I'm starting to think he is clinically narcissistic. He needs mental help.

 

But would you listen to his radio show on WGN?

For some reason, this guy kept coming to mind...

 

LMAO!!! Those last two posts... CLASSIC!!

LMAO!!! Those last two posts... CLASSIC!!

 

the guy in the blue shirt to the left of Robert Gibbs is hilarious. seems very angry. was probably expecting Obama.

Edited January 24, 200917 yr by mr_genius

I was listening to some of Blago's stand-up routine on the radio and I was sitting in my car, alternately laughing, getting pissed off, and shaking my head.

That kind of super-delusional hyper-narcissism is equal parts baffling, aggravating and somehow awesome.

YEs

 

Blagojevich is going to be on Larry King Live monday

Blago's lead defense lawyer Ed Genson has resigned as his defense attorney

 

"I never require a client to do what I say but I do require them to at least listen to what I say. ... I wish the governor good luck and godspeed," Genson said in brief remarks to reporters.

 

Genson would not elaborate on his reasons for withdrawing from the case or any conversations he had with Blagojevich about his leaving the case.

The Narcisselusional One is going to appear on Skeletor Live on Monday night.

Could be funny viewing during commercials while I watch Raw.

I saw part of that press conference yesterday and one of two things is true. He either has no sense of reality, or maybe he feels based on the evidence he could never be impeached. Have the texts of these taped conversations ever been made public? The only quote I've read is the one where he says something along the lines of him having something valuable that he isn't going to give away for nothing.

What's the rest of the hard evidence?

 

I saw part of that press conference yesterday and one of two things is true. He either has no sense of reality, or maybe he feels based on the evidence he could never be impeached. Have the texts of these taped conversations ever been made public? The only quote I've read is the one where he says something along the lines of him having something valuable that he isn't going to give away for nothing.

What's the rest of the hard evidence?

That, and the testimony of people willing to say that they were pressured to pony up for the seat should enough for a conspiracy charge.

the testimony of people willing to say that they were pressured to pony up for the seat should enough for a conspiracy charge.

 

Who is going to come forward and say that they were working with Blago to buy the seat?

 

They might get him in the Senate, but Im not sure the feds will be able to convict him.

Who is going to come forward and say that they were working with Blago to buy the seat?

 

They might get him in the Senate, but Im not sure the feds will be able to convict him.

 

Exactly. I'm waiting to see or hear all this hard evidence. I keep hearing it's there, ok let's have it. That quote by the way can be interpreted in so many ways, if that's the heart of the evidence, good luck.

I'm gonna regret being unable to see Blagojevich on the view here shortly.

My new favorite T-Shirt idea... Picture of Blago's face behind bars, with the caption "Spare the Rod"...

Exactly. I'm waiting to see or hear all this hard evidence. I keep hearing it's there, ok let's have it. That quote by the way can be interpreted in so many ways, if that's the heart of the evidence, good luck.

Its a federal case, which means two important things here...

 

1. They don't release the catalog of their strongest evidence. They only released some tasty snippets, just enough to deflect what little controversy there might be about the arrest. So don't hold your breath waiting for any more than that before the trial begins.

 

2. The feds rarely arrest someone that they don't convict. If it was a weak case, they may just leak the investigation and then work with the person they are chasing on some sort of deal (i.e. Richardson's current situation). If they arrest someone, that means they are going to trial or cutting a plea. And the feds have some astronomically high conviction rate. I'd say the chances of Blago getting off scott free are about 5% at best, just based on this fact alone. Add in that he is clearly delusional and went off saying all sorts of bizarre things even when he knew he was being recorded, and it drops to about 2%.

 

Blago is going to jail. I'd bet on it.

 

Feingold says he wants to introduce an amendment to take the power of appointing replacement senators away from governors. Sounds like a good idea on paper but it seems reactionary to me. What do people think about the people not electing senators anymore and having the state legislatures elect them instead, the old way (repealing the 17th amendment)? I've seen people say it would curb special interests, but I don't see how.

Feingold says he wants to introduce an amendment to take the power of appointing replacement senators away from governors. Sounds like a good idea on paper but it seems reactionary to me. What do people think about the people not electing senators anymore and having the state legislatures elect them instead, the old way (repealing the 17th amendment)? I've seen people say it would curb special interests, but I don't see how.

I prefer the direct vote. And as for replacements, each state should have its method of choice, though for my state I'd prefer a special election over all this nomination nonsense.

 

I prefer the direct vote. And as for replacements, each state should have its method of choice, though for my state I'd prefer a special election over all this nomination nonsense.

I think senators should be directly elected in normal elections, but for replacement senators, special elections cost too much. So I'd rather have the state legislature hash it out (but the states should decide this, the federal government should have no say in how the states choose their representation). That way there's not one person deciding it.

I prefer the direct vote. And as for replacements, each state should have its method of choice, though for my state I'd prefer a special election over all this nomination nonsense.

 

I agree with this 100%. It should be up to each state. Deciding anything at the federal level is a direct abuse of the constitution, because they are interfering in a states right to decide waht they want to do in their own affairs. I also would like to see a direct special election to avoid any special interests or foul play coming in.

a play by play review of The View would be nice.

 

 

didnt think I would ever see that on the filibuster

Not sure if this has been posted, but Blago said this morning he considered naming Oprah to Obama's seat.

 

EDIT: I suppose if that means ever resident of Illinois gets a new car, then I guess I'm ok with that.

Edited January 26, 200917 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I prefer the direct vote. And as for replacements, each state should have its method of choice, though for my state I'd prefer a special election over all this nomination nonsense.

 

I've mentioned this before. IMHO, the replacement should be from the same party. I'm cool with the Gov nominating and the assembly confirming, but replace with someone from the same party. When the House or Senate are equally, or closely divided, it just adds another layer of b.s. in the replacement choice.

I've mentioned this before. IMHO, the replacement should be from the same party. I'm cool with the Gov nominating and the assembly confirming, but replace with someone from the same party. When the House or Senate are equally, or closely divided, it just adds another layer of b.s. in the replacement choice.

I don't agree, but I'm not much of a party-centric person either.

 

a play by play review of The View would be nice.

 

 

didnt think I would ever see that on the filibuster

 

 

Barbara's creepy head, on a tv screen via satellite from LA, interviewed him alone first and basically just asked him if he tried to sell the seat to which he replied that if all the tapes were released "unedited" that the "truth" would come out. (sic). Then she tried to get a zinger in by using a quote from his FIL from 2005 as the reason Patty wasn't there, which he corrected her (I hate BW and wish she would retire or at the very least do research before making an asshole of herself). Then after the break Whoopie, Joy and Sheri talked to him and he explained how he isn't able to defend himself, how innocent until proven guilty isn't the presumption here.. etc, etc, etc... He explained what he had to, though it was borderline above the View's viewers heads IMO, but I think he accomplished what he set out to do, not that it will help him any.