United Airlines’ asbestos cover-up: OSHA Director commits perjury


Marty Watters, Investigative Reporter

OSHA Director Angeline Loftus

OSHA Director Angeline Loftus


The fact that United Airlines is claiming to have lost all records of its illegal removal and disposal of asbestos from its former World Headquarters in suburban Chicago should come as no surprise.

Did anyone really think United was going to confess to willfully exposing people to a known carcinogen? Of course not.

(United Airlines’ illegal abatement at former World Headquarters exposing employees to airborne asbestos fibers)

What did surprise me and what should trouble anyone who believes in honest government is this:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is accepting United's "lost records" defense even though I personally provided OSHA with copies of the very same records United claims are missing. Records that clearly would be considered inculpatory evidence in a criminal case against United.

Even more disturbing, OSHA area director Angeline Loftus has now signed a sworn declaration that was filed in Administrative Law Judge Dennis Phillips' court stating that these damning asbestos records do not exist. An assertion that Loftus knows is a complete falsehood.

Ooops! That's called perjury, Angie. That's a crime.

And so is covering up United's criminal behavior.


Here's an excerpt from Loftus' sworn declaration:


Loftus refuses to acknowledge the existence of the so-called "missing records" because they prove that United was illegally removing asbestos from its former WHQ

Loftus also knows that the so-called "missing records" reveal that United officials were committing accounting fraud in a quest to conceal the airlines' asbestos liabilities and related criminal behavior.

Over the course of ten months, A&E Services Inc. of Barrington, IL was paid over $1.1 million to illegally remove asbestos-containing insulation from United's former WHQ.

Here's how the scam worked:

A&E would submit differently worded invoices with the same invoice number for work performed. The more descriptive invoice, which deceptively referred to asbestos-containing material as "fiberglass insulation", would get buried in facilities manager Sylvia Empen's file.



Meanwhile the less descriptive line item invoice would be submitted for payment in full on the personal company credit card of one of several United managers - in many cases before the work was even completed.


Paying by credit card allowed United to circumvent internal controls, thus concealing its illegal asbestos abatement and forgoing all the nasty liabilities that go with it.

Ms. Loftus was made aware of all of this before signing the sworn declaration.

There is no question that United would have liked these records to just disappear.

Unfortunately for United, they did not.

The questions to ask now are:

Why is OSHA protecting United Airlines when it should be prosecuting it for endangering employees and the public?


Does OSHA area director Angie Loftus have a summer home in South Carolina like United's friend at the New Jersey Port Authority?

I called Ms. Loftus for comment. She did not deny that she had committed perjury. She did refer me to attorneys in the Secretary of Labors office. I am still waiting to hear back from them.

Much more to come.....


The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief


OSHA is attempting to cover up United Airlines’ criminal behavior


Marty Watters, Investigative Reporter

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in Chicago is currently doing all that it can to cover up United Airlines' illegal removal and dumping of asbestos from its former World Headquarters located in Elk Grove Village, IL.

Do the people involved in this cover-up even realize the mind-boggling stupidity that they are displaying in their remarkably audacious attempts to make United Airlines asbestos problems go away?

Because in the process, OSHA is deliberately allowing United employees to be exposed to this known carcinogen. By all accounts, what they are both doing is a serious crime!

United was bold enough to buy political considerations from the Port Authority in New Jersey, so why would anyone doubt that United would do the same thing in Chicago?

I mean really it's Chicago!

So that there is no confusion, I am stating unequivocally that United Airlines is being protected by OSHA. And there is undeniable proof that this is the case.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. The protection racket game is part of doing business in Chicago. And the government in Illinois plays the game better than anyone.

Take, for example, how another Illinois company - Kehrer Brothers Construction, which clearly did not purchase the OSHA Protection Plan - is being treated compared to United.


-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Anthony Santucci (OSHA)
Cc: Sukhvir Kaur (OSHA)
Sent: August 20, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Fwd: OSHA protects foreign workers - but not United Airlines employees!


Care to comment?

Marty Watters

All indications are that OSHA is more concerned about the rights of temporary foreign guest-workers (H-B2) than they are about the health and well being of United Airlines employees (U.S. citizens) and their families.

Compare the charges leveled against Kehrer Brothers Construction to the well-documented far more egregious violations that are common at United Airlines former WHQ.


Illinois construction companies, manager face nearly $2M in fines
for exposing workers to known asbestos hazards
Companies ignored danger of asbestos at Okawville renovation project


-----Original Message-----

From: Marty Watters
To: Anthony Santucci (OSHA)
Cc: Sukhvir Kaur (OSHA)
Sent: August 11, 2015 at 8:37 AM
Subject: Fwd: Asbestos cover-up at United Airlines


Does OSHA have anything to say in its defense?

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Megan McCarthy (Dir. Communications)
Sent: August 10, 2015 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: Asbestos cover-up at United Airlines

Ms. Megan McCarthy

Does United Airlines have anything to say?

Marty Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Brett Hart (UAL), Ada Dolph (Seyfarth Shaw), Jeff Smisek (UAL)
Sent: August 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Asbestos cover-up at United Airlines

Which one of you licensed attorneys would like to comment on the asbestos cover-up going on at United's WHQ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Scott Newland
Sent: August 7, 2015 at 10:28 AM
Subject: Fwd: United Airlines accuses Burns McDonnell

Mr. Scott Newland

United Airlines is claiming that the attached asbestos survey produced by Burns McDonnell falsely indicates asbestos were it does not exist. And, that your firm had an incentive to provide an erroneous survey. United is claiming that the spray-on fire proofing (shaded orange) is not asbestos.

1) Does Burns McDonnell stand behind the survey results provided?

2) Please address United's accusation that Burns McDonnell had something to gain by providing false asbestos test results.

Marty Watters

United Airlines’ illegal abatement at former World Headquarters exposing employees to airborne asbestos fibers


-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Anthony Santucci (DOL)
Sent: July 8, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Subject: United Airlines South Building (boiler room)


As we discussed the attached blueprint of United Airlines south building will direct you to where the illegal asbestos removal in the boiler room was being conducted. (area shaded orange)

Marty Watters




Everyone knows that to run a truly successful protection racket, not only do you need to go to extraordinary lengths to protect those who pay you, you also need to make an example and punish those who don't.

And punishing the average Joe is the one thing that OSHA and the EPA are very good at.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Oscar Munoz (UAL)
Cc: Brett Hart (UAL)
Sent: September 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM
Subject: Fwd: United Airlines Illegal asbestos removal and dumping (boiler room south building)

Mr. Munoz

Would you like to see the recordings?

Marty Watters

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Marty Watters
To: Sukhvir Kaur (OSHA)
Cc: Anthony Santucci (OSHA)
Sent: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:55:36 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Fwd: United Airlines Illegal asbestos removal and dumping (boiler room south building)

Ms. Kaur

The fact that you have not replied to my offer below and have not returned my phone calls leads me to conclude that you do not want to see the video recorded proof that United Airlines is illegally removing asbestos from its campus in Elk Grove, IL

My question to you now is: Why do you not want to see the proof?

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Watters
To: Sukhvir Kaur (OSHA)
Sent: June 11, 2015 at 12:13 PM
Subject: United Airlines Illegal asbestos removal and dumping (boiler room south building)

Ms. Sukhvir Kaur

Are you interested in a video recording of the illegal removal of asbestos from United Airlines facilities located at 1200 E. Algonquin Rd. Elk Grove Village, IL?

Marty Watters


To date, OSHA has shown absolutely no interest in seeing the video-recorded proof that United is illegally removing and dumping asbestos from its former WHQ.

Even though United Airlines has been served up to OSHA on a silver platter!

Much more to come, including OSHA's partner in crime: the Environmental Protection Agency.

 OSHA, EPA, United Airlines, Burns McDonnell and Seyfarth Shaw were all contacted but declined to comment.

Related article: United Airlines Warned Employees: ‘Avoid Breathing Airborne Asbestos Fibers’


United Airlines’ illegal abatement at former World Headquarters exposing employees to airborne asbestos fibers


Marty Watters, Investigative Reporter


United Airlines has been illegally removing asbestos from its former World Headquarters and training center, knowingly exposing its employees to airborne asbestos fibers.

Wow! If United can do something this deplorable to its own employees, how seriously do they take the safety of the flying public?

The laws and regulations governing the removal and disposal of asbestos are expensive, burdensome and impose substantial liabilities.

Who needs that headache? Certainly not a Chicago-based, politically-connected, large corporation like United Airlines.

United management apparently determined that it is better for their bottom line to simply ignore those pesky laws!

For example, United recently proceeded to secretly remove asbestos spray-on fire proofing material from classrooms at its training center in Elk Grove Village, IL.

Here's how they went about it:

Asbestos spray-on fireproofing material / shaded green

Asbestos spray-on fireproofing material / shaded green


United hired outside contractor A&E Services, Inc. to come in and scrape the asbestos-containing material from the classroom ceilings. This was done without the mandated notifications and safety measures required by law.


In addition, A&E was clandestinely bagging the asbestos material and related contaminated waste. Then the contractor illegally transported the bags filled with asbestos to a dumpster that Robert Nykaza, the owner of A&E, had secretly placed in a friend's residential driveway miles away from the United training center.


This was clearly an egregious violation of EPA regulations.

While all this was going on, United employees were unwittingly being exposed to cancer-causing airborne asbestos fibers.

But wait, it gets even better.

A&E left behind piles of the friable asbestos material on top of the duct work for the building's ventilation system..



United employees were then directed to enter the asbestos contaminated classrooms and install a suspended ceiling below the duct work where large amounts of loose asbestos fibers came to rest, concealing them from view.



End result: United classrooms are now ready for more unsuspecting employees to fill their lungs with airborne asbestos fibers.


This is just one of the many examples of how United disregards the safety and health of its employees when dealing with the serious asbestos problem it has at its former World Headquarters in suburban Chicago.

Although United was contacted multiple times, corporate officials have so far declined to respond to my request for comment.

Instead, through their attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, these same United officials have made convoluted arguments to a judge trying to impede my investigation.

Does United Airlines really believe that the federal courts should suspend the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and infringe on the freedom of the press to cover up their own wrongdoing?



Scooter Libby helped Judith Miller concoct the fairy tale titled “The Story”


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

It's no surprise that Judith Miller's long overdue book, "The Story", is permeated with falsehoods and flat-out lies.

What is as a surprise is that Scooter Libby has been so clumsy in concealing his intimate involvement in the writing and selling of Miller's latest fairy tale.

In August of 2013, roughly eight months before her book was originally due to be released, I interviewed Miller about her upcoming "memoir." My focus was primarily on the Libby trial.

During that interview, Miller confessed to me that she knew that Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.

But Miller forgets to mention that fact in her book. Instead, she sticks to the government's false version that Armitage exposed Plame's identity.

Here's another fact that Miller forgets to mention in her book: She was aware of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony that Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman was actually the one who exposed Plame as a CIA employee in 2001.

However, Miller refused to answer any questions regarding Edmonds - stating she would address Edmonds' important testimony in her book.

Surprise, surprise. Miller apparently forgot to mention Edmonds or Grossman in her book.

What Miller did do immediately following our discussion was to inform Libby how poorly the interview went for her.

And just one hour later, I heard from Scooter himself:


-----Original Message-----

From: Lewis Libby
To: (redacted)
Sent: August 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Media inquiry (clearing your name)


(name redacted),

Thanks for your e-mail. My apologies for the delay in responding; I have been on the road a fair amount and have had difficulty catching up.

I am grateful to you and the many others who have expressed outrage at how I have been treated and who have offered help. While I appreciate such offers, I have consistently let others know that this is not the way that I wish to proceed. That remains the case.

There may well come a time when this will shift, but for now I continue to think that this would not be a good time for others to address my case. This does not change that I remain grateful for your interest and kind inquiry.


Scooter Libby

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:06 AM
To: Lewis Libby
Subject: Media inquiry (clearing your name)


Are you OK with my attempting to clear your name?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 13, 2013, 4:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)

Mr. Tate

Can I get a statement?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 12, 2013, 8:04 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)

Mr. Joseph A. Tate

Were you aware of the fact that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had documented for the Dept. of Justice that, "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald's star witness in U.S v Libby, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, was the man who had blown Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame's CIA cover in 2001? The government has it on tape.

Did Patrick Fitzgerald withhold this information from you and Mr. Libby?

What does Dechert partner Glenn A. Fine say about it? Glenn had this information before Fitzgerald was appointed "Special Counsel"

(name redacted)
American Thinker

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Sent: August 4, 2013, 12:24 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Sibel Edmonds)

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald

In the course of your investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee.

(1) Was Sibel Edmonds interviewed?

(2) Were you provided, or did you have access to information about Sibel Edmonds, and the information that she provided Glenn Fine and the Office of Inspector General regarding Brewster Jennings & Associates?

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: (redacted)
Sent: August 3, 2013, 8:12 PM
Subject: Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!

Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!



First things first. I never expressed any outrage about how Scooter was treated. Although I will admit I did not like being lied to.

As you can clearly see, Libby did not want me to clear his name by stating facts. This was due to the fact that he was already working closely with Judith Miller to concoct a story that was in complete contradiction of those same facts.

Here's another underreported fact that Libby, Miller and many others in Washington would rather the public not know: The judge in the Libby case - Reggie B Walton - was the same judge who imposed a gag order on Edmonds under the State Secrets Act.

What are the odds of that?

Here's a news flash for Scooter: I was already aware of the fact that Libby's attorneys had arranged for Edmonds to meet them late one night at the Willard Hotel, where she offered to testify on his behalf.

However, Libby's attorneys never did call Edmonds to testify at his trial.

Why in the world would they refuse to call a witness who could blow the government's whole case out of the water?

After all, Judge Walton considered Edmonds so credible that he gagged her, supposedly for the sake of national security.

So unless Libby himself insisted that Edmonds not be called as a defense witness his attorneys are guilty of legal malpractice.

And if he did, you have to ask yourself why Libby would insist that the one person whose testimony would result in his case being dismissed not be called as a witness for the defense?

Even more ridiculous, Judge Walton allowed the Libby trial to proceed when he knew that Grossman exposed Plame's identity two years prior to the start of the Libby investigation.

As for Miller's decision to exclude Edmonds' testimony from her so-called "correct the record" book, she should at the very least explain why she chose to ignore evidence that would have averted her well-publicized 85 day incarceration .

One thing is for certain "The Story" deserve far more scrutiny from the media than it has been subjected to so far.

Deja vu - Judith Miller is once again spreading false narratives and the complicit media is letting her get away with it.


Up next: My communications with Libby and the PR team he assembled behind the scenes to sell us Miller's latest literary work of fiction.


Judith Miller’s “trial and error” approach to journalism!


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

While on a tour hawking her new book "The Story" Judith Miller admitted to James O'Keefe that she takes a "trial and error" approach to journalism.

Miller's exact quote: "That's what journalism is, trial and error."

Wow! That's the most incredible thing I have ever heard a person who purports to be a journalist say. For Miller, journalism is a - crapshoot!

Add that to the fact that she claims to have written her new book to correct the record, and you have unadulterated stupidity.

But wait, it gets even better.

Miller, while being interviewed by Ed Morrissey, gave the following explanation for why she now believes that she gave false testimony in the U.S. v Libby trial:

"My memory failed me, in part because the prosecutor withheld information I needed to decipher my own notes."

Really Judy, reporting is trial and error, and you need someone else to decipher your own notes? Truly remarkable!

More remarkable is that Miller now credits Scooter Libby with deciphering her notes correctly for her in 2010. Libby's interpretation of her notes was that he's innocent. Imagine that!

Miller has yet to offer an explanation for her waiting five years to profess Scooter's innocence after her epiphany that she gave false testimony.

I'll come back to Miller's notes and the importance of her relying on others to decipher them in a more in-depth  follow up article that will detail Libby's behind-the-scenes involvement in her book.

Unlike Miller, I do not believe journalism is done by trial and error, I believe you just report the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

With that in mind, here are some of the facts that Miller and friends do not want you to know.

Fact: Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage did not expose Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA in 2003.

It was Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Plame in 2001. (Remember, Miller confessed to me in 2013 that she knew it was not Armitage.)

Grossman not only outed Plame, at the same time he was also caught on an FBI wiretap bragging that he would fax articles to the New York Times and they would just print them under someone's byline.

Judith's byline? Perhaps.

Fact: On October 1, 2003 when Armitage came forward to claim he was the leaker of Plame's identity, it was not Patrick Fitzgerald that asked him to keep it to himself. It was the FBI - under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller who instructed Armitage, Colin Powell and then State Department Counsel William H Taft who was present in the room - not to tell anyone.

Fact: Attorney General John Ashcroft did not recuse himself in the Plame case because of his close ties to the White House. Ashcroft recused himself because at that time he was in front of FISA court Judge Reggie B. Walton enforcing a gag order on the one person who could tell the world that Plamegate was all a sham! That person being FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.

Walton was also the judge who presided over the Libby case. What a coincidence.

So you see Judith, there's no trial and error. It's simple. A real journalist just states the facts from the get-go.

And since you admit you can't do that, we're not interested in anymore of your false narratives!

By the way, how many times do you feel you're allowed to be wrong?


Patrick Fitzgerald withheld damning evidence against Robert Blagojevich


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Robert Blagojevich is on a book tour trying to sell the idea that former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was using him to secure a conviction of his brother, former Governor Rod Blagojevich.

What Robert fails to realize is that his book, "Fundraiser A", tells a completely different story.

In fact, Robert's book confirms for us that the prosecutors withheld damning evidence against him and his brother, Rod, from the jury and the American public.

Case in point: Robert states in his book that he was playing a "game of chicken" with prosecutors.

Here is an excerpt from Robert's book that proves that to be true:

"Day Nineteen: Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Noted in my journal this day:

'Mike [Ettinger] spoke with [Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid] Schar again this morning, Schar wanting to know if I was going to testify. Mike told him I was. Schar's response was that he had other tapes that haven't been played that he could play if he needed. Mike told him to bring it on. I told Mike I won't testify if they drop the charges against me. That was a nonstarter for Mike, he just looked at me. This means they are threatening to use more tapes to get me not to testify."

Normally prosecutors salivate over the prospect of a defendant taking the witness stand.

Ask yourself this: Why would a prosecutor threaten a defendant in hopes of preventing him from taking the stand?

Why would Robert think the prosecutors would drop the case against him rather than see him take the stand?

Well, Robert took the stand, and the prosecutor delivered on his threat, as illustrated by this excerpt from Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki's book.

"Rob was convincing on direct examination. Next was cross-examination by Niewoehner, who tore into the pristine image Ettinger created. Rob stumbled as Niewoehner asked about a tape that hadn't been played - a November 5, 2008 discussion. 'If you can get Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on you, it completely provides you with total clarity,' Niewoeher qouted Rob telling his brother.

Rob testified that this exchange had nothing to do with [Valerie] Jarrett's appointment and that it was instead meant 'in context of what politicians do'. He seemed caught off guard, though, and the tension in the courtroom was palable. If the prosecution could do this to Rob in less than 15 minutes, what would they do to his brother?"

So Robert, the day after getting elected president, you and Rod thought Obama would get Fitzgerald to close the investigation just because that's "what politicians do"?

Really Robert? Don't you mean crooked politicians?

And Robert, do you really expect us to believe that asking Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on your brother had nothing to do with the offer to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated?

Like they say, let's go to the tape!

Here's a question that Fitzgerald was asked but he refused to answer.

Why did the prosecution not present such a damning recording in their case against Robert and Rod?

They obviously did not want that tape on record because it would implicate other well known politicians who were being protected by Fitzgerald.

If Robert did not take the stand, we would have never known that he and Rod had reason to believe Obama would call off Fitzgerald and close the investigation if Rod appointed Jarrett to the U.S Senate.

But Robert did take the stand and Fitzgerald's office met him head on by using a single quote from the wiretap tape that they are still withholding to this day. The quote the prosecutors used can only be found in trial transcripts due to the fact that they never entered the tape or transcripts of it into evidence.

Clearly both the prosecutors and the defendants in this case do not want the full contents of that wiretap tape to be made public. Thus the "game of chicken" Robert referred to in his book.

By the way Robert, you spent a good part of your book calling Patrick Fitzgerald a liar. While I do not disagree with you on that assertion, I would like to point out that when you say "you beat him at his own game" and you were playing a "game of chicken" with him, that you are in fact boasting that you're a better liar!

Since you like to play games Robert, how about we play a game of truth or dare?

If you won't tell the truth, I dare you to release the full transcript of that November 5, 2008 conversation between you and your brother.

Or would that take away the leverage that you are using to get Rod out of prison?

More to come...


Alert: Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn caught telling the truth!


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn recently was caught doing something that has his employer and the U.S. Attorney's Office very upset.

He told the truth!

In an unguarded moment of honesty, Zorn let fly that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Rod Blagojevich that the feds were recording him.

You might say Zorn had a "Gruber" moment, and like Jonathan Gruber, he hoped it would go un-noticed.

Here's what Zorn had to say about IP2P's reporting of what he said:

"Not that it matters, really, but I didn't know I was speaking on the record for 'Ernie Souchak,' the brave blogger who has adopted the pseudonym of a John Belushi character. Next time you might want to say you're seeking a quote for publication. Though scrolling through the last year's worth of entries there is not a single reader comment on any of the posts on this blog, so I'm not sure anyone is going to see what I said anyway."

So Zorn claims he thought he was speaking off the record when he said that the Tribune warned Blago.

And now that he's clearly on the record, he's hoping no one will see what he had to say.

God forbid Zorn print the truth in his own column at the Tribune.

No, instead Eric "Gruber" Zorn is praying for a "Change of Subject."

Hey Eric, here's an idea: let's talk about the sealed Blago wiretap tapes the Tribune won't share with the public.

Developing story...

Related: Chicago Tribune reporters work for Federal Government



Eric Zorn: John Chase did not warn Blagojevich – the Chicago Tribune did


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has come out in defense of his "hilarious" position that the phone call Tribune reporter John Chase made to the Blagojevich camp on December 4, 2008 did not serve as a warning.

Zorn's reasoning: Blagojevich would have read that he was being recorded by the feds in a Tribune article the very next morning.

Zorn was asked:

"Do you understand that Robert and Rod canceled a meeting with Jesse Jackson Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, due to Chase's phone call?"

He replied:

"And do you understand they would've canceled that meeting anyway because of what was in the paper that morning?"

So let me get this straight, Eric. Your contention is that John Chase's late night phone call did not warn Blago that the feds were recording him - but that the article the Tribune published the following morning did.

Ok, Eric, have it your way.

However, now that you have reluctantly conceded that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Robert and Rod Blagojevich, perhaps you can explain why former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was OK with the Trib's decision.

More to come... 

Related: Robert Blagojevich dodged going to prison


Robert Blagojevich: Chicago Tribune warned my brother about federal wiretap


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Robert Blagojevich recently acknowledged that Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase warned his brother, Rod Blagojevich, that the feds were recording him.

Blagojevich emerged in response to Tribune reporter Eric Zorn's ridiculous position that:

"Chase wasn't warning Blago he was being recorded, he was telling him a story was running the next day about him being recorded."

Wow, Eric. Are you joking?

Here's what Robert Blagojevich called Zorn's assertion that Chase did not warn Rod: "Hilarious!"

Keep in mind that Robert canceled his planned meeting the following morning with Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, as a result of Chase's late night phone call.

A meeting whose sole purpose was to hammer out the terms of Jackson's purchase of the U.S Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama!

Remember Robert was one of the biggest benefactors of Chase's infamous phone call to the Blago camp on December 4, 2008.

So if he considers it a warning, who is Eric Zorn - or anyone else to say it was not?


RelatedPatrick Fitzgerald’s “not not denial” that he warned Blagojevich

                    U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald named as source of leak.

         Robert Blagojevich dodged going to prison