* Let’s talk about the Madigan impeachment talking points memo in a few stages. Try to stay on topic as much as possible. The first thing we’ll do is look at the memo’s three basic reasons for considering impeachment proceedings…

1. The ongoing federal criminal investigations of his administration, including his role as Public Official A, have significantly impaired his ability to do his job as governor. With Ali Ata’s guilty plea, the governor has been directly implicated in a bribes-for-jobs scheme - the latest revelation of malfeasance in the governor’s office. The conviction of Tony Rezko on 16 or 24 federal corruption counts related to Blagojevich administration activities also suggests something is seriously amiss. Using common sense, and the totality of what has been learned so far about these investigations, prudence demands that lawmakers act. Already, six individuals associated with his administration have pled or been found guilty of federal criminal charges in connection with their roles in corrupt activities. Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer theoretical - it is proven.

Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances. Legislators have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the state and not depend on the federal government to save us. One thing we learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm.

2. Blagojevich’s violation of his oath of office by repeatedly attempting to operate outside of the Illinois constitution and state law - expanding FamilyCare beyond the limit authorized by the General Assembly, spending money absent express statutory authority, failing to comply with AG ruling that federal subpoenas are subject to FOIA, and a gross abuse of the constitution’s special session power - using special session as a blunt force instrument for dealing with the General Assembly and attempting to force it to submit to his will - rather than for deal with emergency situations.

3. Finally, Blagojevich’s legal problems have clearly become a distraction for the governor. He is largely withdrawn from the legislative process - spending most of his time hunkered down at home or in a political campaign office in Ravenswood hiding from the public and refusing to answer the media’s questions. Aside from an occasional meeting or event appearance, he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office. Blagojevich acts like an absentee governor - content to let his underlings do as they wish. That’s not acceptable. We need an engaged governor who wants to be the governor.

Governor Blagojevich’s inability to govern is the principal reason that the state is in its current predicament and that stalemate is the order of the day in Springfield. The first step to cleaning up the mess and getting the state back on track may be to remove the governor from office. If the evidence warrants it, we cannot afford to wait until 2010. That will be too late and he will have had two-and-a-half years to do even more damage to the state.

[Emphasis added.]

…Adding… From the Question & Answers section…

What do you think are grounds for impeachment?

While the constitution is purposefully vague about it, I believe that there are four:

1. Serious crimes, including those that are abuses of office, including obstruction of justice.

2. Incapacity - due to mental or health problems the individual is not able to do his job

3. Violations of the state Constitution’s separation of powers - especially if it is a recurrent problem and evidence of contempt and disregard for the legislature’s - a co-equal branch of government — constitutional role, including executive oversight.

4. Dangerous levels of incompetence, abuse of power, dereliction of duties or financial malfeasance. Even if someone has not done anything legally, wrong, the General Assembly should be able to remove someone who is so incompetent that he doesn’t have the ability to run his office.

Politicians are accountable to a higher degree than mere legal standards. It shouldn’t take a criminal investigation to use impeachment. Impeachment shouldn’t be seen as a mini-criminal trial. Although criminal activities may be a reason for impeachment, impeachment is a political trial based on a governor’s repeated recklessness and inability to perform the job.

Are all of these acceptable or is any of it over the line? Discuss.