Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Impeachmemt memo: Reasons
Next Post: Impeachment memo: Preventing another George Ryan party meltdown
Posted in:
* This discussion will be about whether the House ought to hold off on impeachment proceedings while the US Attorney is actively investigating the governor, his wife, his friends, his fundraisers, his campaign and his administration.
While I respect the work of United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, and while I would not support any actions that would interfere with the investigations that he or the FBI may be conducting into Governor Blagojevich’s administration and its associates, nor would I want the House’s inquiry to compromise any current or future prosecutions, our duty to our citizens, constitution and conscience demands that we act now. […]
It is also possible that additional information about Blagojevich administration misdeeds may come to light once an impeachment process begins. Whistleblowers may be willing to come forward once it becomes clear that the House has a sincere desire to review how Blagojevich does business. Witnesses who come to testify, including those compelled to be there via subpoena, may also shed additional light on further wrongdoing.
* And this is from the memo’s “Question & Answers” section…
Do you think the Illinois House needs to be conducting its own investigation into criminal wrongdoing by Governor Blagojevich? They can’t even do their job as it is, so now they are going to be getting in the way of Patrick Fitzgerald, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office? Aren’t they like the keystone cops?
There is already enough evidence for the House to consider, from the trial records, to the guilty please of those associated with the governor that there would be no need for the House to conducts its own criminal investigation.
Furthermore, besides the criminal problems besetting his administration, the House may want to consider whether or not he has violated his oath of office in promising to uphold the constitution and whether or not he is derelict in his duties and not doing the work required of a governor.
The impeachment process is completely separate from the processes used by the criminal justice system. The impeachment and conviction of a constitutional officer does not preclude the possibility that that individual could be liable for prosecution by state or federal authorities.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Impeachmemt memo: Reasons
Next Post: Impeachment memo: Preventing another George Ryan party meltdown
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Two issues:
First, we’re in a federal system. The State of Illinois has a right within that system to adopt and execute a state constitution as long as it doesn’t conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The feds are looking into federal criminal matters; the House may impeach under the state constitution for any reasons that get 60 votes. Madigan is outlining those reasons now.
The House is under no obligation to wait for the feds, nor should they. In other words, the G has its job, the GA has its job.
Second, the House Judiciary Committee passed and sent to the full House articles of impeachment against President Nixon while he was still under investigation by Special Prosecutor Jaworski. They acted within their constitutional authority.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:00 am
You could go for it just on the constitution stuff and not cause a problem for the feds.
I highly doubt that any investigation the state house does would get in the way of the feds. I don’t see the house doing that much of an investigation.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:03 am
Ditto Word and One…
Impeaching a statewide office holder doesn’t send that person to jail, etc. It removes that person from political office.
And the points about unconstitutional (state Const.) misappropriation of funds don’t involve the Feds anyway, yet impeachment is the only possible recourse to remedy this grievance (should it be found to be a grievance in the course of any impeachment proceedings).
How’s that for soundin’ lawyerlike?
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:06 am
I think no impeachment action is warranted until the Governor is actually indicted. I think it’s ok to lay the groundwork for an impeachment action.However, I see no need for any independent impeachment investigation by the legislature.
Let the U.S. Attorney’s office do its job.
Indictment would constittute prima facie evidence that the Governor is unfit and unable to serve. An impeachment should be cut and dried without any need for legislative investigation, if the Governor is indicted and refuses to resign promptly. Any legislator who delays or obstructs an impeachemnt action and refuses to vote and convict after an indictment would be subject to the wrath of the electorate.
As Rich noted the legisalture has been unable to execute its basic responsibilities to pass a balanced budget. An impeachemnt action before an indictment would be distracting and premature.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:16 am
agree with Rob_N; which may shock him…
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:16 am
Not shocking, Bill — it’s based on the facts at hand.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:26 am
Captain, I understand your opinion, but you’re adding prerequisites to impeachment that are not in the state constitution. Why give the feds more power over our affairs?
And again, the U.S. House was proceeding with impeachment against Nixon before he was indicted. And the federal Constitution has a requirement of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” whatever that means.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:33 am
Unles and until Fitzgerald says something, I don’t see this as a problem. He might welcome additional pressure on the governor. A lot would depend on the nature of the investigation, and whether they go trampling on witnesses, promising immunity, etc.
Comment by Muskrat Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:42 am
“Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial, as I pointed out then and this memo agrees. Impeachment is a governmental process with a trial phase. This does not mean a trial as defined by a Perry Mason or Matlock TV show, but as defined by constitutional precedents over centuries. Blagojevich doesn’t have to be found guilty in a criminal trial to be worthy of impeachment. We are not discussing jailing or removing his personal liberties. Instead, we are discussing his failure in the job he is currently holding. If he is found to be guilty in the trial phase of this impeachment, he is removed from office, not locked up. He retains his freedoms, and even his political career. Impeachment does not mean Blagojevich can never again run for office. Andrew Jackson was impeached as president, yet ended up as a US Senator.” - VM
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:43 am
VM, you mean Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson would have shot anyone who tried to impeach him.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:48 am
Can we stop talking about impeachment and get the whole thing going?
Comment by Little Egypt Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:52 am
—-
Can we stop talking about impeachment and get the whole thing going?
—-
That’s precisely the point. All this is *not* to get the thing going. It’s to talk endlessly about the possibilities and divert our attention from continued legislative failures.
I said this in a previous post, but all this is not for the purposes of impeachment. No one — certainly not Madigan — is serious about impeachment. What they want is political cover and reason for candidates to distance themselves.
Jones is mostly right this time. It doesn’t make sense for the party to turn on itself. And as Rich asks is one of the many questions this morning (all variations on the same thing) — will this be damaging? Of course it will. Because the public now expects something to happen — and no one is prepared to follow through with these endless, endless threats.
No one is serious about impeachment. This is all a rather bizarre smokescreen.
Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:09 am
So the Speaker and DPI, who crafted the poshard tv ad accusing George Ryan of selling drivers licenses that allowed people to die, suddenly want to impeach Rod? I agree Rod has screwed things up, and maybe even broken the law, but the big difference is that George worked with Mikey and Rod doesn’t.
Comment by hhhmmmmmm! Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:29 am
Word writes, “And the federal Constitution has a requirement of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” whatever that means.”
The Congress defines “whatever that means” through the impeachment process, as per the writings of some fellow named Thomas Jefferson and his friends.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:13 am
Wordslinger,
Purely as a practical matter I can not envision that an impeachment initative would result in a conviction by the Senate, until the Governor is indicted. That’s the only reason I suggest deferring an impeachment action for now, pending indictment. I don’t see this practical reality as a federal impingement on state sovereignty. I believe that a bipartisan and bicameral consensnsu would quickly emerge if he is indicted. In other words, I don’t think Emil Jones could afford to impede and obstruct an impeachment initiative if Blago is indicted.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:28 am
==The Congress defines “whatever that means” through the impeachment process, as per the writings of some fellow named Thomas Jefferson and his friends.==
Rob N, what Jefferson writings are you referring to? And where do they define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:47 am
There are many reasons in that memo that really don’t cut the mustard as a reason for impeachment. That said, there are 4 or 5 very good reasons on a constitutional basis and on an incompetence/ethics basis to impeach the Governor.
This governor has attempted to appropriate funds for a health care plan that he wanted to create/expand.
He also has waved the banner for ethics reform even requiring all employees under his office to do an annual ethics review. That review reminds those employees that if it even appears unethical you could be disciplined including discharge.
Well I’m sure most would agree there are a lot of things the Governor has done that appears to be unethical if not being clearly unethical.
I believe there shouldn’t be any problem (other than Emil Jones) in impeaching the Governor and removing him from office. The Great State of Illinois would be shed of him and Mr. Fitzgerald could then proceed with any and all investigations and indictments.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 12:30 pm
If there is one item that may stand on its own merits as an impeachable offense it would be the misappropriation of funds. The one in particular would be the awarding of a million dollar grant to an entity that did not exist or never opened, and then when trying to retrieve the moneys found it was now where to be found. Moneys that the state desperately needs to function mysteriously awarded and then disappearing is imho an impeacheable offense.
Comment by Siyotanka Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 12:51 pm
Granted on any given day the easy story to write is a Blago bashing one, that not with standing G-Rod reached out to Poshard and Hastert. The two of them put in a whole lot of bipartisan hours and miles to define a capital bill with wide support. The two of them defined common ground that earned the support of the Gov. The President of the senate, the minority leaders, the chamber of commerce and virtually every other thinking person in the state with the exception of an impatient father that wants his daughter to be the Governor. How to hide the fact that one elected official is keeping the schools, bridges and towns of Illinois in tired dis-repair?
Throw a smoke bomb.
If you don’t want to get fleeced stop acting like sheeple. ba ba
Comment by nuffs nuff Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:22 pm