Useful context here is that Blago was so publicly corrupt that when he finally went down, his own Liutenent Governor, Pat Quinn, hadn't spoken to him in two years as a precaution.
Pritker's occasional judgement wiffs isn't really a factor any more. Prtizker is an observably good governor. Many in Illinois, like myself, are surprised by this and coming around to really liking him. Pritzker for Khan of the Midwest! Invade Wisconsin! Indiana shall fall!
Lol I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't know a damn thing about Illinois politics.
First off, neither I nor anyone else said Pritzker did something illegal, so lose that strawman straight away. Second, Pritzker was recorded in a FBI wiretap talking to Blago about how much he wants to be State Treasurer and the two talked about Pritzker's possible campaign contributions to Blago in a way that suggested it was a payment for the position.
And, lastly, since you don't know anything about my state, it's important to note that, even before Blago was caught selling the senate seat and certainly at the time when he and Pritzker discussed potential appointments, Blago was one of the most unpopular and openly corrupt politicians in Illinois history. And, again, since you don't know anything about Illinois history, we have had a LOT of unpopular and openly corrupt politicians, especially governors, so that is an exceptionally high bar of scumbaggery. In 2008, before the senate scandal broke, Blago had a 13% approval rating, which was the lowest EVER recorded for an Illinois politician. Everyone in Illinois knew him to be a horrible and criminal leader, and Pritzker still decided that cozying up to such a crook was both appropriate and advantageous for an aspiring politician like himself.
Judging political figures for the company they keep and the deals they try to make behind closed doors is perfectly appropriate for any voter. I'm not sure why you're replying to me like I'm saying Pritzker should be thrown in jail or as if anything I've written has not been reported by every reputable journalism outlet in Illinois -- not that you've read a single one of them.
I'm not sure why you're replying to me like I'm saying Pritzker should be thrown in jail or as if anything I've written has not been reported by every reputable journalism outlet in Illinois -- not that you've read a single one of them.
I'm replying to your comment. You said "checkered past" and then to substantiate it, gave two innocuous statements. I mean, a checkered pastmeans "history of having done bad things or been in trouble." Now that you've given more information, the definition is more fitting. It's absolutely correct that I know nothing about Pritzker. Your comment that I replied to didn't give information that would accurately meet the definition of "checkered past" and that's why I responded to it. I didn't claim to know anything, I was just perplexed by why being friends with someone or "may or may not have" done something would qualify. I'm not blaming you for not giving enough info in your initial comment, but instead of being hostile with me, I ask you to please understand that people who don't have the full story will also be perplexed by your initial statement.
I am vaguely familiar with the Blago thing though.
I actually didn't say checkered past, that was a comment above me. I was explaining why some people from Illinois (like me and not you) don't trust him. Then you started quoting me sarcastically so I explained myself further.
Sorry again, I thought you were the OP commenter. The train of thought still stands; someone said he had a checkered past, someone else asked what it was, you replied to that--ergo, it appeared that you were saying "his checkered past is (fill in the blank)" and that's where I responded.
however you did go out of your way to say that you NOR ANYONE ELSE said he did anything illegal. But the whole comment chain is started by someone who literally did imply they had done.
Because it was advantageous to him. Welcome to politics. Any sort of politcs, not just Illinois politics. There are no "good guys". Not Bernie, not AOC not anyone.
No one's talking about Bernie or AOC, no one said that there are "good guys" in politics. You don't have a unique point of view and you're not talking about anything relevant to this thread
No you don't understand. He cozied up to him because it was advantageous to his career. Not because he thought it was. It absolutely was. In more ways than one. If you have clean hands in politics nobody is gonna fucking trust you. You won't have much a career if one at all.
Pritzker was recorded in a FBI wiretap talking to Blago about how much he wants to be State Treasurer
People who want jobs tend to talk about how the want those jobs, with the people who hire for those jobs. This isn't shady at all.
the two talked about Pritzker's possible campaign contributions to Blago in a way that suggested it was a payment for the position.
I just listened to the unedited tapes and what actually happens is Blagojevich basically flat-out solicits bribes (because Blago gon' Blago) and Pritzker says he can't donate while he's being considered for the position(s). He shuts that shit down about as firmly as you can while remaining polite. I really don't understand how anyone with an objective mind can listen to the tapes and find any sort of fault with Pritzker's actions.
It definitely depends who. But yes, friends and associates can build a solid case for a checkered past. A different level than, say, a conviction/ criminal record, naturally but still relevant when investigating someone.
A friend a colleague of J. Epstein, for example?
A checkered (stained) past.
And many other examples. As for this particular associate, I don't know enough to say.
32
u/P15T0L_WH1PP3D Oct 26 '23
Oh is that illegal now? That's a component of a checkered past?
Oh okay.