Blagojevich appeal, Federal rules of Criminal Procedure, Denial of tapes setup?, Federal Discovery rules clear

“Why was Obama in constant contact with Tony Rezko in 2004 when Rezko was conspiring with William Cellini to use TRS, Teacher Retirement Fund, assets for political gain and personal enrichment?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“There is enough corruption in Illinois so that all it takes is someone who is serious about finding it to uncover it. If a U.S. attorney is not finding corruption in Illinois, they’re not seriously looking for it.”…Northwestern Law Professor James Lindgren

I have researched, analyzed and lived with Operation Board Games and the Chicago corruption involving Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, et al for over 3 years. I am sticking with the following conclusion I came to.

The fix was in in 2006. Blagojevich, who had been the presumptive presidential candidate until then was exposed. Barack Obama would replace him and he had to be protected. That is why the prosecution of Blagojevich was delayed and dragged out. There is more to this saga.

We are awaiting news of the Blagojevich appeal. Was this a setup too or was Blagojevich designated as the sacrificial lamb?

From the Chicago Tribune June 28, 2011.

“Blagojevich appeal likely to revisit complaint about tapes”

“Rod Blagojevich and his lawyers have long complained that prosecutors and the judge in his two trials were fundamentally unfair, but after his sweeping corruption conviction Monday, only a successful appeal built on that belief stands between the former governor and a possible double-digit prison sentence.

From early denials of Blagojevich’s demands to “play all the tapes” in his case, to U.S. District Judge James Zagel’s limiting of the former governor’s defense at his retrial, Blagojevich has always felt handcuffed, said one of his lawyers, Sam Adam Jr.

“If you look at the whole process, he was condemned from the moment he was arrested,” contended Adam, who took part in the first trial, which ended largely deadlocked.

Blagojevich was convicted on 17 corruption charges, including all 11 counts alleging he sought something of value for himself to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama after his 2008 election as president.

Blagojevich, who has been found indigent by the court, will likely seek to have a lawyer appointed in the coming weeks to represent him in the appeal, Adam said. Taxpayer money would be used to pay for that attorney.

The appeal will likely argue that in both trials, the judge unfairly barred the defense from playing many undercover recordings critical to its case, severely limited cross-examination of government witnesses and allowed too many jurors who professed bias onto the panel, Adam said.

The government was allowed to play at trial more than 90 of the secretly made recordings of Blagojevich, Adam said, while the defense was allowed just four.

“The jury only got to hear one side of the tapes,” Adam said. “If you do that, you’re going to guarantee a conviction.”

In a mistrial motion filed June 9 as closing arguments were under way, the team of defense lawyers at the retrial accused Zagel of bias and having a “closed mind” on the evidence.”

Read more:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-28/news/ct-met-blagojevich-appeal-20110628_1_sam-adam-undercover-recordings-zagel

The Federal rules on discovery are crystal clear.

“Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”

“IV. ARRAIGNMENT AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL > Rule 16.

Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection

(a) Government’s Disclosure.

(1) Information Subject to Disclosure.”

“(B) Defendant’s Written or Recorded Statement.

Upon a defendant’s request, the government must disclose to the defendant, and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing, all of the following:

(i) any relevant written or recorded statement by the defendant if:

•the statement is within the government’s possession, custody, or control; and
•the attorney for the government knows — or through due diligence could know — that the statement exists;”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule16.htm

Was this part of the setup?