RED FLAGS ABOUT THAT LONE BLAGO JUROR

There are some extremely disturbing reports coming out about the lone juror in the Blagojevich trial who prevented the former Illinois governor from being convicted on all but 1 of 24 counts. If you thought something stunk about this trial before, just wait. Some of the facts / claims / unanswered questions about that lone juror - her name is Jo Ann Chiakulas - make U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald look pathetic, regardless of virtually any way you look at it.

One fact about Chiakulas is that she used to be a counselor with the Chicago Urban League. That's potentially important because one of the people reportedly offered by Team Obama to Blagojevich as a possible candidate for the Senate seat was Cheryle Jackson, according to the previously redacted portion of Blagojevich's motion to subpoena Obama - a motion Judge Zagel denied. Spefically, item #19 in the motion points to a conversation between Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama in the president-elect's car on December 7th, 2008 in which Emanuel said he suggested Cheryle Jackson as candidate E.

[President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion." (President’s Chief of Staff, 302, 12-20-08).

Both Jackson and Chiakulas worked at the Chicago Urban League, though Chiakulas left before Jackson got there. Did they know each other? If so, how well? HERE is a link to the audio / transcript of a call between Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris on December 4th, 2008 (Sessions 1334 & 1335) in which Blago makes clear his feelings about Cheryle Jackson, who also used to be his Communications Director.

Ace of Spades has done a lot of work on this one, posting a link to Juror Profiles that appeared on ABC News 7's website. HERE is Chiakulas's - also known as 'Juror 106' - profile.

Something else that should be cleared up, and fast. Big Hat Tip to Beachwood Reporter for this one. On June 4th, the Chicago News Cooperative reported that 'Juror 106' was not going to make the jury because of her having worked for the wife of Jesse Jackson Jr. at one time:

Jurors No. 106 and No. 126 won’t make the cut. No. 106 said she worked as a precinct captain to Sandi Jackson, the wife of Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., who has been subpoenaed by the defense. The woman brought out the heartiest chuckle from the courtroom crowd yesterday when Zagel asked if she had recalled seeing either Rod or Patti Blagojevich on television and she said that she had seen Patti on a reality show, “something about bugs.” The juror was referring to Patti’s appearance on NBC’s “I’m a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here.”

Incidentally, no one came off looking worse in this trial than Jesse Jackson Jr.

However, Blago-Report identified Juror #102 as the one who worked for Sandi Jackson. That said, take note of what they had to say about Juror #106 (Chiakulas) and Blagojevich's reaction to her during the selection process:

Juror #102 seemed rather eager to be on the jury and emphasized what a fair person she could be. Blagojevich was vigorously nodding while she was talking, and watching intently (as opposed to his usual head bowed, taking notes posture he adopted during most of the interviews). Her eagerness might make her a volatile juror for both sides, and the positive things that Blagojevich liked might make her a candidate for a peremptory challenge by the prosecution. Blagojevich also seemed to like juror #106—who did community work—and she could be another candidate for a prosecution dismissal.

So Chiakulas was identified as a candidate likely to get the boot way back in early June, huh? It should have been rather obvious then - and beyond obvious now - that she shouldn't have been on that jury.

One last thing.

Blagojevich told ABC's Brian Ross that the Feds were squeezing him for information about bigger fish, seeming to imply that Fitzgerald was looking for dirt on Obama. Why should we believe Blago about that when the one charge he was convicted of was lying to the Feds? In any case, if that's true, it doesn't line up with how the trial played out.

If Fitzgerald wanted to get to Obama, why didn't they call Tony Rezko to the stand? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Something really stinks about this trial and when it comes to Obama and his administration, EVERYTHING fell their way. Now ask yourself if Blago is being honest here.



UPDATE: Upon seeing the conflict between the account of Daniel Libit at the Chicago News Cooperative - that Juror #106 once worked for Sandi Jackson - and Blago-Report's claim that it was Juror #102 that worked for Jackson, I emailed Libit asking him if he is standing by his claim. Here is a copy of his response:

Ben -

I am led to believe that those other accounts are correct. Will be correcting the blog item ASAP.

Thanks,

Daniel

On Aug 22, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Ben Barrack wrote:

On June 4th, you wrote that Juror #106 worked for Sandi Jackson, wife of Jesse Jackson Jr. That juror - Jo Ann Chiakulas - is the one who held out and got Blago off of all but one charge.

Do you stand by that? Other accounts say that distinction belonged to Juror #102 and that Chiakulas never worked for Sandi Jackson.

When listening to today's broadcast from my show archives, please keep this development in mind.

HERE is the link to Libit's original story.

PENTAGON RELEASES FINAL REPORT ON FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS

Keep the timeline in mind here as it is very important. Islamic jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan killed fourteen people on November 5th, 2009 at Fort Hood. In January of 2010, the Report of the DOD Independent Review came out. Nowhere in that report were the words, 'Muslim', 'Islam', or 'Jihad' mentioned. However, in fairness to the bureaucrats who compiled it while on OUR CLOCK, a reference was cited in which the word 'Islamic' was used. Here is the relevant quote:

Researchers and intelligence professionals have been actively engaged in identifying trends in this domain, particularly since September 11, 2001 .

HERE is the reference:

22 Paul K . Davis and Kim Cragin, eds . Social Science for Counterterrorism. (2009); Carol Dyer, Ryan E . McCoy, Joel Rodriguez, and Donald N . Van Duyn . “Countering Violent Islamic Extremism .”

Aside from that, no mention of the origin of our enemy.

Fast forward to August, 20th, 2010 and the DOD Review of that report. It is twenty-three pages and while the word 'terrorism' is used, there is NO USE of the words, 'Islam', 'Muslim', or 'Jihad' in this report either. Apparently, this review was intended to take the results of the January 'report' and outline actionable courses of action relative to that report.

Translation?

Useless crap. Here is an example:

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1304.28 (Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the MIlitary Departments) provides the Department with broad authority to deny recognition to individuals as ecclesiastical endorsers while also ensuring the ability of military members to exercise freedom of religion. Although this policy is appropriate, the Department will review and update existing policy to ensure effective implementation, including periodic reviews of religious organizations seeking to endorse religious ministry professionals as military chaplains.

Seriously, why couldn't they say that based on the fact that Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down fourteen Americans in the name of Islam, the DoD will increase skepticism of the Islamic faith?

More at KWTX

GINGRICH COWERS: WON'T JOIN GROUND ZERO MOSQUE PROTEST NOW

I continue to be utterly amazed at why people support Newt Gingrich. He's supported Cap & Trade, he supported liberal in Republican clothing, Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman, he admitted to Hannity that the talk show host was right about Obama before the 2008 elections and that he (Gingrich) was wrong - although, to Gingrich's credit, it was refreshing to see a politician admit to being wrong. Now it appears that the former House Speaker, once a confirmed speaker at the 9/11 protest of the Ground Zero mosque, is backing out.

Via the Hill:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) will not be addressing a protest of the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan on the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

The organizers of the rally, Stop Islamization of America and Freedom Defense Initiative, announced Gingrich as one of the event’s confirmed speakers on the Web last weekend.

Why? Check out this lame excuse; it would make leftwing wackos like Howard Dean blush over the inconsistencies and contradictions:

...a spokesman for Gingrich, a possible 2012 presidential candidate, told The Hill that the former leader of the House had never confirmed his appearance. Instead, one of Gingrich’s staff had agreed to send a video message from him to be shown at the Sept. 11 rally.

That has since been canceled.

“The confusion is at least partially our fault,” said Joe DeSantis, a spokesman for Gingrich. “A staff member mistakenly promised a video message, though not an appearance. However, we are not sending a video. We informed them earlier this week.”

There is AT LEAST one lie in there - possibly more. The truth is that Newt Gingrich is a political coward and has no business being a candidate for president in 2012.

Unlike Gingrich, a Dutch politician is bucking the advice of his colleagues in The Netherlands not to attend the protest.

The Dutch politician's outspoken criticism of Islam has generated scores of death threats over the years and he lives under 24-hour security protection. The British government prohibited him from entering the country in February 2009, a ban later overturned following an appeal by Wilders. And the politician is currently on trial on hate-speech charges in the Netherlands, where he has called the Koran a "fascist book."

"I will go to New York and say what I want there,” Wilders told Dutch media. “Nobody will stop me. No mosque at Ground Zero!”

Gingrich has proven once and for all that he does not have the political courage to be president in these very serious times. This is his Neville Chamberlain moment.

Read it all.