Blagojevich claims innocence: “Every allegation against me is false.”
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich addressed a crowd of about 1000 students at Cahn Auditorium on Tuesday night. Blagojevich, WCAS ’79, was impeached and removed from office last year. He has been charged with various federal crimes, including racketeering, bribery and conspiracy.
At the event hosted by the Northwestern University College Democrats, Blagojevich denied any criminal wrongdoing. “I am innocent of all charges. Every allegation against me is false” said the former Governor.
After a lengthy opening statement, Blagojevich was grilled by a panel of three Northwestern professors. During the question and answer session, Blagojevich repeatedly claimed he had been removed from office without a chance to defend himself. According to Blagojevich, he was “illegally and unethically hijacked from office without due process.”
While Blagojevich did not reveal the exact content of his infamous taped phone calls, he stated that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was his first pick for Barack Obama’s senate seat. His choice of Madigan was part of a larger political deal he was trying to strike with Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, his political rival.
Mike Madigan and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton were constant targets of Blagojevich. The former governor accused the pair for their own unethical behavior, some of which he accredited to his arrest.
Blagojevich was also critical of the media. He asked them, “Where have you been and why have you not brought the healthy skepticism?” Blagojevich felt that the media has not done an adequate job of pressing for the release of the taped phone calls.
“I’m the anti-Nixon” he said. “Play the tapes, they will prove me innocent.”
Among the more shocking events of the night, Blagojevich admitted that his decision to appoint Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate was racially motivated. He felt morally obligated to appoint an African American to what he called the “most exclusive club in America.” Blagojevich even claimed that Senate leaders such as Harry Reid were “segregationist” in their beliefs for not seating Burris.
When asked by Northwestern Law professor Tonja Jacobi about any quid pro quo allegations in the FBI affidavit, Blagojevich denied there were any.
“I was surprised that he didn’t think that the indictment made a claim of quid pro quo. It made claim after claim. I could have spoken for another half hour about the different allegations,” said Jacobi after the event ended. “Where exactly does he draw the line between what is legitimate and illegitimate conduct for anyone in office?”
Blagojevich further defended his innocence by saying that if he had truly done what those allegations claimed he did, he would be “nowhere near this event. [He] would be 100 miles away.”
However instead, he chose to take the stage, explaining that his presence took courage. He went on to explain, “I got in trouble saying it when I was Governor, but I’ll say it now: testicular virility.”
The panel then posed questions written by students. Kyle Krym, a Weinberg sophomore, was among the lucky few whose questions were selected. Krym asked Blagojevich what his advice on ethics would be to someone who wanted to take office for the first time. Blagojevich answered, “surround yourself with good lawyers.”
“I thought it was a very cynical point of view, although coming from him, I found it very apt,” said Krym.
“The event was meant to open a discourse on issues important to public policy; corruption, ethics in government,” said College Democrats Vice President of Programming Dan Rockoff. “I think we were able to challenge Governor Blagojevich in a way he hasn’t been challenged in a while.”
“We reached hundreds of students, who otherwise the message wouldn’t have gotten to. The auditorium was sold out. I think that’s phenomenal.”
Blagojevich reflected fondly on his experience as a student at Northwestern, saying “It’s a great school with a great tradition of academics.” Blagojevich said he worked multiple jobs to pay for his tuition in lieu of seeking financial aid as he “wasn’t good enough to get a scholarship.”
Blagojevich thanked Northwestern for allowing him to plead his case. Many attending the event, however, did not have their minds changed. Towards the end of the night, one audience member yelled out the word, “shame.”
Blagojevich replied, “What, you don’t like Roland Burris?”
Replied the audience member, “No, you.”
Updated: This story has been updated to fix an error regarding the “shame” comment. Thanks to commenter ‘NU Student’ for the correction. The typo in the first line has also been corrected; thanks to commenter “K.”
| Print
I was sitting in the balcony, and the guy that yelled “shame” was definitely not a student; he was a middle aged man who was at least in his mid-40s. He’d been making faces all night and I guess he couldn’t hold his disgust in any longer, so he yelled out. I mean, I thought it was hilarious, but yeah, he definitely wasn’t a student.
NU Student
March 3, 2010 at 12:41 am
RELEASE THE TAPES!!
Sam
March 3, 2010 at 12:44 am
Listen, Blagojevich is probably guilty as they come, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s not the only politico in Illinois who’s crooked.
With politicians like these, who needs the mafia?
Captain Crunch
March 3, 2010 at 12:46 am
Innocent until proven guilty. Can we all agree on that? Due process? How can we opine on his guilt until we have the evidence before us?
Let's be clear
March 3, 2010 at 12:51 am
haha. “Let’s be clear”, are you Blago?
jokejokejokejokejoke. Still don’t understand College Dems.
haha
March 3, 2010 at 1:33 am
Go Dr. Tonja Jacobi, Go!
I’ll take her word (the woman giving Blago the whatfor in Photo 5) over that schlub anyday!
Oh yeah, and she has an awesome dog,too.
George Berlin
March 3, 2010 at 11:19 am
sorry let’s be clear, innocent until proven guilt doesn’t exist any more, nor action necessary for a crime to occur. it’s sad, and while I hope Blago walks, but it’s reality that he’s been judged guilty regardless of his actions.
gr
March 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm
OK, he isn’t exactly ‘innocent’. He was impeached 114-1 by the Illinois House and removed from office on a 59-0 vote of the Illinois Senate. On a separate 59-0 vote he was forbidden from ever holding public office in Illinois. So, while he may have not been convicted of the crimes listed in this current indictment (yet) he has been charged, tried, convicted and removed from office for misconduct in said office by a group statutorily given the authority to conduct that trial. Admittedly, being tried by a bunch of crooked politicians for being a crooked politician doesn’t carry the same weight as being convicted in front of a crooked Illinois judge and a bought-and-paid-for Illinois jury, but it still counts as having been legally found guilty of wrongdoing. Therefore the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ only works for the pending charges, until he pleads out or he accidentally drowns while attempting to carry too much heavy chain with him while swimming in the river.
It’s all quite comical really…… and he gave a lecture on ethics, get it? Ethics.
old guy
March 3, 2010 at 5:55 pm
umm old guy, impeachment proceedings are not criminal proceedings, and Blago was unable to call witnesses in the state senate trial. correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t believe the state senate was even allowed to hear the full context of the tapes, because fitzgerald (who sadly shares a name with our esteemed coach fitz) is keeping them under lock and key except for the snippets he allowed to leak.
impeachment does not equal guilt. all impeachment means is that the senate decided to kick him out of office. it was a rushed, unfair, political proceeding.
it is extremely unsettling that this man has been removed from office (and his job and very livelihood) and all but convicted in the court of public opinion without any opportunity to defend himself. and when he does defend himself, people respond with laughs and jeers.
i’ll be laughing right alongside you all if the tapes are released and he is shown to be guilty, but until then i can’t view this as anything but very sad.
Sam
March 4, 2010 at 2:43 am
If I may beg to differ, impeachment is ‘guilt’ as determined by the Illinois State Senate, led (when trying the Governor) by the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court. The only other impeachment in Illinois history was 176 years ago, not something done lightly here in Illinois. For the ENTIRE Senate to vote 59-0 to convict is almost unimaginable. And, thanks to Milt Patterson, the vote in the House to impeach was 114-1. The confirmation vote in the house was 117-1 with only his sister-in-law voting against the impeachment. While the ‘guilt’ found by the Illinois House and Senate is not criminal, it is a legal proceeding authorized by the Illinois constitution and it did give Mr. Blago the opportunity to participate, which he and his legal team rejected before finally agreeing to do a closing argument. He may dodge a criminal conviction, but it won’t leave him ‘innocent’. Whether he does time or not, he’s guilty of actions which showed character bad enough to get him kicked out of the Illinois Governors office by the Illinois House and Senate. I haven’t heard anyone in the House or Senate expressing great remorse or providing reasons why the impeachment was some huge mistake. That’s 170+ individuals and their staff member’s who have seen enough evidence to believe that Rod needed to go, and none of them stepping up with any real regrets a month out.
I would love to hear the tapes, too, but whether we do or not, Rob Blagojevich has no business lecturing anyone on ‘ethics’. Well, maybe if it’s a ‘What Not To Do’ lecture. Or maybe if it was ‘Opposite Day’.
old guy
March 5, 2010 at 11:06 pm
@ old guy: The fact that it has only happened one other time in the state’s history proves nothing. Please don’t use irrelevant details to distract from the weakness of your argument.
Here’s a good fact-check article from the Trib from last year (you need to register to view it): http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/27/local/chi-ap-il-factcheck-blagoje
You are correct that he had the opportunity to call witnesses, but rules restricted him from calling a number of witnesses that he wanted to (presumably Rahm Emanuel for one, who believes Blago is innocent of trying to sell Obama’s seat for personal gain… this is Obama’s CHIEF OF STAFF, people!).
Impeachment/removal from office is a political proceeding, as the Trib points out, with no presumption of innocence nor standard of proof nor formal rules of evidence. The state legislature was very anti-Blago… Blago kept campaign promises to not raise taxes, which infuriated the House and Senate. Plus, he made tough cuts to keep the budget balanced, something the legislature was not willing to do. Clearly, they wanted him out of office, and it’s obvious why considering Quinn is such a push-over.
It is thus very dangerous for you to presume that his impeachment by the state legislature can in any way be used to suggest “guilt” on his part of any ethics violations before all the tapes are heard and all the evidence is presented. All you have heard (and all the legislature heard) is what Fitzgerald wanted you to hear.
Also, just to clarify: he was not lecturing us on ethics: he was participating in a discussion about ethics… a discussion in which at least two of the three professors were heavily, heavily biased against him.
Sam
March 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm
It’s not my ‘weak argument’, it’s just a fact. Mr. Blagojevich was found ‘guilty’ by the Illinois State Senate. That is what they voted on, whether or not he was ‘guilty’ of the articles of impeachment. When the impeachment proceedings start the governor was asked to enter a plea of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. He was found ‘guilty’. When he took the job as governor he knowingly placed himself under the very rules which were used to remove him, so I don’t see the great injustice here. He served in the Illinois House himself from 92-96, so he should have known the rules of impeachment as well as anyone.
There were 13 different counts in the articles of impeachment, the tapes were primarily related to only to the Burris appointment. To be impeached he only needed to be found ‘guilty’ of one of the counts in the articles. Again, in the entire Illinois House and Senate there was only 1 person who did not vote against Mr. Blagojevich, 2 if you count his sister-in-laws vote against the confirmation. And you are saying that this entire group, Democrats and Republicans, all voted to impeach, and remove from office, an ‘innocent’ man because……. What? He wouldn’t raise taxes because he was such a fiscal conservative? Well, he didn’t mind spending $500,000 in tax money to hang signs with his name on them all over the Tollway.
As far as the process, Mr. Blagojevich could have introduced affadavits from Rahm Emanuel and others regarding his innocence in the ’sale’ of the Senate seat. It was only asked that people related to the criminal trial not testify or be cross examined. And, as far as Emanuel saying that Blago is ‘innocent’, it might have something to do with the fact that Emanuel is on several of the wiretapped conversations, so he would have a vested interest in Blago appearing to be innocent. Of course, even keeping out those involved in the criminal trial would not have stopped Blago from calling witnesses to testify about several of the other charges in the articles of impeachment.
Again, in spite of the impeachment, Mr. Blagojevich is still innocent until proven guilty of the 24 charges in the federal indictment. I guess we’ll see how he does at trial. If he’s convicted there will you still argue over whether we can say he is guilty?
old guy
March 16, 2010 at 7:11 am
of course not.
Sam
March 16, 2010 at 10:56 am
I watched the event on cspan and was quite surprised at the decorum of the audience. Do we love our adversarial system of justive and love our belief that the government must prove its case using a rule of law? Somewher ein the past we forgot that this system was designed to protect us from tyranny. Tyranny not only of the government but of the majority. If, as it is quoted from a notable historical figure that “democracy is where two wolves and sheep get together and decide what is for dinner” than our love of the rule of law and the constitutional protections against the wolf may be designed to save us one day. I see into the futue one or more of those who laughed at the presentation of the yet to be found guilty man may look back on this day and remember the laughs and ask where did our constitution go?
Randy Scott
May 27, 2010 at 2:24 am