It'll Be A Great Day When Our Schools Get All The Money They Need And The Justice Department Has To Hold A Bake Sale To Bury A Bum.

I'm simply going to suggest, with a hung jury on 23 of 24 counts against Rod Blagojevich, and a lone conviction on the penny ante charge of lying to the FBI, that the millions spent prosecuting him could have been put to better use.

What if the Justice Department had just released the tapes, allowed Blagojevich's impeachment to go forward, and then done nothing? He'd still be ruined, but he wouldn't look like a martyr (which he does now, in an odd way), and the FBI and the Justice Department wouldn't look like a gang of incompetent fools.

What if all that money had gone into solar powered windmills?

Mind you, I think that Blagojevich is guilty as sin. But that isn't why he was prosecuted. Most politicians are guilty as sin.  Blagojevich was prosecuted for being stupid.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White


  1. Base of the Pillar says

    I don't think this douchebag is seen as a martyr by any but some minute anti-government fringe. Even Trump fired him.

  2. piperTom says

    The FBI and the Justice Department wouldn’t look like a gang of incompetent fools ONLY IF they were not a gang of incompetent fools.

    Mercy save us from incompetent fools with guns.

  3. says


    I apologize if this is an inappropriate question, or one you can't answer, but: is there something wrong with the prosecutors in the Justice Department?

    It isn't just Blagojevich that makes me ask this; there was the Ted Stevens prosecution, which climaxed in "prosecutorial misconduct". There was the John Stagliano trial, which didn't even reach a jury before all the charges were dismissed. I'm sure if I thought about it some more, I could dig out a few other recent examples; I'm thinking this goes back to the "Buddy" Cianci trial (where, just like Blagojevich, the government spent a bunch of money and walked away with a conviction on a single count).

    So what the heck's going on here? Is it harder to get a conviction in a corruption trial than everyone thinks it is? Are they rushing to prosecute without having enough evidence in hand? Are they just inept?

  4. Patrick says

    Well in this case it seems only one lady disagreed with the prosecution, and 11 other jurors, on about half the charges. So I wouldn't say anything is wrong with the prosecution…

    except hubris.

    Patrick Fitzgerald is a celebrity prosecutor in much the same way that Vincent Bugliosi used to be. Fitzgerald took what was already going to be a big case and blew it into the crime of the century, way back in 2009.

    That he, and his awesome ego and media profile, have been humbled by one stubborn woman, I think is cause to celebrate. Fitzgerald's entire career will be marked by this failure, even though he'll probably win more convictions on the retrial. Fitzgerald did everything he could to make the case "Fitzgerald v. Blago" instead of "United States v. Blagojevich".

    Except, of course, that he didn't even bother to try the case himself. He was happy to bask in the limelight, but he only sat in the courtroom as a spectator. That's not unusual for a United States Attorney, who has administrative duties after all, but Fitzgerald's press conference was personal. You knew he'd be up at midnight, typing motions in limine and drafting proposed jury instructions, after that big production.

    I like to see a big man fall. I enjoyed watching Blago fall, and I'm happy to know that Fitzgerald is eating humble pie today. He did everything he could to poison the jury pool (and boost his Q-rating) with his big press conference in January 2009, and I can be happy about his failure even if I think the prosecution was right.