Category Archives: Pay to play politics

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with Russians, Russia reset relations, AID Russian technology and get PAID, Coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, Hillary provided access to our technology and now accuses them of hacking???

Posted on August 1, 2016 | 7 comments

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with Russians, Russia reset relations, AID Russian technology and get PAID, Coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, Hillary provided access to our technology and now accuses them of hacking???

“Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, helped the Russians improve their technology and is now complaining they are hacking her emails.”…Citizen Wells

“Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton’s server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And, it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.”…Washington Post July 5, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with the Russians.

More crony capitalism

AID to get PAID.

Hillary helped the Russians with their technology and now complains that they are hacking her.

What???

From the Government Accountability Institute.

“FROM RUSSIA WITH MONEY

Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism”

Executive Summary

• A major technology transfer component of the Russian reset overseen by Hillary Clinton substantially enhanced the Russian military’s technological capabilities, according to both the FBI and the U.S. Army.

• Russian government officials and American corporations participated in the technology transfer project overseen by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

• A Putin-connected Russian government fund transferred $35 million to a small company with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on its executive board, which included senior Russian officials.

• John Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this offshore company.

• Podesta also headed up a think tank which wrote favorably about the Russian reset while apparently receiving millions from Kremlin-linked Russian oligarchs via an offshore LLC.

Introduction

During her tenure as Secretary of State, one of Hillary Clinton’s major policy initiatives was the “reset” in relations with Russia. The idea was to begin the U.S.-Russia relationship anew, unburdened by recent Russian government actions or Bush Administration policies that had caused tensions between Moscow and Washington. The reset was one of President Obama’s “earliest new foreign policy initiatives,” according to the White House, and was based on the belief that relations with Russia had become unnecessarily mired in conflict over a handful of issues during the Bush Administration. In short, the Obama Administration wanted what it called “win-win outcomes.”1

As America’s chief diplomat, Secretary Clinton was the point person on the reset, handling a range of issues from arms control to technological cooperation.

Those matters she did not handle herself were managed by close aides under her direction. On July 6, 2009, President Barack Obama visited Moscow, and together with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. The Bilateral Commission would be the heart and soul of the Russia reset, with the goal to “improve communication and cooperation between the governments of Russia and the United States.” 2

In addition, the Commission would work at “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people….” 3 Specifically, as it related to technology transfer and investment, the Commission played a key role in everything from intellectual property sharing to export licensing to facilitating American investment in Russia and Russian investment in America.4

President Obama and Medvedev announced that the work of the Commission would be directed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. As President Obama put it, the effort would “be coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, and Secretary Clinton [would] travel to Russia [that] fall to carry [that] effort forward.” 5″

“According to leaked U.S. government cables, U.S. State Department officials beginning in 2009 played a substantial role in assisting Russian government entities in accessing U.S. capital and in seeking investments in U.S. high technology companies. Specifically, they worked to support the efforts of the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, to seek investment opportunities in the United States by arranging meetings with U.S. tech firms. They also crafted and delivered joint statements with Russian officials on cooperation on technological matters.9”

The Reset Begins

“Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration saw the opportunity for widespread technological cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. During her October 2009 visit to Russia, she noted the country’s strength in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics): “[I]t’s just a treasure trove of potential for the Russian economy.”20 Vice President Joe Biden echoed that sentiment two years later during his visit to Russia: “Closer cooperation will allow American companies to benefit from greater access to Russia’s deep pool of talented engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists.”21 According to leaked State Department cables, Russian government officials were told that the Obama Administration saw “building the science and technology (S & T) relationship with Russia as an important pillar in strengthening overall bilateral relations….”22

Technological cooperation and investment deals seemed to be the sort of “win-win” deals President Obama said he sought. But as we will see, the Clintons and close aides appear to have personally benefitted from such deals. And these deals also raised serious questions from the FBI, the U.S. Army, and foreign governments that the Russian military was benefitting from them as well. ”

Skolkovo

A major part of this technological cooperation included Russian plans to create its own version of Silicon Valley.23 The research facility, on the outskirts Moscow, was dubbed “Skolkovo” and would be developed with the cooperation and investment of major U.S. tech firms.24 In 2010, Cisco pledged a cool $1 billion to Skolkovo, and Google and Intel also jumped on board.25 (All three happened to be major Clinton Foundation supporters as well—as we will see, a significant factor for dozens of companies who became involved with Skolkovo.) The idea was simple: match Russian brainpower with U.S. investment dollars and entrepreneurial know-how to spark technological breakthroughs in a wide variety of areas including energy, communications, sensors, and propulsion systems. Unlike the freewheeling, decentralized, and entrepreneurial culture in California, Skolkovo would have a distinctly different culture. It would be more centralized, and dominated by Russian government officials.26″

“The State Department played an active role early on by setting up meetings for Russian officials with U.S. technology companies. According to Hillary Clinton, she inspired then-Russian President Dimitry Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley to encourage participation in Skolkovo. As she reported in her memoirs, “At a long meeting I had with Medvedev outside Moscow in October 2009, he raised his plan to build a high-tech corridor in Russia modelled after our own Silicon Valley. When I suggested that he visit the original in California, he turned to his staff and told them to follow up.”31”

“The State Department actively and aggressively encouraged American firms to participate in Skolkovo. Indeed, many of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) signed by U.S. companies to invest and cooperate in Skolkovo were signed under the auspices of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.40”

Money to the Clintons

“Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process — on both the Russian and U.S. sides — had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties.

In 2012 Skolkovo released its first annual report which identified the “key partner service”. Key Partners are entities who have made substantial commitments to develop the Skolkovo research facility.49 Conor Lenihan, vicepresident of the Skolkovo Foundation, who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation, released a PowerPoint presentation that included a list of 28 Russian, American, and European Key Partners.50 Of those 28, 17 of them, or 60 percent, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill. The Clinton Foundation only discloses donations in ranges, so it is impossible to determine the precise amount of money the Skolkovo benefactors gave to the Clinton Foundation, but based on those disclosures, the money ranges from $6.5 to $23.5 million. However, keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation has admitted that it has failed to release the names of all of its contributors, so the amount could be substantially higher.”

“Another Russian figure deeply involved with Skolkovo who had financial ties to the Clintons is Andrey Vavilov. The former Russian government official is the Chairman of SuperOx, which is part of the Nuclear Cluster at Skolkovo.65 The Nuclear Cluster at Skolkovo is committed to enhancing the nuclear capabilities of the Russian state. A major listed beneficiary of this research is Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, which manages the country’s nuclear arsenal.66 Vavilov has donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.67 Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ, purchased a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One in 2010 which held assets in the United States and therefore required State Department approval. Nine Uranium One shareholders donated more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some of those donations, including those by Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer, had not been disclosed by the Clinton Foundation.68”

National Security Implications

“The serious questions raised by Hillary Clinton’s pushing of technology transfer and investments as part of the Russian reset don’t end with the issues of self-dealing and cronyism. There are serious national security questions that have been raised about both Skolkovo and Rusnano, by the FBI, the U.S. Army, and cybersecurity experts. Specifically, these experts have argued that the activities of Skolkovo and Russian investment funds like Rusnano are ultimately serving the interests of the Russian military.”

“Cybersecurity experts also expressed deep reservations as early as 2010 that U.S. companies working at Skolkovo “may…inadvertently be harming global cybersecurity.”163 And indeed, Skolkovo happens to be the site of the Russian Security Service (FSB)’s security centers 16 and 18, which are in charge of information warfare for the Russian government. According to Newsweek, it is here that the Russian government runs information warfare operations against the Ukrainian government. As Vitaliy Naida, head of the Internal Security (SBU) department for the Ukrainian government told Newsweek, “It starts with the FSB’s security centres 16 and 18, operating out of Skolkovo, Russia. These centres are in charge of information warfare. They send out propaganda, false information via social media. Re-captioned images from Syria, war crimes from Serbia—they’re used to radicalize and then recruit Ukrainians.”164”

Read more:

Click to access Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

 

 

7 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Election, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics, Russia, Russians, Secretary of State

Tagged , , , ,

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

Posted on July 26, 2016 | 26 comments

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general”…DNC email, April 24, 2016 from Wikileaks

“Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.””…NY Times April 23, 2015

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,”… Rep. Trey Gowdy

 

URANIUM FACTS

From the US Energy Information Administration July 11, 2011.

“Over 90% of uranium purchased by U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is from outside the U.S.”

“Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors purchased nearly 47 million pounds of uranium from U.S. and foreign suppliers during 2010; 92% of this total was of foreign origin.

Historically, U.S. owners and operators have purchased the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Russia, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Namibia represent the top five countries of origin for U.S. uranium, and together account for 85% of total U.S. uranium purchases in 2010. Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants purchased uranium from a total of 14 different countries in 2010.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2150

From the US Energy Information Administration June 1, 2016.

“U.S. uranium production is near historic low as imports continue to fuel U.S. reactors”

“Most of the uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported. During 2015, owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased 57 million pounds of uranium. Nearly half of these purchases originated from two countries, Canada and Kazakhstan, providing 17 million pounds and 11 million pounds of uranium, respectively.

U.S. uranium concentrate production, which started in 1949 and peaked in 1980, has recently been near historic lows. Uranium production was 0.63 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) in the first quarter 2016. At that rate, total 2016 production may be about 2.5 million pounds, only slightly higher than the low of 2.0 million pounds produced in 2003.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26472

So, why would Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, allow the sale of Uranium One and control of 20 percent of US uranium to the Russians?

Was it:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

From Breitbart July 25, 2016.

“The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents detailed in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. A quick recap: Uranium One was originally a Canadian company, bought out by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Uranium One’s big shots were very, very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money flowed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported in April 2015 about how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful conclusion, along with one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

Was it incompetence?

FBI Director James Comey:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Whether or not the Russians hacked Hillary’s emails, it is now apparent that they have had access to her classified exchanges while Secretary of State.

Blackmail is a distinct possibility!

Did Hillary delete emails related to the Russian uranium deal?

From Politico July 6, 2016.

“The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why.”

“But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”
What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-missing-emails-secretary-state-department-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016

From the NY Times April 23, 2015.

 

“The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company.”

“That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.”

Read more:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

YOU DECIDE.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

26 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Bribes, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Election, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Obama administration, Pay to play politics, Russia, Russians

Tagged , , ,

Blagojevich resentencing August 9, 2016?, US Supreme Court decision to throw out bribery conviction of former Virginia governor unlikely to help, Judge Zagel had scheduled Rod Blagojevich resentencing for June 30

Posted on June 28, 2016 | 72 comments

Blagojevich resentencing August 9, 2016?, US Supreme Court decision to throw out bribery conviction of former Virginia governor unlikely to help, Judge Zagel had scheduled Rod Blagojevich resentencing for June 30

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

August 9, 2016

Blagojevich sentence upheld.

Rod Blagojevich resentencing August 9, 2016, Blagojevich apologizes for actions and weeps, Sentence upheld

***

The resentencing of Rod Blagojevich had been scheduled by Judge Zagel for June 30, 2016.

A motion that appeared on Judge Zagel’s calendar yesterday for today has disappeared.

From Canmua June 28, 2016.

“Supreme Court ruling unlikely to affect Blagojevich resentencing”

“A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to throw out the bribery conviction of a former Virginia governor will play little role in the ongoing legal odyssey of Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor’s lawyer said.

“It really doesn’t change anything,” said Blagojevich’s lawyer, Leonard Goodman. “I don’t think this will be a primary focus.”

Blagojevich has served more than four years in a federal prison in Colorado for misusing his powers as governor in an array of shakedown schemes, most famously for his alleged attempts to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama after his 2008 election as president.

In March, the Supreme Court declined to hear Blagojevich’s appeal of a 14-year prison sentence. A federal appeals court last year dismissed several counts against the former governor and ordered he be resentenced, but the three-judge panel called the evidence against him “overwhelming” and made it clear he will likely remain locked up for years to come. Blagojevich is scheduled to be resentenced Aug. 9.

While the case of another former governor, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, offers tempting parallels, the high court’s ruling will not do much to shape the legal strategy in the Blagojevich proceedings, Goodman said.

The Supreme Court vacated the 2014 conviction on fraud and extortion charges against McDonnell, who accepted more than $165,000 in loans and gifts from a wealthy businessman. The high court’s opinion hinged on the definition of what should be considered an “official act” of a public official. The Supreme Court ruled that while McDonnell’s actions were “distasteful” and “tawdry,” the government overreached in its “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

But the “official act” element does not apply in the Blagojevich case, Goodman said.

“Those legal issues are not really front and center at the resentencing,” Goodman said. “That’s really our main focus right now: trying to bring him home to his family.”

Still, Goodman said, “There’s some irony in the fact that a guy who did take loans and gifts of cars and watches, his case is overturned, and Blagojevich never did any of that.”

“There is some concern about the overreaching,” Goodman said.

Goodman said he had not spoken to Blagojevich about the McDonnell ruling.”

Read more:

http://canmua.net/virginia/supreme-court-ruling-unlikely-to-affect-blagojevich-resentencing-977353.html

From CNN JUne 27, 2016.

“Supreme Court vacates former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s conviction”

“The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously threw out the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

The 8-0 decision left open the possibility for McDonnell to be retried, but in the meantime, his conviction was vacated.
McDonnell, once a rising star in Republican politics, was convicted on federal corruption charges in 2014. He was found guilty of violating the law when he received, gifts, money and loans from Jonnie R. Williams, the CEO of a Virginia-based company, in exchange for official acts seen as favorable to Williams and his business.
The case centered around the question of what constitutes the scope of an “official action” under federal corruption law.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts set a clear definition of the term and how it can be used in corruption convictions.
“In sum, an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” Roberts wrote. “Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so) — without more — does not fit that definition of an official act.”
He also said that political corruption can still be prosecuted by the government, and noted that McDonnell’s actions were “distasteful.”
“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Roberts wrote. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court.”
The impact should extend far beyond McDonnell’s conviction, said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law.
“Today’s ruling should clarify — and dramatically narrow –the scope of federal anti-corruption law, and could open the door to challenges from a number of other former public officials convicted under these federal laws, including Gov. McDonnell’s wife, Maureen, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and others.””
Read more:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/bob-mcdonnell-supreme-court/
More here:
https://citizenwells.com/

72 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Rezko

Tagged , , ,

Rod Blagojevich appeal petition denied by US Supreme Court, Justices let stand ruling by 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted on March 28, 2016 | 84 comments

Rod Blagojevich appeal petition denied by US Supreme Court, Justices let stand ruling by 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

From McClatchy DC March 28, 2016.

“Supreme Court refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dashed one of Rod Blagojevich’s last hopes to reduce his 14-year prison sentence by refusing to hear the former Illinois governor’s appeal of his remaining corruption convictions, including his attempt to sell an appointment to the vacant Senate seat once occupied by President Barack Obama.

In so doing, the justices let stand a July ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that the Chicago Democrat crossed the line when he sought money — usually campaign cash — in exchange for naming someone to fill Obama’s seat. The justices did not explain their decision.

The lower court had handed Blagojevich a largely symbolic victory by tossing five of his 18 convictions and said he should be resentenced on the 13 remaining counts. No resentencing date has been set, but it’s likely to happen this year. In its ruling last year, the 7th Circuit said that even with the dropped counts factored in, Blagojevich’s 14-year sentence may still be fair.

The former governor’s wife, Patti Blagojevich, said in a written statement Monday that she and the couple’s two children were “incredibly disappointed.”

“This was, of course, not the outcome that Rod, our daughters Amy and Annie, had hoped and prayed for,” she said. “But we continue to have faith in the system and an unshakable love for Rod. We long for the day that he will be back home with us.”

Blagojevich attorney Leonard Goodman said in a phone interview that there’s an outside chance the high court might consider a new request to hear the 59-year-old Blagojevich’s appeal after resentencing. He said that’s because one argument prosecutors made against the appeal being heard was that resentencing and other legal steps need to play out before the court should entertain the possibility of taking on the case.

“So we could consider going back to the Supreme Court again,” Goodman said.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago declined any comment.”

Read more:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article68597612.html

84 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics, Rezko

Tagged ,

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016, You would never know it if we didn’t show it

Posted on March 25, 2016 | 18 comments

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016, You would never know it if we didn’t show it

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016. You would never know it if we didn’t show it.

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Mar 8 2016 Reply of petitioner Rod Blagojevich filed.
Mar 9 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

18 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Illinois, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Rezko

Tagged , ,

Rod Blagojevich reply brief to Solicitor General brief in opposition, March 10, 2016, Attorney Len Goodman, Draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes, Delaying review unwarranted given that Blagojevich will remain imprisoned during the delay

Posted on March 10, 2016 | 37 comments

Rod Blagojevich reply brief to Solicitor General brief in opposition, March 10, 2016, Attorney Len Goodman, Draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes, Delaying review unwarranted given that Blagojevich will remain imprisoned during the delay

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
_______________________
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

“REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

1. This case is, and has been from the start, fundamentally about where to draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes of extortion, bribery and honest services fraud. That is an important issue of bipartisan concern, directly impacting all candidates seeking or holding public office and their supporters, and one which this Court recently agreed to review in McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474 (certiorari granted Jan. 15, 2016). Blagojevich’s case is particularly important because it involves only the solicitation or attempt to obtain campaign contributions, which this Court has held are a form of protected political speech that warrants heightened scrutiny. Indeed, regardless of one’s views about money in politics, a bright-line rule distinguishing lawful campaign fundraising activities from unlawful political corruption is necessary to avert a chilling effect on candidates’ First Amendment right to solicit (and receive) campaign contributions, and donors’ First Amendment right to respond with contributions. Clarity about where to draw that line is also essential to avoiding arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against politicians who are outspoken, controversial, polarizing or simply unpopular. It is an issue that impacts our longstanding system of private financing of election campaigns from President of the United States to local alderman, and one that the lower courts have struggled with consistently since Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).”

“2. The government’s opposition does not dispute that the lower courts have expressed confusion—and signaled the need for further clarity and guidance from this Court—regarding what effect Evans had on McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), in the context of public corruption prosecutions involving the solicitation of campaign contributions. To the contrary, the government’s attempt to minimize the degree of conflict among the circuit courts on this issue (Opp. 18-21) proves the essence of Blagojevich’s petition: that the lower courts have acknowledged a significant lack of clarity regarding whether Evans modified or relaxed McCormick’s “explicit promise or undertaking” requirement to prove public corruption offenses involving campaign contributions; that the confusion arises in part from uncertainty regarding whether this Court’s holding in Evans was meant to weaken the requirement for proving extortion involving campaign contributions; and that the circuits have expressed particular confusion about what McCormick’s requirement that a quid pro quo be “explicit” means in light of Evans. The government also concedes (Opp. 20) that since Evans some courts of appeals have (appropriately) recognized the distinction between public corruption cases involving campaign contributions and those involving other payments, and have indicated or suggested that extortion cases involving campaign contributions require heightened proof of an “explicit” agreement under McCormick. ”

Read more:

Click to access Blagojevich-v-United-States-cert-reply-FINAL-March-8-2016.pdf

 

37 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics, Rezko

Tagged , , , , ,

Blagojevich appeal update March 5, 2016, US Supreme Court opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Feb 19, Petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied, Blagojevich knew he was offering to exchange official actions for money

Posted on March 5, 2016 | 69 comments

Blagojevich appeal update March 5, 2016, US Supreme Court opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Feb 19, Petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied, Blagojevich knew he was offering to exchange
official actions for money

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

The  opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.on  February 19 in the Rod Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal finally showed up.

“No. 15-664
In the Supreme Court of the United States

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record”

“QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the court of appeals correctly upheld
petitioner’s conviction for extortion under color of
official right where the jury was instructed that the
government must prove that petitioner “agree[d] to
accept money or property believing that it would be
given in exchange for a specific requested exercise of
his official power.”

2. Whether the court of appeals correctly held that
petitioner may not defend against charges of extortion,
honest-services fraud, and bribery by claiming
that he genuinely believed that he could lawfully exchange
his official actions for money.”

“1. As an initial matter, the Court’s review is unwarranted
at this time because the case is still in an
interlocutory posture. The court of appeals vacated
five counts of conviction, vacated petitioner’s sentence,
and remanded to the district court for retrial
and resentencing. Pet. App. 23a. This Court normally
“await[s] final judgment in the lower courts before
exercising [its] certiorari jurisdiction.” VMI v. United
States, 508 U.S. 946 (1993) (Scalia, J., respecting denial
of certiorari); see Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf
Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251, 258 (1916) (describing interlocutory
posture as “a fact that of itself alone furnishe[s]
sufficient ground for the denial of” certiorari).
That practice ensures that all of a defendant’s claims
will be consolidated and presented in a single petition.
Here, the interests of judicial economy would be
served best by denying review now and allowing petitioner
to reassert his claims—including any new
claims that might arise following resentencing or
retrial, if one occurs—at the conclusion of the proceedings.
See Major League Baseball Players Ass’n
v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 508 n.1 (2001) (per curiam)
(“[W]e have authority to consider questions determined
in earlier stages of the litigation.”).

2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 17) that this Court’s
review is needed to resolve a disagreement in the
lower courts on whether a jury must be instructed
that Hobbs Act extortion involves an “explicit” exchange
of official actions for campaign contributions.
No such conflict exists; petitioner’s argument is without
merit; and this would be a poor case to address the
argument in any event.”

“Elonis involved a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.
875(c) for communicating threats, and it addressed the
“requirement that a defendant act with a certain mental
state in communicating a threat.” 135 S. Ct. at
2008. Applying background presumptions about the
mens rea required for criminal liability, the Court
concluded that the defendant must be more than negligent
about the threatening nature of the communications.
Id. at 2011. But Elonis did not hold that Section
875(c) requires proof that the defendant knew his
actions were criminal. To the contrary, the Court
rejected the notion “that a defendant must know that
his conduct is illegal before he may be found guilty.”
Id. at 2009; see ibid. (“The familiar maxim ‘ignorance
of the law is no excuse’ typically holds true.”). The
Court thus focused on the defendant’s mental state
with respect to his own actions, while making clear
that knowledge of the legal consequences of his actions
is not required. Ibid. (“[A] defendant generally
must know the facts that make his conduct fit the
definition of the offense, even if he does not know that
those facts give rise to a crime.”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). That same focus applies
here as well: Petitioner could validly be convicted
because he knew that he was offering to exchange
official actions for money—whether or not he also
knew that doing so was illegal.”

“CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be
denied.”

Click to access 15-664_blagojevich_v._us_opp.pdf

69 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics

Tagged , , , ,

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Posted on February 23, 2016 | 167 comments

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

More mysterious goin ons in the Rod Blagojevich prosecution and incarceration.

I don’t expect efficiency or accountability from government.

I see it on the local and national level.

If you follow Citizen Wells, you know that we follow closely the Blagojevich cases.

Friday, February 19, 2016 was the extended deadline for a response.

There was none listed on Friday or over the weekend.

Just checked this morning and found:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

The brief is no where to be found.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs

By the way, the US Solicitor General is Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel.

Think that might be a problem?

The fox guarding the hen house.

167 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Pay to play politics, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Department of Justice

Tagged , , ,

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Posted on February 15, 2016 | 12 comments

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

As reported at Citizen Wells, a response from the US Supreme Court on the Rod Blagojevich appeal is due February 19, 2016.

“The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.”

“From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.”

Blagojevich amicus brief urges supreme court to hear case, Blagojevich SCOTUS appeal update January 18, 2016, Time to file response to petition extended twice, Brief amici curiae of current and former elected officials

A Justice Scalia position in 1998 affected the Blagojevich trial.

From the American Spectator.
“BLAGOJEVICH AND SCALIA”

“A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia.

No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it.

Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.”

Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.”

“Brogan argued that a defendant had to be excused for his denial to federal agents because the spirit of the Fifth Amendment would be violated when someone is “cornered” and given a “cruel trilemma”: tell the truth (and admit guilt), remain silent, or lie (and falsely deny guilt).

Scalia snapped back, saying lying is not an option. An innocent person, after all, would not face the same trilemma. The innocent person only has two options: tell the truth or remain silent.”

Read more:

http://spectator.org/articles/39072/blagojevich-and-scalia

From the Washington Post December 7, 2009.

“Supreme Court to take up corruption law”

“At issue is the law’s language that it is illegal for public or private employees to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” The flexible standard has been part of the law for more than 20 years, but lately it has been subject to a slew of contradictory lower-court rulings and criticism, not the least of which has come from Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last term, in dissenting from his colleagues’ decision not to review the law, Scalia said the provision “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

He said the assertion that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers” was so loose it could be construed to “cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”

Apparently, the court took Scalia’s alert to heart, accepting appeals for two high-profile convictions in the corporate world and the case of an obscure Alaska lawmaker.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602390.html

And now we have a decision affecting the prison sentence of Blagojevich and ultimately Obama, and no Justice Scalia to speak up.

What a curious time for Justice Scalia to die of “natural causes.”

12 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, conservatives, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

Tagged , , ,

Blagojevich amicus brief urges supreme court to hear case, Blagojevich SCOTUS appeal update January 18, 2016, Time to file response to petition extended twice, Brief amici curiae of current and former elected officials

Posted on January 18, 2016 | 73 comments

Blagojevich amicus brief urges supreme court to hear case, Blagojevich SCOTUS appeal update January 18, 2016, Time to file response to petition extended twice, Brief amici curiae of current and former elected officials

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.

List of Amici Curiae:

Jan Schakowsky is an incumbent member of the
United States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Danny Davis is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Mike Quigley is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Bobby Rush is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Bob Barr is a former United States Attorney
and a former member of the United States House of
Representatives from Georgia.

William Lipinski is a former member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

David Phelps is a former member of the United States
House of Representatives from Illinois.

Glenn Poshard is a former member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois and a
former President of Southern Illinois University.

Emil Jones is a former President of the Illinois
Senate and a former member of the Illinois House of
Representatives.

Carol Ronen is a former member of the Illinois Senate.
Skip Saviano, is a former member of the Illinois House
of Representatives. He is the current Village President
of Elmwood Park

Margaret Blackshere is a former President of the
Illinois AFL-CIO.

Edward M. Smith is a former Vice-President of
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Midwest
Region.

From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws. In McCormick v. United
States, the Court acknowledged that—given the system
of private political campaign financing that has existed in
the United States since the nation’s inception—political
candidates and incumbents alike cannot realistically avoid
soliciting campaign funds from the very constituents whose
interests they may later advance through the support of
specific legislation or other official acts. 500 U.S. 257, 272
(1991). As a result, McCormick held that extortion based
on soliciting campaign contributions requires a quid pro
quo in the form of an “explicit promise or undertaking”
by a public official to perform or not perform an official
act. However, the Court’s subsequent decision in Evans v.
United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), has blurred the relative
clarity of McCormick’s holding.

Circuit courts have since struggled to determine
whether and how Evans modified McCormick’s holding
regarding extortion under color of official right, bribery,
and fraud in the solicitation of campaign contributions.2
Confusion in the lower courts is problematic for lawabiding
politicians and donors who wish to avoid prohibited
conduct and threatens to discourage candidates and
their supporters from legitimate campaign solicitation
and donation activities. It is particularly important in
the campaign contribution context—where contributors
generally assume that the supported candidate’s election
will benefit the contributor’s interests—that brightline
standards exist to guide prosecutors and juries to
avoid selective enforcement against unpopular political
candidates or donors. In addition, the Circuit Courts are
split on whether Evans applies to campaign contributions,
and this Court’s guidance is needed to restore national
uniformity to this area of the law.

Amici respectfully submit that it is important to
the effective operation of the nation’s political system
that the Court clarify the legal standard to distinguish
between the necessary, legitimate solicitation of
campaign contributions, on the one hand, and unlawful
extortion, bribery, and fraud, on the other. The Court’s
consideration of this issue is needed to guide individual
political candidates and donors who wish to confidently
and lawfully engage in campaign financing activities.”

Click to access Blagojevich_Amicus_Brief.pdf

73 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Court of Appeals, Courts, Illinois, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics, Rezko, Supreme Court

Tagged , , , ,