Ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and removed from office after being arrested by federal authorities for corruption and bribery, has officially filed(PDF) a request to subpoena Barack Obama to testify at the trial.

The request, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was submitted to Judge James B. Zagel. The title is, “Motion for the Court to Issue a Trial Subpoena to President Barack Obama“.

Blagojevich and his counsel seek Obama’s testimony because the former is accused of trying to sell the then-president-elect’s US Senate seat. Part four of the request states:

4. According to media reports, President Obama was interviewed by two United States attorneys and two FBI agents for two hours.

Then there’s this:

5. On December 19, 2009, the defense filed a Motion for Discovery. In that motion, the defense requested all notes, transcripts, and reports generated from the government’s interview of President Barack Obama.

6. As of today’s date, the defense has not received any notes, transcripts, or reports from President Obama’s interview with the government.

Several of the following parts were almost entirely redacted, but 14 picks up again:

14. President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment. In addition, President Obama’s public statements contradict other witness statements, specifically those made by labor union official and Senate Candidate B. It is anticipated that labor union official will be a witness for the government. His accounts of events directly related to the charges in the indictment are contradicted by President Obama’s public statement.

15. Even the prosecutor in this case indicated “there’s no allegation that the presidentelect – there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it.”5

16. There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government’s claims. Only President Obama can do this.

Again sections are almost entirely redacted. Then comes 21:

21. President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation. President Obama’s testimony is relevant to three fundamental issues of that allegation. First, President Obama contradicts the testimony of an important government witness. Second, President Obama’s testimony is relevant to the necessary element of intent of the defendant. Third, President Obama is the only one who can say if emissaries were sent on his behalf, who those emissaries were, and what, if anything, those emissaries were instructed to do on his behalf. All of these issues are relevant and necessary for the defense of Rod Blagojevich.

Parts 24 and 25 are the killers. They directly connect Obama to Tony Rezko, convicted felon and former land developer found guilty of fraud and bribery in 2008.

24. President Obama has pertinent information as to the character of Mr. Rezko. President Obama can testify to Mr. Rezko’s reputation for truthfulness as well as his own opinion of Mr. Rezko’s character. See, Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) and 608. Mr. Rezko and President Obama became friends in 1990. According to President Obama, Mr. Rezko raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama.11

25. Based on the relationship that President Obama and Mr. Rezko had, President Obama can provide important information as to Mr. Rezko’s plan, intent, opportunity, habit and modus operandi. See, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406. For example, in June 2005, President Obama purchased a house for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. On the same day Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid full price — $625,000 — for the adjoining land. In January 2006, Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for a strip of the adjoining land. The transaction took place when it was widely known that Mr. Rezko was under investigation.12 President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko is relevant and necessary Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406 evidence.

The request ends by noting that the US Supreme Court has long held that sitting presidents can be subpoenaed, and indeed several have presented sworn testimony in court cases while occupying the Oval Office.

But something tells me Democrats don’t want the president of the United States testifying in a corruption trial, thanks to his connections to convicted felons and relationships with individuals on trial for bribery, as we come into the midterms. Could be ugly.