* I can’t possibly see how he can wait until after he’s removed from office to challenge the impeachment process, particuarly since he boycotted the Senate trial, but the AP just ran this story…
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he hasn’t ruled out legal action if he is removed from office.
Blagojevich told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he would respect “the law and the Constitution and the rules” if legislators vote him out of office. But he’ll explore his legal options.
The Democrat says he knows he soon could be out of a job but says he didn’t do anything wrong.
Note to all reporters: Gov. Rod Blagojevich lies about almost everything. Everyone in Illinois has had to learn that lesson the hard way. Take it from us, stop taking him at his word.
*** UPDATE 1 *** This video clip proves my point about the governor’s constant lying. On CBS this morning, the governor said…
“If I had a judicial remedy, I would’ve been there a long time ago, but unfortunately I don’t.”
Watch the video…
Actually, that’s a lie as well. As I’ve already told you, Ed Genson was preparing a case which he wanted to bring to the Illinois Supreme Court, but was nixed by Sam Adam, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.
Also, as I told subscribers this morning, Blagojevich could’ve attended the Senate’s public committee hearings which put together the trial rules and attempted to put his stamp on the process. He chose not to, for whatever reasons.
“The governor is making a mockery of the law, he’s making a mockery of the constitution,” Madigan said. “The whole concept of impeachment has been enshrined in not just Illinois law, but in federal law, from the beginning of our country. It’s talked about in the Federalist Papers, and so for him to claim he’s not going to get any kind of a fair trial and fair process is absolutely absurd.”
“He’s choosing to not participate, that’s something completely different than not availing yourself of a process and so in some ways, it’s almost admitting that he has nothing to say in his defense, despite what he’s saying on all these talk shows.”
By admitting on CBS that he had no constitutional recourse to block impeachment and removal, he is admitting that all of his teevee arguments about the Senate’s unconstitutional rules are flat-out bogus. By refusing to appear at the trial, he’s admitting his own guilt.
With senators prohibited from speechmaking during the trial, Hendon used the only means at his disposal — an opportunity to submit written questions through Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald — to make known his displeasure with aspects of the impeachment case against Blagojevich.
In particular, Hendon is upset that senators are being asked to impeach Blagojevich in part on policy matters on which they previously supported the governor: expanding health care for children, creating a prescription drug program for seniors and procuring flu vaccines from outside the U.S.
“Is giving health care to children an impeachable offense, or does it fall under executive privilege?” Hendon asked House prosecutor David Ellis.
Hendon said he and other Democratic senators, then under the leadership of retired Senate President Emil Jones, backed Blagojevich on those programs, even after he implemented them over the objections of the Illinois House, and that to turn against him now on those matters would be hypocritical.
“How can I kick the governor out of office over that when we supported it?” Hendon told me in an interview after the Senate adjourned for the day. […]
Hendon said other senators share his concerns but are afraid to be vocal about it in the current political climate.
Hendon said he thought US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was doing a great job and he wouldn’t object to any of those items being included. Overall, Hendon has a point about some of the more minor impeachment issues.
However, and this is important to keep in mind, the sole article of impeachment concludes that the evidence in its totality points directly to a pattern of abuse of power. Senators don’t have to agree on every single claim in the impeachment report. All they have to do is decide whether they believe the governor has abused his powers of office sufficiently to remove him.
Since the Gov has not yet followed any expectations, has anyone explored the scenario of Gov B simply not acknowledging the results of the impeachment trial and refusing to accept his removal from office?
The fact that he does not reside in the Governor’s mansion, makes it easier in some ways, but what if he chooses to occupy the Governor’s office in Chicago or Springfield?
I want to see Blagojevich removed. But I also want the senators to debate and haggle over the complex issues. What I don’t want to see is a rubber stamp. If Hendon has disagreements — that’s great, and that’s what I expect from the officials I’ve elected.
I’d also like to respectfully ask Geraldo Rivera to stop shrieking like a loon.
Hard to imagine that scenario, P3. Nothing should surprise us tho, should it? Can you imagine the state police called out to physically remove him? Good grief, when will it end?
I doubt it P3. I wouldn’t be surprized by a book deal though which this could be building up too… he could write quite a volume on Illinois politics for sure… not sure what would happen with the royalties once convicted, but I think they’ll be a backlash in his favor after all of this… that could be the taint on the jury that’s still a long way off.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:06 am:
As long as Blago is convicted and removed, I applaud him for any mud that actually sticks to the IL Senate. While Cullerton was not the one pulling everyone’s strings the past few years (Emil was), every incumbent Senator has kindly whimpered their thanks for every crumb Emil and Blago threw their way.
When Emil controlled the Senate, would he really have stood up to 20-25 of his Caucus members (along with a few Republicans) had they banded together to oppose Blago the oaf? No, at least not on everything they’re complaining about now. Instead, the sheep feared payback from Blago and/or Emil and only now have the audacity to publicly voice the outrage they have feigned in political fundraisers for the past decade.
Convict the Governor. It’s long overdue. But don’t claim some that it’s some great exercise in political courage. This goes for the IL House, too.
===When Emil controlled the Senate, would he really have stood up to 20-25 of his Caucus members (along with a few Republicans) had they banded together to oppose Blago the oaf?===
Let’s be honest Hollywood H. is just trying to show Blagoof that he is staying bought. That way when Blagoof goes nuts next week and starts to rave about other crooked pols he might leaves his transactions with Hoolywood H. off the list.
That omission will be glaring, but Hollywood knows the end is near.
You must keep in mind Blagoof is the guy who takes credit for leaking the Obama-Rezko real estate deal to the Tribune.
His tear down campaign will be momumental
Pat, then you should tell those people that it won’t work. He’ll be arrested and hauled off to jail. Plain and simple. That’s why he won’t do it. He may be crazy, but I doubt he wants to go back to a cell. And this time he’d be sent to the county lockup. Dart, who has no love for RRB, would probably put him in a holding tank with a bunch of very nasty fellows.
Man, you need to look at the whole picture. It is a whale of a lot more than just bad blood with the senate. Of course Blago did say, after his impeachment by the House, that he would get a fair shake in the Senate. Now he’s saying the fix is in and is pinning his hopes on the criminal trial. I would imagine he’ll be signing a different tune once that proceeding gets under way. C,mon, this guy is a piece of work. Consider his attempts the shake down a children’s hospital and the Tribune. Those things, and others, have nothing to do with the senate. Get real, my friend.
The office barricade scenario would certainly fit the idea of “civil disobedience” in Blago’s mind.
Look, if he’s looking to create a larger than life metaphor for himself — something iconic that would (in his mind, not mine) be comparable to some cinematic demonstration of righteousness and goodness — then office barricade is a symbol that would resonate with the American people.
It’s a goofy and pathetic symbol — but the governor is clearly grasping at various metaphors and symbols — and this would be the one that eclipse everything — and everybody — else.
And Neil Williamson would have even less tolerance if he tried to pull this stunt at the Capitol office.
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:24 am:
Rich:
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the arrest scenario (which I suggested in comments last week or so).
He’s already comparing himself to King, Mandela and Ghandi, so what better way to go than to stand up on behalf of the voters who elected him and refuse to leave. Having the state police drag him off to jail (at least in his mind) would make him a martyr.
Apologies for the typos. My new “netbook” has remarkably tiny keys. Ugh.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Just like the east coast media establishment irks you, Rich, I get irked by the utter spinelessnes of the rank-and-file. 20 senators standing up to Emil? How about if 5 or 6 had done so? The reason the leaders are so powerful is because the rank-and-file have, over the years, willingly ceded power to them. Nobody puts a gun to their heads when they vote for the rules. If the senators hated the Rules Committee so much, why didn’t a few of them find the stones to envoke some of that old Vince Demuzio “crazy eight” spirit and band together and refuse to vote for the rules or the election of a Senate president until modifications could be made? If Emil or Madigan are denied a majority vote, what powers do they have?
off to the side - I’m hearing that there are currently 11 senate members planning to vote against impeachment. Not sure how true, but if it is, a little more than a handful and he stays (for a while).
{“How can I kick the governor out of office over that when we supported it?” Hendon told me in an interview after the Senate adjourned for the day. […]
(Assistant Majority Leader) Hendon said other senators share his concerns but are afraid to be vocal about it in the current political climate.}
SR006
Rule 13. Attendance; decorum; ex parte communications
{(d) A Senator should abstain from publicly speculating on issues pertaining to the impeachment trial proceedings pending before the Senate, including the weight or credibility of testimony or other evidence, the evidence that may be presented by the parties, and how the Senator may vote on the evidentiary matters and the final verdict.
Senators should require similar abstention on the part of Senate staff subject to the Senator’s
direction and control. Senators or authorized Senate staff may make public statements regarding their other official duties or explain the procedure of the Senate for public information
purposes.}
So much for leadership by example. It will be interesting to see if he is disciplined by the Senate President, or any of his fellow Senators; from either side of the aisle.
Personally I think the media bitz is designed to get one person, anyone person, to feel the pressure and make a mistake and mention something that should not come out and that something would derail the criminal case. I see this as baiting the Feds or someone involved in the criminal investigation to reveal something that would accomplish this goal. I am glad that so far the Senate has not taken the bait and requested something more from Fizgerald than what he wants to give at this time. My fear is that somehwer out there is a crazy judge, who might be asked to intervene before the impeachment process is over, who has heard Geraldo, and Whooppi, and will order that more of the criminal case be revealed.
I cannot believe that the interviewers I saw were not more prepared for the interviews. It would not have taken much research for them to discover that the impeachment trial is not the criminal trial and different standards apply.
Hopeful, there aren’t 11. I don’t know where you’re getting that, but drop it. There are rules here about passing along unsubstantiated rumors like that.
Drop it. Last warning.
- Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:42 am:
What is the current over-under for Senate votes for impeachment? Vegas would probably set the line at 1 vote against impeachment, no?
I don’t recall exactly what I said (and it is nowhere to be found on the thread now), but my basic belief is that Rod is right to boycott this impeachment proceeding because he is prevented from calling exculpatory witnesses on his behalf on the main charge here (the Senate Seat). He could call Emanuel, Jackson Jr., Jarrett and others to try to prove that there was no quid pro quo. As it is, they will admit snippets of conversations and leave the governor no opportunity to really put the matter into perspective. I know the legislature doesn’t want to wait, but this part of the case simply isn’t ready to be proved yet. And it muddies up the rest of the case, which is pretty weak, by the way. Remember, just a couple months ago, people were clamoring for impeachment, before the wiretaps came to light. I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.
The TV appearances are public relations tools and also self-enabling. It’s like an alcoholic. He knows he’s a drunk, but wants to let everyone that he’s a friendly drunk, so it’s okay for him to drink. Many of our media mavens, even after criticizing the problem, still want to let the friendly drunk off the hook.
What Hendon did was create a convenient shield to hide behind if he discovers he has enough constituents confused over his vote for impeachment. He, and a few other senators, are ensuring that they will have a defense if they need to have one for the next election.
It’s Pablum and could satisfy any anti-impeachment constituents that may remain. That’s all.
Now that these comments have been voiced and recorded, they are satisfied and the impeachment vote can be cast with less concerns over any possible political impact back home.
{I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.}
I disagree. There is strong evidence that would support impeachment on many of the other charges.
The Senate seat and the disclosure of the wiretap conversations simply provided the political courage to remove or attempt to remove the Governor.
I think the arguments suggesting Emil Jones could have derailed articles of impeachment on his own, once they came over to the Senate is weak, and I think the procedural manner of the Chief Justice would appear to support that contention.
I seem to recall that Blago said he supported the recall amendment when it was proposed. First off, when looked at simplistically, an impeachment is a recall by legislators on behalf of the voters. No proof ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ is needed in either an impeachment or a recall.
Second, imagine the circus if we had a recall and it was being used against Blago. He’d be up there screaming about lack of due process, even though he supported the darn thing to begin with.
===I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.
The wiretap portion is the weak portion simply because it hasn’t all been put out there for impeachment. The general pattern of abuse of power is shocking if you read through it–and nothing we haven’t known about for some time.
Frankly, the biggest question it raises is why didn’t the Lege act sooner. We know that’s largely because of Emil Jones as Senate President, but the number of passes this guy got by ignoring JCAR, allocating monies without General Assembly authorization is mindboggling and a perfect case of what someone can do when they are willing to be this brazen.
Furthermore, the statements rests on the ignorance of most people about impeachment. Impeachment isn’t primarily a tool for removing an office holder for breaking criminal law, it’s a power to stop abuse of official power.
===I think the arguments suggesting Emil Jones could have derailed articles of impeachment on his own, once they came over to the Senate is weak,===
Wrong again.
Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve.
I’d like to see Blago go onto Don Imus’ radio show. Imus would shred Rod and probably use a few expletives in doing so.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:12 pm:
=====Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve=====
Gee, if so much power is concentrated in the hands of the Senate President, who can block all of this from happening, why doesn’t Illinois pass an amendment or hold a Con-Con?
Chiatty - This is a slam dunk.
Let me give you a little background. This governor came on the scene as the reform governor. He initiated the new ethics rules that state employees have been living with for the last six years. Every year every state employee has to take an ethics test. In that test there are several scenerios and then questions about those scenerios. For every scenerio there is a page that flahes up on the screen with the following message on it. To paraphrase. ” Even if something is not illegal nor unethical, if it appears to be so in the public eye, then it is wrong and should not be done.” So Blago the informer is mandating that even the appearance of being unethical is wrong.
This ethics test is timed. You cannot do it too quickly nor can you take too long. There have been state employees whop have been disciplined for completing the test too quickly EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT ALL THE QUESTIONS CORRECT.
With that in mind take one charge; The Governor of the State of Illinois asks an individual to make a substantial donation to the Governor’s campaign fund, in exchange for the Governor giving that individual taxpayer dollars for his business, which is horse racing. Since campaign funds can be used for some personal use the Governor asked for money for himself, his own personal gain, in exchange for giving your and every other taxpayers money to this individual.
Remember the ethics test and ask yourself again if this case is weak.
Has anyone noticed that RRB has admitted to some of the charges in the impeachment in the news events in NY? He has repeatedly stated he had to find ways “to go around the legislature” to enact some of his initiatives. This is a clear admission of abuse of power by ignoring the separation of powers.
Maybe he will take a page from the Roland Burris playbook and try something like this:
He will make sure he is in his JRTC office when the conviction vote comes down, maybe with some of the people he claims to have helped. Lots of teevee cameras will be standing by to record his reaction when he is officially informed of his removal from office. He will then make one last defiant public statement similar to the Jan. 9 impeachment day press conference (I believe, the one where he dragged all those people on stage with him) before grimly, but peacefully, marching out of the office. (If it’s raining or snowing at the moment he leaves and he can give his Nixonian Last Press Conference while standing out in it, that’s even better)
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:37 pm:
Rich, are you saying Emil could have strong armed 20 Dems to vote to acquit?
Hmmmmm, the concept of human shields was already used by Gov. B when he trotted out all those his policies helped in that ‘news conference’ Perhaps he will extend that to ‘defense’ of his office.
I maintain he will do something memorable as he is forced out of office, (if that actually happens…)
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Personally, I think it’s unlikely that he could have strong armed 20 senators to acquit. If that’s what’s being suggested as far as Emil “derailing” the process, then I disagree with that. I don’t see how he could have blocked the trial. He could have delayed it, and perhaps he could have excluded certain pieces of evidence or overruled the judge on hearing damning testimony, but not having the trial is not like bottling up a bill in the Rules committee. The trial is mandated by the constitution.
===- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:46 am: Jake, I think we set it at 3 a few weeks ago. Not sure if that’s right, though.===
I think I was the one making book on those bets. I can’t remember what I put the over/under at but I think it was around 4 or 5. Thats counting not voting or present votes.
The feds may well have a good “pay to play” case against Blago. They may well have enough smoke to suggest fire on the Senate Seat wiretaps. Neither of these cases is ready for trial and there are substantial questions of whether the senate seat stuff would ever rise to the level of criminal conduct. I understand that the level of proof for impeachment, when compared to the criminal burden of proof, is incredibly low. (My nickname here isn’t “effinghamfarmer” after all!) Technically speaking, the legislature could convict him on weak proof like the vaccine purchase and other silliness. My beef here is that the main charge is one that the governor has been prevented from meaninfully defending because the federal prosecutor is wisely not willing to undermine his case before it’s ready for trial. In another perverse bit of political theater, the legislature is assisting in making him look like a victim. Finally,despite what others have said, I don’t think that impeachment proceedings would have been brought without the wiretap scandal. The recall movement would have had a better chance of success. Now, the impeachment will be a breeze, because they get to fan the flames with the wiretap conversations and the rest of the “evidence” will be nothing more than window dressing.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:56 pm:
Another good reason for Blago to be firmly planted in the JRTC office at the moment of the removal vote is to distract attention from Pat Quinn’s swearing in and any remarks he may make afterward.
The more I think about it, the more I think Blago doesn’t have to resist removal to the point of being arrested; as long as the cameras are rolling as he packs up his stuff, and there are a few, ahem, “supporters” there to shake his hand and hug him and thank him for all the “good” he’s done for them, etc., he’ll consider it an “up” day.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:03 pm:
Rich said that Jones would have derailed it. He never said that he would have never convened the trial. I’m curious to know how Rich feels Emil would have derailed it, if he’s so inclined to address the matter.
While I agree with Rich that Emil could and would have delayed convening, I think there would be remedies for the Chief Justice to intervene under Article V, Section 6 (d). But I’m not a lawyer and we could probably spend all day debating this. We now have a willing Senate President so who cares?
Sen. Hendon should immediately recuse himself from voting in this trial. It’s obvious by his statements that he’s afraid Unindicted Official A-Rod will out him on the millions of dollars in “school contracts” given to Hendon’s campaign workers for schools that either never existed or were never open.
Also, don’t forget that Sen. Hendon was the guy who denied Illinois voters the opportunity to vote on a recall amendment when he gaveled proceedings to a close before a bill could be called.
He’s obviously covering his you-know-what so his buddy Gov. Elvis won’t point the finger when he’s dealing with the feds over how long his jail sentence will be.
I also love it that Hendon throws a prop to Fitzgerald, knowing that his time in the hot seat is just down the road.
Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve.}
You are arguing politically. I am arguing constitutionally, and legally. I simply believe that the law and the constitution would ultimately prevail. Again, all that was lacking was the political will.
Senate President Cullerton and Senate President Jones can say whatever they wish about convening the Senate for the purpose of an Impeachment trial. That power comes from the Senate Rules however, which do not trump the Illinois Constitution.
If the House had investigated; voted on, and approved Articles of Impeachment which they believed warranted a trial in the Senate to consider removing the Governor from office, and no such trial was convened, it would not be solely up to the Senate President to determine how and when to proceed.
Despite the fact that the Senate President; under its adopted Rules, retains the power to convene the chamber and control the conduct of its business, the Senate President also guides and directs the proceedings of the Senate, subject to the control and will of the members.
The Senate President would have to have a majority vote with him (on a daily basis) and perhaps continuously, in order to prohibit convening for the purpose of considering the articles of impeachment.
While a Senator is elected and represents his district and is not subject to recall; the Senate President only remains in that position so long as a majority of members will agree to support him for the position.
While he may have been able to delay a Senate impeachment trial, I contend that he could not ultimately deny an impeachment trial. I do not believe that the Senate could even adjourn Sine Die, and disolve itself, without taking up the constitutional responsibility to conduct such a trial.
While there could have been some initial support for the Senate President to prohibit a trial from taking place, I believe he would have ultimately been removed from the position of President had he done so, or had his power to convene the Senate for this purpose over-ridden by the Constitution.
Just as the House lacked the political will to advance the Articles of Impeachment prior to the Governor’s arrest, they also lacked the political will to place Senators in the position of having to remove their elected President, if that’s what would be required in order for them to conduct an impeachment trial.
Some (or all) may disagree, but I believe that had the Articles of Impeachment been voted out of the House, there would have been a trial, even if it meant removing the Senate President, because by being complicit in not otherwise doing so, Senators would have been in violation of their constitutional oath.
The Illinois Constitution stipulates that Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. As a consequence the Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial should Articles of Impeachment as approved by the House be sent to them, and the conduct of such a trial is not optional. If this were the case; and the House and Senate were controlled by opposing political parties, then the party that controls the Senate would be allowed to to preserve and protect the office of the Governor of the same political party, despite him having been impeached by a majority of elected representatives in the House.
I believe the conduct of such a trial would have also been enforceable through civil action pursued by a private citizen in a court of law, and the Supreme Court could have imposed the constitutional duty to conduct the trial on the Senate, irrespective of the opposition of its President to doing so.
Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.
Call me cuckoo if you must, but I still believe in the rule of law and the rights, dutues, and responsibilities of both citizens and elected and appointed governmental representatives which are afforded and imposed by the constitution.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:30 pm:
=== Hendon said other senators share his concerns but are afraid to be vocal about it in the current political climate. ===
Impeachment is afterall a political process, but I surely hope Senator Hendon will follow his conscience and vote NO, if that’s how he really feels.
And while your at it Senator, give us the names of the other Senators who feel as you do! They deserve to be rewarded for standing up for their convictions right along with you!
===Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.====
You’re new to Illinois, aren’t you? lol
- Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:35 pm:
===Attorney General Lisa Madigan hits it out of the park…===
The governor has set a beach ball on a tee. My 8-year-old could hit that out of the park.
{===Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.====
You’re new to Illinois, aren’t you? lol}
No, lived here all my life.
You are still arguing based on political grounds and have ignored the statutory and constitutional grounds.
I agree with you about what may have been attempted politically. I believe that it would be overcome legally, but you have not expressed an opinion on the law or the constitution and how it would have applied to this matter.
Intentionally; or un-intentionally, this has the effect of giving aid and comfort to those without the political to act.
===In another perverse bit of political theater, the legislature is assisting in making him look like a victim. Finally,despite what others have said, I don’t think that impeachment proceedings would have been brought without the wiretap scandal. The recall movement would have had a better chance of success. Now, the impeachment will be a breeze, because they get to fan the flames with the wiretap conversations and the rest of the “evidence” will be nothing more than window dressing.
The only people who seem to think he is a victim are Rod Blagojevich, Geraldo and Neil Cavuto. We can have a contest to see which one is more disconnected from reality, but that doesn’t make it representative.
The fact that the General Assembly refused to act previously and has been shamed into acting finally isn’t an argument against impeachment, it’s an argument that impeachment should have happened sooner.
Spending money not authorized by the General Assembly is the definition of abuse of power for which impeachment was created.
- John - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 10:53 am:
I think the worst thing that the House did was include those minor healthcare-related charges in the impeachment.
I think it emboldened the Governor to go out and fight. He is comfortable arguing about that stuff, it seems.
All this media blitz. All these press conferences. The circus, the delays. They could have all been avoided.
maybe.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 10:54 am:
Since the Gov has not yet followed any expectations, has anyone explored the scenario of Gov B simply not acknowledging the results of the impeachment trial and refusing to accept his removal from office?
The fact that he does not reside in the Governor’s mansion, makes it easier in some ways, but what if he chooses to occupy the Governor’s office in Chicago or Springfield?
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 10:57 am:
I want to see Blagojevich removed. But I also want the senators to debate and haggle over the complex issues. What I don’t want to see is a rubber stamp. If Hendon has disagreements — that’s great, and that’s what I expect from the officials I’ve elected.
I’d also like to respectfully ask Geraldo Rivera to stop shrieking like a loon.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 10:59 am:
Hard to imagine that scenario, P3. Nothing should surprise us tho, should it? Can you imagine the state police called out to physically remove him? Good grief, when will it end?
- Bill Baar - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:03 am:
I doubt it P3. I wouldn’t be surprized by a book deal though which this could be building up too… he could write quite a volume on Illinois politics for sure… not sure what would happen with the royalties once convicted, but I think they’ll be a backlash in his favor after all of this… that could be the taint on the jury that’s still a long way off.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:06 am:
As long as Blago is convicted and removed, I applaud him for any mud that actually sticks to the IL Senate. While Cullerton was not the one pulling everyone’s strings the past few years (Emil was), every incumbent Senator has kindly whimpered their thanks for every crumb Emil and Blago threw their way.
When Emil controlled the Senate, would he really have stood up to 20-25 of his Caucus members (along with a few Republicans) had they banded together to oppose Blago the oaf? No, at least not on everything they’re complaining about now. Instead, the sheep feared payback from Blago and/or Emil and only now have the audacity to publicly voice the outrage they have feigned in political fundraisers for the past decade.
Convict the Governor. It’s long overdue. But don’t claim some that it’s some great exercise in political courage. This goes for the IL House, too.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:06 am:
Plutocrat03, I truly doubt that he’ll barricade himself in his office. If he does, the state police will arrest him for trespassing. Simple.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:10 am:
===When Emil controlled the Senate, would he really have stood up to 20-25 of his Caucus members (along with a few Republicans) had they banded together to oppose Blago the oaf?===
Yes.
Undoubtedly.
Absolutely.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:14 am:
doubt that he’ll barricade himself in his office
Actually, I have had 4 different people tell me that they expect EXACTLY that to happen. When ever this comes up, someone usually says this.
But we see his strategy. High profile media blitz, followed by “grass roots” pressure on some Senators. Long shot, but it’s the bets one he has.
He only needs 20
- 2ConfusedCrew - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:15 am:
Let’s be honest Hollywood H. is just trying to show Blagoof that he is staying bought. That way when Blagoof goes nuts next week and starts to rave about other crooked pols he might leaves his transactions with Hoolywood H. off the list.
That omission will be glaring, but Hollywood knows the end is near.
You must keep in mind Blagoof is the guy who takes credit for leaking the Obama-Rezko real estate deal to the Tribune.
His tear down campaign will be momumental
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:16 am:
Pat, then you should tell those people that it won’t work. He’ll be arrested and hauled off to jail. Plain and simple. That’s why he won’t do it. He may be crazy, but I doubt he wants to go back to a cell. And this time he’d be sent to the county lockup. Dart, who has no love for RRB, would probably put him in a holding tank with a bunch of very nasty fellows.
Not gonna happen.
- Deep South - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:21 am:
Chiatty,
Man, you need to look at the whole picture. It is a whale of a lot more than just bad blood with the senate. Of course Blago did say, after his impeachment by the House, that he would get a fair shake in the Senate. Now he’s saying the fix is in and is pinning his hopes on the criminal trial. I would imagine he’ll be signing a different tune once that proceeding gets under way. C,mon, this guy is a piece of work. Consider his attempts the shake down a children’s hospital and the Tribune. Those things, and others, have nothing to do with the senate. Get real, my friend.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:21 am:
The office barricade scenario would certainly fit the idea of “civil disobedience” in Blago’s mind.
Look, if he’s looking to create a larger than life metaphor for himself — something iconic that would (in his mind, not mine) be comparable to some cinematic demonstration of righteousness and goodness — then office barricade is a symbol that would resonate with the American people.
It’s a goofy and pathetic symbol — but the governor is clearly grasping at various metaphors and symbols — and this would be the one that eclipse everything — and everybody — else.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:24 am:
And Neil Williamson would have even less tolerance if he tried to pull this stunt at the Capitol office.
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:24 am:
Rich:
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the arrest scenario (which I suggested in comments last week or so).
He’s already comparing himself to King, Mandela and Ghandi, so what better way to go than to stand up on behalf of the voters who elected him and refuse to leave. Having the state police drag him off to jail (at least in his mind) would make him a martyr.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Apologies for the typos. My new “netbook” has remarkably tiny keys. Ugh.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Just like the east coast media establishment irks you, Rich, I get irked by the utter spinelessnes of the rank-and-file. 20 senators standing up to Emil? How about if 5 or 6 had done so? The reason the leaders are so powerful is because the rank-and-file have, over the years, willingly ceded power to them. Nobody puts a gun to their heads when they vote for the rules. If the senators hated the Rules Committee so much, why didn’t a few of them find the stones to envoke some of that old Vince Demuzio “crazy eight” spirit and band together and refuse to vote for the rules or the election of a Senate president until modifications could be made? If Emil or Madigan are denied a majority vote, what powers do they have?
- hopeful in IL - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:25 am:
off to the side - I’m hearing that there are currently 11 senate members planning to vote against impeachment. Not sure how true, but if it is, a little more than a handful and he stays (for a while).
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:27 am:
=== I’m hearing that there are currently 11 senate members planning to vote against impeachment===
Wanna bet?
- Blago Sphere - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:31 am:
{“How can I kick the governor out of office over that when we supported it?” Hendon told me in an interview after the Senate adjourned for the day. […]
(Assistant Majority Leader) Hendon said other senators share his concerns but are afraid to be vocal about it in the current political climate.}
SR006
Rule 13. Attendance; decorum; ex parte communications
{(d) A Senator should abstain from publicly speculating on issues pertaining to the impeachment trial proceedings pending before the Senate, including the weight or credibility of testimony or other evidence, the evidence that may be presented by the parties, and how the Senator may vote on the evidentiary matters and the final verdict.
Senators should require similar abstention on the part of Senate staff subject to the Senator’s
direction and control. Senators or authorized Senate staff may make public statements regarding their other official duties or explain the procedure of the Senate for public information
purposes.}
So much for leadership by example. It will be interesting to see if he is disciplined by the Senate President, or any of his fellow Senators; from either side of the aisle.
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:33 am:
@ hopeful.
Check again after todays installment of “What did the Gov say on tape?”
It should be the highlight of our day. And there won’t be 11. If there ever were.
- Irish - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:34 am:
Personally I think the media bitz is designed to get one person, anyone person, to feel the pressure and make a mistake and mention something that should not come out and that something would derail the criminal case. I see this as baiting the Feds or someone involved in the criminal investigation to reveal something that would accomplish this goal. I am glad that so far the Senate has not taken the bait and requested something more from Fizgerald than what he wants to give at this time. My fear is that somehwer out there is a crazy judge, who might be asked to intervene before the impeachment process is over, who has heard Geraldo, and Whooppi, and will order that more of the criminal case be revealed.
I cannot believe that the interviewers I saw were not more prepared for the interviews. It would not have taken much research for them to discover that the impeachment trial is not the criminal trial and different standards apply.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:35 am:
Hopeful, he needs 20 to avoid removal. Where are the other 9 votes going to come from?
- Pat collins - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:37 am:
I agree it SHOULD be easy to handle. The point is many people think he has gone way off the deep end.
I mean, it’s kind of amazing how many people think he has fallen off the edge since his arrest.
- hopeful in IL - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:37 am:
Secret: I remain hopeful there are not 9 more not yet revealed.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:39 am:
Hopeful, there aren’t 11. I don’t know where you’re getting that, but drop it. There are rules here about passing along unsubstantiated rumors like that.
Drop it. Last warning.
- Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:42 am:
What is the current over-under for Senate votes for impeachment? Vegas would probably set the line at 1 vote against impeachment, no?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:46 am:
Jake, I think we set it at 3 a few weeks ago. Not sure if that’s right, though.
- chiatty - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:47 am:
Deep South:
I don’t recall exactly what I said (and it is nowhere to be found on the thread now), but my basic belief is that Rod is right to boycott this impeachment proceeding because he is prevented from calling exculpatory witnesses on his behalf on the main charge here (the Senate Seat). He could call Emanuel, Jackson Jr., Jarrett and others to try to prove that there was no quid pro quo. As it is, they will admit snippets of conversations and leave the governor no opportunity to really put the matter into perspective. I know the legislature doesn’t want to wait, but this part of the case simply isn’t ready to be proved yet. And it muddies up the rest of the case, which is pretty weak, by the way. Remember, just a couple months ago, people were clamoring for impeachment, before the wiretaps came to light. I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:48 am:
The TV appearances are public relations tools and also self-enabling. It’s like an alcoholic. He knows he’s a drunk, but wants to let everyone that he’s a friendly drunk, so it’s okay for him to drink. Many of our media mavens, even after criticizing the problem, still want to let the friendly drunk off the hook.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:51 am:
===I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.===
Sez you.
- Porcupine - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:53 am:
Awesome quote from Madigan, Rich. Thanks for posting it, it really sums it all up.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:58 am:
What Hendon did was create a convenient shield to hide behind if he discovers he has enough constituents confused over his vote for impeachment. He, and a few other senators, are ensuring that they will have a defense if they need to have one for the next election.
It’s Pablum and could satisfy any anti-impeachment constituents that may remain. That’s all.
Now that these comments have been voiced and recorded, they are satisfied and the impeachment vote can be cast with less concerns over any possible political impact back home.
- Blago Sphere - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:59 am:
{I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.}
I disagree. There is strong evidence that would support impeachment on many of the other charges.
The Senate seat and the disclosure of the wiretap conversations simply provided the political courage to remove or attempt to remove the Governor.
I think the arguments suggesting Emil Jones could have derailed articles of impeachment on his own, once they came over to the Senate is weak, and I think the procedural manner of the Chief Justice would appear to support that contention.
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
I seem to recall that Blago said he supported the recall amendment when it was proposed. First off, when looked at simplistically, an impeachment is a recall by legislators on behalf of the voters. No proof ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ is needed in either an impeachment or a recall.
Second, imagine the circus if we had a recall and it was being used against Blago. He’d be up there screaming about lack of due process, even though he supported the darn thing to begin with.
Can you
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:02 pm:
===I think most would agree that the case for impeachment, minus the wiretap testimony, is pretty weak.
The wiretap portion is the weak portion simply because it hasn’t all been put out there for impeachment. The general pattern of abuse of power is shocking if you read through it–and nothing we haven’t known about for some time.
Frankly, the biggest question it raises is why didn’t the Lege act sooner. We know that’s largely because of Emil Jones as Senate President, but the number of passes this guy got by ignoring JCAR, allocating monies without General Assembly authorization is mindboggling and a perfect case of what someone can do when they are willing to be this brazen.
Furthermore, the statements rests on the ignorance of most people about impeachment. Impeachment isn’t primarily a tool for removing an office holder for breaking criminal law, it’s a power to stop abuse of official power.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
===I think the arguments suggesting Emil Jones could have derailed articles of impeachment on his own, once they came over to the Senate is weak,===
Wrong again.
Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve.
- Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:06 pm:
Maybe Hendon and the others in the Senate who supported Blago on this stuff should be impeached too. Then we might be getting somewhere.
- Little Egypt - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:07 pm:
I’d like to see Blago go onto Don Imus’ radio show. Imus would shred Rod and probably use a few expletives in doing so.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:12 pm:
=====Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve=====
Gee, if so much power is concentrated in the hands of the Senate President, who can block all of this from happening, why doesn’t Illinois pass an amendment or hold a Con-Con?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:13 pm:
Smart of Hendon to say nice things about Fitzgerald.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:14 pm:
I forgot that words in brackets don’t publish. I made the last comment despite the risk of banishment, or worse, a “Bite me” from Rich.
- Irish - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:15 pm:
Chiatty - This is a slam dunk.
Let me give you a little background. This governor came on the scene as the reform governor. He initiated the new ethics rules that state employees have been living with for the last six years. Every year every state employee has to take an ethics test. In that test there are several scenerios and then questions about those scenerios. For every scenerio there is a page that flahes up on the screen with the following message on it. To paraphrase. ” Even if something is not illegal nor unethical, if it appears to be so in the public eye, then it is wrong and should not be done.” So Blago the informer is mandating that even the appearance of being unethical is wrong.
This ethics test is timed. You cannot do it too quickly nor can you take too long. There have been state employees whop have been disciplined for completing the test too quickly EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT ALL THE QUESTIONS CORRECT.
With that in mind take one charge; The Governor of the State of Illinois asks an individual to make a substantial donation to the Governor’s campaign fund, in exchange for the Governor giving that individual taxpayer dollars for his business, which is horse racing. Since campaign funds can be used for some personal use the Governor asked for money for himself, his own personal gain, in exchange for giving your and every other taxpayers money to this individual.
Remember the ethics test and ask yourself again if this case is weak.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:17 pm:
What’s the source for the Madigan quote? Was she quoted in the video? (I’m on an iPhone and can’t view the video.)
- puzzler - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:23 pm:
“If Emil or Madigan are denied a majority vote, what powers do they have?” None, unless you need funding for your next re-election campaign.
- Anonymous Coward - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
@Macbeth:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/01/ag-madigan-blagojevich-making-a-mockery-of-the-law.html
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
GROD “How would you like to be me?”
That could be another QOTD.
- tanstaafl - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
Has anyone noticed that RRB has admitted to some of the charges in the impeachment in the news events in NY? He has repeatedly stated he had to find ways “to go around the legislature” to enact some of his initiatives. This is a clear admission of abuse of power by ignoring the separation of powers.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:33 pm:
Maybe he will take a page from the Roland Burris playbook and try something like this:
He will make sure he is in his JRTC office when the conviction vote comes down, maybe with some of the people he claims to have helped. Lots of teevee cameras will be standing by to record his reaction when he is officially informed of his removal from office. He will then make one last defiant public statement similar to the Jan. 9 impeachment day press conference (I believe, the one where he dragged all those people on stage with him) before grimly, but peacefully, marching out of the office. (If it’s raining or snowing at the moment he leaves and he can give his Nixonian Last Press Conference while standing out in it, that’s even better)
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:37 pm:
Rich, are you saying Emil could have strong armed 20 Dems to vote to acquit?
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:41 pm:
Surgeon, Emil would never have allowed it to come to a vote. He would have never allowed the Senate to hold a trial at all, most likely.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:44 pm:
Hmmmmm, the concept of human shields was already used by Gov. B when he trotted out all those his policies helped in that ‘news conference’ Perhaps he will extend that to ‘defense’ of his office.
I maintain he will do something memorable as he is forced out of office, (if that actually happens…)
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Personally, I think it’s unlikely that he could have strong armed 20 senators to acquit. If that’s what’s being suggested as far as Emil “derailing” the process, then I disagree with that. I don’t see how he could have blocked the trial. He could have delayed it, and perhaps he could have excluded certain pieces of evidence or overruled the judge on hearing damning testimony, but not having the trial is not like bottling up a bill in the Rules committee. The trial is mandated by the constitution.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:54 pm:
=== The trial is mandated by the constitution.===
Yeah, but there’s no timeline.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:55 pm:
===- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 11:46 am: Jake, I think we set it at 3 a few weeks ago. Not sure if that’s right, though.===
I think I was the one making book on those bets. I can’t remember what I put the over/under at but I think it was around 4 or 5. Thats counting not voting or present votes.
- chiatty - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:56 pm:
The feds may well have a good “pay to play” case against Blago. They may well have enough smoke to suggest fire on the Senate Seat wiretaps. Neither of these cases is ready for trial and there are substantial questions of whether the senate seat stuff would ever rise to the level of criminal conduct. I understand that the level of proof for impeachment, when compared to the criminal burden of proof, is incredibly low. (My nickname here isn’t “effinghamfarmer” after all!) Technically speaking, the legislature could convict him on weak proof like the vaccine purchase and other silliness. My beef here is that the main charge is one that the governor has been prevented from meaninfully defending because the federal prosecutor is wisely not willing to undermine his case before it’s ready for trial. In another perverse bit of political theater, the legislature is assisting in making him look like a victim. Finally,despite what others have said, I don’t think that impeachment proceedings would have been brought without the wiretap scandal. The recall movement would have had a better chance of success. Now, the impeachment will be a breeze, because they get to fan the flames with the wiretap conversations and the rest of the “evidence” will be nothing more than window dressing.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:56 pm:
I did say he could have delayed it.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 12:59 pm:
I should add that I would bet against and take the under now that more has evolved in this circus.
- Anon from BB - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:00 pm:
Surgeon, read what Rich wrote at 12:05 p.m. Jones simply would have not convened the trial.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:01 pm:
Another good reason for Blago to be firmly planted in the JRTC office at the moment of the removal vote is to distract attention from Pat Quinn’s swearing in and any remarks he may make afterward.
The more I think about it, the more I think Blago doesn’t have to resist removal to the point of being arrested; as long as the cameras are rolling as he packs up his stuff, and there are a few, ahem, “supporters” there to shake his hand and hug him and thank him for all the “good” he’s done for them, etc., he’ll consider it an “up” day.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:03 pm:
Rich said that Jones would have derailed it. He never said that he would have never convened the trial. I’m curious to know how Rich feels Emil would have derailed it, if he’s so inclined to address the matter.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:05 pm:
===I’m curious to know how Rich feels Emil would have derailed it,===
By refusing to convene the trial. I thought I made that clear.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:16 pm:
While I agree with Rich that Emil could and would have delayed convening, I think there would be remedies for the Chief Justice to intervene under Article V, Section 6 (d). But I’m not a lawyer and we could probably spend all day debating this. We now have a willing Senate President so who cares?
- The Mad Hatter - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:17 pm:
Sen. Hendon should immediately recuse himself from voting in this trial. It’s obvious by his statements that he’s afraid Unindicted Official A-Rod will out him on the millions of dollars in “school contracts” given to Hendon’s campaign workers for schools that either never existed or were never open.
Also, don’t forget that Sen. Hendon was the guy who denied Illinois voters the opportunity to vote on a recall amendment when he gaveled proceedings to a close before a bill could be called.
He’s obviously covering his you-know-what so his buddy Gov. Elvis won’t point the finger when he’s dealing with the feds over how long his jail sentence will be.
I also love it that Hendon throws a prop to Fitzgerald, knowing that his time in the hot seat is just down the road.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
===Sen. Hendon should immediately recuse himself from voting in this trial===
Take a breath. Your speculation doesn’t make it a fact.
- Blago Sphere - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:29 pm:
{Wrong again.
Senate President Cullerton has said that the Prez convenes the trial, which is in agreement with Emil Jones’ view. He could’ve derailed it. And he would’ve.}
You are arguing politically. I am arguing constitutionally, and legally. I simply believe that the law and the constitution would ultimately prevail. Again, all that was lacking was the political will.
Senate President Cullerton and Senate President Jones can say whatever they wish about convening the Senate for the purpose of an Impeachment trial. That power comes from the Senate Rules however, which do not trump the Illinois Constitution.
If the House had investigated; voted on, and approved Articles of Impeachment which they believed warranted a trial in the Senate to consider removing the Governor from office, and no such trial was convened, it would not be solely up to the Senate President to determine how and when to proceed.
Despite the fact that the Senate President; under its adopted Rules, retains the power to convene the chamber and control the conduct of its business, the Senate President also guides and directs the proceedings of the Senate, subject to the control and will of the members.
The Senate President would have to have a majority vote with him (on a daily basis) and perhaps continuously, in order to prohibit convening for the purpose of considering the articles of impeachment.
While a Senator is elected and represents his district and is not subject to recall; the Senate President only remains in that position so long as a majority of members will agree to support him for the position.
While he may have been able to delay a Senate impeachment trial, I contend that he could not ultimately deny an impeachment trial. I do not believe that the Senate could even adjourn Sine Die, and disolve itself, without taking up the constitutional responsibility to conduct such a trial.
While there could have been some initial support for the Senate President to prohibit a trial from taking place, I believe he would have ultimately been removed from the position of President had he done so, or had his power to convene the Senate for this purpose over-ridden by the Constitution.
Just as the House lacked the political will to advance the Articles of Impeachment prior to the Governor’s arrest, they also lacked the political will to place Senators in the position of having to remove their elected President, if that’s what would be required in order for them to conduct an impeachment trial.
Some (or all) may disagree, but I believe that had the Articles of Impeachment been voted out of the House, there would have been a trial, even if it meant removing the Senate President, because by being complicit in not otherwise doing so, Senators would have been in violation of their constitutional oath.
The Illinois Constitution stipulates that Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. As a consequence the Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial should Articles of Impeachment as approved by the House be sent to them, and the conduct of such a trial is not optional. If this were the case; and the House and Senate were controlled by opposing political parties, then the party that controls the Senate would be allowed to to preserve and protect the office of the Governor of the same political party, despite him having been impeached by a majority of elected representatives in the House.
I believe the conduct of such a trial would have also been enforceable through civil action pursued by a private citizen in a court of law, and the Supreme Court could have imposed the constitutional duty to conduct the trial on the Senate, irrespective of the opposition of its President to doing so.
Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.
Call me cuckoo if you must, but I still believe in the rule of law and the rights, dutues, and responsibilities of both citizens and elected and appointed governmental representatives which are afforded and imposed by the constitution.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:30 pm:
=== Hendon said other senators share his concerns but are afraid to be vocal about it in the current political climate. ===
Impeachment is afterall a political process, but I surely hope Senator Hendon will follow his conscience and vote NO, if that’s how he really feels.
And while your at it Senator, give us the names of the other Senators who feel as you do! They deserve to be rewarded for standing up for their convictions right along with you!
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:32 pm:
===Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.====
You’re new to Illinois, aren’t you? lol
- Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 1:35 pm:
===Attorney General Lisa Madigan hits it out of the park…===
The governor has set a beach ball on a tee. My 8-year-old could hit that out of the park.
- Blago Sphere - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 2:11 pm:
{===Niether the absence of political will, nor the brute force of political power in the Senate can overcome the force of law, and the duties required under the Constitution.====
You’re new to Illinois, aren’t you? lol}
No, lived here all my life.
You are still arguing based on political grounds and have ignored the statutory and constitutional grounds.
I agree with you about what may have been attempted politically. I believe that it would be overcome legally, but you have not expressed an opinion on the law or the constitution and how it would have applied to this matter.
Intentionally; or un-intentionally, this has the effect of giving aid and comfort to those without the political to act.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 2:14 pm:
===In another perverse bit of political theater, the legislature is assisting in making him look like a victim. Finally,despite what others have said, I don’t think that impeachment proceedings would have been brought without the wiretap scandal. The recall movement would have had a better chance of success. Now, the impeachment will be a breeze, because they get to fan the flames with the wiretap conversations and the rest of the “evidence” will be nothing more than window dressing.
The only people who seem to think he is a victim are Rod Blagojevich, Geraldo and Neil Cavuto. We can have a contest to see which one is more disconnected from reality, but that doesn’t make it representative.
The fact that the General Assembly refused to act previously and has been shamed into acting finally isn’t an argument against impeachment, it’s an argument that impeachment should have happened sooner.
Spending money not authorized by the General Assembly is the definition of abuse of power for which impeachment was created.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 2:42 pm:
Life without Blago begins. Madigan has already got his vehicle bill to delay the budget address for Pat Quinn in House Executive committee next week.
- grategul - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 8:50 pm:
Remember
a Liberal will do anything
to really do nothing
Do you taxpayers Understand ????
This Has and will only be about
a BIG PAYBACK / against previous
Administrations
Take advantage of every everything
and Make it appear as YOU are Serving
the Public / taxpayer
Really you are only concerned
about YOURSELF
NOT a REAL PUBLIC SERVANT !!!!!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 27, 09 @ 8:56 pm:
Grategul, thanks for clearing all that up. What was it again?