Blagojevich attorney: Wiretaps were illegal

[BlueJessamine]

Source: AP News

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The lawyer for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich says federal investigators illegally monitored his client's conversations.

Attorney Ed Genson told the House impeachment committee Thursday that the federal wiretaps were illegal.

The recordings are crucial to the criminal charges filed against Blagojevich last week. Prosecutors say they caught the Democratic governor discussing efforts to auction off a U.S. Senate seat and pressure a hospital executive for campaign donations.

Genson told the impeachment committee that it shouldn't consider any material from the wiretaps, saying the evidence was "illegally obtained."

The comments suggest Blagojevich's legal defense may include challenging whether the recordings can be introduced in court.


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVNAcA-xtCA6PKQ8h5s7dBlD_BKwD955A1283

---

Rich at The Capitol Fax blog is live blogging the impeachment hearing in Springfield and reports the following:


* 12:40 pm Genson just assented when asked if the federal wiretaps and recordings were “illegally obtained.” He then added, “We have no proof or indication that this wiretap complied … Without giving us an opportunity to contest it, the admission of is unacceptable… and illegal.”

Rep. Fritchey: “The intercepts were authorized … It’s my opinion that the authorization was proper.” Genson: “Your opinion is wrong, with all due respect.”

link:

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/

[hlthe2b]

1. But,of course.... I seem to recall seeing Fitz had gone before a

judge to get the wiretaps.... Is this a hail mary pass?

[No Elephants]

2. Is this Blago's "side of the story" he's been promising? That the wiretaps that caught him

soliciting bribes were illegal? His side of the story is an alleged technicality? LOL. Dumbass.

I just wish they would stop linking him to Obama.

[gratuitous]

11. Alleged technicality? It's called the Fourth Amendment

And prosecutors have known for decades that they have to get a warrant before tapping someone's phone. If Fitzgerald fucked up a basic procedure from Prosecutor 101, then the evidence from those taps and any evidence developed because of those taps should be excluded.

I don't hold any brief for or against Blagojevich, but I hope that if I'm ever accused of a crime, all the rights in the Constitution are still available to me, and not jettisoned just because Blagojevich is a dumbass and it was right and proper for Fitzgerald and the court to take a shortcut to convicting him.

[atreides1]

12. Which Constitution is That?

Would that be the same Constitution that the congress with their support of Patriot Act I & II pissed on?

[gratuitous]

17. Touché

But if we're going to get back to being a nation of laws that apply to everyone equally, not just the nice little old lady down the street and other likeable folks, we should start somewhere.

[No Elephants]

24. I did not mean to diminish the 4th amendment. But violation of the 4th amendment as to Blago is,

at this point only alleged by his attorney. Meaning, illegal wiretap has been claimed, but it has not yet been proven.

And, as to the question of his guilt or innocence of soliciting bribes, So far, Blago's lawyer has alleged that law enforcement is guilty, not that Blago is actually innocent of the crime. Illegal wiretap it is a tecnical defense, not something that either exonerates or convicts him.

So, I stand by the accuracy of my prior post. However, that does not mean that I am scornful of the 4th amendment.

Me, I LOVE the Constitution, including the 4th amendment. But, it does let a lot of people who are guilty of very bad things off the hook, not bc they are innocent, but because the WAY that law enforsement went about gathering proof was not correct. The proof is there, but that got it the wrong way. So the criminal gets off.

Is that necessary to curb excesses by law enforcement? Yes. Does it make the accused any less guilty of the crime? No. Thereofre, it is a technical defense, as opposed to a substantive defense.

To put my prior post in context, this man has been yelling that he cannot wait to tell his side of the story to the people of Illiniois. If all his side of the story consists of is something that does not evven try to exonerate him of a crime, his bloviating about "his side of the story" is laughable to me.

[marshall]

18. It's his version of "The bitch set me up!"

And fruit of a poisonous tree.

[No Elephants]

25. LOL, I hate it when that happens.

[Skink]

3. Call the ACLU.

[mamameow]

4. illegal wiretaps

this is the case that is going to test the legality of non court approved wiretaps. if the court did not approve and this is the only evidence that the prosecution has, they need a decision by the courts that the taps were legal. i will bet blago walks!!!!

[Raskolnik]

9. Except that these wiretaps were approved by Judge Kennelly

We are not talking about warrantless surveillance.

[cosmicone]

5. The lawyer is correct

Until someone can testify that the wiretaps were legal and produces documentary evidence, they are inadmissible in the current proceedings.

[Raskolnik]

8. No, impeachment proceedings are not a criminal trial.

The Illinois rules of criminal procedure do not apply to the impeachment process.

[cosmicone]

10. So hearsay testimony is ok? N/t

[atreides1]

13. Like in a Grand Jury Hearing

In grand jury hearing evidence that can never be presented in a trial can be used to get an indictment.

[Raskolnik]

14. Yes.

It might not be as compelling as more direct evidence, but there is nothing prohibiting its use.

[BlueJessamine]

6. another tidbit from the hearing:

via Rich:


* 1:43 pm - Genson interview on MSNBC…

Well, the case is a fairytale, the process is a witchunt. The fact of the matter is, uh, I don’t know that Illinois is doing itself any credit. In the light of the scandal, in the light of the problems that the image of the state of Illinois is having, it seems to me that to put together a process, which deprives, uh the governor of any sort of rights whatsoever, does not do Illinois proud. <…>

Because a good majority of this panel has gotten up since the panel has started, and made speeches against, uh, the governor. that’s not what you call due process, that’s not what you call a neutral forum… They, they don’t, they don’t belong on this panel.”

[Fumesucker]

23. How can this possibly be an impartial hearing if the judges have already made speeches about it?

And I know they're not really judges, but the principle remains that this is anything but an impartial inquisition.

[closeupready]

7. didn't blago himself state before cameras that he consented to taping phone conversations?

I forget the precise wording, but remember the day before he was arrested, he basically said, "wiretapping me? hey, that's fine, go ahead."

[DeSwiss]

15. Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfoi6AOr6OI

- He did....

[peace13]

16. Yes, illegal wire taps are only legal...

on constituents. How dare they.

[rangersmith82]

19. yep its all fun and games...

until you get caught red handed,

You reap what you sow Governer....

[Piewhacket]

20. On TV he said anyone could record his conversations.

Consent!

[McCamy Taylor]

21. There is a good chance they will lose this one. They announced charges too quickly.

Ordinarily, they would have gotten someone to pay a bribe, pulled that person in, cut a deal and then they would have had a real live witness to testify. That would have given them a good case, Because Fitz was pressured to announce the case early, before he was ready, there was no actual crime, there is no witness, and wiretap evidence is always open to court challenge. They can say that the FBI went beyond their original warrant.

Blago may walk. Fitz will take the heat for what his superiors told him to do. If Cheney bears a grudge over Libbey, he will be very pleased.

[Piewhacket]

22. I think Fitz has it, but even if he doesn't....

No matter what, Blago ain't going to be making any Senate appointments.
And he's going to be more careful about running off his big mouth in future.

The Supreme Court took a powder, probably quite right, its really a political question.
So Fitz may have calculated the legality correctly, but seems to have missed on the politics.

The real problem is that the dynamics for impeachment are wrong. The repukes
see an opportunity for a special election and getting a repuke into Obama's seat.
Impeachment can't go without repukes, and no appointment will be made without it.
Repukes are therefore going to oppose impeachment unless dems allow a special election.
The scum. Its extortion, sure, but unlike what Blago did its perfectly legal.

I don't know whether he's guilty but Blago is a fucked up piece of crap for screwing up
a straight-forward Senate appointment and so I hope the MF goes to prison for 50 years
as an example to others.

Someone is going to have to count the votes. Are they there, or not?
And thats the way I see it. Hey!