Politics

Pluses, Minuses for Blagojevich in Appellate Ruling

Published

11 years ago

July 22, 2015

In this March 15, 2012 file photo, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich waves as he departs his Chicago home for Littleton, Colo., to begin his 14-year prison sentence on corruption charges. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, tossed out some of Blagojevich’s convictions that he sought to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) — Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich may still end up serving all of his 14-year prison term despite an appeals court ruling that he didn’t break the law when he sought to secure a post in President Barack Obama’s Cabinet for appointing an Obama adviser to the president’s old U.S. Senate seat.

In overturning five of 18 corruptions counts that sent Blagojevich off to a prison, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday also ordered he be resentenced. But the court said his original prison sentence may not be extreme, even with some counts dismissed.

Speaking outside the Blagojevich family home in Chicago, his wife, Patti, told reporters later Tuesday that her husband had expressed disappointment the court didn’t hand him a clear legal victory.

“He’s disappointed, of course,” she said, the couple’s 18-year-old daughter at her side. She added more optimistically, “Possibly this is a step in the right direction of getting Rod home to his family.”

The court’s unanimous ruling addressed a key question looming over the Blagojevich case: Where is the line between legal and illegal political wheeling and dealing? The panel’s answer: When it came to Blagojevich’s attempt to land a Cabinet seat, he did not cross the line. But his attempts to trade the Senate seat for campaign cash, however, were illegal, the court concluded.

On federal wiretaps played at his trial, the two-term Democratic governor broached the idea of a Cabinet job in exchange for appointing Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett to Obama’s vacant Senate seat. That never happened.

In its ruling, the appeals court pointed to allegations that President Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court after Warren offered Eisenhower key political support during the 1952 campaign. The judges said that under the logic used to charge Blagojevich, Eisenhower and Warren might have been convicted.

“If the (Blagojevich) prosecutor is right, and a swap of political favors involving a job for one of the politicians is a felony, then … both the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States should have gone to prison,” the ruling says.

But the judges upheld allegations that Blagojevich sought to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash, describing the evidence against him as overwhelming. Blagojevich had argued he didn’t break the law because he never stated explicitly that he was willing to trade an appointment for campaign cash. The panel balked at that notion.

“Few politicians say, on or off the record, ‘I will exchange official act X for payment Y,'” the opinion says. “Similarly, persons who conspire to rob banks or distribute drugs do not propose or sign contracts in the statutory language.”

Defense attorney Leonard Goodman said he would urge his client to challenge the panel’s finding, possibly by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case.

For their part, prosecutors could retry Blagojevich on the dropped counts, though prosecutors often decline to retry a case if most counts are upheld. The U.S. attorney’s office has declined to comment on the ruling.

After his December 2008 arrest, Blagojevich became the butt of jokes on late-night TV, including for his well-coiffed hair and his foul-mouthed rants on FBI wiretaps. The most notorious excerpt was one where he crows about the Senate seat: “I’ve got this thing and it’s f—— golden. And I’m just not giving it up for f—— nothing.”

Blagojevich began serving his sentence at a prison near Denver on March 15, 2012, and has served more than three years. Before the appeal, his estimated release date was 2024; he would be 67.

___

Associated Press writers Tammy Webber, Don Babwin, Sophia Tareen, Herbert McCann and Sara Burnett contributed to this report.

___

Follow Michael Tarm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mtarm.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Chiding Congress, Obama Urges Fast Ex-Im Bank Renewal

Don't Miss

In Wake of Riots and Crime Spike, Baltimore Mayor Under Fire

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Community

Four Candidates, Including Incumbent Barbara Lee, Qualify for Oakland Mayor’s Race

POST NEWS GROUP — Four candidates, including incumbent Mayor Barbara Lee, filed their papers to run for office by last Friday’s deadline, and the City Clerk issued a list this week of those who are qualified to run.

Published

10 hours ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

View of downtown Oakland, California and City Hall. iStock photo.

By Post Staff

The four mayoral candidates who will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot are:

Brenda Grisham. A business owner in East Oakland and public safety advocate, Grisham led the successful recall campaign against Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price. As part of her platform, she pledges to work with local, state, and federal partners to secure stricter gun control measures and investments in community violence intervention programs.

Barbara Lee. A former congressional representative and state Assembly member, Lee was elected by voters in a special election last year for a two-year term. Now running for a four-year term, she points out that her administration achieved major successes in addressing some of the city’s major challenges, including balancing the city budget, dramatically reducing crime, and making significant inroads into homelessness and illegal dumping.

Mindy Pechenuk. An educator and activist, Pechenuk is a registered Republican and supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, who has been described by observers as a conspiracy theorist and cult leader. She ran unsuccessfully for mayor in last year’s special election and for the at-large council seat in 2024. She seeks to end Oakland’s police commission and MACRO and invest in more police while launching a new local war on drugs.

Julius Robinson. While little information is available so far about Robinson, he was quoted in a KTVU story about Thao’s recall, stating that people in Oakland want to come together as a community but lack infrastructure and leadership.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

Published

13 hours ago

August 15, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Commentary

COMMENTARY: Why Local School Tax Measure G1 Will Not Be on the November Ballot

POST NEWS GROUP — Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Published

13 hours ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Jennifer Brouhard, Oakland School Board President

There has been considerable speculation recently about why Measure G1 will not appear on the November ballot and what that means for the Oakland Unified School District’s current budget.

I want to provide some clarity about what happened and, importantly, what did not happen.

Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Because these funds are important to our schools and to the continuity of these programs, the district initially intended to place a renewal initiative on the November ballot to provide greater early certainty about funding beyond the expiration of the current measure.

As part of that process, the Board scheduled a special meeting for the required public hearing on the ballot initiative. There has been some suggestion that this meeting was noticed only one day in advance. That is not accurate.

Public hearings of this nature are subject to specific notice requirements, and the meeting must be noticed at least two weeks before the hearing. In practice, the notice may appear even earlier depending on publication schedules. The notice for the Measure G1 public hearing was published in the Tribune on 7/24/2026 and 7/31/2026.

So, why wasn’t the Measure G1 paperwork ultimately filed?

After the Board approved placing the measure on the ballot, the next step required the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to sign the necessary paperwork before it could be submitted to the Oakland City Clerk.

During that process, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro raised concerns about potential litigation stemming from another court case unrelated to OUSD and about whether proceeding with the measure could expose the district or County to legal challenges. Superintendent Castro’s action is unprecedented and concerning.

It is important to distinguish between the Board’s decision to pursue Measure G1 and the subsequent procedural and legal issues that arose. The Board did approve moving forward with the measure. The measure did not fail because the Board chose not to support it, nor was the public hearing improperly noticed.

The decision not to proceed with the November ballot was made in light of the County’s concerns about potential litigation and the County’s required approval process.

We also need to be clear about what this does, and does not, mean for OUSD’s current budget. The existing Measure G1 funds remain available through the expiration of the current measure in 2029. The immediate issue is the longer-term continuity of funding beyond that date, not the elimination of these resources from the current year’s budget.

Our responsibility as a Board is to protect the educational programs and services our students depend on while ensuring that our decisions comply with the law and protect the district from unnecessary legal and financial risk.

We will continue working to understand the County’s concerns, explore our options, and advocate for the resources our students deserve. Our middle school students, teachers, and school communities deserve stability, and continued investment in arts, music, world languages, and teacher retention—and that work remains a priority for Oakland Unified.

Jennifer Brouhard is a retired OUSD educator and is the current OUSD School Board President representing District 2.