Illinois.

“With respect to one of the institutions, Defendant told Blagojevich that, because the entity had business through the state pension funds, Blagojevich did not control those decisions.

“With respect to the other financial institution, despite Blagojevich’s directive, Defendant did not prevent that institution from getting further business with the State and avoided telling Blagojevich when the institution was applying for State business so as to prevent Blagojevich from following through on his directive.

“Further, in November and December 2008, in response to Chicago Tribune editorials that had been critical of Blagojevich, Blagojevich directed Defendant to tell Tribune Financial Advisor that Blagojevich was going to withhold state financial support that would benefit the Tribune Company, unless the Tribune Owner fired people on the editorial board.

“In order to appease Blagojevich, Defendant told Blagojevich that he would and did relay this threat to Tribune Financial Advisor. Although Defendant did have a conversation with Tribune Financial Advisor about the negative editorials regarding Blagojevich, Defendant did not relay the threats as directed by Blagojevich.

“On or about November 7, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, Defendant and Blagojevich, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between Blagojevich and Defendant, in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor A, in Washington, D.C., in which Blagojevich, Defendant, and Advisor A discussed financial benefits which Blagojevich could request in exchange for the appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States Senate; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.”

Maximum penalties are 20 years and a $250,000 fine.

The plea bargain, however, states,

“Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.”

Harris also “agrees he will fully and truthfully cooperate in any matter in which he is called upon to cooperate by a representative of the United States Attorney’s Office…”

In return for his cooperation, “the government will recommend a sentence of imprisonment that is 50% of the low end of Federal Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to defendant’s offense…”

Carrie Hamilton was Patrick Fitzgerald’s Assistant U.S. Attorney on the case.

April 7, 2009.

That’s the new Rod Blagojevich indictment deadline being sought by Chicago’s United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Too many tapped thousands of telephone calls to analyze.

Too many new witnesses to interview.

Too many potential defendants.

Grand juries on vacation.

But you can look at the sealed attachment, Judge.

And, by the way, attorney’s for Rod Blagojevich and John Harris don’t object.

Here’s the legal filing:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) No. 08 CR 1010
)

JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendants, for the following reasons:

1. This investigation was initiated in approximately 2003, and involves multiple potential defendants. Two individuals, defendants Rod R. Blagojevich and John Harris, were charged by way of a criminal complaint on December 9, 2008, with:

(a) conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, as well as conspiring to obtain money and property by fraud, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; and

(b) corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2.

2. Part of this investigation utilized Court-authorized Title III intercepts over multiple phones and in particular locations.

In the most recent set of Title III intercepts, thousands of phone calls were intercepted between late-October 2008 and early-December 2008.

In addition, this investigation has used confidential witnesses.

In addition, multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to discuss their knowledge of criminal activity in relation to the ongoing investigation.

3. A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought.

One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week).

The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.

4. Given the length of time that this investigation has been ongoing (more than 5 years), the number of intercepted calls involved, and the additional reasons stated in the government’s sealed Attachment, the thirty days available to the government pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b) in which to file an indictment or information against a defendant based on his arrest will not be sufficient.

The United States estimates that a 90-day extension from the current expiration date of January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, will be sufficient time within which to return an indictment in this matter. The government does not presently plan to seek another extension of time to indict in this case.

5. Among the factors identified by Congress as relevant to the determination whether time should be extended for indictment are those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B), which provide in relevant part:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution… that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section; [or]

Whether, in case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex.

Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

6. The government respectfully submits that a 90-day continuance is warranted in this case pursuant to the forgoing provisions. The government has been conducting a diligent and thorough investigation in this case, but the investigation includes multiple defendants and potential defendants as well as thousands of intercepted phone calls, and additional factors warranting an extension of time (as cited in the government’s Attachment) exist. The government cannot complete its investigation and appropriately conclude the investigation within the time allowed under Section 3161(b) of the Speedy Trial Act currently extended.

7. Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests a 90-day extension of time from January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek an indictment in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: s/ Reid Schar
REID SCHAR
CHRIS NIEWOEHNER
CARRIE HAMILTON
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-8897

Dated: December 31, 2008

April 7, 2009.

That’s the new Rod Blagojevich indictment deadline being sought by Chicago’s United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Too many tapped thousands of telephone calls to analyze.

Too many new witnesses to interview.

Too many potential defendants.

Grand juries on vacation.

But you can look at the sealed attachment, Judge.

And, by the way, attorney’s for Rod Blagojevich and John Harris don’t object.

Here’s the legal filing:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) No. 08 CR 1010
)

JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendants, for the following reasons:

1. This investigation was initiated in approximately 2003, and involves multiple potential defendants. Two individuals, defendants Rod R. Blagojevich and John Harris, were charged by way of a criminal complaint on December 9, 2008, with:

(a) conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, as well as conspiring to obtain money and property by fraud, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; and

(b) corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2.

2. Part of this investigation utilized Court-authorized Title III intercepts over multiple phones and in particular locations.

In the most recent set of Title III intercepts, thousands of phone calls were intercepted between late-October 2008 and early-December 2008.

In addition, this investigation has used confidential witnesses.

In addition, multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to discuss their knowledge of criminal activity in relation to the ongoing investigation.

3. A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought.

One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week).

The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.

4. Given the length of time that this investigation has been ongoing (more than 5 years), the number of intercepted calls involved, and the additional reasons stated in the government’s sealed Attachment, the thirty days available to the government pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b) in which to file an indictment or information against a defendant based on his arrest will not be sufficient.

The United States estimates that a 90-day extension from the current expiration date of January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, will be sufficient time within which to return an indictment in this matter. The government does not presently plan to seek another extension of time to indict in this case.

5. Among the factors identified by Congress as relevant to the determination whether time should be extended for indictment are those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B), which provide in relevant part:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution… that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section; [or]

Whether, in case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex.

Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

6. The government respectfully submits that a 90-day continuance is warranted in this case pursuant to the forgoing provisions. The government has been conducting a diligent and thorough investigation in this case, but the investigation includes multiple defendants and potential defendants as well as thousands of intercepted phone calls, and additional factors warranting an extension of time (as cited in the government’s Attachment) exist. The government cannot complete its investigation and appropriately conclude the investigation within the time allowed under Section 3161(b) of the Speedy Trial Act currently extended.

7. Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests a 90-day extension of time from January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek an indictment in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: s/ Reid Schar
REID SCHAR
CHRIS NIEWOEHNER
CARRIE HAMILTON
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-8897

Dated: December 31, 2008

It’s hard to believe, but Chicago’s United State’s Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is asking permission to give certain wire taps of Rod Blagojevich that led to his arrest to the Illinois House of Representatives Impeachment Committee.

Fitzgerald seeks to reveal redacted portions of four telephone conversations.

His motion follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re: Motion to Disclose )
Intercepted Communications )
) No. 08 CR 1010
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)

)
ROD BLAGOJEVICH and )
JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this Motion to Disclose Intercepted Communications to the Special Investigative Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives, and in support of the motion, states as follows:

1. On October 29, 2008, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518, this Court entered an order authorizing the interception of oral communications, for a thirty-day period, on the residential phone of Governor Rod Blagojevich. On November 26, 2008, this Court (through the then-acting chief judge) extended the authorization for another thirty-day period. In November 2008, this Court authorized the interception of oral communications on the cellular phone of Lobbyist 1. Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and recorded communications over these target phones.

2.On December 9, 2008, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Governor Blagojevich pursuant to a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint charges Blagojevich with two counts:

a. First, Blagojevich is charged with conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349. (08 CR 1010, Docket Entry No. 1.) Specifically, the complaint charges that Blagojevich, together with others, obtained and attempted to obtain financial benefits for Blagojevich, members of his family, and third parties including Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts, and access to state funds. Id. ¶ 13(a), ¶¶ 16-68.

It is also charged, as part of that continuing honest services fraud scheme, that Blagojevich conspired and attempted to use his authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for Blagojevich, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect’s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which Blagojevich and others schemed to induce a union to provide to him in exchange for appointing an individual whom Blagojevich believed the union officials favored. Id. ¶ 13(c), ¶¶ 86-116.

b. Second, Blagojevich is charged with corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2. Id. ¶ 13(b), ¶¶ 69-85.

3. The Illinois Constitution grants the state House of Representatives “the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment . . . .” (FN 1) Ill. Const., Article IV, § 14. On December 15, 2008, the Illinois House of Representative adopted resolution HR1650 by a vote of 113 to zero. The resolution created a Special Investigative Committee “for the purpose of

(i) investigating allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and other misconduct of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich and

(ii) making a recommendation as to whether cause exists for impeachment.”

The resolution requires the Committee, 1 which is composed of 21 members of the House, to submit a report to the full House before the expiration of the 95th General Assembly at midnight on January 14, 2009.

= = = = =
FN 1-The text of HR1650 is attached as Exhibit 1. 1

= = = = =

4. The United States has received a bipartisan request from the Committee for the disclosure of various materials, including intercepted communications. (FN 2) The Committee’s leadership and staff have represented to the government that they seek such disclosure in the interest of making a fully-informed investigation and report, but without interfering with the federal criminal investigation or prosecution.

= = = = =

FN 2-A copy of the letter from the Committee is attached as Exhibit 2. 2 assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2. Id. ¶ 13(b), ¶¶ 69-85.
= = = = =

5. After careful deliberation, the government applies for authorization to disclose a limited number of intercepted communications in redacted form.Although many relevant communications were intercepted, the government believes that, on balance,

it is appropriate to seek the disclosure of four intercepted calls, in redacted form, to the Committee, and that disclosure of the calls by themselves would not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation.

These calls bear on a discrete episode of criminal conduct alleged in the complaint affidavit, specifically at Paragraph 68(e), and the calls are evidence of a criminal offense that the government was authorized to monitor under the wiretap order.

Under separate cover and under seal, the government provides to this Court for its ex parte, in camera review, both a set of the full audio recordings of these four calls (Exhibit 3) and a set of proposed redacted recordings (Exhibit 4) omitting portions of the conversations not material to the episode described in Paragraph 68(e) of the complaint affidavit. (FN 3)

= = = = =
FN 3-Similarly, the government will also provide to the Court, ex parte (at least for the time being) and under seal subject to a protective order, draft transcripts of the full and the redacted calls when the drafts are completed.
= = = = =

6. The United States takes no position on whether or not the Committee should recommend impeachment, whether the House should file articles of impeachment, or, if articles of impeachment are filed, whether the Senate should convict on any charges. By filing this motion, the United States presents only questions of law for this Court’s consideration and resolution, namely, whether the Special Investigative Committee is qualified to receive disclosure of, and thereafter to use, intercepted communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2517(1) and (2).

7. As discussed more fully below, although Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510, et seq., does not necessarily require the government to obtain judicial authorization before disclosing intercepted communications to other law enforcement or investigative officers, the government does so here out of an abundance of caution and in order to afford the interceptees in the recorded calls an opportunity to be heard and to object, if they so choose, under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(A). Section 2518(10)(A) permits any “aggrieved person,” that is, an interceptee (FN 4), to file a motion to suppress the 4 contents of an intercepted communication.

= = = = =
FN 4-The definition reads in full: “aggrieved person’ means a person who was a party 4 to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(11).
= = = = =

8. As a threshold matter of procedure, the government requests authorization to disclose, under seal and subject to a protective order, the full and redacted versions of the four recordings to those interceptees who participated in the respective calls. See § 2518(10)(A) (empowering court to order disclosure of those intercepted communications that, “in the interests of justice,” are necessary to litigate suppression motion). If the Court were to grant such authorization, each interceptee would receive (under seal and subject to a protective order) only those calls in which he participated. (FN-5) The proposed protective order would be submitted to the Court via electronic mail pursuant to the Court’s case management procedures.

= = = = =
FN 5-The government would have no objection to disclosing all four of the redacted versions of the calls to all of the interceptees, including those who were not a party to all four calls. If disclosure to the Special Investigative Committee is ultimately approved, the four calls will likely be viewed together as relating to one alleged criminal episode, and it may thus be appropriate for the interceptees on any one call to receive copies of all four redacted calls in order to respond to this motion.
= = = = =

9. Section 2517(1) of Title 18 authorizes an investigative or law enforcement officer to disclose the contents of intercepted communications to another “investigative or law enforcement officer” for the proper performance of his or her duties:

Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

18 U.S.C. § 2517(1).

10. Section 2510(7) defines “investigative or law enforcement officer” as

“any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses.”

18 U.S.C. § 2510(7) (emphasis added).

11.For reasons firmly grounded in statutory text and case precedent, the government believes that state legislative officials and their staff who are investigating whether to recommend impeachment qualify as “investigative or law enforcement officer[s]” to whom federal officers may disclose intercepted communications in the proper performance of their duties.

a. First, the text of § 2510(7) is broad, and includes not only those officers who have power “to make arrests,” but rather also includes those empowered “by law” – with no limitation to federal law – “to conduct investigations” of federal offenses. Exercising authority founded on the Illinois Constitution, the House of Representatives enacted – “by law” – the resolution which created the Special Investigative Committee and granted the Committee comprehensive authority to

“investigat[e] allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and other misconduct of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.”

The broad mandate of the Illinois Constitution and the House resolution encompasses the investigation of alleged federal crimes committed by Blagojevich.

b. Federal courts have construed the scope of an officer’s investigation as including federal offenses so long as the federal offenses may be the predicate for action by the investigatory authority. For example, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order permitting disclosure of intercepted communications to the federal House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating whether to recommend impeachment of a federal judge in Florida. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 1048, 1054 (11th Cir. 1988), affirming In re Grand Jury 86-3 (Miami), 673 F. Supp. 1569, 1574 (S.D. Fla. 1987). The House Judiciary Committee was qualified to receive disclosure of intercepted communications because it was investigating possible impeachment of the judge, and impeachment may be based on the commission of a federal offense.

c. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit held that where an attorney disciplinary commission could disbar a lawyer for professional misconduct, including the commission of a federal offense, investigation of the federal offense is within the investigating commission’s authority. In re Electronic Surveillance, 49 F.3d 1188, 1190 (6th Cir. 1995). So too with Pennsylvania State Police officers who were conducting, on behalf of the state’s gaming control board, a background investigation of an individual who had applied to the gaming board for a gambling license. In re Application of United States, 431 F. Supp.2d 544, 547 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

12. Because the Special Investigative Committee impeachment investigators qualify to receive the disclosure of the four intercepted communications that the government seeks to disclose, the Committee may further “use” the communications “to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of [their] official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2517(2). Both this provision, as well as § 2517(3), permit further disclosure of the communications into the Special Investigative Committee’s record, because such record is compiled as part of a “proceeding held under the authority . . .of any State or any political subdivision thereof.” 18 U.S.C. § 2517(3).

a. The term “proceeding” is broad – indeed the term is modified by the word “any,” which is itself a signal that Congress intended “proceeding” to take a broad meaning. The Seventh Circuit noted, in dictum, that § 2517(3) seems to be complementary to § 2515, which is the statutory provision that contains the general ban on the use of intercepted communications obtained in violation of Title III as evidence in “

any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof . . . .”

18 U.S.C. § 2515 (emphasis added) (quoted by In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 216 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2000)). The Seventh Circuit labeled the two provisions “complementary,” stating that the word “proceeding” in § 2517(3) “seems merely a shorthand for the longer and unambiguous definition in the complementary section 2515.” 216 F.3d at 624.

b. Furthermore, the legislative history makes clear that the text means what it says, and that “proceeding” is not limited to criminal prosecutions. In re Electronic Surveillance, 49 F.3d at 1193 (attorney disciplinary commission is a covered proceeding) (citing Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-452, § 902(b), 84 Stat. 947 (1970), and H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4036)). As the Sixth Circuit explained, before 1970, the “disclosure of intercepted communications could only be made in connection with state and federal criminal proceedings. Congress amended the subsection (3) in that year to allow disclosure in any authorized proceeding.” 49 F.3d at 1193 (emphasis added).

c.Likewise, federal court decisions interpreting § 2517(1) in the context of disclosures to a federal House Judiciary Committee and a state gambling license commission give a broad definition to the term “any proceeding.” See 841 F.2d 1048, 1054; 431 F. Supp.2d 544, 547.

d. For the reasons stated above (broad statutory text, legislative history, and case precedent), the proceedings before the Special Investigative Committee and any further impeachment proceedings should also be deemed to qualify as “any proceeding” in which the intercepted communications may be disclosed.

13. For all the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully asks this Court to rule on the questions of law presented and to order that:

a. the United States is authorized to serve, under seal, copies of the full and redacted recordings on the respective interceptees, subject to a proposed protective order that the government will submit to the Court pursuant to its case management procedures;

b. the interceptees and the Special Investigative Committee shall be given an opportunity to respond;

c. after hearing from all parties, the United States is authorized to disclose to the Special Investigative Committee the four intercepted communications identified by the government and redacted as Exhibit 4; and

d. the Special Investigative Committee is authorized to use the intercepted communications as appropriate in the proper performance of official duties, including to introduce the recordings into the proceedings of the Committee and at any further impeachment proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: /s/Edmond E. Chang
DAVID A. GLOCKNER
EDMOND E. CHANG

Assistant United States Attorneys
219 South Dearborn Street
Fifth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-1000

Date: December 29, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThe undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that the
following document:

Government’s Motion to Disclose Intercepted Communications to the Special Investigative Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives, was served on December 29, 2008, in accordance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 49, FED. R. CIV. P. 5, LR 5.5, and the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF) pursuant to the district court’s system as to ECF filers, and also served by electronic mail and/or facsimile on the following counsel for the interceptees:

Mr. Edward M. Genson, Mr. Sheldon Sorosky
Genson & Gillespie Kaplan & Sorosky
53 West Jackson Boulevard 158 West Erie Street
Suite 1420 Chicago, Illinois 60610
Chicago, Illinois 60604 312.222.9541 (f)
312.939.3654 (f)

Mr. Daniel Reinberg. Mr. Michael Shepard
Foley & Lardner Hogan & Hartson LLP
321 North Clark Street 4 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2800 22nd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60610 San Francisco, California 94111
312.832.4700 (f) 415.374.2499 (f)

Mr. Michael Ettinger, Mr. David W. Ellis
Ettinger Besbekos & Schroeder PC Mr. Matt O’Shea
12413 S. Harlem Ave. Staff, Special Investigative Committee
Suite 203 (Via electronic mail)
Palos Heights, Illinois 60463
708.923.0386 (f)

/s/ Edmond E. Chang

EDMOND E. CHANG
Assistant United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-1000

It’s hard to believe, but Chicago’s United State’s Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is asking permission to give certain wire taps of Rod Blagojevich that led to his arrest to the Illinois House of Representatives Impeachment Committee.

Fitzgerald seeks to reveal redacted portions of four telephone conversations.

His motion follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re: Motion to Disclose )
Intercepted Communications )
) No. 08 CR 1010
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)

)
ROD BLAGOJEVICH and )
JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this Motion to Disclose Intercepted Communications to the Special Investigative Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives, and in support of the motion, states as follows:

1. On October 29, 2008, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518, this Court entered an order authorizing the interception of oral communications, for a thirty-day period, on the residential phone of Governor Rod Blagojevich. On November 26, 2008, this Court (through the then-acting chief judge) extended the authorization for another thirty-day period. In November 2008, this Court authorized the interception of oral communications on the cellular phone of Lobbyist 1. Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and recorded communications over these target phones.

2.On December 9, 2008, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Governor Blagojevich pursuant to a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint charges Blagojevich with two counts:

a. First, Blagojevich is charged with conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349. (08 CR 1010, Docket Entry No. 1.) Specifically, the complaint charges that Blagojevich, together with others, obtained and attempted to obtain financial benefits for Blagojevich, members of his family, and third parties including Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts, and access to state funds. Id. ¶ 13(a), ¶¶ 16-68.

It is also charged, as part of that continuing honest services fraud scheme, that Blagojevich conspired and attempted to use his authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for Blagojevich, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect’s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which Blagojevich and others schemed to induce a union to provide to him in exchange for appointing an individual whom Blagojevich believed the union officials favored. Id. ¶ 13(c), ¶¶ 86-116.

b. Second, Blagojevich is charged with corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2. Id. ¶ 13(b), ¶¶ 69-85.

3. The Illinois Constitution grants the state House of Representatives “the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment . . . .” (FN 1) Ill. Const., Article IV, § 14. On December 15, 2008, the Illinois House of Representative adopted resolution HR1650 by a vote of 113 to zero. The resolution created a Special Investigative Committee “for the purpose of

(i) investigating allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and other misconduct of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich and

(ii) making a recommendation as to whether cause exists for impeachment.”

The resolution requires the Committee, 1 which is composed of 21 members of the House, to submit a report to the full House before the expiration of the 95th General Assembly at midnight on January 14, 2009.

= = = = =
FN 1-The text of HR1650 is attached as Exhibit 1. 1

= = = = =

4. The United States has received a bipartisan request from the Committee for the disclosure of various materials, including intercepted communications. (FN 2) The Committee’s leadership and staff have represented to the government that they seek such disclosure in the interest of making a fully-informed investigation and report, but without interfering with the federal criminal investigation or prosecution.

= = = = =

FN 2-A copy of the letter from the Committee is attached as Exhibit 2. 2 assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2. Id. ¶ 13(b), ¶¶ 69-85.
= = = = =

5. After careful deliberation, the government applies for authorization to disclose a limited number of intercepted communications in redacted form.Although many relevant communications were intercepted, the government believes that, on balance,

it is appropriate to seek the disclosure of four intercepted calls, in redacted form, to the Committee, and that disclosure of the calls by themselves would not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation.

These calls bear on a discrete episode of criminal conduct alleged in the complaint affidavit, specifically at Paragraph 68(e), and the calls are evidence of a criminal offense that the government was authorized to monitor under the wiretap order.

Under separate cover and under seal, the government provides to this Court for its ex parte, in camera review, both a set of the full audio recordings of these four calls (Exhibit 3) and a set of proposed redacted recordings (Exhibit 4) omitting portions of the conversations not material to the episode described in Paragraph 68(e) of the complaint affidavit. (FN 3)

= = = = =
FN 3-Similarly, the government will also provide to the Court, ex parte (at least for the time being) and under seal subject to a protective order, draft transcripts of the full and the redacted calls when the drafts are completed.
= = = = =

6. The United States takes no position on whether or not the Committee should recommend impeachment, whether the House should file articles of impeachment, or, if articles of impeachment are filed, whether the Senate should convict on any charges. By filing this motion, the United States presents only questions of law for this Court’s consideration and resolution, namely, whether the Special Investigative Committee is qualified to receive disclosure of, and thereafter to use, intercepted communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2517(1) and (2).

7. As discussed more fully below, although Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510, et seq., does not necessarily require the government to obtain judicial authorization before disclosing intercepted communications to other law enforcement or investigative officers, the government does so here out of an abundance of caution and in order to afford the interceptees in the recorded calls an opportunity to be heard and to object, if they so choose, under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(A). Section 2518(10)(A) permits any “aggrieved person,” that is, an interceptee (FN 4), to file a motion to suppress the 4 contents of an intercepted communication.

= = = = =
FN 4-The definition reads in full: “aggrieved person’ means a person who was a party 4 to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(11).
= = = = =

8. As a threshold matter of procedure, the government requests authorization to disclose, under seal and subject to a protective order, the full and redacted versions of the four recordings to those interceptees who participated in the respective calls. See § 2518(10)(A) (empowering court to order disclosure of those intercepted communications that, “in the interests of justice,” are necessary to litigate suppression motion). If the Court were to grant such authorization, each interceptee would receive (under seal and subject to a protective order) only those calls in which he participated. (FN-5) The proposed protective order would be submitted to the Court via electronic mail pursuant to the Court’s case management procedures.

= = = = =
FN 5-The government would have no objection to disclosing all four of the redacted versions of the calls to all of the interceptees, including those who were not a party to all four calls. If disclosure to the Special Investigative Committee is ultimately approved, the four calls will likely be viewed together as relating to one alleged criminal episode, and it may thus be appropriate for the interceptees on any one call to receive copies of all four redacted calls in order to respond to this motion.
= = = = =

9. Section 2517(1) of Title 18 authorizes an investigative or law enforcement officer to disclose the contents of intercepted communications to another “investigative or law enforcement officer” for the proper performance of his or her duties:

Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

18 U.S.C. § 2517(1).

10. Section 2510(7) defines “investigative or law enforcement officer” as

“any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses.”

18 U.S.C. § 2510(7) (emphasis added).

11.For reasons firmly grounded in statutory text and case precedent, the government believes that state legislative officials and their staff who are investigating whether to recommend impeachment qualify as “investigative or law enforcement officer[s]” to whom federal officers may disclose intercepted communications in the proper performance of their duties.

a. First, the text of § 2510(7) is broad, and includes not only those officers who have power “to make arrests,” but rather also includes those empowered “by law” – with no limitation to federal law – “to conduct investigations” of federal offenses. Exercising authority founded on the Illinois Constitution, the House of Representatives enacted – “by law” – the resolution which created the Special Investigative Committee and granted the Committee comprehensive authority to

“investigat[e] allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and other misconduct of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.”

The broad mandate of the Illinois Constitution and the House resolution encompasses the investigation of alleged federal crimes committed by Blagojevich.

b. Federal courts have construed the scope of an officer’s investigation as including federal offenses so long as the federal offenses may be the predicate for action by the investigatory authority. For example, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order permitting disclosure of intercepted communications to the federal House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating whether to recommend impeachment of a federal judge in Florida. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 1048, 1054 (11th Cir. 1988), affirming In re Grand Jury 86-3 (Miami), 673 F. Supp. 1569, 1574 (S.D. Fla. 1987). The House Judiciary Committee was qualified to receive disclosure of intercepted communications because it was investigating possible impeachment of the judge, and impeachment may be based on the commission of a federal offense.

c. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit held that where an attorney disciplinary commission could disbar a lawyer for professional misconduct, including the commission of a federal offense, investigation of the federal offense is within the investigating commission’s authority. In re Electronic Surveillance, 49 F.3d 1188, 1190 (6th Cir. 1995). So too with Pennsylvania State Police officers who were conducting, on behalf of the state’s gaming control board, a background investigation of an individual who had applied to the gaming board for a gambling license. In re Application of United States, 431 F. Supp.2d 544, 547 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

12. Because the Special Investigative Committee impeachment investigators qualify to receive the disclosure of the four intercepted communications that the government seeks to disclose, the Committee may further “use” the communications “to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of [their] official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2517(2). Both this provision, as well as § 2517(3), permit further disclosure of the communications into the Special Investigative Committee’s record, because such record is compiled as part of a “proceeding held under the authority . . .of any State or any political subdivision thereof.” 18 U.S.C. § 2517(3).

a. The term “proceeding” is broad – indeed the term is modified by the word “any,” which is itself a signal that Congress intended “proceeding” to take a broad meaning. The Seventh Circuit noted, in dictum, that § 2517(3) seems to be complementary to § 2515, which is the statutory provision that contains the general ban on the use of intercepted communications obtained in violation of Title III as evidence in “

any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof . . . .”

18 U.S.C. § 2515 (emphasis added) (quoted by In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 216 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2000)). The Seventh Circuit labeled the two provisions “complementary,” stating that the word “proceeding” in § 2517(3) “seems merely a shorthand for the longer and unambiguous definition in the complementary section 2515.” 216 F.3d at 624.

b. Furthermore, the legislative history makes clear that the text means what it says, and that “proceeding” is not limited to criminal prosecutions. In re Electronic Surveillance, 49 F.3d at 1193 (attorney disciplinary commission is a covered proceeding) (citing Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-452, § 902(b), 84 Stat. 947 (1970), and H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4036)). As the Sixth Circuit explained, before 1970, the “disclosure of intercepted communications could only be made in connection with state and federal criminal proceedings. Congress amended the subsection (3) in that year to allow disclosure in any authorized proceeding.” 49 F.3d at 1193 (emphasis added).

c.Likewise, federal court decisions interpreting § 2517(1) in the context of disclosures to a federal House Judiciary Committee and a state gambling license commission give a broad definition to the term “any proceeding.” See 841 F.2d 1048, 1054; 431 F. Supp.2d 544, 547.

d. For the reasons stated above (broad statutory text, legislative history, and case precedent), the proceedings before the Special Investigative Committee and any further impeachment proceedings should also be deemed to qualify as “any proceeding” in which the intercepted communications may be disclosed.

13. For all the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully asks this Court to rule on the questions of law presented and to order that:

a. the United States is authorized to serve, under seal, copies of the full and redacted recordings on the respective interceptees, subject to a proposed protective order that the government will submit to the Court pursuant to its case management procedures;

b. the interceptees and the Special Investigative Committee shall be given an opportunity to respond;

c. after hearing from all parties, the United States is authorized to disclose to the Special Investigative Committee the four intercepted communications identified by the government and redacted as Exhibit 4; and

d. the Special Investigative Committee is authorized to use the intercepted communications as appropriate in the proper performance of official duties, including to introduce the recordings into the proceedings of the Committee and at any further impeachment proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: /s/Edmond E. Chang
DAVID A. GLOCKNER
EDMOND E. CHANG

Assistant United States Attorneys
219 South Dearborn Street
Fifth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-1000

Date: December 29, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThe undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that the
following document:

Government’s Motion to Disclose Intercepted Communications to the Special Investigative Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives, was served on December 29, 2008, in accordance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 49, FED. R. CIV. P. 5, LR 5.5, and the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF) pursuant to the district court’s system as to ECF filers, and also served by electronic mail and/or facsimile on the following counsel for the interceptees:

Mr. Edward M. Genson, Mr. Sheldon Sorosky
Genson & Gillespie Kaplan & Sorosky
53 West Jackson Boulevard 158 West Erie Street
Suite 1420 Chicago, Illinois 60610
Chicago, Illinois 60604 312.222.9541 (f)
312.939.3654 (f)

Mr. Daniel Reinberg. Mr. Michael Shepard
Foley & Lardner Hogan & Hartson LLP
321 North Clark Street 4 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2800 22nd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60610 San Francisco, California 94111
312.832.4700 (f) 415.374.2499 (f)

Mr. Michael Ettinger, Mr. David W. Ellis
Ettinger Besbekos & Schroeder PC Mr. Matt O’Shea
12413 S. Harlem Ave. Staff, Special Investigative Committee
Suite 203 (Via electronic mail)
Palos Heights, Illinois 60463
708.923.0386 (f)

/s/ Edmond E. Chang

EDMOND E. CHANG
Assistant United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-1000

What follows is the press release from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris. The Chicago Tribune became part of the story when the Governor tried to tie state financial aid to the Cubs ball park to a less harsh editorial policy.

What Blagojevich is charged with makes former Governor George Ryan’s crimes pale in comparison.

In the report of Blagojevich’s brokering of President-Elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, the press release refers to the gender of Candidate 1, who is close to the Service Employees International Union. My guess is that the reference is to Congresswoman Jan Shakowsky, who is tight with the SEIU, but, of course, neither she nor the SEIU have been accused of any wrong-doing.

= = = = =
Sources are reporting that Candidate 1 is Valerie Jarrett. My mistake.
= = = = =

And Blagojevich’s attempt to have Chicago Tribune editorial writers fired verges on tactics of which leaders of the old Soviet Union would approve.

CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others

• are engaging in ongoing criminal activity:
• conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator;
• threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich;
• and to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions – both historically and now in a push before a new state ethics law takes effect January 1, 2009.

Blagojevich, 51, and Harris, 46, both of Chicago, were each charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.

They were charged in a two-count criminal complaint that was sworn out on Sunday and unsealed today following their arrests, which occurred without incident, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Both men were expected to appear later today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

A 76-page FBI affidavit alleges that Blagojevich was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps during the last month conspiring to sell or trade Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama for financial and other personal benefits for himself and his wife. At various times, in exchange for the Senate appointment, Blagojevich discussed obtaining:

• substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;
• placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;
• promises of campaign funds – including cash up front; and
• a cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself

Just last week, on December 4, Blagojevich allegedly told an advisor that he might “get some (money) up front, maybe” from Senate Candidate 5, if he named Senate Candidate 5 to the Senate seat, to insure that Senate Candidate 5 kept a promise about raising money for Blagojevich if he ran for re-election. In a recorded conversation on October 31, Blagojevich claimed he was approached by an associate of Senate Candidate 5 as follows:

“We were approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.”

On November 7, while talking on the phone about the Senate seat with Harris and an advisor, Blagojevich said he needed to consider his family and that he is “financially” hurting, the affidavit states. Harris allegedly said that they were considering what would help the “financial security” of the Blagojevich family and what will keep Blagojevich “politically viable.” Blagojevich stated,

“I want to make money,”

adding later that he is interested in making $250,000 to $300,000 a year, the complaint alleges.

On November 10, in a lengthy telephone call with numerous advisors that included discussion about Blagojevich obtaining a lucrative job with a union-affiliated organization in exchange for appointing a particular Senate Candidate whom he believed was favored by the President-elect and which is described in more detail below, Blagojevich and others discussed various ways Blagojevich could “monetize” the relationships he has made as governor to make money after leaving that office.

Mr. Fitzgerald said,

“The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering. They allege that Blagojevich put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism. The citizens of Illinois deserve public officials who act solely in the public’s interest, without putting a price tag on government appointments, contracts and decisions.”

Mr. Grant said:

“Many, including myself, thought that the recent conviction of a former governor would usher in a new era of honesty and reform in Illinois politics. Clearly, the charges announced today reveal that the office of the Governor has become nothing more than a vehicle for self-enrichment, unrestricted by party affiliation and taking Illinois politics to a new low.”

Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Grant thanked the Chicago offices of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General for assisting in the ongoing investigation. The probe is part of Operation Board Games, a five-year-old public corruption investigation of pay-to-play schemes, including insider-dealing, influence-peddling and kickbacks involving private interests and public duties.

Federal agents today also executed search warrants at the offices of Friends of Blagojevich located at 4147 North Ravenswood, Suite 300, and at the Thompson Center office of Deputy Governor A.

Pay-to-Play Schemes

The charges include historical allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with others – including previously convicted defendants Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others – since becoming governor in 2002 to obtain and attempt to obtain financial benefits for himself, his family and third parties, including his campaign committee, Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds. A portion of the affidavit recounts the testimony of various witnesses at Rezko’s trial earlier this year.

The charges focus, however, on events since October when the Government obtained information that Blagojevich and Fundraiser A, who is chairman of Friends of Blagojevich (Brother Rob Blagojevich is the PAC’s chairman and Stephen E Caboor is the treasurer, according to the State Board of Elections website), were accelerating Blagojevich’s allegedly corrupt fund-raising activities to accumulate as much money as possible this year before a new state ethics law would severely curtail Blagojevich’s ability to raise money from individuals and entities that have existing contracts worth more than $50,000 with the State of Illinois.

Agents learned that Blagojevich was seeking approximately $2.5 million in campaign contributions by the end of the year, principally from or through individuals or entities – many of which have received state contacts or appointments – identified on a list maintained by Friends of Blagojevich, which the FBI has obtained.

The affidavit details multiple incidents involving efforts by Blagojevich to obtain campaign contributions in connection with his official actions as governor, including these three in early October:

• After an October 6 meeting with Harris and Individuals A and B, during which Individual B sought state help with a business venture, Blagojevich told Individual A to approach Individual B about raising $100,000 for Friends of Blagojevich this year. Individual A said he later learned that Blagojevich reached out directly to Individual B to ask about holding a fund-raiser;
• Also on October 6, Blagojevich told Individual A that he expected Highway Contractor 1 to raise $500,000 in contributions and that he was willing to commit additional state money to a Tollway project – beyond $1.8 billion that Blagojevich announced on October15 – but was waiting to see how much money the contractor raised for Friends of Blagojevich; and

• On October 8, Blagojevich told Individual A that he wanted to obtain a $50,000 contribution from Hospital Executive 1, the chief executive officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, which had recently received a commitment of $8 million in state funds. When the contribution was not forthcoming, Blagojevich discussed with Deputy Governor A the feasibility of rescinding the funding.
• On October 21, the Government obtained a court order authorizing the interception of conversations in both a personal office and a conference room used by Blagojevich at the offices of Friends of Blagojevich. The FBI began intercepting conversations in those rooms on the morning of October 22. A second court order was obtained last month allowing those interceptions to continue. On October 29, a court order was signed authorizing the interception of conversations on a hardline telephone used by Blagojevich at his home. That wiretap was extended for 30 days on November 26, according to the affidavit.

Another alleged example of a pay-to-play scheme was captured in separate telephone conversations that Blagojevich had with Fundraiser A on November 13 and Lobbyist 1 on December 3. Lobbyist 1 was reporting to Blagojevich about his efforts to collect a contribution from Contributor 1 and related that he “got in his face” to make it clear to Contributor 1 that a commitment to make a campaign contribution had to be done now, before there could be some skittishness over the timing of the contribution and Blagojevich signing a bill that would benefit Contributor 1. Blagojevich commented to Lobbyist 1 “good” and “good job.” The bill in question, which is awaiting Blagojevich ’s signature, is believed to be legislation that directs a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry.

Sale of U.S. Senate Appointment

Regarding the Senate seat, the charges allege that Blagojevich, Harris and others have engaged and are engaging in efforts to obtain personal gain, including financial gain, to benefit Blagojevich and his family through corruptly using Blagojevich’s sole authority to appoint a successor to the unexpired term of the President-elect’s former Senate seat, which he resigned effective November 16.

The affidavit details numerous conversations about the Senate seat between November 3 and December 5. In these conversations, Blagojevich repeatedly discussed the attributes of potential candidates, including their abilities to benefit the people of Illinois, and the financial and political benefits he and his wife could receive if he appointed various of the possible candidates.

Throughout the intercepted conversations, Blagojevich also allegedly spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat and expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including:

• frustration at being “stuck” as governor;
• a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor;
• a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016;
• avoiding impeachment by the Illinois legislature;
• making corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office;
• facilitating his wife’s employment as a lobbyist; and
• generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.

In the earliest intercepted conversation about the Senate seat described in the affidavit, Blagojevich told Deputy Governor A on November 3 that if he is not going to get anything of value for the open seat, then he will take it for himself:

“if . . . they’re not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it.”

Later that day, speaking to Advisor A, Blagojevich said:

“I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain.”

He added later that the seat

“is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

Over the next couple of days – Election Day and the day after – Blagojevich was captured discussing with Deputy Governor A whether he could obtain a cabinet position, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Department of Energy or various ambassadorships. In a conversation with Harris on November 4, Blagojevich analogized his situation to that of a sports agent shopping a potential free agent to the highest bidder. The day after the election, Harris allegedly suggested to Blagojevich that the President-elect could make him the head of a private foundation.

Later on November 5, Blagojevich said to Advisor A,

“I’ve got this thing and it’s [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there,”

the affidavit states.

Two days later, in a three-way call with Harris and Advisor B, a consultant in Washington, Blagojevich and the others allegedly discussed the prospect of a three-way deal for the Senate appointment involving an organization called

“Change to Win,”

which is affiliated with various unions including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

On November 10, Blagojevich, his wife, Harris, Governor General Counsel, Advisor B and other Washington-based advisors participated at different times in a two-hour phone call in which they allegedly discussed, among other things, a deal involving the SEIU. Harris said they could work out a deal with the union and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with Blagojevich’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1, while Blagojevich would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future. Also during that call, Blagojevich agreed it was unlikely that the President-elect would name him Secretary of Health and Human Services or give him an ambassadorship because of all of the negative publicity surrounding him.

In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but

“they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.”

Earlier in that conversation, Blagojevich suggested starting a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, which he could head and engage in political activity and lobbying. In that conversation with Harris and other discussions with him and others over the next couple of days, Blagojevich suggested by name several well-known, wealthy individuals who could be prevailed upon to seed such an organization with $10-$15 million, and suggesting that he could take the organization’s reins when he is no longer governor, according to the affidavit.

On November 12, Blagojevich spoke with SEIU Official who was in Washington. This conversation occurred about a week after Blagojevich had met with SEIU Official to discuss the Senate seat, with the understanding that the union official was an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1′s interest in the Senate seat. During the November 12 conversation, Blagojevich allegedly explained the non-profit organization idea to SEIU Official and said that it could help Senate Candidate 1. The union official agreed to “

put that flag up and see where it goes,”

although the official also had said he wasn’t certain if Senate Candidate 1 wanted the official to keep pushing her candidacy. Senate Candidate 1 eventually removed herself from consideration for the open seat.

Also on November 12, in a conversation with Harris, the complaint affidavit states that Blagojevich said his decision about the open Senate seat will be based on three criteria in the following order of importance:

“our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

Harris said:

“legal is the hardest one to satisfy.”

Blagojevich said that his legal problems could be solved by naming himself to the Senate seat.

As recently as December 4, in separate conversations with Advisor B and Fundraiser A, Blagojevich said that he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of candidates because, among other reasons, if Blagojevich ran for re-election, Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for him. Blagojevich said that he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Blagojevich with something “tangible up front.”

Noting that he was going to meet with Senate Candidate 5 in the next few days, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to reach out to an intermediary (Individual D), from whom Blagojevich is attempting to obtain campaign contributions and who Blagojevich believes is close to Senate Candidate 5. Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was a very realistic candidate but Blagojevich was getting a lot of pressure not to appoint Senate Candidate 5, according to the affidavit.

Blagojevich allegedly told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that if Senate Candidate 5 is going to be chosen,

“some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it.”

Blagojevich continued,

“You gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”

Blagojevich further directed Fundraiser A to talk to Individual D in person, not by phone, and to communicate the “urgency” of the situation.

Blagojevich spoke to Fundraiser A again the next day, December 5, and discussed that day’s Chicago Tribune front page article stating that Blagojevich had recently been surreptitiously recorded as part of the ongoing criminal investigation. Blagojevich instructed Fundraiser A to “undo your [Individual D] thing,” and Fundraiser A confirmed it would be undone, the complaint alleges.

Also on December 5, Blagojevich and three others allegedly discussed whether to move money out of the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund to avoid having the money frozen by federal authorities and also considered the possibility of prepaying the money to Blagojevich’s criminal defense attorney with an understanding that the attorney would donate the money back at a later time if it was not needed. They also discussed opening a new fund raising account named Citizens for Blagojevich with new contributions.

Misuse of State Funding To Induce Firing of Chicago Tribune Editorial Writers

According to the affidavit, intercepted phone calls revealed that the Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Cubs, has explored the possibility of obtaining assistance from the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) relating to the Tribune Company’s efforts to sell the Cubs and the financing or sale of Wrigley Field.

In a November 6 phone call, Harris explained to Blagojevich that the deal the Tribune Company was trying to get through the IFA was basically a tax mitigation scheme in which the IFA would own title to Wrigley Field and the Tribune would not have to pay capital gains tax, which Harris estimated would save the company approximately $100 million.

Intercepted calls allegedly show that Blagojevich directed Harris to inform Tribune Owner and an associate, identified as Tribune Financial Advisor, that state financial assistance would be withheld unless members of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board were fired, primarily because Blagojevich viewed them as driving discussion of his possible impeachment.

In a November 4 phone call, Blagojevich allegedly told Harris that he should say to Tribune Financial Advisor, Cubs Chairman and Tribune Owner,

“our recommendation is fire all those [expletive] people, get ‘em the [expletive] out of there and get us some editorial support.”

On November 6, the day of a Tribune editorial critical of Blagojevich , Harris told Blagojevich that he told Tribune Financial Advisor the previous day that things “look like they could move ahead fine but, you know, there is a risk that all of this is going to get derailed by your own editorial page.” Harris also told Blagojevich that he was meeting with Tribune Financial Advisor on November 10.

In a November 11 intercepted call, Harris allegedly told Blagojevich that Tribune Financial Advisor talked to Tribune Owner and Tribune Owner

“got the message and is very sensitive to the issue.”

Harris told Blagojevich that according to Tribune Financial Advisor, there would be

“certain corporate reorganizations and budget cuts coming and, reading between the lines, he’s going after that section.”

Blagojevich allegedly responded.

“Oh. That’s fantastic.”

After further discussion, Blagojevich said,

“Wow. Okay, keep our fingers crossed. You’re the man. Good job, John.”

In a further conversation on November 21, Harris told Blagojevich that he had singled out to Tribune Financial Advisor the Tribune’s deputy editorial page editor, John McCormick,

“as somebody who was the most biased and unfair.”

After hearing that Tribune Financial Advisor had assured Harris that the Tribune would be making changes affecting the editorial board, Blagojevich allegedly had a series of conversations with Chicago Cubs representatives regarding efforts to provide state financing for Wrigley Field.

On November 30, Blagojevich spoke with the president of a Chicago-area sports consulting firm, who indicated that he was working with the Cubs on matters involving Wrigley Field. Blagojevich and Sports Consultant discussed the importance of getting the IFA transaction approved at the agency’s December or January meeting because Blagojevich was contemplating leaving office in early January and his IFA appointees would still be in place to approve the deal, the charges allege.

The Government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Reid Schar, Carrie Hamilton and Christopher Niewoehner.

If convicted, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, while solicitation of bribery carries a maximum of 10 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000. The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that a complaint contain only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

= = = = =
The campaign pieces are from 2006. The photo of Governor Rod Blagojevich being adored was in the Tribune on March 8, 2007. I guess it wasn’t enough to offset the later editorials calling for his removal.

What follows is the press release from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris. The Chicago Tribune became part of the story when the Governor tried to tie state financial aid to the Cubs ball park to a less harsh editorial policy.

What Blagojevich is charged with makes former Governor George Ryan’s crimes pale in comparison.

In the report of Blagojevich’s brokering of President-Elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, the press release refers to the gender of Candidate 1, who is close to the Service Employees International Union. My guess is that the reference is to Congresswoman Jan Shakowsky, who is tight with the SEIU, but, of course, neither she nor the SEIU have been accused of any wrong-doing.

= = = = =
Sources are reporting that Candidate 1 is Valerie Jarrett. My mistake.
= = = = =

And Blagojevich’s attempt to have Chicago Tribune editorial writers fired verges on tactics of which leaders of the old Soviet Union would approve.

CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others

• are engaging in ongoing criminal activity:
• conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator;
• threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich;
• and to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions – both historically and now in a push before a new state ethics law takes effect January 1, 2009.

Blagojevich, 51, and Harris, 46, both of Chicago, were each charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.

They were charged in a two-count criminal complaint that was sworn out on Sunday and unsealed today following their arrests, which occurred without incident, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Both men were expected to appear later today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

A 76-page FBI affidavit alleges that Blagojevich was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps during the last month conspiring to sell or trade Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama for financial and other personal benefits for himself and his wife. At various times, in exchange for the Senate appointment, Blagojevich discussed obtaining:

• substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;
• placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;
• promises of campaign funds – including cash up front; and
• a cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself

Just last week, on December 4, Blagojevich allegedly told an advisor that he might “get some (money) up front, maybe” from Senate Candidate 5, if he named Senate Candidate 5 to the Senate seat, to insure that Senate Candidate 5 kept a promise about raising money for Blagojevich if he ran for re-election. In a recorded conversation on October 31, Blagojevich claimed he was approached by an associate of Senate Candidate 5 as follows:

“We were approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.”

On November 7, while talking on the phone about the Senate seat with Harris and an advisor, Blagojevich said he needed to consider his family and that he is “financially” hurting, the affidavit states. Harris allegedly said that they were considering what would help the “financial security” of the Blagojevich family and what will keep Blagojevich “politically viable.” Blagojevich stated,

“I want to make money,”

adding later that he is interested in making $250,000 to $300,000 a year, the complaint alleges.

On November 10, in a lengthy telephone call with numerous advisors that included discussion about Blagojevich obtaining a lucrative job with a union-affiliated organization in exchange for appointing a particular Senate Candidate whom he believed was favored by the President-elect and which is described in more detail below, Blagojevich and others discussed various ways Blagojevich could “monetize” the relationships he has made as governor to make money after leaving that office.

Mr. Fitzgerald said,

“The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering. They allege that Blagojevich put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism. The citizens of Illinois deserve public officials who act solely in the public’s interest, without putting a price tag on government appointments, contracts and decisions.”

Mr. Grant said:

“Many, including myself, thought that the recent conviction of a former governor would usher in a new era of honesty and reform in Illinois politics. Clearly, the charges announced today reveal that the office of the Governor has become nothing more than a vehicle for self-enrichment, unrestricted by party affiliation and taking Illinois politics to a new low.”

Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Grant thanked the Chicago offices of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General for assisting in the ongoing investigation. The probe is part of Operation Board Games, a five-year-old public corruption investigation of pay-to-play schemes, including insider-dealing, influence-peddling and kickbacks involving private interests and public duties.

Federal agents today also executed search warrants at the offices of Friends of Blagojevich located at 4147 North Ravenswood, Suite 300, and at the Thompson Center office of Deputy Governor A.

Pay-to-Play Schemes

The charges include historical allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with others – including previously convicted defendants Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others – since becoming governor in 2002 to obtain and attempt to obtain financial benefits for himself, his family and third parties, including his campaign committee, Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds. A portion of the affidavit recounts the testimony of various witnesses at Rezko’s trial earlier this year.

The charges focus, however, on events since October when the Government obtained information that Blagojevich and Fundraiser A, who is chairman of Friends of Blagojevich (Brother Rob Blagojevich is the PAC’s chairman and Stephen E Caboor is the treasurer, according to the State Board of Elections website), were accelerating Blagojevich’s allegedly corrupt fund-raising activities to accumulate as much money as possible this year before a new state ethics law would severely curtail Blagojevich’s ability to raise money from individuals and entities that have existing contracts worth more than $50,000 with the State of Illinois.

Agents learned that Blagojevich was seeking approximately $2.5 million in campaign contributions by the end of the year, principally from or through individuals or entities – many of which have received state contacts or appointments – identified on a list maintained by Friends of Blagojevich, which the FBI has obtained.

The affidavit details multiple incidents involving efforts by Blagojevich to obtain campaign contributions in connection with his official actions as governor, including these three in early October:

• After an October 6 meeting with Harris and Individuals A and B, during which Individual B sought state help with a business venture, Blagojevich told Individual A to approach Individual B about raising $100,000 for Friends of Blagojevich this year. Individual A said he later learned that Blagojevich reached out directly to Individual B to ask about holding a fund-raiser;
• Also on October 6, Blagojevich told Individual A that he expected Highway Contractor 1 to raise $500,000 in contributions and that he was willing to commit additional state money to a Tollway project – beyond $1.8 billion that Blagojevich announced on October15 – but was waiting to see how much money the contractor raised for Friends of Blagojevich; and

• On October 8, Blagojevich told Individual A that he wanted to obtain a $50,000 contribution from Hospital Executive 1, the chief executive officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, which had recently received a commitment of $8 million in state funds. When the contribution was not forthcoming, Blagojevich discussed with Deputy Governor A the feasibility of rescinding the funding.
• On October 21, the Government obtained a court order authorizing the interception of conversations in both a personal office and a conference room used by Blagojevich at the offices of Friends of Blagojevich. The FBI began intercepting conversations in those rooms on the morning of October 22. A second court order was obtained last month allowing those interceptions to continue. On October 29, a court order was signed authorizing the interception of conversations on a hardline telephone used by Blagojevich at his home. That wiretap was extended for 30 days on November 26, according to the affidavit.

Another alleged example of a pay-to-play scheme was captured in separate telephone conversations that Blagojevich had with Fundraiser A on November 13 and Lobbyist 1 on December 3. Lobbyist 1 was reporting to Blagojevich about his efforts to collect a contribution from Contributor 1 and related that he “got in his face” to make it clear to Contributor 1 that a commitment to make a campaign contribution had to be done now, before there could be some skittishness over the timing of the contribution and Blagojevich signing a bill that would benefit Contributor 1. Blagojevich commented to Lobbyist 1 “good” and “good job.” The bill in question, which is awaiting Blagojevich ’s signature, is believed to be legislation that directs a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry.

Sale of U.S. Senate Appointment

Regarding the Senate seat, the charges allege that Blagojevich, Harris and others have engaged and are engaging in efforts to obtain personal gain, including financial gain, to benefit Blagojevich and his family through corruptly using Blagojevich’s sole authority to appoint a successor to the unexpired term of the President-elect’s former Senate seat, which he resigned effective November 16.

The affidavit details numerous conversations about the Senate seat between November 3 and December 5. In these conversations, Blagojevich repeatedly discussed the attributes of potential candidates, including their abilities to benefit the people of Illinois, and the financial and political benefits he and his wife could receive if he appointed various of the possible candidates.

Throughout the intercepted conversations, Blagojevich also allegedly spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat and expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including:

• frustration at being “stuck” as governor;
• a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor;
• a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016;
• avoiding impeachment by the Illinois legislature;
• making corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office;
• facilitating his wife’s employment as a lobbyist; and
• generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.

In the earliest intercepted conversation about the Senate seat described in the affidavit, Blagojevich told Deputy Governor A on November 3 that if he is not going to get anything of value for the open seat, then he will take it for himself:

“if . . . they’re not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it.”

Later that day, speaking to Advisor A, Blagojevich said:

“I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain.”

He added later that the seat

“is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

Over the next couple of days – Election Day and the day after – Blagojevich was captured discussing with Deputy Governor A whether he could obtain a cabinet position, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Department of Energy or various ambassadorships. In a conversation with Harris on November 4, Blagojevich analogized his situation to that of a sports agent shopping a potential free agent to the highest bidder. The day after the election, Harris allegedly suggested to Blagojevich that the President-elect could make him the head of a private foundation.

Later on November 5, Blagojevich said to Advisor A,

“I’ve got this thing and it’s [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there,”

the affidavit states.

Two days later, in a three-way call with Harris and Advisor B, a consultant in Washington, Blagojevich and the others allegedly discussed the prospect of a three-way deal for the Senate appointment involving an organization called

“Change to Win,”

which is affiliated with various unions including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

On November 10, Blagojevich, his wife, Harris, Governor General Counsel, Advisor B and other Washington-based advisors participated at different times in a two-hour phone call in which they allegedly discussed, among other things, a deal involving the SEIU. Harris said they could work out a deal with the union and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with Blagojevich’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1, while Blagojevich would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future. Also during that call, Blagojevich agreed it was unlikely that the President-elect would name him Secretary of Health and Human Services or give him an ambassadorship because of all of the negative publicity surrounding him.

In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but

“they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.”

Earlier in that conversation, Blagojevich suggested starting a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, which he could head and engage in political activity and lobbying. In that conversation with Harris and other discussions with him and others over the next couple of days, Blagojevich suggested by name several well-known, wealthy individuals who could be prevailed upon to seed such an organization with $10-$15 million, and suggesting that he could take the organization’s reins when he is no longer governor, according to the affidavit.

On November 12, Blagojevich spoke with SEIU Official who was in Washington. This conversation occurred about a week after Blagojevich had met with SEIU Official to discuss the Senate seat, with the understanding that the union official was an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1′s interest in the Senate seat. During the November 12 conversation, Blagojevich allegedly explained the non-profit organization idea to SEIU Official and said that it could help Senate Candidate 1. The union official agreed to “

put that flag up and see where it goes,”

although the official also had said he wasn’t certain if Senate Candidate 1 wanted the official to keep pushing her candidacy. Senate Candidate 1 eventually removed herself from consideration for the open seat.

Also on November 12, in a conversation with Harris, the complaint affidavit states that Blagojevich said his decision about the open Senate seat will be based on three criteria in the following order of importance:

“our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

Harris said:

“legal is the hardest one to satisfy.”

Blagojevich said that his legal problems could be solved by naming himself to the Senate seat.

As recently as December 4, in separate conversations with Advisor B and Fundraiser A, Blagojevich said that he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of candidates because, among other reasons, if Blagojevich ran for re-election, Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for him. Blagojevich said that he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Blagojevich with something “tangible up front.”

Noting that he was going to meet with Senate Candidate 5 in the next few days, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to reach out to an intermediary (Individual D), from whom Blagojevich is attempting to obtain campaign contributions and who Blagojevich believes is close to Senate Candidate 5. Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was a very realistic candidate but Blagojevich was getting a lot of pressure not to appoint Senate Candidate 5, according to the affidavit.

Blagojevich allegedly told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that if Senate Candidate 5 is going to be chosen,

“some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it.”

Blagojevich continued,

“You gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”

Blagojevich further directed Fundraiser A to talk to Individual D in person, not by phone, and to communicate the “urgency” of the situation.

Blagojevich spoke to Fundraiser A again the next day, December 5, and discussed that day’s Chicago Tribune front page article stating that Blagojevich had recently been surreptitiously recorded as part of the ongoing criminal investigation. Blagojevich instructed Fundraiser A to “undo your [Individual D] thing,” and Fundraiser A confirmed it would be undone, the complaint alleges.

Also on December 5, Blagojevich and three others allegedly discussed whether to move money out of the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund to avoid having the money frozen by federal authorities and also considered the possibility of prepaying the money to Blagojevich’s criminal defense attorney with an understanding that the attorney would donate the money back at a later time if it was not needed. They also discussed opening a new fund raising account named Citizens for Blagojevich with new contributions.

Misuse of State Funding To Induce Firing of Chicago Tribune Editorial Writers

According to the affidavit, intercepted phone calls revealed that the Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Cubs, has explored the possibility of obtaining assistance from the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) relating to the Tribune Company’s efforts to sell the Cubs and the financing or sale of Wrigley Field.

In a November 6 phone call, Harris explained to Blagojevich that the deal the Tribune Company was trying to get through the IFA was basically a tax mitigation scheme in which the IFA would own title to Wrigley Field and the Tribune would not have to pay capital gains tax, which Harris estimated would save the company approximately $100 million.

Intercepted calls allegedly show that Blagojevich directed Harris to inform Tribune Owner and an associate, identified as Tribune Financial Advisor, that state financial assistance would be withheld unless members of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board were fired, primarily because Blagojevich viewed them as driving discussion of his possible impeachment.

In a November 4 phone call, Blagojevich allegedly told Harris that he should say to Tribune Financial Advisor, Cubs Chairman and Tribune Owner,

“our recommendation is fire all those [expletive] people, get ‘em the [expletive] out of there and get us some editorial support.”

On November 6, the day of a Tribune editorial critical of Blagojevich , Harris told Blagojevich that he told Tribune Financial Advisor the previous day that things “look like they could move ahead fine but, you know, there is a risk that all of this is going to get derailed by your own editorial page.” Harris also told Blagojevich that he was meeting with Tribune Financial Advisor on November 10.

In a November 11 intercepted call, Harris allegedly told Blagojevich that Tribune Financial Advisor talked to Tribune Owner and Tribune Owner

“got the message and is very sensitive to the issue.”

Harris told Blagojevich that according to Tribune Financial Advisor, there would be

“certain corporate reorganizations and budget cuts coming and, reading between the lines, he’s going after that section.”

Blagojevich allegedly responded.

“Oh. That’s fantastic.”

After further discussion, Blagojevich said,

“Wow. Okay, keep our fingers crossed. You’re the man. Good job, John.”

In a further conversation on November 21, Harris told Blagojevich that he had singled out to Tribune Financial Advisor the Tribune’s deputy editorial page editor, John McCormick,

“as somebody who was the most biased and unfair.”

After hearing that Tribune Financial Advisor had assured Harris that the Tribune would be making changes affecting the editorial board, Blagojevich allegedly had a series of conversations with Chicago Cubs representatives regarding efforts to provide state financing for Wrigley Field.

On November 30, Blagojevich spoke with the president of a Chicago-area sports consulting firm, who indicated that he was working with the Cubs on matters involving Wrigley Field. Blagojevich and Sports Consultant discussed the importance of getting the IFA transaction approved at the agency’s December or January meeting because Blagojevich was contemplating leaving office in early January and his IFA appointees would still be in place to approve the deal, the charges allege.

The Government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Reid Schar, Carrie Hamilton and Christopher Niewoehner.

If convicted, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, while solicitation of bribery carries a maximum of 10 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000. The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that a complaint contain only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

= = = = =
The campaign pieces are from 2006. The photo of Governor Rod Blagojevich being adored was in the Tribune on March 8, 2007. I guess it wasn’t enough to offset the later editorials calling for his removal.