Rod Blagojevich: Abraham Lincoln would've been impeached ..."

You remember former Illinois Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich who after being impeached is currently serving a 14-year stint in federal lockup for corruption. He tried to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat when Obama ran for president but was caught on tape making the offer.

The seedy Blagojevich and his head of hair wrote in a new op-ed that today's House Democrats would have impeached Abraham Lincoln.

Blagojevich said in a Newsmax column that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), would have President Lincoln impeached as swiftly as she has President Trump.

In the column, he said he admires Abraham Lincoln, his fellow Illinoisan, and also that he served in Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding.

Blagojevich noted one of House Democrats' two articles of impeachment against Trump is the alleged obstruction of Congress, [which is ridiculous on its face since there exists a separation of powers and the House never took the legal step to legally require testimony from witnesses Trump told not to testify.]

And he went on about the political moves Lincoln made by offering Robert E. Lee the command of the U.S. Army, which he turned down, and Lincoln's drafting the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, etc.

You might ask yourself, why is "Blago" appealing to the GOP and Trump. The answer might be as simple as the notion that he is looking for a commuted prison sentence from the President.

Trump said in August that he was "seriously" considering commuting Blagojevich's jail sentence -- claiming the ex-governor has been treated "unbelievably unfairly" by ex-FBI Director James Comey's "gang" "and all these sleazebags that did it."

But there is no doubt that what Blagojevich did was criminal and that he did it. Just because a bunch of sleazebags were involved in the case, doesn't make what Blago did excusable. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.




Tweet

The POTUS 'Pardon-a-thon'

Most presidents wait until the end of their time in office before handing out pardons and commutation of sentences. President Trump seems to have made it part of his daily routine.

Okay, so I'm exaggerating somewhat, but let's face it, Trump appears to be make a show of pardoning felons and other miscreants on a regular basis and I'm not so sure they all deserve it.

The plenary power to grant pardons or reprieves are granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution and limited only to federal offenses. A pardon can't override the impeachment process, so even if the president was able to pardon him or herself, an impeachment would likely ensue. That has never happened before and it's still unclear if a self-pardon is actually permissible.

The first pardon Trump wrote was for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona, on August 25, 2017.  Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court and was awaiting sentencing.  Trump said of the sheriff that he "gave years of admirable service to our nation."

Arpaio is a staunch anti-illegal immigration advocate and got in trouble with the Obama administration for actually following the law. His pardon was, as Martha Stewart would say, "a good thing."

The second person Trump dealt with was to Sholom Rubashkin serving a 27-year sentence for bank fraud. Rubashkin, a father of ten, ran a family-owned kosher meat processing business. His indictment for bank fraud was viewed in  bi-partisan agreement as historically excessive.

Third was Kristian Saucier, the Navy machinist mate who, aboard the USS Alexandria submarine, took photos as mementos of his years aboard the vessel, which he served on from September 2007 to March 2012. His case is very similar to Hillary Clinton's in which classified material was mishandled, and Saucier, unlike Clinton, served 12 months in prison. He is currently suing the Obama administration for inequality of justice. Trump gets a "Martha Stewart" endorsement ['it's a good thing'] on this one as well.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the fourth person Trump dealt with. Libby was convicted of perjury regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice. Libby  considered himself the target of unfair prosecution. His sentence was initially commuted by George W. Bush in July 2007 and President Trump gave Libby a total pardon on April 13, 2018.

Fifth in line was Jack Johnson,  the first black heavyweight champion in boxing. The pardon was given posthumously by Trump for Johnson's 1913 conviction for violating the Mann Act, which involved the illegal transport of women over state lines for "immoral" purposes. The pardon was issued on May 24, 2018. It was previously denied by the Obama administration because true to form, Obama did nothing positive for black people.

Dinesh D'Souza was the sixth to be pardoned by Trump on May 31, 2018. D'Souza is a conservative version of Michael Moore, except without the cow inside his stomach. He has made documentaries and written books which depict the left in less than glowing terms, and he was convicted of campaign finance violations to which he admitted [unlike Hillary Clinton's refusal of admitting personal responsibility for her devastating loss to Donald J. Trump for the presidency of the United States].

At the time of D'Souza's consideration for pardon, Trump was also considering pardoning Democrats Martha Stewart [speaking of the devil] and Rod Blagojevich--Stewart for lying to the FBI and "Blago" for being a scumwafer who tried to sell Obama's senate seat after he won the election.

I can abide by the Stewart pardon, but Blagojevich is questionable in my mind.

Finally, we have Alice Marie Johnson, a 63-year-old "grandmother" who has used that moniker to somehow project her innocence. It's easy to become a grandmother--just have kids and don't die before they have kids.

I have mixed feelings about Johnson.

She isn't an innocent bystander in her crime. She was doing some serious drug-deals and money laundering. The fact that her son was killed in a motorcycle accident doesn't seem a good enough excuse for dealing drugs.

And while she's hyped as being convicted of a "non-violent" crime, I believe that dealing drugs is a violent crime, but indirectly so.

Perhaps Trump was right to release her, but to have Kim Kardashian West as the spokesperson for her case is ridiculous. Just because people are famous, does not make them experts or even intelligent.

And wasn't it Trump who said that he wants to get tougher on drug dealers? He even spoke of the possibility of the death penalty.

President Trump needs to be careful not to make these pardons into a TV show. And certainly he needs to stop equating celebrity with expertise.

I think it would have been better for him to have followed the presidential tradition of waiting until the end of his term before going forward on pardons, but I also understand his need to "do something" in the present.

It's just my opinion--what's yours?


Tweet

CIA agent hopes for "Hillary Justice" over leak

Richmond, Va. -- Jeffrey Sterling had worked for the CIA and now sits in prison at  federal prison in Colorado. He was found guilty of leaking government secrets to a reporter but now maintains his innocence and hopes for an early release on a federal appeals court that will soon consider whether or not to reverse his convictions. He is currently serving a 3 1/2-year prison sentence.

Sterling, 49, was convicted by a jury on all counts last year after being charged under the Espionage Act for leaking details of a CIA mission to James Risen of the New York Times. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in his case on Tuesday.

"I continue to have hope that the truth will come out," his wife, Holly Sterling said. She travels from their Missouri home him once a month to visit him.

Also in the same federal 'slammer' are former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Jared Fogle, of Subway Restaurant fame.

According to prosecutors, Sterling was a disgruntled former CIA employee who told the reporter about a plan to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon--supposedly to discredit the CIA. The black op involved an agent nicknamed "Merlin" to deliver bogus nuclear blueprints to Iran in the hopes they would spend years trying to develop a nuke that wouldn't actually work, similar to the instructions for building a backyard barbecue. 

In his 2006 book "State of War," Risen cited anonymous sources and said the idea was a reckless and botched operation that might have actually helped advance Iran's nuclear ambitions. The CIA strongly disputed that notion.

"Sterling's actions destroyed the program, endangered the lives of a covert human asset and his family, and compromised the United States' ability to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons," the appeals brief by the prosecutors stated.

Sterling claims that he was not Risen's source and Risen never testified during trial. Sterling's attorneys argued the leak came from a Capitol Hill staffer after he told staffers at a Senate intelligence committee in 2003. The attorneys further stated that prosecutors only went after Sterling because Risen's story made the CIA look foolish (like calling people you need to support you 'deplorables').

On appeal, Sterling's attorneys argue that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecution never proved that he ever disclosed any secret information in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the case was tried.

Barry Pollack, who represented Sterling at trial said, "If Risen had written a story about how this was a superb operation that successfully set back the Iranian nuclear program, I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that Mr. Sterling would have been charged."

But it's hard to prove a negative.

Another argument is that the lower court inappropriately permitted prosecutors to tell jurors about Sterling's mishandling of other CIA documents, and his lawyers are urging the 4th Circuit to grant him a new trial.

Holly Sterling said her husband may die in prison due to health issues and Obamacare. She knows that the odds that the 4th Circuit will side with Sterling are a long shot, especially since he isn't a Clinton, but she remains hopeful. 

She is hoping her husband will receive the same consideration that Hillary received in regard to the Espionage Act.




Tweet