A Chess Piece is Moved
For those that have been following the Rod Blagojevich trial (or not), U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel recently denied a defense request from Team Blago to order President Obama to give testimony in the case. Normally this is a good ruling for a sitting president, but Blago is, by all press accounts, a loose cannon and this decision will not likely be the last word on the matter.
Essentially, Team Blago argued that the President had direct conversations with Blago and that these conversations are directly relevant and pertinent to the Blago defense. The Court wasn’t buying it and ruled in favor of the government, which as these things go, is not inconsistent with past efforts to compel testimony of a sitting president.
But this leaves the President in a curious position. If only Blago testifies as to these alleged conversations, they go unchallenged into the record. And I’m not sure that that’s necessarily a “good thing” for either the President or for the concept of Justice.
So a chess piece is moved. While the Court’s most recent ruling that the President is not ordered to testify at this time (which is by all accounts a loss for Team Blago), there may come a time when it becomes virtually necessary to do so, so that Blago’s version of events may be refuted. Hence, in the end a seemingly Big Win for Team Blago, as the President gets to be examined under oath. But I would maintain that getting the President to testify is not likely to be Team Blago’s ultimate aim, it is merely a means to an end. Team Blago is likely betting that the President might prefer that the Justice Department drop the case rather than to subject himself to what would very likely be a grueling deposition.
This is all part of the normal course of high-stakes litigation, folks, whether the warring parties are corporate or government. Litigation is a thinking-man’s game. Chess pieces are placed on the board, moved as needed and sacrificed at the appropriate time. But there are many ways to get to the “desired result” in litigation and the best strategists see the game on multiple levels, plan for almost every contingency, and have a process to move forward despite any preliminary legal ruling.
So, with that said, don’t be surprised to hear that the President has agreed to testify via video deposition to refute Blago’s one-sided (and potentially damaging to the President) version of events. Of course, the President’s answers cannot be perceived as evasive or unsubstantial, otherwise Team Blago will press any weakness in the President’s recollection and Blago’s “very clear” recollection of events will still prevail, potentially damaging the prosecution’s case.
I cannot conceive any other outcome, unless of course the matter is dropped by the government prior to this eventuality, which is of course, Team Blago’s ultimate aim and would provide the Biggest Win Possible for Blago.