Tom DeLay, who had a moment in the sun last week when he learned the feds decided not to prosecute him, didn't fare as well in state court today.

The Judge refused to move his trial from Travis County, which includes Austin, which DeLay claimed was too liberal a county to be fair.

His trial is tentatively set for Oct. 26.

DeLay was indicted in 2005 on charges that he illegally sent $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee to help elect GOP Texas legislative candidates in 2002.

DeLay has pleaded not guilty to money laundering and conspiracy.

The court also held a hearing today on former prosecutor Ronnie Earle's alleged improprieties before the grand jury. (Background here.) Earle testified out of the presence of the media.

More on Ronnie Earle here, along with my advice to Tom DeLay to quit talking to the media and listening to his PR people and let his excellent attorney speak for him.

Rod explains why he didn't testify at his trial. He gets tongue-tied at points, according to the description. Here's Part 2.

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has embarked on a new round of media interviews. He's everywhere from the morning news shows and radio to Fox News Sunday (tomorrow morning) proclaiming his innocence and protesting his persecution at the hands of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Here's the transcript of yesterday's Today Show appearance.

John Dean has a trial post-mortem at Findlaw. He makes the same points I did during the trial and jury deliberations, but much more succinctly and in one place. It's a good read. Shorter version: The Government overcharged Blago, presented a needlessly complex case and hopelessly confused the jurors.

But enough about Rod, let's talk about Robert Blagojevich. as I wrote a few days ago in Blagojevich: The Retrial and More From the Jurors, the jurors reportedly voted 9 to 3 to acquit Robert. [More...]

The Washington Post has an editorial today opposing the retrial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. It labels the verdict an "extraordinary rebuke" to the Government:

With moral thunder in December 2008, the aggressive prosecutor declared that the state's chief executive was nabbed "in the middle of what we can only describe as a public corruption crime spree." Mr. Fitzgerald added, "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave." Yet on Tuesday, 20 months later, a federal jury was unmoved. In an extraordinary rebuke, Mr. Blagojevich was convicted on only one of 24 counts against him.

It ends:

Mr. Fitzgerald is entitled under the law to drag the ex-governor back into court. He has the resources to do so and the motivation: The Blagojevich brand of politics is repugnant, beyond any doubt. It perverts democracy and puts moneyed interests over the common good. But the prosecutor took his shot and lost. He should stand down before crossing another fine line -- the one that separates prosecution from persecution.

[More...]

Update: More on the jury split:

In some cases it was 7-5. In others it was 6-6. On some counts, there was just one holdout. [Foreman] Matsumoto said they cast their votes on secret ballots.

Juror Erik Sarnello said many jurors were overwhelmed and confused by the Government's case and presentation.

“I think honestly it confused some people, just the way they presented it,” he said. “We followed a timeline because [prosecutors] didn’t really follow a timeline at all. They jumped around from ‘this year, that year.’ ”

It wasn't a case of just one holdout juror:[More...]

A very defiant Rod Blagojevich addresses reporters in a statement after the verdict. It's really worth watching.

The false statement charge to the FBI was made during a voluntary interview he gave to agents in 2005. Rod says the FBI wouldn't let him have a stenographer present during the interview. It wasn't taped. He says he want's the people of Illinois to know he didn't lie to the FBI. He thanks the jurors for their hard work. And he castigates the feds for persecuting him. He vows to appeal the false statement conviction. In a nutshell: [More...]

After all the hooplah, the Government convicted former Illiniois Governor Rod Blagojevich of just one count, making a false statement to the FBI in 2005 (now known as the "Martha Stewart" offense." It carries a maximum of five years in prison.

The jury did not agree on the RICO counts or the wire fraud, extortion, bribery, or related conspiracy and attempt counts. [More...]

This is not a win for the Government. It's a loss. What did this trial cost the taxpayers? Rod undoubtedly will go to prison on the false statement charge, isn't that enough of a pound of flesh?

With court approval, Rod's legal fees were paid with his campaign fund at reduced appointed counsel rates. The fund is now empty. If Rod uses court-appointed counsel for the next trial, it will come out of CJA funds. (Robert paid his own legal fees.)

Reporters are on the move. The Blagojevich family appears headed to the courthouse. Looks like we have a verdict. I just found an easier way to post new developments. I created a TalkLeft Live Twitter feed. It will update automatically every time I add a tweet with updates.

Recap of charges below: [More...]

The jury in the trial of former Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert asked for the verdict form today. The judge told them not to indicate how they were split on counts they cannot reach a decision on. They also asked for the juror oath -- is this a last ditch effort to convince a holdout?

It seems a verdict is imminent. From their second note this morning:[More...]

Update: No verdict today, the jurors have gone home.

The jury in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today had another request for the Judge: It asked for the transcript of testimony of former Deputy Governor Bradly Tusk. Over defense objection, the Judge granted the request.

Tusk testified on June 21 about a conversation with Blagojevich regarding Rahm Emanuel. Rahm had called him about a grant for an athletic field at a school in Rahm's former Congressional district.

Tusk was inquiring about a $2 million grant that had been approved for a school and teaching academy in former Congressman Rahm Emanuel's district. The school, counting on the grant money, had begun building an athletic field but was unable to pay contractors because it had not been given the approved funds. Emanuel and others began pressuring Tusk who called Blagojevich late in the summer of 2006 to talk about the grant.

"He [Blagojevich] said before the money could be released he wanted Rahm's brother to hold a fundraiser," Tusk testified. ...Tusk said he believed Blagojevich was saying there would be no grant if there was no fundraiser and that Blagojevich wanted "that message delivered to Rahm Emanuel."

The details of are in Racketeering Act #2 in the Second Superseding Indictment, attempted extortion, and in Count 14, attempted extortion. Since this was in the summer of 2006, it does not affect the False Statement charge, which concerns statements Rod made to the FBI in March, 2005 (Count 24.)

No one knows what the jury is thinking, but in the court of public opinion, according to The New York Times, the tide is turning in favor of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It's easy to dismiss the Times' analysis since it is based on an unscientific sampling of random persons who didn't hear the evidence. Less easy to dismiss: John Bohrer, a reporter for Esquire who did attend the trial, and who was asked by the magazine at the end of the trial to write an article with his impressions as if he had been one of the jurors, wrote that as a juror, he would have acquitted both defendants. His reasoning is much the same as those interviewed in the Times article. [More...]

Since the jury won't be back until Monday, there's nothing to do but speculate on which two of the 24 charges the jury has agreed on, who they pertain to and and what those verdicts are.

This is all tea-leaf reading, since none of us really have a clue. That being said, here's my guess: They have found Rod not guilty of the RICO counts (counts 1 and 2.) As to the remaining counts, related to bribery, extortion and false statements, they are not in agreement. Some would decide guilt, others would not. (As to the wire fraud charges and acts, they said they hadn't started on those yet when they reached their two verdicts.) Here's my current thinking: [More...]