41 Comments - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:03 pm: I voted disagree. Why should Democrats whack one of their own when national Republicans are protecting Trump at all costs? - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:06 pm: Generally disagree with dumping someone based on accusations without a hearing to allow the presentation of evidence and a defense. - DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:17 pm: I voted disagree. He has not been found guilty of anything. As said allegations are just allegations. However he should have to give up any chairmanships. - Responsa - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:19 pm: House members are going to be asked and asked about this and they pretty much have to come up with an answer of some sort. It’s probably much safer (and in their own self interest in the long run) for them to take a hard line than a mushy line or neutral line against corruption. - independent - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:19 pm: I voted disagree he hasnt been convicted of any wrong doing Yet its innocent till proven guilty as i recall - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:21 pm: ===He has not been found guilty of anything=== Nixon wasn’t found guilty of anything and he quit. - Nobodys Accountable - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:22 pm: I voted disagree. A person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Maybe there could be a committee created called ‘Committee of the Accused’, with the current legislator facing the worst accusations being chairman. Chairman could obviously change at a moments notice. We as Illinoisans could celebrate the days and have a daily count as to when the committee was ‘empty’. Like at a factory that counts the days since the last accident. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:23 pm: I agreed. His only possible defense to keep his job was “I didn’t do anything wrong and this is a smear.” He didn’t have that available so he should go one way or the other. - Nick Name - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:24 pm: ===Why should Democrats whack one of their own when national Republicans are protecting Trump at all costs?=== We’re not like them. - 32nd warder - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:25 pm: i voted disagree. Rich, I counter your example with the example of LaShawn Ford. He was accused, yet found to have done no wrong. I would also add Aaron Schock, who ultimately had charges dropped. - Just Sayin' - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:25 pm: Just because there could possibly be a legal defense doesn’t detract from the fact the feds have him on tape offering a bribe and delivering the check for the bribe. That’s in violation of ethics rules regardless if there is a legal defense that would get him out of a criminal charge. I voted “agree”. - Poster #37 - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:26 pm: The residents of his district deserve effective representation. If his fellow legislators believe he is incapable of effectively representing his district then it is their best interest for him to be removed and replaced with a representative who can. Our government has three branches, this isn’t the judicial one. - Anon - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:27 pm: Agree. There are lines. At the most extreme, if someone was found with a bloody knife over a dead body, it’s probably OK to pass judgment prior to conviction… Particularly when no extenuating circumstances seem to exist. - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:29 pm: “LaShawn Ford. He was accused, yet found to have done no wrong” Actually he plead guilty to a lesser misdemeanor tax charge. https://abc7chicago.com/politics/lashawn-ford–pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor/239256/ - Notorious RBG - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:34 pm: Agree. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard. Plus, these allegations have to do with his official actions as a legislator. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:39 pm: There is process vs. politics. The reason impeachment or expulsion is in the constitution as a punishment reasoned by legislative bodies is that policing those governing must include rational thoughts outside judicial restraints. Voted Agree. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:39 pm: Voted agree. If that is what they want to do it is legal and well within their prerogative as a legislative body. I suspect the news-gazette and other right wingers who said “no” are trying to set up their defense of Trump. - City Zen - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:40 pm: I voted agree, but only because the first Facebook-like comment referenced Trump. - Steve B - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:41 pm: Are you kidding me??????? Was the recoring from someone else. Of course I agree. - Wiley Coyote - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:42 pm: I would tend to disagree but I also had plenty of time to deal with Arroyo. Nothing surprises me. - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:43 pm: Agree. If this relays the message that serious and clear allegations of venal corruption won’t be tolerated from public officials, that strikes me as the right approach. For those who disagree, would you rather he continue to serve under these circumstances? - Steve - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:45 pm: I voted yes. He was charged with serious crimes. If the Illinois House wants that standard : it’s up to them. Others may face the same standard also. - Agreed - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:46 pm: Standard required for losing your job is just preponderance of evidence; this isn’t putting him in jail, which would require beyond reasonable doubt… - Occasional Quipper - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:46 pm: Voted Agree. Just Sayin’ @4:25pm said it best. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:52 pm: Voted agree. I don’t think the feds are lying about having him on tape bribing a State Senator. I would have to look at Sen Cullerton’s indictment more, but it seems likely the same considerations should apply to him too. - SSL - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:11 pm: Voted agree. This wasn’t a criminal trial. That’s coming. This is simply telling the man he doesn’t work here anymore. - Anon E Moose - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:12 pm: “Standard required for losing your job is just preponderance of evidence” Actually, no. - Leave a light on George - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:14 pm: I agree with the Dems. They voted him out of a job. They are not the jury in his criminal trial. Two different standards all together. - Lurkin' MBA - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:05 pm: I agree. People usually do not own the jobs they hold. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:27 pm: Agree. Impeachment, or ejection in this case, is a political decision that has nothing to do with the judicial process. He may or may not have committed a crime but he was injudicious enough to create a foul odor in the house. That is sufficient reason to see him gone. The State owes him nothing. - Habla English? - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:37 pm: Agree. He was caught on a wire. He didn’t object. - DIstant watcher - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:45 pm: There are only 177 legislators. They spend a lot of time together and have a good general sense of who they are, especially after a few terms. They’ve also seen a few prosecutions from seats with a pretty good view. So when charges come public, they can usually discern how serious the charges are and how credible. And they can then decide if they trust the accused or not. It’s a political decision, and they’re well qualified to make it. - Winderweezle - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:57 pm: Agree. When its overwhelmingly apparent that a legislator is a bad actor the body must take immediate action to protect the integrity and preserve whatever public trust is left. This isn’t a phoned in anonymous complaint. This evidence is as good as admitted in any court in the country. Buh bye. - Just Saying - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 7:29 pm: Cast the first Stone - Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 9:02 pm: Voted disagree. But the whole lot of em are only worried about political standing. Not what is right or wrong. - Just Me - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 10:44 pm: Yes, the standards for public office are different than criminal proceedings. Blagojevich was impeached before he was convicted. The evidence against Arroyo is overly compelling. - Jimmy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 11:50 pm: Agree because this is not just an accusation, this is an indictment supported by probable cause. - dying HDO - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 7:53 am: voted agreed. if he did what is on those transcripts, and he fails to explain how this is all a huge misunderstanding, he is an awful public servant and needs to go. i understand he has the right to remain silent, but that’s for his criminal case. as a public servant, he owes his constituents more. - NIref - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 8:19 am: Had Arroyo refused to resign, he would have faced a formal inquiry. At that point, evidence would have to be disclosed to the voting body so that they could render a sound decision. So, force him out on the basis of a probable cause search, or have a public expulsion inquiry that affirms the evidence. Either way, Arroyo loses. - MadManMad - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 10:49 am: Agree with the caveat that they should do the same for anyone accused of/arrested for wrongdoing if evidence shows it to be true. Regardless of whether a trial is held yet. - Nanker Phelge - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 11:07 am: I agree with editorial. An American principle is “innocent until proven guilty.” Sadly, we have lost sight of that principle. I voted disagree. I voted disagree. While it might be within the rules/laws for the House to take such action, I think all Americans ought to be treated equally and we (at least in principle) are innocent Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.