Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges

Placeholder names
Just for reference, the placeholder names used in the complaint are thought to be:

((    feel free to modify the above as new information becomes available --Underpants (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)     ))


 * The LA Times is reporting that Individual D is Raghuveer P. Nayak. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Category
Does this count as a Category:Congressional scandals or should it stay in the parent category Category:Political scandals in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a congressional anything, because no named congressman are yet accused of wrongdoing. Superm401 - Talk 16:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Why was this moved to Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases from Rod Blagojevich federal fraud scandal? The scandal involves the need to convene special session, possibly call a special election, maybe have an impeachment? The cases are only a part of the scandal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the rename. Scandal is too vague.  It does not come close to implying a indictment for a federal crime.  You can "scandalize" by just dating the wrong person in some cultures.  There is no reason this page can't include details on any special election and/or impeachment. Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The page name seems to be against some common practice. See Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and Lewinsky scandal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal would be best. Scandal is too vague yes but it's still the best choice with a one word explanation added. Hobartimus (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Rod Blagojevich federal corruption investigation? That would allow more opening for background information.  Reports are saying that this has been going for a while, with some scandals from 2003.  Chadlupkes (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Hobartimus (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made it into a redirect for now I think the current title, federal fraud cases is pretty weak the above suggested one seems much better. Hobartimus (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither Spitzer nor Clinton were ever charged with a crime. Blagojevich was.  I think "Rod Blagojevich federal corruption investigation" is better than scandal, though still vague (again, people like Spitzer were investigated but never charged). Superm401 - Talk 09:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be "corruption" in the title, not "fraud". The first captures what the case is about, the second makes it sound like some kind of financial scam which is not on target. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be Rod Blagojevich federal corruption scandal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows it is corruption not fraud. I am moving the article before the link is propagated in 250 places.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has been charged with fraud. Ponzi schemes are not the only kind of fraud. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "federal" which is superfluous in the title. The scandal is governor Blagojevich's, not the fed's. The investigation may be originally federal, but the scandal is not federal. The laws allegedly broken are state and federal. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How about soemthing more neutral, like "Rod Blagojevich Senate seat controversy"? at least until he is actually convicted of something. "Corruption" and "scandal" presume guilt, and do not seem to meet WP:NPOV. Ground Zero | t 13:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Corruption charges seems neutral enough to me. He was charged with corruption when he was arrested, and it has not yet been determined whether the charges are justified or not.  Scandal is more the problematic word in my view.  I think it would not be accurate to limit the article just to things surrounding the senate seat, and the seat was Obama's and has never been held by Blagojevich.--Bhuck (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You make good points: I think "Rod Blagojevich corruption charges" is the best idea so far. Ground Zero | t
 * I agree. That's definitely better than the current title (Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal). Superm401 - Talk 08:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this needed?
Is this article really needed? It doesn't say anything other than what's currently on the Rod Blagojevich article in the Rod Blagojevich section. --Tocino 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's often useful to split stuff like this out while it's being very actively edited. Maybe in a couple years, it should go back into the main article- time will tell.  Friday (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very likely to be disproportionately lengthy for a bio by the time everything unfolds. As with Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and Lewinsky scandal, dedicated pages are the best way to handle these situations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second TonyTheTiger's post. The scandal is barely a day old.  By the time this is done, the content will be way too long to fit on Blagojevich's article as anything other than a summary of this article.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template
Should the above template be used to keep track of many of the Illinois players?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidates
If the replacement is by appointment it will be a Democrat. However, if it is by election, presumably, Republicans could run. Has anyone seen any articles about this fact and a list of Republican potential candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that we'll know if the state-wide election will be held in a few months. So, it's safe to safe that we'll probably add that in when it becomes obvious that they'll strip the governor of that power.Bigvinu (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pat Quinn
There is some discussion in the Rod Blagojevich article about whether it's accurate to say Pat Quinn has called for his resignation since it appears he's just said Blagojevich should at least step aside temporarily which may not be the same thing as a resignation Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ABC News is reporting that Quinn is calling for his resignation with a quote from Quinn using the word 'resign'.


 * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6442798&page=1 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee in the lead
I'm going to remove the following sentence from the lead: "On December 10, Deputy Governor Bob Greenlee resigned from office". The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and there is only a brief mention (two sentences) of Greenlee so I don't think it's significant enough to be in the lead, not to mention we don't know (yet) whether it's related to the scandal. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially because the AP just ID'd Louanner Peters. (albeit only via an anonymous statement so far)  --Underpants (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The "idiots"
"The idiots were woken up by the FBI." -Paragraph I, line II

Anyone want to change that? Richardkselby (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"he [Quinn] could appoint Madigan to the Senate to get her out of the way"
The article says that Quinn could appoint Madigan to the Senate "to get her out of the way". It sounds unencyclopedic and I'm not sure the Time article explicitly states that. There's one sentence in the Time article that sort of implies it "Quinn also could decide his chances are better in a three-way primary against Madigan" but making that interpretation might qualify as original research. Anyway, I removed the "to get her out of the way" bit. If anyone can think of a better wording, that's fine with me. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old photo
Why is "Blagojevich's congressional photo" from at least five years ago used in connection with an article solely about events of 2008? Can't we possibly use up-to-date pix? It's not like he's been a recluse. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (one who tries to believe in the presumption of evidence)

FBI agents or US Marshals?
I realize that the aticle in TIME on the Blagojevich case said he was arrested by "federal marshals". However, I have checked numerous reliable sources and TIME appears to be the only one that says he was arrested by the Marshal Service. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents. Not to mention that when the TIME article is referenced side by side with articles that say FBI agents arrested him, it appears to contradict itself. I will change it and add a second reliable source. --Abusing (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The deputies probably actually picked him up, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Term "federal agents" would seem to work in this case if any confusion still lingers. Bigvinu (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The lede needs some work
The article starts with the following that tells you exactly nothing:
 * The Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal became public knowledge with the simultaneous arrests of Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris at 6:15 a.m. on December 9, 2008, at their homes by deputies of the United States Marshals Service on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Then it prattles on for three wordy paragraphs that barely talk provide any overview, just a lot of current events. I'm thinking those last two paragraphs should be moved into a heading and the first paragraph reordered/rewritten. --William Graham talk 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I added an "update" tag just now, not for content, but for form, as you stated - it now needs to lead with the 59-0 impeachment and then reach back into history, in a much more brief fashion. Tempshill (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was just about to start a new section on this this page to discuss exactly this. I'm not from the US and I've got no idea from this article what the scandal actually is (although I gather it is a big deal). It suffers like a lot of wikipedia articles from competing editors trying to cram every reference, claim and counter-claim into the intro. The following things are not needed in the intro and can be put later in the article:
 * 27 citations to reference articles
 * things like '6th or 7th including this guy' or '3rd or fourth including that guy'
 * that obama has done no wrong doing
 * a date by date account of who said what to whom

What it does need is:
 * a bullet point list of the main charges
 * The circumstances surrounding the charges being brought
 * the current status and result of the impreachment hearings.

I'm not going to make changes myself until i've seen some responses to this proposal especially since it's on the main page today and i don't want to get flamed by everyone. Also, as I've said, I don't really understand the topic so I'm not best placed to make the edits. ChrisUK (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shoved all the previous intro into a section called "Summary" and wrote a new 3-sentence introduction which has only the essentials. Tempshill (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good solution and now you can at least see the wood for the trees now. However, just to be pedantic, the intro now focuses more on the person rather than about the corruption charges themselves (which is what this page is about - he also has a personal page for his details).  So I think a little more info can now be added in to the intro about the key characteristics of the charges themselves before the reader dives into the detail of the Summary/Background section.  ChrisUK (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Change the title
With the impeachment of the governor a done deal to be voted this afternoon, it should be under "The Impeachment of Rod Blagojevich" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.128.125 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And in any event, no. Quite apart from the impeachment, Blagojevich still has federal charges to face. It's because the Federal case against him is not yet fully ready that the FBI is not making all their evidence available to the Illinois Senate. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Recommend the Senate being impeachment proceedings"
The way the process is described reflects a basic political illiteracy about how it works. The lower house does not "recommend" anything to the Senate: it impeaches. What follows in the Senate is a trial, not "impeachment proceedings". Even the cited sources reflect that. Don't you people even bother reading them?

An extensive rewrite is required, which I have neither the time, energy, nor interest to undertake. Good luck with it. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify the meaning of "voting present"
Toward the end of the article, the following sentence appears: "Rep. Elga L. Jefferies from the South Side of Chicago voted present". I am a pol sci graduate from Australia and have no idea what the term "voted present" means. Can someone change the article to make this clear? (perhaps particularly to a non-USA reader?). Ta! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same thing as abstaining. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Joel Aldrich Matteson
The article implies that there may have been criminal charges against Joel Aldrich Matteson, but his article makes no mention. Could somebody explain? AnyPerson (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See this article. -Rrius (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seperate Impeachment article?
Does anyone think maybe the impeachment article should be broken out into its own separate article (like Impeachment of Rod Blagojevich)? Then on this page, there could be a one-graph summary with a link to "Main article: Impeachment of Rod Blagojevich"? There is obviously some precedent for this in Lewinsky scandal and Impeachment of Bill Clinton. It seems that this page is getting a bit long and I don't think a separate article on the impeachment altogether is at all inappropriate... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before the article is split further, I think this article should try and be clearer before splitting. I am assuming that the impeachment is related to the corruption charges (rather than anything else), so it is all related to the same set of circumstances.  Please also see my comments above about the confusing nature of this page to a non-US reader.  Just think if someone was to visit this page in 5 years time - would it really be an encyclopedic and clear summary of what has happened?  And if it is split into further pieces, will that future reader be any the wiser.  So I would vote to keep it all in one place for now, concentrate on quality control of each section, and then split off later if it really becomes unwieldy. ChrisUK (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there needs to be a separate article. I think that all the issues could be summed up in a single article.  I tried to do some editing, but there does seem to be a lot of extraneous information.  This suffers from the same thing that a lot of current event articles do -- over detailing just because the information can be found easily.  ChrisUK has go tthe right idea:  make it enclyclopedic and clear.  We don't need a blow-by-blow account of what occurred, just a summary.  For example ... who gives a rat's ass that the Colorado governor called for the Illinois governor to resign?  Big fat hairy deal!  And why is there so much information about Senator Durbin and lawyers, etc.?  And so what that Lisa Madigan is related to the other Madigan and that she is a hopeful for some future political position.  This really needs to be streamlined.  Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the impeachment portion should be forked to a separate article, with a summary left behind. However, we should wait until the section becomes stable before doing it. Otherwise, we will have to keep updating the summary to reflect changes at the main article. -Rrius (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you. I think it might be worth breaking out in the future, but at the moment there are more pressing changes and improvements to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter Kahn (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LEAD <> Summary
Since when is the WP:LEAD not the summary of the article. What is going on that there is a trivial lead and then a separate blown up summary? For an article of this length the LEAD is suppose to be about three to four paragraphs. Why not reformat the Summary so it fits the normal description of the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugly hack is now fixed. --mav (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinn became Governor, at the moment of Blagojevich's conviction
This article says Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, was sworn in as the new Governor, WRONG. Quinn became Governor at the very moment Blagojevich was convicted (in the Senate), oath of office or not. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but Quinn still had to take the oath of office, which he did almost immediately after the conviction. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment vote wrong
This article has the impeachment vote in the Illinois house as 113-1; it was in fact 114-1 (the main article on Blagojevich states this and its source backs it up). Can't change it because I'm not a registered user, so someone else who is registered can fix this. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"a court order that prevents me from finishing out that conversation"
Blagojevich on The Daily Show :

"My accusers, who had a press conference while I was locked up in a jail cell, said that I said that. They have since gone to court and have gotten a court order that prevents me from finishing out that conversation and telling you exactly the next sentence or the next paragraph."

This was the cornerstone of his defence on the show so seems noteworthy, but I'm not sure where it would go. I'm also curious to know whether there's a shred of truth to it - it seems slightly implausible. ciphergoth (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the moment, there is no place because we don't quote the "fucking golden" line. It seems plausible to me that there is a gag order, though. I"m not sure the source is quite good enough to support saying there is a gag order, but balance requires noting Blagojevich's side if we can. -Rrius (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked about this on the Humanities RefDesk: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 27. There was no news reporting that I could find of the type of injunction Blagojevich mentioned on The Daily Show on 2009-09-24, restraining him from quoting what he had said on the wiretap tapes. Also I skimmed through his closing argument at his impeachment trial before the Illinois state senate. During this speech he complained about not being able to call Rahm Emanuel and others as witnesses, but he never mentioned that he wanted the entirety of the wiretap recordings played, or that he would have liked to at least tell the state senate what he said on the tapes after the four segments that were played. Instead, Blagojevich just said: "There was no criminal activity on those four tapes. You can express things in a free country, but those four tapes speak for themselves. Take those four tapes as they are and you, I believe, in fairness, will recognize and acknowledge those are conversations relating to the things all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and try to win elections." --Mathew5000 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Color photo
Is there really not a newer color photo of Rod Blagojevich?

page name
Can someone find the original and current case name (something like United States v. Scheinberg et al.) and include those names in the WP:LEAD and do a page move.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the above is done, except the page move. An admin will need to move the page, as the page currently has move protection. OCNative (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich corruption charges → United States v. Blagojevich – This article is about the details of the events involved in this legal case and this is the common naming convention for legal cases.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. There is much precedent for this naming. For example, Wikipedia uses United States v. Microsoft with Microsoft anti-trust case as a redirect and uses AMD v. Intel with AMD and Intel Antitrust Lawsuit as a redirect. OCNative (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is about more than just the court case. The impeachment and trial were conducted by the Illinois General Assembly under the Illinois Constitution. The current title is broader and encapsulates both sets of proceedings. -Rrius (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems like the current title is more intuitive than the legalistic United States v. Blagojevich. Additionally the latter is already a redirect to the former so not matter what the reader looks for they will arrive at the same result. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Rrius. The article also covers his impeachment by the Illinois state legislature.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Case name is generally reserved for legal precedents a la Roe v. Wade or Pepper v Hart or totally self contained cases like those mentioned above. This article isn't a self-contained case and doesn't relate to a legal precedent (I think) so we give it the 'common name' Bob House 884 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210131629/http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/metro/blagojevich/1321363,Blagojevich-Obama-Senate-Seat-illinois-120908.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1321363,Blagojevich-Obama-Senate-Seat-illinois-120908.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216010526/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090917015456/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/local/Christopher.Kelly.Blago.2.1180125.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Christopher.Kelly.Blago.2.1180125.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081212102101/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_go_co/blagojevich_senate to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_go_co/blagojevich_senate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203160536/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/local/governor.blagojevich.silence.2.884874.html to http://www.cbs2chicago.com/local/governor.blagojevich.silence.2.884874.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081215150308/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081212181544/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865471,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865471,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081214153146/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002995755 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002995755
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090406074845/http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/metro/blagojevich/1509662,CST-NWS-breact03web.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1509662,CST-NWS-breact03web.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.bnd.com/546/story/572287.html
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-illinoisgov1211,0,2852636.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601165343/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/95/house/09500HR1671_01092009_002000.pdf to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/95/house/09500HR1671_01092009_002000.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100829143038/http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2010/pr0204_02a.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2010/pr0204_02a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924225534/http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/dec09_08.htm to http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/dec09_08.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731193705/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr1209_01a.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr1209_01a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217140535/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/12/illinois_house_speaker_mike_ma.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/12/illinois_house_speaker_mike_ma.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917015456/http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Christopher.Kelly.Blago.2.1180125.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Christopher.Kelly.Blago.2.1180125.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)