Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Deb Mell and impeachment - Give her a break *** UPDATED x1 ***
Next Post: Gov. Blagojevich and “the truth”
Posted in:
* Ed Genson is blowing more smoke. This time it’s about the Senate’s impeachment trial rules…
The governor’s lawyer, Edward Genson, says the rules are “rigged” in favor of impeachment, and it is certainly true they are stacked against the governor — as are the facts, of course.
Yeah, OK.
The Illinois Senate’s rules are almost identical to the US Senate’s rules for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Clinton was not convicted under those very same rules.
Rigged? Hardly.
* Genson will try to delay, delay, delay, but the Senate will have none of it. Here’s the schedule…
Saturday, January 17, 2009:
*(12:00 noon) Governor to file his appearance and answer to article of impeachment.Tuesday, January 20, 2009:
*(4:00 p.m.) Governor to file motion to dismiss, if any, under Senate Impeachment Rule 14.
*(4:00 p.m.) House Prosecutor to file reply to Governor’s answer to article of impeachment.Wednesday, January 21, 2009:
*(4:00 p.m.) All parties to file requests, if any, under Senate Impeachment Rule 15.Friday, January 23, 2009:
*(4:00 p.m.) House Prosecutor to file response to any motion to dismiss under Senate Impeachment Rule 14.Saturday, January 24, 2009:
*(10:00 a.m.) All parties to file responses to requests, if any, under Senate Impeachment Rule 15.
The trial will begin on the 26th.
The only hope Genson has is if a court steps in and declares the procedure or our Constitution unconstitutional under the federal system. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but it’s highly doubtful that a judge will stop this trial or throw out the results.
* Speaking of over the top, check out this op-ed in the Tribune today…
In the tragedy surrounding Gov. Rod Blagojevich, one person’s culpability has been entirely overlooked—U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald’s. He poisoned the water, resulting in a tsunami of national condemnation of the governor.
A former Justice Department official, Victoria Toensing, has written that “Mr. Fitzgerald violated the ethical requirement of the Justice Department guidelines that prior to a trial a ‘prosecutor shall refrain from making extrajudicial comments that pose a serious and imminent threat of heightening public condemnation of the accused.’ ” Fitzgerald’s inflammatory comments at his Dec. 9 news conference—where he stated that Blagojevich’s conduct was “appalling” and that he had gone on a “political corruption crime spree”—were entirely out of bounds. And Fitzgerald should never have permitted Robert Grant, special agent in charge of Chicago’s FBI office, to say to the media that “If [Illinois] isn’t the most corrupt state in the United States, it’s certainly one hell of a competitor.”
We are reminded, similarly, that the Durham, N.C., Police Department posted a bulletin declaring Duke University lacrosse players “criminals,” and we need say no more about the extrajudicial and prejudicial comments by then-prosecutor Mike Nifong.
I think I was the first Illinois reporter to point out that Fitzgerald was over the line. But comparing his comments to Nifong’s misdeeds is a bit much.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Deb Mell and impeachment - Give her a break *** UPDATED x1 ***
Next Post: Gov. Blagojevich and “the truth”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Ms. Toensing has pursued an aggressive agenda against Patrick Fitzgerald for years, most specifically in relation to the Scooter Libby case. So it’s no surprise that she is doing everything she can to dirty Fitzgerald’s reputation in the Blagojevich case.
To point out that she is a “former Justice Department official” obscures the fact that she is a highly partisan Republican who is on a mission to damage Fitzgerald personally. Nothing she said about the Libby case had any effect and her efforts were wasted there. Nothing she says about the Blagojevich case will make any difference either.
Comment by Some Other Bill Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 9:48 am
Toensing’s one to talk… Has she helped cover up the outing of any more CIA agents lately?
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 9:56 am
SOB (that doesn’t sound right)-
As irritating as Toensing can be, she (and Rich and others) do have a point. Prosecutors should be “just the facts, ma’am”. There is no need to put prosecutorial spin and opinion on a case, as the facts and a fair trial will give their efforts all the attention they deserve.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 9:59 am
Yes, because before Pat Fitzgerald held his news conference, nobody had any idea the governor was engaging in corrupt actions. We were all shocked. SHOCKED, and disgusted that the governor we thought so highly of had done such things.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:02 am
Anon 10:02! You hit the nail right on the head.
Time for the Democratic spinmeisters to stop the spinning and simply say to the Illinois voting public: “We screwed up by supporting him.”
But that will never happen.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:10 am
I am not surprised that he would use the word “rigged”. It’s a word the Governor is all too familiar with.
Comment by Joe in the Know Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:17 am
No one paying any attention would have been surprised by anything Blago did or was accused of doing, although he really does set a new standard of some kind. Still, prosecutors should refrain from the editorial comments and try the case in the courtroom. I do think publicly criticizing a well known elected official is less of a problem than having the prosecutor publicly tee off on some lesser known suspect or defendant who is not in a position to vent their own side of things in a similar way.
Comment by Excessively rabid Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:18 am
Illinois’ state’s attorneys are barred from talking about the specifics of pending cases for just that reason - not to muddy the waters before going to trial. Not surprising that the same would be true for the Feds.
Comment by Deep South Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:24 am
People consistently refer to rules being same as Clinton impeachment, but let’s not forget that Republicans dominated congress in ‘98-99. The U.S. Senate Rules had a certain partisan bent.
Comment by FlackerBacker Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:27 am
The feds have enormous power to mess you up; they don’t need to put on a song-and-dance act in their press conferences.
It’s off-putting, but not the biggest deal in the world.
Let’s not forget the MSM culpability in the Duke case. The national ABC newscast led with that story every night for a week. They went out of their way to stir up racial tensions on campus.
Any old cop reporter (which I am) could have told you from the get-go that the case as reported was weak at best, and that the prosecutor’s motives in proceeding so quickly and forcefully was suspicious, at best.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:29 am
Rich, it is my opinion that you are sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth. The fact is as you originally pointed out — that the US Attorney crossed a line at that press conference. The Nifong comparison is relevant here. Nobody should be tried in the media before they recceive their day in court. Is it even possible for the governor to have an impartial jury in this state? If not, isnt it in large part due to the inflammatory comments made at the press conference by the US Attorney and his Lieutenants?
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:30 am
I thought that Fitzgerald held back well at the news conference considering how Blagoofy taunted him in the media the day before his arrest.
Comment by Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:30 am
===Is it even possible for the governor to have an impartial jury in this state? If not, isnt it in large part due to the inflammatory comments===
LOL. He couldn’t have gotten a truly fair trial without those comments. C’mon, he had a 13 percent approval rating before he was arrested. That’s almost ten points lower than GRyan’s lowest point.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:34 am
Dan S., let’s not forget that the Gov’s people also tried to get Fitz fired. I’m sure that had something to do with his anger.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:39 am
Is she comparing Nifong’s misdeeds to Fitzgerald? I think she is comparing the Fitzgerald to the police department’s specific action of calling the team “criminals.”
She’s being rather lawerly, don’t you think? Rich draws a conclusion (ie Fitzgerald = Nifong). But when you read her words closely she isn’t making that comparison. What we believe after reading — which I think Rich gets to — well… convenient isn’t it?
Comment by Greg Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:45 am
Whether it’s Fitz’s remarks or Blago’s appointment of Burris, I think some overstate either’s ability to influence the jury pool.
Plenty of folks don’t pay attention to current events at all. I remember when Ollie North went on trial, hIs people said he couldn’t get a fair trial because of media coverage and his Senate testimony.
They found plenty of people in DC who didn’t have any idea who North was. At the height of the scandal reporters asked Joe Gibbs, coach of the Redskins, what he thought about the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings. Old Joe didn’t have a clue who North or Pointdexter were. But he knew how to put together an offensive game plan.
To paraphrase Twain, having the 12 admittedly most ignorant people in town decide someone’s fate is a rather curious system.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:56 am
There is a good legal case for throwing SuperFitz off the prosecution team for shooting off his unusually big mouth in an attempt to poison the jury pool. Still no indictment. Must be a pretty weak case,Super! I figured it would be Genson who would be stalling. Instead its the Feds.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 10:59 am
I thought Fitzgerald was rather emotional after Blagojevich’s arrest. He said things that were beyond the facts, and I didn’t like that. On the other hand, Fitzgerald didn’t taint the process by doing this. It was tainted by the Governor.
If Blagojevich was a pyro and started a fire, it would not be appropriate for the prosecutor to describe the fire emotionally as a “towering inferno”, yet it would be nit-picking to complain about it.
Comparing Fitzgerald to Nifong is just as emotional a statement since Mike Nifong had become a huge injustice scandal.
Genson’s comments don’t even rise to a kerfuffle level. It has become very clear over the past month that he is as out of his element as old Jessica Fletcher would be if she were the referee to an extreme fighting cage match; distinguished, but inconsequential.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 11:08 am
Bill - I can’t wait to see your reaction to the incitement when it comes out, I think it’s going to be packed full of juicy stuff unmentioned in the criminal complaint.
The criminal complaint was obviously a rush reaction to the news coming out about the wiretaps and just went over the highlights. The big queue of people going to see Fitzgerald have surely padded that baby out.
Comment by Barnum and Blago Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 11:31 am
Will the Senate impeachment hearings be open to the public to attend? Sorry if this was already addressed, but I’m interested. Thank you.
Comment by Apple Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 11:46 am
Fitzgerald did not replicate Nifong’s statements. But, reading these comments, I think most people agree that he seemed angry — whether because of the conduct he was going to be prosecuting or because of the Governor’s challenge the day before. That anger got the best of him at that press conference. It was not his finest moment, and others are right to shine a light on it.
Comment by Marco Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 11:56 am
While I agree that Fitzgerald may have gone too far in his comments about the Guv, don’t you think the only reason that he did so is because he knows he has got GROD by the proverbial short hairs?
Comment by Magic Dragon Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 12:31 pm
What is the oldest profession?
A physician, an engineer, and an attorney were discussing who among them belonged to the oldest of the three professions represented. The physician said, “Remember, on the sixth day God took a rib from Adam and fashioned Eve, making him the first surgeon. Therefore, medicine is the oldest profession.”
The engineer replied, “But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos and confusion, and thus he was the first engineer. Therefore, engineering is an older profession than medicine.”
Then, the lawyer spoke up. “Yes,” he said, “But who do you think created all of the chaos and confusion?”
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 12:37 pm
“Rigged” like so many Illinois Tollway contracts…..
Comment by Wacker Drive Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 12:49 pm
Fitzgerald’s being tossed off the case (if that happens), doesn’t mean the case won’t be prosecuted by someone else any less zealously.
I do wonder how the Senate will handle any requests for additional time by Blagojevich.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 2:20 pm
===I do wonder how the Senate will handle any requests for additional time by Blagojevich.===
I’m pretty sure they plan to handle it by saying “No.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 2:21 pm
I don’t see any time limits for the actual presentation of the Governor’s defense. Is that elsewhere in the rules?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 3:51 pm
(I followed the link and looked at the whole schedule.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 3:52 pm
Pot, this doesn’t really answer your question, but I believe all the governor has to do is deny the allegations (articles), thereby making the Senate attorney (prosecutor) prove the allegations. It would be during cross-examination of any prosecution witnesses that the governor would attempt to knock down that testimony.
I’m just guessing as I’m not a lawyer.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 5:44 pm
So, no defense. Just deny.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 5:45 pm
===thereby making the Senate attorney (prosecutor) prove the allegations===
The allegation is that the overwhelming, accumulated evidence points to abuse of power. That is not difficult to prove at all.
He gone.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 5:47 pm
The Duke case involved three young men, private citizens, with no previous criminal records, being accused of rape by one woman whose story proved not to be credible.
The Blago case involves a public official who has been under federal investigation for several years and repeatedly accused of wrongdoing by dozens — perhaps hundreds — of people, most of whose stories have proven to be credible.
While Blago is, of course, innocent of specific charges until proven guilty and is entitled to defend himself, the notion that some kind of “rush” to judgement is taking place here baffles me. These charges didn’t just come out of a clear blue sky against someone who previously had a sterling reputation. They were merely the first visible flames to appear after years of thickening ethical smoke.
Comment by Bookworm Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 5:53 pm
I’m just wondering what the Senate will do if Gensen decides to have a 10 week defense. Not sure how he would fill the time…
I would guess that the Senate has a rule to prevent that that is not reflected in the timeline. If no such rule exists, they would, I’m sure, pass one if necessary.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 6:14 pm
===I’m just wondering what the Senate will do if Gensen decides to have a 10 week defense===
The Senate will say “No.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 15, 09 @ 11:10 pm