38
   

Illinois Governor Arrested

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 02:07 pm
@JPB,
Is Lincoln Park Title aka Lincoln Title Company?

http://www.lincolntitlecompany.com/index.html



wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 03:09 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

Is Lincoln Park Title aka Lincoln Title Company?

http://www.lincolntitlecompany.com/index.html


Most likely not the same company. Here in Illinois there is an overabundance of companies with "Lincoln" as part of their name.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 03:23 pm
@wandeljw,
They've the same address and telephone number.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 03:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

They've the same address and telephone number.

Quote:
Lincoln Park Title Company
120 W Madison St Ste 906, Chicago, IL 60602-4153
Contact Phone: (312) 782-5900
URL (web address):
Business Category: Title Abstract Services in Chicago, IL
Industry (SIC): Title Abstract Offices


http://i39.tinypic.com/2ajyhar.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 03:56 pm
@wandeljw,
As a matter of fact, I believe the bank that held our mortgage on our Naperville home was "Lincoln Savings and Loan."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 09:22 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

If we can get back on-topic now...

joe -- can you decode John Kass's column for me?

No.

Kass has a habit of dropping innuendo when he doesn't have any hard facts, in the hopes that the facts might some day catch up to the innuendo. Jimmy DeLeo knows John Cullerton whose wife works for DeLeo and who both work with the governor's lawyer's son. Which means ... well, I don't know what that all means. Presumably, they're all conspiring together to do something, like fix the Blagojevich case or plan the office Christmas party. It's much like Okie and his theories about how Rezko and Obama were somehow conspiring to do something, despite all of the many factual and logical improbabilities.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:08 am
@joefromchicago,
Joe, you drink Obamalade. I will post the link again, read it again, and ask yourself, seriously, if Ms. Rezko, wife of Obama's fundraising friend and corrupt political Chicago promoter and part of the Chicago machine, just happened to out of the blue buy the adjoining lot to the Obamas, it was pure conincidence, Joe? I think you are pretty naive and you are placing your bets on some very very longshot odds in my opinion. It is highly unlikely that your scenario is true. Plus Obama has already admitted error, which translates into yes, a political favor, it was a "boneheaded" mistake. You also falsely believe that Obama is somehow above this sort of thing, come on, you need to become a bit more realistic.

http://makethemaccountable.com/index.php/2008/08/10/more-than-just-a-boneheaded-mistake/

I love it when Democrats are guilty of political favors and crime, it is "boneheadedness," but when a Republican does it, it is crime, a special prosecutor is brought in, and before long their political careers are over. There is a double standard, and I have noted this double standard now for a very long time, ever since Watergate and before that even. The liberal press is in the tank for Democrats, and they have been for decades, but it is getting worse.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:20 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

JPB wrote:

If we can get back on-topic now...

joe -- can you decode John Kass's column for me?

No.

Kass has a habit of dropping innuendo when he doesn't have any hard facts, in the hopes that the facts might some day catch up to the innuendo. Jimmy DeLeo knows John Cullerton whose wife works for DeLeo and who both work with the governor's lawyer's son. Which means ... well, I don't know what that all means. Presumably, they're all conspiring together to do something, like fix the Blagojevich case or plan the office Christmas party. It's much like Okie and his theories about how Rezko and Obama were somehow conspiring to do something, despite all of the many factual and logical improbabilities.

That post explains you. For example, if two bankrobbers live in the same house, it would I guess mean nothing to you, it would be total coincidence as far as you are concerned. You would make a lousy investigator, Joe.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 11:00 am
Quote:
Ill. gov. says ready to tell his side of scandal
(Associated Press, December 17, 2008)

CHICAGO (AP) " Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Wednesday he is ready to tell his side of the scandal to the people of Illinois and that he would do so no later than Thursday.

"I can't wait to begin to tell my side of the story and to address you guys and, most importantly, the people of Illinois. That's who I'm dying to talk to," he said as he left his home Wednesday morning for a jog.

"There's a time and place for everything. That day will soon be here and you might know more about that today, maybe no later than tomorrow."

On Tuesday, an impeachment inquiry against Blagojevich hit a speed bump shortly after getting under way, with state lawmakers seeking guidance from federal prosecutors and postponing any real action until the governor's attorney arrives.

The attorney, Ed Genson, planned to attend Wednesday's meeting of a special Illinois House committee reviewing potential impeachment and may provide the first hint of the embattled Democratic governor's strategy.

When asked if he would join his lawyer at the Capitol Wednesday, Blagojevich said he was "in good hands" with Genson being there. Asked about when he might talk, the governor was glib: "To quote Elvis, 'hang loose.' Now can I get a run in, do you think?"

Genson, a famously tough Chicago trial attorney, could signal that his legal team will participate fully in the committee's work by cross-examining witnesses and arguing Blagojevich's case. Or he could challenge the committee, perhaps arguing its review shouldn't go forward for some reason.

The impeachment committee met Tuesday for the first time but soon adjourned. Members didn't want to begin in earnest until the governor's lawyer could be present, said the chairwoman, Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie.

Currie also said she's awaiting a response from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about whether the panel will be allowed to hear testimony from certain witnesses without compromising the federal corruption case against Blagojevich. She said she has no idea when Fitzgerald will reply.

The Illinois Senate also adjourned Tuesday without considering a plan to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat through a special election. Republicans accused the Democratic majority of trying to hold onto the seat by denying the public a right to vote.

Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents last week on charges that include scheming to appoint Obama's replacement based on who offered the governor the best political or financial deal.

The impeachment committee will recommend to the full House whether to move forward with impeachment. Members said Tuesday they will take the job seriously.

"Frontier justice will not prevail in this proceeding. A rush to judgment does not serve the people of the state well," said Currie, a Chicago Democrat.

Criminal charges aside, the committee will weigh other allegations against Blagojevich. Lawmakers have long accused the Chicago Democrat of abusing his power by spending money without legislative approval, defying legislative orders and denying lawmakers information they should receive.

The president-elect was pulled into the dispute Tuesday when Obama refused to say whether he supports a special election. Obama "punted" rather than take a position on a vital issue, the RNC said.

If a Democratic governor appoints Obama's replacement, the Senate seat is certain to stay in Democratic hands. Although Illinois is a solidly Democratic state, the public anger toward the Democratic governor means a GOP victory would not be out of the question.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:12 pm
Could the Blago Scandal Ensnare Team Obama? You Betcha.
If you don’t think it can, you don’t know prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

By Byron York


Will the Blagojevich scandal damage the incoming Obama administration? Given Rod Blagojevich’s profane railings against Barack Obama, revealed on federal wiretaps, few observers believe " although none know for sure " that the Obama camp engaged in any pay-for-play dealings with the governor, and therefore few see any legal problems for Team Obama resulting from the criminal investigation.

But that’s not the only way the incoming administration might be caught up in the Blagojevich affair. The probe is being conducted, after all, by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the man who prosecuted one of the most intensely investigated and politically charged perjury-and-false-statements cases in Washington history. In that case, the Plame affair, no one was charged with any underlying crime, yet several Bush administration officials went through repeated sessions before a grand jury, plus interviews with investigators, with their statements subjected to extraordinarily close scrutiny. You don’t think the Blagojevich matter could cause trouble for Obama? Then you haven’t looked closely enough at the Plame affair.

In that case, Fitzgerald and his team of prosecutors were tasked with finding who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame after Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the administration over the war in Iraq. But Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was at the time the investigation began. With that no longer in question, he embarked on a long perjury investigation that eventually resulted in the indictment and conviction of former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby. Besides Libby, others in the Bush circle, particularly Karl Rove, found themselves testifying repeatedly and, if some reports are to be believed, coming perilously close to indictment.

Could the Blagojevich case lead to something like that happening to people close to Obama? Even though it might seem hard to find two more dissimilar cases, the answer is yes.

We don’t know the extent of the investigation into Blagojevich’s allegedly corrupt dealings. Have witnesses been brought before a grand jury? We don’t know. If so, who are they? We don’t know. What witnesses have been interviewed by FBI agents working for Fitzgerald? We don’t know. Do Fitzgerald and his investigators have any doubts about the truthfulness of those who have talked? We don’t know.

But we do know that something big is going on. “There is a lot of investigation that still needs to be done,” Rob Grant, who is the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, told reporters at the news conference announcing the Blagojevich charges last week. “There are critical interviews that we have to do and cooperation we need to get from different people.” At the same press conference, Fitzgerald himself added, “We have a tremendous amount of information gained from the wiretap and bugs that occurred over the last month and a half or so….One of the things we want to do with this investigation is to track out the different schemes and conspiracies to find out which ones were carried out or not and who might be involved in that or not. And that’s something we haven’t done yet. Now that we’ve gone overt, we’ll be interviewing people and figuring that out.”

One of the things Fitzgerald and his fellow prosecutors and FBI agents will be doing is trying to determine who is telling the whole truth and who is not. “There’s always a danger that people will make a mistake, get it wrong. There’s human frailty. They may also lie,” says Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney who was a vocal critic of Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame affair. “Fitzgerald will try to do perjury traps, because that is what he does.”

Fitzgerald and his team have a lot of wiretap material. That has likely given them a lot of information to ask witnesses about. Some of those witnesses may be members of the Obama transition team. For example, the Chicago Tribune recently reported that “communications between [incoming White House chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.” Emanuel might be asked many questions, under penalty of perjury or false-statement charges. Prosecutors will compare his answers to what they have on tape. Perhaps they’ll invite him in for another session of questioning. Then they’ll compare his answers in the second session to his answers in the first. Perhaps they’ll repeat that a few times. As anyone in the Bush administration could advise Emanuel, it doesn’t matter if he did anything wrong or not. He just better have his answers in order.

There’s no way to say now what will happen. In the meantime, Barack Obama is saying nothing. The president-elect says his transition team has completed its internal investigation into Blagojevich contacts and has found that “there was nothing that my office did that was in any way inappropriate or related to the charges that have been brought.” But Obama says Fitzgerald has asked him to postpone releasing the investigation’s results until December 22. Fitzgerald’s office later issued a one-sentence statement confirming the request, so that it can “conduct certain interviews.”

Until then, don’t ask Obama anything even related to the matter. “Let me just cut you off, because I don’t want you to waste your question,” Obama told Tribune reporter John McCormick Tuesday, after McCormick attempted to ask whether Emanuel’s reportedly extensive communications with the Blagojevich administration on the Senate-seat question contradicted Obama’s earlier claims to be taking a hands-off approach to the issue. “I don’t want to get into the details at this point,” Obama answered.

McCormick got the message. As Obama, standing by education-secretary-designate and basketball buddy Arne Duncan, continued to avoid answering the question, McCormick moved on to a more acceptable topic. “Do you or Duncan have a better jump shot?” he asked.

Obama smiled. At least for now. But he knows, or should know, that Fitzgerald and his prosecutors won’t be nearly as accommodating as the press.


http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTg2NzI4MWVhY2I1OWQ3NTE5YmNhNGRiM2E3OGQxMTY=

How rich it will be if a member of the Obama team is never convicted of any corruption charges, but gets hit with a perjury conviction --- by the same zealous prosecuter who "nailed" Scooter Libby.

What's good for the goose...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:18 pm
I've also read that Jesse Jackson Jr's people are telling the press he has been an informant for the Feds for years.

Most law enforcement informants are not high minded citizens who step forward to volunteer, but are bad-guys who, when caught, cut a deal.

I tend to think that if Jesse Jr has been a clean-cut member of the good guys, Fitzgerald would not be leaving him hanging.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I guess York forgot that the lies told by Libby and Rove were known before Fitzgerald ever was assigned the case. They lied to investigators in the initial questioning. Then when the lies were revealed the Attorney General realized he had to recuse himself so Fitzgerald was given the job. He didn't set perjury traps. He gave them the opportunity to correct their statements. Remember Rove's last minute request to speak again to the GJ to avoid prosecution?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:46 pm
@parados,
Forgive me if I believe that York and diGenova have a better and more accurate understanding of the Plamme case than do you.

If you wish to challenge York you can do so by sending him an e-mail. I understand he answers a good many of them.

If you want us to believe you over York, you may try citing some sources or posting the e-mail York sends you admitting you are right.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Forgive me if I believe that York and diGenova have a better and more accurate understanding of the Plamme case than do you.


lol

York is an idiot ideologue, the worst type of pundit. I deny the supposition that he understands anything better than parados does. Every time I see him on TV he makes a fool of himself and fumbles and fucks it up.

The NRO crowd are a pack of idiots and liars with glib tongues. I read them daily, but only to see the memes you fools spout at their source and to laugh at the consistently foolish attitudes and opinions they espouse.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
To confirm Cyclo's claim on Byron York.
From Wiki:


Quote:
Byron York is a conservative American journalist and author who lives in Washington, D.C..
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 01:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Libby indictment states the interviews of Libby were on Oct 14 and Nov 26th of 2003
pdf of the indictment is linked from here
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-28-libby-indicted_x.htm
Count 3 is for false statements made by Libby on Oct 14th and Nov 26th.

Fitzgerald was appointed on Dec 30, 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald
Multiple news stories available as well.

Ashcroft recused himself because of conflicts of interest.
Multiple news stories.
But maybe the National Journal would be a good source for you -
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm


The FBI was well aware of Libby's lies prior to Ashcroft recusing himself. Libby was charged with those lies before Fitzgerald took over the case. To accuse Fitzgerald of trapping Libby is a falsehood of the highest order based on facts readily available to all.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 02:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

To confirm Cyclo's claim on Byron York.
From Wiki:


Quote:
Byron York is a conservative American journalist and author who lives in Washington, D.C..


And cyclops and ci are liberals that live in liberal land, California. Therefore they have no clue.

No confirmation needed from Wikipedia. They already admit to where they live, and they admit to their politics almost every single hour of every single day right here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 02:11 pm
@okie,
okie has no clue about "bias." Not surprising.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 02:14 pm
@okie,
Wiki lists sources okie. Wiki itself isn't biased.

Check the source and if you think it is biased then you can ask for an edit or even do it yourself. Whining about a bias when it is easy to take care of is your problem, not Wikis.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 02:17 pm
@parados,
This is from ENCYCLOCENTRAL:
Quote:
Tito Munoz shouted at a group of reporters that was comprised of Byron York at a John McCain rally that took place on 19th October, 2008 when they turned up with a war on Joe Wurzelbacher. Byron York is basically a conservative American journalist as well as author who is residing in Washington, D.C. He is positioned in the form of the White House correspondent for National Review magazine as well as a columnist working for The Hill.


Have fun, okie - there are more info out there in web-land that shows Byron York is a "conservative" who shows bias in his writings.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 03:34:39