Looks like we can possibly thank our meddling media for another possibly bungled investigation, this time over the selling of Barack Obama's Senate seat by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojavich. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune was working with Fitzgerald's office on the investigation but decided to stop doing so in favor of printing the sensational story they were sitting on. This forced the arrest early so that the paper wouldn't blow the whole investigation.
The story everyone thought they knew was that Fitzgerald moved when he did to stop a crime about to be committed. But, the WSJ reports that this isn't the case. Apparently the WSJ found that members of Fitzgerald's team wanted to let things roll for a little while longer so that they could catch the actual selling of the Senate seat with Governor Blagojevich, his facilitators and who ever was going to try to buy the seat all on the tape at once. But, the Chicago Tribune informed the prosecutors that they wouldn't wait any longer to put off publishing their story on the investigation. Once the Trib reported on the investigation, it was over for Fitzgerald and his folks for the investigative phase of the case.
Members of Fitzgerald’s team are livid the scheme didn’t advance, at least for a little longer, according to some people close to Fitzgerald’s office. Why? Because had the plot unfolded, they might have had an opportunity most feds can only dream of: A chance to catch the sale of a Senate seat on tape, including the sellers and the buyers.
The precise timing of Tuesday’s dramatic, pre-dawn arrest was not dictated by Fitzgerald, nor was it dictated by the pace of Blagojevich’s alleged “crime spree.” It was dictated by the Chicago Tribune, according to people close to the investigation and a careful reading of the FBI’s affidavit in the case.
At Fitzgerald’s request, the paper had been holding back a story since October detailing how a confidante of Blagojevich was cooperating with his office.
Gerould Kern, the Tribune’s editor, said in a statement last week that these requests are granted in what he called isolated instances. “In each case, we strive to make the right decision as reporters and as citizens,” he said.
But editors decided to publish the story on Friday, Dec. 5, ending the Tribune’s own cooperation deal with the prosecutor.
It's quite possible that, because the Trib moved to print their story too early, we won't ever find out who was about to buy themselves a Senate seat.
Had it not been for the Tribune’s Dec. 5 story, the meeting Blagojevich’s brother was arranging might have proceeded. Mr. Blagojevich is quoted as citing the story, in the affidavit, then calling off the meeting. At a minimum, the FBI’s recorders would have been rolling when he reported back. The feds also probably would have tried to bug the session live, or at least to tail the participants and secretly film or photograph them. That’s what feds do. Jurors love video.
To me, this shows how our media all too often would rather serve their own interests than serve the interests of good governing and those of the people.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama
December 15, 2008 - 04:24 ET by spiffMy question is, what did Obama pay for that seat?
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
-- Benjamin Franklin
And will obama get a
December 15, 2008 - 06:28 ET by owr084And will obama get a partial refund for the 2 unused years?
I think the machine decided it was time for blago to go before he harmed the chosen one or any of the other machine tools (i.e., the jacksons, rahm, etc.). Running the story before the sale was complete prevents one of them from getting caught.
2 Years? I think it's more
December 15, 2008 - 08:08 ET by Scuba Dude2 Years? I think it's more along the lines of 3 or more. Don't forget he only worked for 147 days before deciding he wanted better digs.
And as Jack Bauer said below, I think the Trib ran the storey because they wanted to protect coke-head Obama. They endorsed him and they were making sure their investment was safe. I think they are now expecting The Zero to bail them out of bankruptcy now that they have shown their willingness to cover for him.
The Chicago Tribama
December 15, 2008 - 05:46 ET by Jack BauerWTH ... it appears I'm even more cynical than you as to the Trib's motives. I have another suggestion: they wanted to protect the one AT ALL COSTS.
So to investigate my suspicions, I was wondering who the Chicago Tribune wanted to win the election:
That got me thinking as to the Tribune's motive for breaking this story before it unfolded to its conclusion, which might very well have included Obama and his team ON TAPE, in some very very embarrassing horse-trading. Maybe even felonious.
The editors obviously had inside info on the investigation, being both a participant/witness and also being a supposed neutral "observer" as a news hole.
Do you think it dawned on the Trib powers-that-be, that the longer this went on, the more likely it was to ensnare, embroil and embarrass their chosen one. At the very least, there would be enough crap floating to tarnish the glowing crown the media helped create?
And that they had an Obama DUTY to precipitate closing the investigation down ASAP? What better way than to go to press immediately
And to him the "right decision" is to PROTECT OBAMA. To be his left-wing man.
To me this ticks all the boxes, as the Tribune had the inside scoop whether it was now or six months down the line. What other logical motive could there be?
I was thinking that a few
December 15, 2008 - 08:45 ET by dscottI was thinking that a few days when I noticed that the December 5th story was scrubbed from the internet because I can't find it and asked others to do so as well but to no avail. Who was the writer? Once we have a name, we can run that name past the election's commissions website to see who this person donated funds to during the election.
My bet is the writer and the editor at the Chicago Trib saw where this was going and didn't want their Messiah, Barack Obama caught red handed buying the seat. After all, Rahm Emanuel handed Blagojevich a list of people that were acceptable to Obama, with Valerie Jarret at the top of the list. When Blagojevich couldn't get money directly from the Team Obama, he then took the indirect route via the SEIU. JJ Jr who was the odd man out and not on the list had to negotiate separately with the bidding of $500k to $1 million via fund raising efforts.
The real issue here as much as Obama wants people to believe he was oblivious to the whole thing, he was operating through intermediaries, his staff and the SEIU. Obama IS a Chicago politician.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Found the December 5th,
December 15, 2008 - 09:59 ET by dscottFound the December 5th, Story, it finally popped up. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/12/trib-exclusive.html
Feds taped Blagojevich Adviser cooperated with corruption probe, sources say
By Jeff Coen, John Chase and David Kidwell
A search of opensecrets.org didn't reveal any of these writers to have given campaign contributions in their names, there are however females with those last names and could be their spouses.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Took the words out of my
December 15, 2008 - 08:46 ET by nofateTook the words out of my mouth; excellent analysis Jack. This is nothing but Chicago style politics as usual. It smells like rotten fish, but because the Trib is trying to protect it's fellow conspirators, there is now a chance that Blago may skate since it appears that the selling of the seat was only talked about, not actually done. These guys are all connected- Daly, Rezko, Wright, Obama, Emanuel, Abner Mikva, and that little Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan whose father is the Illinois House Speaker. Hopefully someone will be investigating the Trib's involvement in all this, as their holier than thou proclamation of the "people's right to know" stinks like the Chicago politics that they are playing.
And on the subject of that Madigan father daughter team, I found this to be interesting:
Madigan does NOT have the reputation of being a dogged crime fighter. This appears to have Chicago politics as usual written all over it. I agree that they wanted to protect Obama, but I think it was more selfish than that. They were afraid that Blago would let the cat out of the bag on more than a little U.S. Senate seat. They were afraid that the continuation of the investigation would taint all of the above players and maybe more. The butts of all those Chicago power hitters are infinitely more important than the sale of a U.S. senate seat.
I also question how it was that the Trib was so involved in the investigation out of the U.S. Attorney's office that they could manage to shut down said investigation? Hmmmm??? I thought these things were supposed to be secret!...Yeah, OK.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate -- and there are at
December 15, 2008 - 09:09 ET by Jack Bauernofate -- and there are at least four more years of this to go! The press now has its mission statement
Serving it up.
December 15, 2008 - 10:17 ET by nofateAs Rush has been saying: "It's not what he says, it's how he says it." We must all always remember, he is the great and magnificent Barack of Obama. "Pay no attention to those people (the Chicago machine) behind the curtain. And get that little mutt (the "alternative" media) away from that curtain!"
"at least four more years of this to go!" Pray it's only four!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
WHO was the Tribune Protecting?
December 15, 2008 - 05:58 ET by CBrauCertainly, a bigger story for a newspaper would be the takedown AFTER the actual crime had been committed. With their insider information, the Trib was in position to hold off for now and scoop the bigger story later. Yet, they went forward early and tipped off the democRATS. WHY?
Who were they protecting? Obama? Emanuel? Daley? Jackson?
This whole thing stinks and it's going to get worse. Go get 'em Fitzgerald!!
Too early??? Fitzgerald had
December 15, 2008 - 08:21 ET by kgToo early??? Fitzgerald had enough evidence last June but sat on it so it wouldn't hurt Obama's chances.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Enough evidence, fine. But
December 15, 2008 - 08:30 ET by GregEEnough evidence, fine. But it's up to the prosecutor. He may have had enough evidence months ago, but as new conversations about a monetary swap began to get hotter, then it's taking a turn for the worst (or better, if you're a prosecutor).
If they're awaiting the actual exchange of money for the Senate seat, which according to new taped conversations they may have been, then yes, it was too early. If the sting is underway, why out it without the green light to out it? What were they afraid of?
So obvious...
December 15, 2008 - 06:21 ET by BronxBomberIf this case had involved Republicans the Trib would've let it go as far up the ladder as possible...
We gotta find a new planet...
It's quite possible that,
December 15, 2008 - 06:27 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIt's quite possible that, because the Trib moved to print their story
too early, we won't ever find out who was about to buy themselves a
Senate seat.
And that is exactly why the Tribune ran the story, they wanted to protect the criminal democrats. The feds should pursue criminal charges against the Tribune's board and the authors of this story. At the very least, they should never speak to another Tribune reporter again. Of course, they won't, the criminals now are in the majority.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Though I am not a lawyer,...
December 15, 2008 - 06:51 ET by on-the-rocksthis seems (to me) to be an Obstruction of Justice case.
Fitzgerald should move ASAP to file Obstruction charges against the Tribune before Obama fires him, along with the rest of the prosecutors.
Fitzgerald has fire-proofed
December 15, 2008 - 06:59 ET by Jack BauerFitzgerald has fire-proofed himself. For now. Obama wouldn't dare give him the old heave-ho.
Though I have no brief for Fitzgerald. He's such a publicity whore. I find his PR parades to be particularly odious. As to his reference to "Lincoln" rolling over in his grave"
SAVE THAT FOR THE TRIAL FITZMAS. Save that for your closing argument. How about due process? Doesn't that count any more?
Urggghhh. Sorry, but Fitzgerald is a creepy self-server, no matter who he prosecutes. He was exactly the same with Libby. Why should he be any different here.
on-the-rocks
December 15, 2008 - 07:38 ET by littlemissmuffinThat was my first thought when I read this article. Obstruction of Justice. The libs will go to ANY and ALL lengths to protect their chosen one.
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Pretty sad for a paper that
December 15, 2008 - 07:05 ET by MudhenPretty sad for a paper that used to be solidly Republican. It really seems to have done a 180 since Sam Zell bought it. After the Supreme Court ruling on the Heller case they published an editorial in favor or repealing the 2nd amendment. Then they endorse Obama, the first Democrat ever (for President) in their History. Its like they don't even read some of the articles they publish themselves. John Kass's column is about all they have left that's intelligent journalism. It's pretty much why I dropped my subscription and also why I suspect they're in Chapter 11. They have ceased being relevant in most of our lives.
Hey Mud... leave an
December 15, 2008 - 07:27 ET by Jack BauerHey Mud... leave an informed comment of the WSJ article.
Some Obamabots are trying to claim that the paper is still Republican ...
http://blogs.wsj.com...
I think it would have had to
December 15, 2008 - 07:31 ET by Lancasters Saved UsI think it would have had to be Jackson sniping the auction with 4 seconds to go. I was going to bid, but the reserve was past my Paypal ceiling.
Spiff has it exactly right!
December 15, 2008 - 08:04 ET by billbSpiff has it exactly right! What did Obama pay for his seat?
I want to know why the crap
December 15, 2008 - 08:12 ET by GregEI want to know why the crap the feds let newsmedia outlets in on info about a federal sting operation? Or ANY ongoing operation not publicly known? What does a reporter need to know about something like that WHILE its going on? Won't he find out soon enough, when the actual TAKE DOWN takes place??????? I get sick of hearing about the media thwarting things like this. I don't see a reason why they should even be in a position to be able to!!
The problem is twofold -
December 15, 2008 - 09:19 ET by MazziThe problem is twofold - first that the media often has information that will help a case, and since they are not bound by ANY legal guidelines, they can work as "unofficial investigators". They are completely untrustworthy, but of course our law enforcement agencies keep trusting them. Like a deal with the devil.
And the second is that reporters tend to be a bunch of weasels, who will stop at nothing to get information. They will bribe, barter, seduce, cheat, steal, sell their firstborn - whatever - for a scoop. They sniff around at the heels of investigators and threaten to run with small info that they ferret out, knowing that they can then strong-arm the authorities for bigger info down the road.
And so long as there is no recourse against this, so long as the courts continue to expand "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom of reporters to do anything they want", the problem will continue to get worse.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-shirt
The Chi Trib moved to save someone's ass
December 15, 2008 - 08:42 ET by c5thenThe question is who's? Obviously not Blagojevich, he was already a lost cause. IMO, it was the likely buyer of the Senate seat. They knew (or were reasonably sure) that the investigation didn't know who was the likely buyer and/or they didn't have any proof. So the Chi Trib in effect ended the investigation prematurely in order to save the buyer. Most lilely rescuee is J cubed, but it could have been Obama, who would have been the "facilitator".
Make one wonder how much Rezko and Ayers paid for Obama's seat, doesn't it?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
How many times have the
December 15, 2008 - 09:04 ET by MazziHow many times have the media done this sort of thing, and either jeopardized or actually screwed up an investigation?
Off the top of my head, I can think of the Branch Davidian fiasco in Waco, which was (if I remember correctly) cluster-f'ed by a reporter who "accidentally" spoke with David Koresh's brother on the way to the raid, who in turn alerted the compound that the raid was coming. Almost 100 people died there, including ATF agents - very likely because the targets were not surprised... Thanks media.
Also off the top of my head, the Washington DC sniper case - the media started reporting the car information without authority. If the criminals had not (luckily) been sleeping, and if an alert driver had not noticed the car, God only knows what would have happened. In that case the reporters actually took credit for solving the case, but it was just an amazingly lucky break.
I know that there are dozen's more such cases, but these two just came to mind.
Our courts have shielded the media's rights to the point that they have virtual immunity for anything. They can say or write almost anything, at any time, with no fear of reprisal. And if they cross the line, they know that the courts will back them up.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-shirt
Backfire
December 15, 2008 - 09:11 ET by VonuThey pulled the investigation before a crime was committed, Blago did nothting illegal. Use the Clinton playbook of stonewall/smashmouth politics and the Gov. skates. What a country. We really do have the best government money can buy.
I thought from the beginning
December 15, 2008 - 09:22 ET by bioteachedthat it was odd that the feds didn't wait to make the arrests after the deal had been made. It doesn't fit their MO. Think about it, they are always looking to catch the bigger fish. Why would they stop an investigation before a felony is commited?
To me, this stinks of something more that the Trib wanting to get the scoop. But that is just my humble opinion. Someone higher up was tipped off otherwise, this could have been a major scandal for our country.
I just hope that this does not lead to more scandals, but I do hope that the people that are committing crimes are caught and processed to the extent of the law.
Gee, whodda thunk the NYT
December 15, 2008 - 09:29 ET by oilcanGee, whodda thunk the NYT calling out the ChiTrib and for what reason? Memory is fleeting, considering the NYT couldn't wait to publish secret operational plans the military and CIA had for conducting special operations in Afghanistan. Compromising the very core tactics and strategies to be used.
Chicago Machine in high gear !!!
December 15, 2008 - 10:25 ET by rightwingchefBoy, ya gotta love these Libs. We get all of this entertainment to watch for free. What a bunch of nutjobs. The people wanted the "One" now they have what they want. I personally can't wait until the ball gets rolling, hey this stuff is priceless, we get to watch how self destruction works firsthand.
Riddle Me This
December 15, 2008 - 10:42 ET by lareeJ.B.,White “Riddle Me This”
http://rattlergator.typepad.com/rattlergator/2008/12/a-question-over-the-illinois-negotiation.html
tribune blowing the investigation
December 15, 2008 - 11:17 ET by east tennessee johnIsn't the Tribune Axelrod's old paper of employment? If so, enough said.
Yep - according to wiki,
December 15, 2008 - 13:53 ET by MazziYep - according to wiki, Axelrod worked there for 8 years. But something is not adding up. It says he was born in 1955. It says he went to work at Chi Trib at age 27 (1982), then it says that he became the "youngest political writer" in 1981, and that in 1984 he moved to Paul Simon's campaign.
I know that libs don't worry much about making things add up, but which is it? Did he work there 8 years? Did he work there 3 years? Did he start in 1981, or 1982?
I know wiki is not an authority, but you would think that they could at least get their facts straight. Most biography pages are at least reviewed periodically by the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod_(political_consultant)
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
No Contact. Later: Contact.
December 15, 2008 - 11:31 ET by NBFMeanwhile, no one is taking Obama to task for his "No Contact" with Blago BS.