CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

Cheswick — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:01:10 -0000

Just to clarify for the NY Times, there are two Illinois lawyers named Sam Adam.

One is Samuel Forbes Adam at 53 West Jackson. He was admitted to the bar in 1961.

The other is Samuel Eugene Adam at 6133 South Ellis Garden Suite. He was admitted in 1999.

Neither has Jr. or Sr. in their names.

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

VanillaMan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:46:49 -0000

The news here is that Davis talked.
Why?

By telling his tale, Davis presents himself as better than Burris and better than Blagojevich.

How low could that hurdle be?

By doing this, Davis weakens Burris. Why?

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

Scooby — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:16:49 -0000

When it was discovered that Adam was the go between speculation centered on three possible reasons:

1) that they were trying to run this process under attorney/client privilege
2) that this was a legal strategy designed to show that the recordings about the quid pro quo were "just talk" because no one mentioned as part of those "just talk" schemes ended up getting appointed
3) that the Gov is really detached from his paid staff

If Sam Adam Sr and not Sam Adam Jr. was the go between then it would eliminate #1.

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

2ConfusedCrew — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:50:19 -0000

The real question is who went to the meeting not what was reported.....If Jr was there and there are also reports that he was the go-between with un-Sen. Burris on this GOVERNMENT he probably loses atty-client privelege. opps

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

Ghost — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:44:30 -0000

=== â€œWould he cooperate and talk to the government?â€ Ettinger said. â€œNot a prayer.â€ ===

They all say that, then they decide less time in jail is better, and they talk.

Re: Probe expanding? Plus: Which Adam was it?

wordslinger — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:36:07 -0000

The lawyer's involvement in setting up the Senate appointment leads me to believe that it's part of a defense strategy in a future criminal trial.

Let's say Blago goes on trial on a charge of trying to sell the Senate seat. If he makes an appointment that is accepted by the Senate, or that the Supreme Court forces the Senate to accept, the defense can argue that validation undermines any criminal charge.

In other words, if he were a crook, they wouldn't allow him to make an appointment.