Blago's Attorneys Request Subpoena For Pres. Barack Obama

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Blagojevich Lawyers Want Obama Subpoenaed


Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich asked a federal judge on Thursday to issue a subpoena for President Barack Obama to testify as a witness at his corruption trial.

Blagojevich said in court papers filed by defense attorney Sam Adam that Obama would be able to resolve questions surrounding the government's allegation that the former governor sought to sell or trade the seat left vacant following the president's November 2008 election.

"President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation," Blagojevich's 11-page motion filed with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel said.

There was no allegation in the court papers of any wrongdoing on Obama's part.

It would be extraordinary if a sitting president were subpoenaed to take the witness stand in a Chicago political corruption trial or any criminal trial. Zagel has not indicated how he might respond to the unusual request.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, Randall Samborn, had no comment. Messages seeking comment were left at the offices of Adam and two other defense attorneys, Samuel E. Adam and Sheldon Sorosky.

Defense attorney Michael E. Ettinger, who represents the former governor's brother, businessman Robert Blagojevich, said he was not surprised by the unusual motion. Adam, a fixture among Chicago defense attorneys for decades, is known for his flamboyant rhetoric.

"This is what he does," Ettinger said. "I've been working with him for 40 years, and he's sharp as a tack."

Blagojevich has been charged with scheming to sell the Senate seat and using the powers of the governor's office illegally to pressure potential campaign donors for contributions. Robert Blagojevich has been charged with helping him. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Zagel has scheduled the trial to get under way June 3.

The motion seeking Obama's testimony contained several paragraphs that had been blacked out. This action is usually taken when the court has put information under seal.

The defense attorney said there was a conflict between comments made by Obama at a news conference and statements to federal prosecutors made by a labor union president and a candidate for the seat.

The specifics of the statements from the union president and the candidate were blacked out in the version of the motion that was filed publicly on the court docket.

"There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government's claims," the motion said.


View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

Democrats' New Label: "Party Of Arrogance, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Lies & Scandals"

Rash Of Scandals Tests Democrats At Sensitive Time



The ethical woes facing Democrats are piling up, with barely a day passing in recent weeks without headlines from Washington to New York and beyond filled with word of scandal or allegations of wrongdoing.

The troubles of Gov. David A. Paterson of New York, followed by those of two of the state’s congressmen, Charles B. Rangel and Eric J. Massa, have added to the ranks of episodes involving prominent Democrats like Eliot Spitzer, Rod R. Blagojevich and John Edwards.

Taken together, the cases have opened the party to the same lines of criticism that Democrats, led by Representatives Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker, and Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, used effectively against Republicans in winning control of the House and Senate four years ago.

The mix of power and the temptations of corruption can be a compelling political narrative at any time. But with voters appearing to be in an angry mood and many already inclined to view all things Washington with mistrust, the risks for Democrats could be that much greater this year.

With Election Day still eight months away, there is time to avert a history-is-repeating-itself storyline. But Democrats, who are already on the defensive over the economy, health care and federal spending and are facing a re-energized conservative movement, suddenly have a set of ethical issues to deflect as well. “Speaker Pelosi famously promised the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Thursday. “Yet here we go again.”

In 2006, when Democrats were battling for control of the House, the message of their campaign against the Republicans could be boiled down to a three-word slogan: culture of corruption. Democratic leaders aggressively seized on each indictment of a Republican member of Congress or lobbyist, building an argument that the controlling party had become arrogant and was in urgent need of a housecleaning.

So is that moment — in reverse fashion — now approaching for Democrats?

Tim Kaine, a former Virginia governor and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that the recent spate of allegations against several political figures in his party was troubling.

But he said the recent cases — largely revolving around New York politicians — had hardly reached the nationwide pitch that buffeted Republicans four years ago. Then, Tom DeLay, the Republican House leader, was indicted in Texas, and the influence-peddling scandal tied to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff touched several Republican members of Congress.

“I would never say that folks should be blithe about their ethical responsibilities. But I think it’s quite a bit different,” Mr. Kaine said Thursday in an interview. “But a couple things that happened in the same week in one state is different than the kind of corruption that roped members of Congress in from all over the country.”

Ms. Pelosi moved quickly this week to deal with escalating criticism surrounding Mr. Rangel, who was admonished by the House ethics committee for accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean. He remains under investigation on more serious accusations.

Mr. Rangel stepped down on Wednesday as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, heading off any possibility of a drawn-out political battle over his fate. The National Republican Congressional Committee has been intensifying its pressure on Democratic lawmakers in districts across the country to return political contributions from Mr. Rangel, who was among the most generous contributors to fellow members of Congress.

“All Aboard for the Ride to Victory,” screams a poster depicting Mr. Rangel against a train, showing how many Democratic campaigns he helped finance. Republicans have sent around the old Rangel campaign posters this week to highlight his influence.

Since last Friday, 29 House Democrats have given back or donated to charity more than $400,000 in contributions from Mr. Rangel’s three political fund-raising committees. But several others have not returned the money. Representative Michael E. McMahon, Democrat of New York, is among those who have not returned the money, in his case more than $70,383.

Ms. Pelosi dismissed the criticism on Thursday that Democrats had not lived up to their promise to sweep away a culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. She also noted that she had established an outside group to receive complaints about members of Congress, which could be easily referred to the House ethics committee.

“My commitment to the American people is that the public trust will always be honored,” Ms. Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “And on the floor of the House, that happens.”

President Obama, who built his campaign around a pledge to change the way Washington works and to strengthen transparency and ethics, has followed a practice of generally not commenting on the scandals or allegations involving the Democratic politicians. Months ago, several of his senior advisers worked behind the scenes to try to dissuade Governor Paterson from running for election, a pitch that failed.

Last week, Mr. Paterson conceded that he would not be on the ticket in the fall, but he has declined to step down. The White House has said that it has no intention of wading into the Paterson situation again, but several advisers said they were following the developments with interest.

It is the case of another governor, perhaps, that has drawn even more attention from those inside the West Wing.

Mr. Blagojevich, who was impeached last year as the governor of Illinois, faces a criminal trial in June. The proceedings are expected to be unfolding at the very moment that Democrats are battling in several races, including a campaign for the Senate seat once held by the man who now sits in the Oval Office.


View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Hoping For A Scott Brown Victory In Illinois

Fresh Off a Massachusetts Victory, G.O.P. Aims at Illinois


Republicans in Illinois hold no statewide offices, are minorities in both chambers of the State Legislature and struggle some years to recruit viable candidates even at the top of the ballot.

But the election last week of a long-shot Republican, Scott Brown, to the Senate in Massachusetts, a similarly blue state, has invigorated Republicans here.

Next Tuesday’s statewide primaries — the first in the nation this year — have suddenly turned into a pep rally for November and could provide a window into what is to come nationally as the 2010 primary season unfolds.

“Illinois is next,” said Pat Brady, chairman of the state Republican Party. “The political environment is worse here for Democrats than it was in Massachusetts.”

Representative Mark Steven Kirk, the front-runner in the Republican primary for the Senate seat once held by President Obama, has even taken to echoing Mr. Brown’s campaign remarks.

“No one should make the mistake by calling this the Obama seat,” he said in an interview. “This is the seat of the people of Illinois.”

Democratic leaders here discount direct comparisons to Massachusetts — for starters, the race there was a special election, not a primary — and point out distinctions in this state’s candidates, voting blocs and alliances. And perhaps most of all, they mention their sense that Illinois voters still carry a special allegiance to Mr. Obama.

Still, the message from Massachusetts is resounding among Democrats, too (in interviews, several candidates quickly proclaimed themselves “outsiders”). The party is trying to hold on to the Senate seat, the governor’s mansion and a few House seats that Republicans say they are especially confident about winning.

A televised forum last week among the three top Democrats in the Senate race seemed to become a scuffle over which one would be the least likely, come November, to lose in an upset similar to the one in Massachusetts. (Along the way, they struck notes that made them sound not so unlike Mr. Brown.)

One candidate, Cheryle Jackson, who led the Chicago Urban League, said the Massachusetts vote had reflected the lack of jobs and the suffering of people — “precisely,” she added, “the reason I have decided to run.”

And another candidate, David Hoffman, a former inspector general for the City of Chicago, offered this pitch for himself as a way to dodge a Massachusetts outcome: “We need to make sure that we have a nominee who is as independent as possible.”

Some argue that Mr. Kirk, as a five-term congressman and a moderate Republican with centrist-leaning views that have irked conservatives, may not benefit from voter unrest. (Democrats also have their eyes on his House district in Chicago’s northern suburbs.)

“In a key way, Illinois is Massachusetts in reverse,” said Kathleen Strand, a senior adviser to Illinois for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Here, the Republican candidate is the Washington insider that voters are angry at, not the Democrat.”

In the view of some conservatives, Mr. Kirk, who supports abortion rights, fits right in with the Democratic candidates. They say that while he might gain unhappy Democratic voters and center-leaning independents, he will lose the votes of a different segment — some who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, abortion opponents and others.

Conservatives often cite Mr. Kirk’s vote in favor of cap-and-trade legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions; he has since reversed course, criticizing the legislation and saying he would vote against it as a senator. They also do not appreciate what they see as his effort to swerve to the right; some mocked his campaign for trying to win supportive words from former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when she was in Chicago recently.

“Mark Kirk has absolutely no Tea Party support,” said Diane Benjamin, an organizer of a Tea Party group in McLean County, about 90 miles southwest of Chicago.

In the primary, there are several lesser-known candidates, including Patrick Hughes, who has drawn praise from some conservatives and Tea Party supporters (though not Ms. Benjamin). But analysts say that opposition to Mr. Kirk has not amounted to a movement unified and motivated enough to defeat him; a Chicago Tribune poll released on Monday showed Mr. Kirk with a wide lead in the primary race. (Of those Republicans polled who said they agreed with the Tea Party movement, 48 percent favored Mr. Kirk, the newspaper said.)

Some of the turmoil here is particular to Illinois. This is the first election for governor since Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat, was ousted after prosecutors charged him with secretly trying to sell the Senate seat that is now up for grabs. Senator Roland W. Burris, whom Mr. Blagojevich appointed to the seat, announced months ago that he would not run for election.

Democrats are queasy (and Republicans giddy) over the spectacle of Mr. Blagojevich’s federal corruption trial, which is scheduled to begin here in June, the middle of campaign season.

Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, the lieutenant governor who was elevated to the state’s top job in the aftermath of the scandal, and Dan Hynes, the state comptroller, who is from a longtime Chicago political family, are battling in the Democratic primary for governor.

The Republican field is vast and relatively strong, in part, as one political analyst here said, because they “see blood in the water.” The Republicans include Andy McKenna, former chairman of the state Republican Party; Jim Ryan, a former state attorney general; and two state senators, Kirk Dillard and Bill Brady.

The economy is a theme heard everywhere, but it is more pronounced here in every race. Residents complain about vanishing jobs (the state unemployment rate, at 11.1 percent, is higher than the nation’s), and the state’s failure to fix its budget, which has a deficit that some estimate at $13 billion. Illinois is failing to pay all sorts of bills and has $80 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, signs some experts cite when they put the state in a class not so distinct from California.

“What we learned is that voters are incredibly angry,” said Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer and a friend of the president who, according to Monday’s Tribune poll, holds a double-digit lead over other Democrats vying for the Senate seat. (Mr. Obama has made no endorsement in the primary.)

“They’re angry at what’s happening with our economy, with our lack of jobs,” Mr. Giannoulias said. “They’re angry because they feel like they’re being ignored by Washington, D.C. — ignored by Democrats and Republicans.”

Politics in Illinois was not always overrun by Democrats. When Mr. Blagojevich was elected in 2002 (after a scandal that sent the Republican governor to prison), he was the first Democrat in the job in three decades. By the mid-2000s, the picture had become lopsided enough that Peter G. Fitzgerald, the state’s most recent Republican senator, announced that he would not seek re-election, noting that Illinois had become a “staunchly Democratic state.”

It is hard to know exactly how many of the state’s 7.5 million registered voters consider themselves Democrats or Republicans because voters do not register by party here; still, estimates from both sides say Democrats outnumber Republicans.

But at Democratic campaign events, ordinary voters say Mr. Obama remains enormously popular. The loudest complaint is that he does not come home enough. Yet some said they believed that people, even here, might separate their feelings about him from their frustration with Washington.

“After Massachusetts, you can’t be sure of anything,” said Doris Conant, 84, a Democrat from Chicago. “I hope it mobilizes people to get out and support their candidate. If we lose the Obama seat, it would be heartbreaking.”



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, The Victory Group, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Honest Services Law...Anti-Corruption & Fraud

US Supreme Court Justices to Weigh Honest-Services Law


An unusual coalition of groups has come together to criticize the Federal Government’s increasing reliance on a statute that is commonly used but little understood: honest-services fraud.

The Honest-Services Law, on the federal books since 1988, broadly requires that public and corporate officials act in the best interests of their constituents or employers.

It has become an important tool for federal prosecutors, who used it successfully against the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many of his associates. It is an element of the cases against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois; the former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno; and former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama.

Prosecutors have described the law as a valuable instrument against corruption at a time when officials have become increasingly sophisticated at covering their tracks.

But critics say it is used too broadly, is applied inconsistently, and too often criminalizes behavior that fails to merit the full weight of federal prosecution. The Supreme Court will hear three cases concerning the honest-services law in this term, with two coming up for oral argument on Tuesday.

Opposition to use of the law has emerged from across the political spectrum, from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Legal Foundation on the right, to the more left-leaning National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“Could an insincere sermon at Sunday religious services come within the statute?” asked the chamber, half sarcastically, in a brief to the Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia has been harshly critical of the honest-services law, writing in a recent dissent that it has been applied to “a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.” He said that it “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate C.E.O.s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

One of the two cases coming before the court next week involves Conrad M. Black, the newspaper executive who was convicted of defrauding his media company, Hollinger International. He is arguing that the law should not be applied to him because he did not contemplate “economic harm” to Hollinger.

In the second, Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska state legislator, was convicted of failing to disclose a conflict of interest. He had not violated state law, however, and argues that the federal prosecution on honest-services charges violates important principles of federalism.

The third case, to be argued later in the term, involves Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron. He is arguing that the honest-services law is unconstitutionally vague.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, scoffed at the idea that the law is so vague that people do not know when they have crossed the line, especially in the three cases before the Supreme Court.

“If you go to those cases — Black, Skilling and Weyhrauch — and look at what they did, a kindergartner knows that they were wrong,” she said. “It’s not credible that those guys really had no idea that what they were doing would get them into trouble. What they thought was that they wouldn’t get caught.”

The watchdog group’s brief to the Supreme Court called the law “an indispensable weapon in the prosecutorial arsenal for fighting government corruption” since it offers “a much easier evidentiary burden” than bribery law.

Critics of the law, however, say that its vagueness is used to bolster corruption cases in which the evidence might be weak or the offense, while perhaps distasteful, is minor.

That is the argument of Larry Remer, a political consultant in San Diego who faced multiple felony charges after successfully running a bond campaign for a community college. After the campaign was over, and the campaign fund depleted, a video production company sent in a bill for $5,800. The college president proposed paying the bill with public money, ostensibly by buying outtakes from the video company, though it is illegal to use public money for such a campaign.

Federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Remer and the college president in 2004 on a range of charges related to the improper use of taxpayer money, including honest-services charges. Mr. Remer said he was baffled by the case.

“I do understand the need to get the sleazebags,” said Mr. Remer, whose case ended in a mistrial and a plea of guilty, along with the college president, to misdemeanor charges of improperly using public money, not honest-services charges. “But let’s get them with real laws. Let’s not just say we need to get this guy, so we’ll use this law because it can be melted to meet our needs.”

The United States attorneys office in San Diego declined to comment on the case.

The honest-services statute grew out of the Supreme Court’s earlier attempts to rein in the widening use by prosecutors of mail and wire fraud laws, said John C. Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School.

In a landmark 1987 decision, the Supreme Court limited mail and wire fraud prosecutions to cases involving tangible goods like money and property, and not the “intangible right” of the people to good government.

Within a year, however, Congress restored the prosecutors’ flexible tool by passing the current law.

Since then, critics argue, chaos has resulted, with significant differences across the country in the ways that the statute is interpreted.

Bennett L. Gershman, a professor at Pace University Law School, said the power of prosecutors to overreach by focusing on a person to prosecute and then finding a law to apply “is not only subject to abuse under the honest-services theory, but has been abused” in cases like those involving Mr. Siegelman, the former Alabama governor.

The charges against Mr. Siegelman, including honest-services fraud, concerned a contribution from a businessman, Richard M. Scrushy, to an issue campaign advocated by the governor, who later reappointed Mr. Scrushy to a state hospital board.

The Department of Justice has conducted an investigation of the case and found no misconduct in the prosecution; Mr. Siegelman’s supporters say the investigation was poorly conducted. Mr. Siegelman has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has not decided whether to take up the case.

Ms. Sloan, of the watchdog group, said that if prosecutors abused the statute, “it doesn’t mean the whole statute is at fault.”

“It means the prosecutors made some bad decisions,” she said.

Richard L. Thornburgh, who was attorney general when the honest-services law was passed, said he expected the Supreme Court to issue “something fairly sweeping” since it had taken on so many honest-services cases.

But, he added, “I think they can do it without doing violence to proper law enforcement.”


Sources: NY Times, Wikipedia

Roland Burris Is Cleared By Senate Ethics Committee...Democrats Need His Vote

Burris scolded for "Misleading" info. The Ethics Committee admonished Sen. Roland Burris for being "less than candid" with investigators regarding his appointment. NBC's Brian Williams reports.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senate Democrats are under extreme pressure to pass Health Care Reform Bill.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senate Ethics panel: No punishment for Sen. Roland Burris


The Senate ethics committee on Friday admonished Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., for making "inconsistent, misleading or incomplete" statements about the circumstances surrounding his appointment to the seat once held by Barack Obama. The committee recommended no action beyond the letter.

Burris was appointed by disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and driven from office after he was accused of trying to sell the Senate seat.

The committee cited at least one example, a phone conversation with the governor's brother, where Burris linked his willingness to raise funds for the governor with appointment to the Senate.

While finding no violation of law, the committee's "Public Letter of Qualified Admonition" told Burris that "Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct" than he exhibited with his constantly changing statements.

The ethics committee has often been criticized for failing to go beyond letters of admonition after finding a senator's conduct discredited the institution.

Burris commented, "I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Weakened and facing multiple primary challengers next spring, Burris has decided not to fight for a full Senate term next year. Fellow Democrats shun him. Meanwhile, the former governor is scheduled to go to trial in June.

The ethics committee was especially critical of Burris' comments during the Nov. 13, 2008, phone call from the governor's brother.

While Robert Blagojevich explicitly told Burris he was calling to raise campaign funds for the governor, the committee's letter to Burris said "you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money"; and "repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat.

"You also implied that the people you might raise money from would be unhappy if you did not receive the appointment," the committee wrote. The committee found the conversation "inappropriate in its content and implications."

The letter also was critical of Burris' shifting explanations about his contacts with the governor or his representatives.

"You gave multiple and at times contradictory explanations for failing to disclose all your contacts with the governor's associates, which individually and collectively gave the appearance that you were being less than candid," the ethics panel wrote.

The committee said that in deciding to go no further than the letter, it considered that a county prosecutor found Burris' sworn statements did not violate the law.

"We were also aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate have been subject to intense public criticism," the committee said.

The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said, "When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to appear before the Illinois General Assembly to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment.

"Since then, the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into question. The U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has completed its review into this matter and found that Sen. Burris actions have brought discredit on him and the Senate. The letter of qualified admonition from the Ethics Committee speaks for itself."





EDITORIAL: Law on Burris' side, but that doesn't mean he's right


The laws looks to be on Senator Roland Burris’ side — but that doesn’t mean he is not a liar.

A U.S. Senate ethics panel on Friday concluded that Burris provided “incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information” when he testified and made comments about his contacts with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich or members of his team before the freshly-arrested governor tapped Burris to be senator last December.

But the Senate only admonished Burris on Friday because it said the evidence didn’t support any “actionable violations of the law.”

Technically speaking, they’re probably right.

But there’s the law and then there’s what is right.

Burris lied, then he lied about lying.

By any standard, that falls far short of what we expect from a U.S. Senator.

Burris, you’ll recall, told an Illinois House impeachment committee in January that he didn’t talk to anyone except Blagojevich’s former chief of staff about the Senate appointment. Burris later acknowledged he actually talked to four Blagojevich insiders, including a key conversation with the governor’s brother where Burris lobbied for the appointment while offering to help with fundraising for Blagojevich.

Burris accepted a radioactive Senate appointment few other honorable men and women would touch. And, against great odds, he managed to hold on to that appointment only because the law — and not public opinion — was on his side. Now, he gets to keep that job because he knew his way around the law.

But that doesn’t mean Burris is not a liar — or that he deserves to be a U.S. Senator.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Chicago Sun-Times, Miami Herald, Google Maps

Senator Roland Burris Yells At Reporters Regarding His Testimony...."Have You Read It?"

"Did I try to buy the seat? Never!"

"Did I commit perjury? No!"

"If you look at the transcript you can see what I was saying."

"I mean, so Rob, I'm in a dilemma right now wanting to help the governor."

"I did not know anything about a pay-to-play. I knew if I raised money, it would be a problem."

"Have you read it?" Have you read it? Have you read the affidavit?!"




View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, Newsmax, Fox News, Day Life, Youtube, Google Maps

Rachel Maddow Interviews Burris and Blago (SNL Parody)

On Saturday Jan. 10th, the cast of SNL performed their usual Parodies and Political Satire that made Tina Fey Entertainer of the year while portraying Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin last year.

This time they made fun of recently impeached Ill. Gov. Rob Blagojevich (played by Jason Sudeikis) and his Senate pick Roland Burris (played by Keenan Thompson).

The skit comprised of a fake interview hosted by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (played by Amy Elliott).

The production was extremely funny with the exception of the gay bashing jokes made towards Maddow's character by Sudeikis's.

What do you think?

Check out the clip below and judge for yourself.



Sources: Huffington Post, CBS News, CNN, SNL, MSNBC, NBC, MaddowFans.com