Judge to Blagojevich lawyers: You can't see President Obama's interview with FBI

Judge to Blagojevich lawyers: You can't see President Obama's interview with FBI

blogs.suntimes.com

Judge James Zagel denies a defense request to gain access to the FBI report summarizing then President-Elect Obama's 2008 interview with federal investigators.

Defense lawyers argued in a filing last week that the government minimized Obama's knowledge of the then-Governor's attempts to horsetrade for the Senate seat appointment. They said that testimony by government witness John Harris contradicted that portrayal by federal prosecutors.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is very troubling. In this country, they must allow you to confront your accusers as well and present the case you feel best defends your interest.

Now you can be denied presenting a case which is completely wild, but clearly Obama's interview is relevant to Blago's case.

This interview is directly related to the matter at hand and it is not up to the judge to determine its relevance, but rather the jury. This whole business is about conflicting statements, inferences and subtle suggestions relative to the senate appointment.

I hope Blago's defense team appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court. When justice is subverted in this manner it turns the criminal justice system into one of kangaroo courts.

I doubt Obama did anything wrong here directly. I would guess that he knew that direct influence was being applied by proxies such as Emmanuel, but did nothing to directly influence the matter.

By denying the release of the interview, it merely suggests that there is meat on the bone here.

They need to release the material or drop the charges.

When the government can tailor the rules of evidence to a specific trial based on who is involved in the matter at hand a step down a very troubling path has just taken place

blogs.suntimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Judges regularly make decisions as to what is admissible. This is no different. Had there been anything incriminating and/or pertinent to the case at hand, then surely the judge would have allowed it.

but why cant we hear the tapes of the person running the country? especially if it involves a case against a person charged with trying to sell the presidents old senate seat. if the president wasn't in on it whats there to hide?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by abcddcba]

Originally posted by abcddcba
but why cant we hear the tapes of the person running the country? especially if it involves a case against a person charged with trying to sell the presidents old senate seat. if the president wasn't in on it whats there to hide?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by abcddcba]

Why can't we? Because the judge said so. A decision like this is not unique to this case.

Remember....just because you think it's your business, it doesn't make it your business.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

yeah i understand the judge has the right to say we cant hear whatever, but should that be the judges call? if i am accused of murder and i have proof of my innocence the judge better damn well let me present it.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by abcddcba]

reply to post by Aggie Man

Had there been anything incriminating and/or pertinent to the case at hand, then surely the judge would have allowed it.

Au contraire, incriminating and pertinent info is exactly why the judge won't allow it. It's also the reason they didn't want all the tapes played in their entirety.

Obama knew what was going on & he was a party to it. Rod made the mistake of going against BOA and got a spanking for it, if he hadn't he'd still be governor and Obama's pick would've had his seat.

reply to post by dolphinfan

..... In this country, they must allow you to confront your accusers.....

Not anymore, they stopped that a long time ago. They like to make us believe this is true, but it no longer is.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Judges regularly make decisions as to what is admissible. This is no different. Had there been anything incriminating and/or pertinent to the case at hand, then surely the judge would have allowed it.

Prove it

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Judges regularly make decisions as to what is admissible. This is no different. Had there been anything incriminating and/or pertinent to the case at hand, then surely the judge would have allowed it.

CT:

Unless, of course, the judge is a supporter of obama and/or got "leaned on" by the obama administration ...

What is harm of this interview being allowed to be viewed by the defense? Obama has said he has done nothing wrong and was unaware of Blagojevich's schemes. So, why would the Judge render this evidence irrelevant? There is a thing in law called "discovery," were the two sides exchange evidence and information with the other. This crucial component in American law is somehow suspended because the evidence may or may not involve a sitting President?

Regardless of Rod Blagojevich's innocence or guilt, he is entitled to see all evidence taken against him and to call all witnesses involved in the crime charged against him. I hope the jurors recognized this railroad job, and rule accordingly. It seems the former governor, is being made the fall guy on this one?

If the government is knowingly sitting on evidence that prohibits Blagojevich and his accomplices from getting a fair trial, any conviction that is derived from trial will be thrown out on appeal. I am beginning to believe the President may be key to the case? It seems there our some high level operatives in the Justice Department who are purposely doing everything in their power to see that the Presidential angle of this case remains unknown?

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by abcddcba
but why cant we hear the tapes of the person running the country? especially if it involves a case against a person charged with trying to sell the presidents old senate seat. if the president wasn't in on it whats there to hide?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by abcddcba]

Why can't we? Because the judge said so. A decision like this is not unique to this case.

Remember....just because you think it's your business, it doesn't make it your business.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Here's a better question. How do we know the judge hasn't been influenced in some way not to show this interview? The reason behind "because I said so" often means you have backed someone into a corner and they are being defensive.

Why not? What's there to hide? Lies?