Blagojevich found guilty on only 1 of 24 counts

[o-BacklasH-o]

CHICAGO—A federal jury found former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty Tuesday of one count of making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation but failed to reach a verdict on 23 other corruption counts.

 

Prosecutors said they would seek a retrial on the remaining counts, but Mr. Blagojevich claimed a victory moments after the verdict was read.

 

"This jury shows you that the government threw everything but the kitchen sink at me," Mr. Blagojevich said. "They could not prove I did anything wrong—except for one nebulous charge from five years ago."

 

A juror reached by telephone Tuesday evening said the jury was split 11-1 in favor of convicting Mr. Blagojevich on the charge of selling the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

 

Juror Erik Sarnello, 21 years old, of Itasca, Ill., said a female holdout "just didn't see what we all saw." Mr. Sarnello said the counts involving the Senate seat were "the most obvious" and without the holdout, the jury would have likely convicted on six or seven counts.

 

Mr. Blagojevich is the fourth Illinois governor in recent years to be tried for corruption. The political implications of the trial have taken center stage as campaigning for November's midterm elections has heated up this summer. The case was expected to stretch into the autumn and include a slate of high-profile Democrats. But the government rested its case earlier than expected and Mr. Blagojevich didn't present a defense.

 

The prospect of a retrial after 14 days of deliberation raised the possibility that many boldfaced names in political circles could still be called to testify, including Democratic U.S. Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

 

After the verdict, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald thanked the jury for their service but said little else. "We're about to get ready for a retrial," he said.

 

The verdict was a setback for Mr. Fitzgerald, who said in the hours after Mr. Blagojevich was arrested that he had "interrupted a political corruption crime spree" and that Mr. Blagojevich had "put a for-sale sign on the naming of a United States Senator."

 

"This was a victory for the defense," said Pat Collins, a former assistant U.S. attorney who helped prosecute former Illinois Republican Gov. George Ryan. "There's no way to spin it any other way."

 

Mr. Blagojevich faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the single guilty count. He said he will appeal the guilty verdict.

 

Jurors found that he lied to FBI agents five years ago when he told them that he didn't want to know who had made contributions to his campaign and that there was a firewall between his campaign operation and his administration.

 

Mr. Blagojevich, a twice-elected Democrat, was handcuffed in front of his home at about 6 a.m. on Dec. 9, 2008, and charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.

 

For the two months prior to his arrest, investigators had bugged phones in his home and campaign office, where they recorded profanity-laced conversations between the governor and his advisers about their alleged plans to profit from his authority. "I want to make money," Mr. Blagojevich said, according to prosecutors.

 

Of his power to appoint someone to fill Mr. Obama's former senate seat, he said: "I've got this thing and it's f—ing golden and I'm not just going to give it up for f—ing nothing."

 

For 10 days, critics called on Mr. Blagojevich to step down as he maintained a public silence. Then he called a press conference and insisted he was innocent. "I intend to stay on the job," he said. "I will fight, I will fight. I will fight—until I take my last breath."

 

The afternoon marked the beginning of a 19-month media campaign in which Mr. Blagojevich published his autobiography, made appearances on a reality TV series with Donald Trump and sat for interviews on shows from "Late Night with David Letterman" to "The View."

 

Mr. Blagojevich wasn't his usual showman self on Tuesday after the jury foreman handed the verdict to Judge James Zagel. He sat with his hands folded on the table and looked down. After the guilty verdict was read, Mr. Blagojevich turned to his wife, sitting a few feet away, and said: "Are you OK?"

[Prane]

I can't believe this crap. He has made a complete circus out of an already damaged state. I hope the next jury convicts him and he rots in jail.

[IRISH BULL]

Good old C®ook County Illinois.

[Crusty_Demons]

IRISH BULL;815603']Good old C®ook County Illinois.

 

That ® is actually a (d)... Just saying

[IRISH BULL]

Crusty_Demons;815626']That ® is actually a (d)... Just saying

 

I don't get it.

[Prane]

Irish you put parentheses around the r in crook. I'm thinking that Crusty though it was for republican hence why he put a d for democrat which is what Blago is. I assume you just meant the r stood for rod.

[SgtJoeFriday]

Prane;815659']Irish you put parentheses around the r in crook. I'm thinking that Crusty though it was for republican hence why he put a d for democrat which is what Blago is. I assume you just meant the r stood for rod.

 

You're Dem reference might be right. But it IS Cook Co. So the "®" makes it crook.

[Prane]

Ahh I got ya. Yeah Cook is not too great, that is why I'm glad to live in Kane. I definitely would not want to end up in Cook county jail. My cute face wouldn't last long in there. Plus Cook taxes suck!!

[IRISH BULL]

You're Dem reference might be right. But it IS Cook Co. So the "®" makes it crook.

 

Yea, that's what I meant. Crook County Illinois. I give a shit what party you run with here in Cook County. They are ALL a bunch of crooks. I'm glad I don't live here either. I just work in this cesspool.

[Crusty_Demons]

Your correct i assumed the ® was meant for Republican my mistake. Anyway more on topic the prosecution failed to make it's case which is the primary reason why this ended in a mistrial. Honestly this case doesn't completely pass the smell test similar to the Duke lacrosse case.

[o-BacklasH-o]

No, the prosecution didn't present their case at ALL. I think they tried to coast by on the "bare bones." They would have been successful too, had it not been for the holdout on the jury. You are going to see a re-trial in the future with a LOT of new evidence and testimony brought forth. This will be very interesting to see unfold and this trial has only scratched the surface.

[Crusty_Demons]

The defense didn't even put up a fight.. I'm pretty sure a retrial won't go any better especially if it involves the same DA. A hung jury is a hung jury the chances of there being 2 or 3 holdouts in another trial are probably the same. A case this big and they they tried to coast by on the bare bones? That alone should tell you something is wrong with this picture. Any prosecutor with a legitimate case would have went in there and killed it to beyond the shadow of a doubt yet for some reason that didn't happen in this case. Honestly I think there are implications in this case that go higher up the food chain that would have to be exposed in order for this case to be proved.

[o-BacklasH-o]

Now you are starting to catch my drift here Crusty. They had a bare bones approach because the full truth will implicate the main man and many officials under him. This case and it's forthcoming re-trial will reveal as much or as little as the upper echelon dictates. Sadly justice will most likely be interrupted by politics...shocking.