McHenry County Blog

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.

Here is a comparison from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the old and the new cases against former Governor Rod Blagojevich:

First, the disclaimer.

I ran as the Libertarian Party candidate against Jim Ryan and Rod Blagojevich in 2002. I got so few votes that it did not affect the outcome. Ryan would have lost whether or not I had been in the race as a third party candidate.

After that race, I started writing articles for Illinois Leader. When my name became known as a reporter through the internet, I started getting calls from a man in Cumberland County about how a politically powerful Republican judge, Robert Cochonour, had looted a community foundation. He wanted me to write a story.

I got lots of information from him.

But this was a big story. I couldn’t wrap my arms around it with everything else I was doing.

I told him he really needed folks at a paper like the Chicago Tribune to take it on.

Low and behold, the Tribune did so…in a two-part story. Reporter Michael Higgins wrote the stories.

First there was a front page story on June 19, 2005. You can buy it here.

I remember a second article the next day, but can’t find it in the Tribune archives.

Then, on August 3rd, the crooked judge testified under threat of losing the sweetheart deal that Jim Ryan cut with him right before Ryan left office in 2003..

So, what about that “sweetheart deal?”

Take a look at the press release from Ryan’s office, dated January 3, 2003. The 2002 election was two months before. Ryan’s staff was packing up his office mementos.

The release announces that Cochonour “stole” funds from the Jay E. Hayden Foundation. It mentions he was a Circuit Court judge.

It doesn’t mention that the judge got to keep his pension as a former state’s attorney and to get his pension for being a judge.

An August 3, 2005, article by the Tribune’s Higgins says,

“The plea deal is crucial for Cochonour–and unpopular with many in Cumberland County–because it allowed him to keep a judicial pension of $76,650 a year.

“He also gets a pension of nearly $19,000 a year as a former Cumberland County state’s attorney, according to the transcript.”

If Jim Ryan is nominated Tuesday to be the flag carrier for the Republican Party, can you imagine the television commercial based on this plea bargain?

It could be a twofer.

I’m too cheap to buy the article, but my Cumberland County contact insisted there were elements to the fraud that involved Cochonour in his role as a judge. If so, prosecution could have resulted in his losing both of his public pensions, just as George Ryan did when convicted of a felony.

So, the case could be used to attack Ryan’s integrity.

And, then there is the pension angle.

The state is projected to have real problems paying its pension burden and here Ryan is allowing (how would such a commercial describe Ryan?) “a crooked Republican crony” (?) to keep “not one, but two” pensions.

That’s one reason I don’t think Jim Ryan can be elected governor.

= = = = =

As I was finishing this article, Jim Ryan called.  He sounded really tired.

He was no more willing to talk to me today than he and Blagojevich were to debate me in 2002.

Twice Ryan mentioned “corruption:”

“…our culture of corruption…

“I’ll end corruption in Springfield.”

I’ll give him one point.

A Ryan administration starting in 2011 is bound to be less corrupt that one would have been had it started in 2003 when Ryan’s biggest lifetime contributor Stuart Levine would have been appointed to the same boards (the Downstate Teachers Retirement System and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board) by Ryan that Blagojevich appointed him to.

You can’t convince me that Levine would not have been trying to cut the same illegal deals under a Ryan Administration that he did under Blagojevich.

= = = = =
Lots of other political stories here.

Never let it be said that McHenry County’s State Representative Jack Franks (D-Marengo) doesn’t have a good eye for what will attract media attention.

Think of his four-year fight to get cheaper prescription drugs for seniors.

Think of his many attacks on and early call for Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment after Franks’ initial attempt to get relatives and supporters appointed to various positions and Blagojevich’s release thereafter of that memo and a letter of support for licensing the Crystal Lake Mercy Hospital when the Stuart Levine scandal broke.

Now Franks has decided to take on another story with “legs,” as the media folks would say:

Pat Quinn’s botching of early release of prisoners

How many legs?

I think it dooms Quinn’s election chances in the fall, if not the primary.

Here are a week’s Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune editorials on the subject (click to enlarge).

And, take a look at what is on page 2 of the Chicago Sun-Times today.  Obviously there is plenty of potential publicity out there.

Jack doesn’t talk to me anymore at anything but public events, so let me offer my advice here.

Mruder-Related Convicts Released Early

Call Bill Bradly as your first witness.According to a WBBM-Radio story yesterday, the Republican state senator and candidate for the Republican Party nomination for governor has first-hand information from the Department of Corrections Director that Quinn made the decision about early release.

By putting Brady first, you would be providing some cover to what might be the real reason for your interest in this issue, getting State Comptroller Dan Hynes. (Pardon me if I think you are supporting him based on nothing more than the signs for Hynes that appear heavily in the Marengo area in his previous runs for office. If you are supporting Quinn, I would be happy to relay that information to McHenry County Blog readers.)

From the photos of “murder-related convicts released early” found on page 3 of today’s Sun-Times, there is a lot of potential.

At some point, someone might also want to look at sex offenders who were nnot released early under Governor George Ryan. Sometime after the Democrats took control, they started getting to use their “good time” to get out earlier.

Already Hynes is running his version of the Willie Horton ad on TV.

Hostile hearings chaired by Franks would have a re-enforcing effect.

Sunday, my wife and I saw “Jersey Boys.”

The Frankie Valli actor sang,

“Working My Way Back to You, Babe.”

As I read Republican gubernatorial candidate Andy McKenna’s press release announcing he had signed the American for Tax Reform’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” I realized this might be a step toward the Illinois GOP’s returning to the taxpayer’s side in Illinois.

The song was written after Valli had played around on the road and his wife had left him. Goodness knows local govenment Republicans have played around with raising taxes—think of

• Crystal Lake Mayor Aaron Shepley’s 75% city sales tax hike and
  the Republican state senators in DuPage County (including Kirk Dillard, now running against McKenna for the nomination) and
• DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom’s inducing those GOP senators to vote for the bill that tripled the RTA sales tax in the collar counties.

McKenna even lashed out at Schillerstrom and former Governor James R. Thompson for supporting the huge RTA sales tax hike at the Republican State Convention in 2008, leading to a walk out of most of the DuPage County delegation, but cheers from other suburbanites like me.

But, Republican legislative leaders Tom Cross and Christine Rodogno have not become “responsible Republicans” and led the charge to bail out the spend and borrow and tax Democrats who have controlled Springfield since Rod Blagojevich beat Jim Ryan (and me) in 2002.

Maybe they have figured out what I have.

When Blagojevich took office in 2003, he proclaimed there was a $5 billion deficit. I always thought that was a two-year figure that could have been worked off, the way Jim Edgar got out of the hole that Jim Thompson left him.

Every year, including 2003, the Springfield (read “Chicago”) Democrats added a billion dollars to the budget.

Hey, there was no problem.

Come last year and Pat Quinn takes over. He proclaims an $11-12 billion debt.

Let’s do some simple math.

2009 minus 2003 is 6.

Six times $1 billion is $6 billion.

Five billion dollars, plus $6 billion is $11 billion.
Presto Chango!

We know where the Democrats deficit came from.

As Pogo, undoubtedly a Democrat, would say,

“We have met the enemy and it is us.”

Below is McKenna’s press release:

McKenna Signs Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge; Challenges Opponents to do the Same

Andy McKenna announced today that he signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge, vowing as Governor to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”“I am pleased to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge because it is wrong to ask the taxpayers of Illinois to do more when their government has done so little,” said McKenna. “I challenge my opponents to sign this pledge and make a commitment to the hardworking men and women of this state that they will not raise taxes.”

While some of his opponents continue to flip-flop on whether they will raise taxes, McKenna’s opposition to tax hikes has been clear for years including his collaboration with Republican Leaders Tom Cross and Christine Radogno to defeat Governor Quinn’s jobs-killing income tax hike.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.  It was founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist at the request of President Ronald Reagan.  Since ATR first sponsored the Pledge in 1986, hundreds of U.S. Representatives, more than fifty U.S. Senators and every successful Republican Presidential candidate have all signed the Pledge.

One of the men I ran against in the 2002 Libertarian Party candidate for governor has been indicted.

You remember him.

The laughing stock of Illinois, if not yet convicted felon, Rod Blagojevich.

The other one was Republican Jim Ryan.

They both had a lot in common.

Both were chickens.

I called them “JimRod, the Two-Headed Chicken.”

The cartoon you see above by Alex Raffi was commissioned by the campaign.

We also had various people—some of whom still probably wish to remain anonymous—wearing a two-headed chicken suit. The second head was floppy and I never did decide which head represented which candidate.

Ryan and Blagojevich not only refused to debate me, deliberately deciding not to participate in the Illinois League of Women Voters after I met the League’s qualification of having polled higher than 5% in a third party poll (the 1,000 person Daily Southtown newspaper poll), but they were not even brave enough to walk past me on the way to one of their “power party” only debates.

I remember the WGN-TV one vividly.

Upon learning that I was standing at the front entrance of the studio (JimRod and picket sign wielding supporters having been banished to the street entrance), both candidats’ vans drove all the way around the parking lot—they wouldn’t even drive past the entrance—to a side studio door to enter the building.

When the gathered non-WGN camera folks figured out what was happening, there was a rush to the eastern edge of the building to get their shots.

I wonder if Ryan will deign to debate others who file for the GOP nomination for governor.

Ever wonder what it looks like when an attorney has his license revoked?

Below you see what the State of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court did to Nick Hurtgen, a Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson “wuderkind,” who ventured too far into Illinois politics, got indicted in the Edwards Hospital scandal and agreed to plead guilty.  Most of the people mentioned below will be witnesses in the Federal case against impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich.

The recommendation from Wisconsin’s Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) pretty well summarizes the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board scandal.  It does not mention the Mercy Health Systems effort to place a hospital in Crystal Lake, but most of the players, sans Hurtgen, were the same as those involved in the Edwards Hospital shake-down described below.

No.  2009AP941-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN:
IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
v.
P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Respondent.

FILED SEP 9, 2009

David R. Schanker
Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.   Attorney’s license revoked.

¶1   PER CURIAM.   Attorney P. Nicholas Hurtgen has filed a petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to SCR 22.19.[1]   He states he cannot successfully defend against pending charges of professional misconduct relating to his conviction, entered following a guilty plea, to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346, and 2 in connection with a long-running federal investigation of corruption in the administration of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

¶2   Attorney Hurtgen was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1992.  He resides in Illinois and is presently the subject of an OLR investigation into these matters.

¶3   The facts from the indictment are complicated and will be only briefly summarized by this court.  Attorney Hurtgen was a senior managing director in the Chicago office of Bear Stearns & Co. (“Bear Stearns”), an investment bank that did business with Edward Hospital.  In December 2007 Attorney Hurtgen was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on three counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud and one count of extortion in connection with a “pay to play” scheme involving medical facility construction projects in Illinois.  Two other individuals, Stuart Levine, a member of the Illinois Planning Board, and Jacob Kiferbaum, owner and operator of Kiferbaum Construction, were also indicted in connection with the same scheme.  The indictment indicates that Attorney Hurtgen sought to arrange the financing of a proposed Plainfield hospital and medical center for Edward Hospital.

¶4   The indictment alleges that between early 2001 through at least June 2004, the three men conspired to defraud Chicago Medical School, the Planning Board, and the State of Illinois, among others, in connection with four construction projects.

¶5   According to the indictment, Levine, Kiferbaum, and Attorney Hurtgen agreed they would use Levine’s position on the Planning Board to try to force Edward Hospital to hire Kiferbaum’s company to build the proposed $90 million hospital and a $23 million medical office building in Plainfield.  The plan was to tell Edward Hospital representatives that the Planning Board would not approve the projects unless they hired Kiferbaum to build the projects.  Attorney Hurtgen assisted in the scheme because he wanted his employer, Bear Stearns, to receive the financing work for the new Edward Hospital.

¶6   According to the indictment, Attorney Hurtgen agreed to introduce Kiferbaum to the CEO of Edward Hospital.  Kiferbaum understood that Levine would direct the CEO to provide him with a kickback.  According to the indictment, in mid-December 2003, Attorney Hurtgen called Edward Hospital’s CEO and said if the hospital wanted to have certain permits approved, it should postpone its application before the Planning Board on December 17, 2003, to allow time to hire Kiferbaum.  Otherwise, the permit would be denied.  On December 23, 2003, Attorney Hurtgen and Kiferbaum met with Edward Hospital’s CEO to attempt to force the hiring of Kiferbaum’s company.

¶7   On January 8, 2004, Attorney Hurtgen met again with the CEO as well as with Edward Hospital’s project administrator.  When this meeting occurred, the defendants were unaware that the hospital officials were cooperating with the FBI.  The indictment alleged that in explaining his role in persuading Edward Hospital officials to hire Kiferbaum’s company, Attorney Hurtgen said that Bear Stearns would finance the hospital if it was approved.  During the January meeting, the hospital’s CEO requested proof that the threats and promises were real.  Attorney Hurtgen said he might be able to arrange a situation in which Levine would “inadvertently” bump into the CEO and Attorney Hurtgen.  After further discussions, Levine and Attorney Hurtgen went to a restaurant in Deerfield, Illinois, on April 18, 2004, to prove to the CEO that Levine, Attorney Hurtgen, and Kiferbaum were working together and that their threats and promises were real.  Levine and Attorney Hurtgen walked over to the table where Kiferbaum and the CEO were sitting and spoke with them about hiring Kiferbaum.  Attorney Hurtgen later said he told the CEO that it was “all about money” for campaign contributions.

¶8   As of the April 21, 2004, Planning Board meeting, Edward Hospital had not hired Kiferbaum.  Levine voted against the project and the Plainfield hospital application was denied.

¶9   Attorney Hurtgen eventually reached a plea agreement whereby he promised to cooperate with the investigation in return for a recommendation of a lighter sentence.  He entered a guilty plea on February 25, 2009.

¶10  Attorney Hurtgen is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney who engaged in felonious behavior by participating in a pay-to-play scheme.  Admittedly, Attorney Hurtgen was not acting as an attorney when he engaged in this scheme, but his participation in this scheme reflects serious misconduct that violates the public trust.   The OLR recommends revocation as the appropriate sanction, and Attorney Hurtgen does not oppose this recommendation.  He acknowledges he cannot successfully defend against the allegations of the pending disciplinary proceeding.  He states that he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly filing the petition for consensual license revocation.  He notes that he is represented by counsel, and states that he knows he is giving up his right to contest the allegations of misconduct.

¶11  Therefore, we accept Attorney Hurtgen’s petition for consensual license revocation, and we revoke Attorney Hurtgen’s license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶12  IT IS ORDERED that the license of P. Nicholas Hurtgen to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶13  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done so, P. Nicholas Hurtgen shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked.

¶14  DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.

= = = = =
The photo shows Rod Blagojevich being questioned by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.  An attorney, Van Susteren suggested Blagojevich release all of the FBI wire taps of his conversations that he says he wants everyone to hear.  So far, Blagojevich has not done so.

Looks like the two daily newspaper political columnists in Chicago may be in for a feud.

I looked at Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin’s Sunday column first.  You can tell from the title,

I’m assuming the former Rod Blagojevich fund raiser killed himself, but I guess it’s possible that someone forced enough aspirin down his throat to kill him.

Then I read the Chicago Tribune column by John Kass.

And, having read Marin’s column first, the following leaped off the page:

“In the next few days, some mouthpiece, perhaps even a politician, will start spinning that if the feds hadn’t pressure him to talk, Kelly would be alive.”

Obviously, Kass had not read Marin’s column before he wrote his, so it wasn’t really aimed at Marin.

But the point was made.

McHenry County Blog relayed the Sunday before last that Jeff Berkowitz had discovered that McHenry County’s State Senator Pam Althoff was a weak link in the Republican opposition to the Democrats’ income proposed 50% tax hike.

Now, Pete Gonigam’s First Electric Newspaper reports that she still might be open to the idea.

Her office phone number is 815-455-6330. Her Springfield number is 217-782-8000.

Although Governor Pat Quinn has almost figured out that House Republicans are going to force him to wait until January to have a chance at getting a huge income tax hike, Senate Republicans have been being quite squishy on the matter. A call to her office might help strengthen her backbone on the issue.

And, if you would like a logical reason why the Democrats should be the only people voting for a tax hike, let me fill you in on how we got in the current financial mess.

Rod Blagojevich gets elected criticizing the efforts of Governor George Ryan to economize. Blagojevich campaigns to keep open or to open every state institution that Ryan has decided is not needed.

After taking office, Blagojevich concludes there is a $5 billion deficit. As far as I can figure out it is a two-year deficit which could have been worked off, except…

Rod Blagojevich and his Democrats have added $1 billion of expenditures each of the last six years.

Add $6 million to the $5 billion deficit that was never worked off and you have an $11 billion deficit.

Two-year again, it is my belief.

So, the Democrats caused this problem.

They are the ones that allowed illegal aliens to obtain taxpayer-paid medical care, as just one example.

For having been so irresponsible, it is their responsibility to figure a way out of this mess.

That is not the job of Republicans like our State Senator Althoff.

In January, the Democrats can pass whatever they want with a bare majority and they have, of course, much higher numbers than that.

Every Republican who votes for the Democrats’ tax hike bill will allow another Democratic Party legislator to escape the voter wrath they so justly have earned by their irresponsible spending since gaining total control of Springfield six years ago.

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.