He believes he'll be vindicated? Wow. He really is delusional. He'll need to be put on suicide watch with this level of thinking, because the moment it's punctured and reality trickles in, he'll likely make an attempt to harm himself (and/or others).

Here's how I take Emanuel talking to the governor about the vacant seat. I am, apparently, quite flirtatious. I have no idea that I am doing this. I'm just being friendly. So, I frequently have conversations that I later find out were interpreted in an entirely different fashion than I intended them.

Blaggy could have been hinting at Rahmbo that he wanted to be paid for the seat. Rahmbo, oblivious to this, could have interpreted these remarks as being odd, but not criminal.

Or, Blaggy knew Rahmbo's reputation and didn't want to try it on him, so his conversations with Rahmbo could have been entirely on the level, while he was trying to sell the seat to someone else.

We don't know, because we weren't there.

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of the courts removing the governor from power. Let the democratic process work: the legislature will impeach him soon enough, or he'll resign.

This isn't exactly an emergency, the way it might be in the case of the president, who has the power to start wars. Worst case scenario, Illinois has to be embarrassed by Blago for another month or however long it takes it to be impeached. That's not compelling enough to justify what the AG is trying to do.

jeebus,

It also crosses the line from due process to personal vendetta.

There has never been a situation like this with such blatant and clear intention to abuse power and exploit to the point of extravagant corruption/bribery.

Due process is critical, but I can't find one reason why he should be able to continue to collect salary after learning this.

...the governor told the pastors he believes he'll be "vindicated."

Sociopath.

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of the courts removing the governor from power. Let the democratic process work: the legislature will impeach him soon enough, or he'll resign.

Posted by: jeebus on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM |

Allow me to second this position. The decision to remove a person from elected office is a political decision, not a legal one. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the State Legislature to do it. The Supreme Court should have nothing to do with it.

There is nothing in the Illinois Constitution that requires impeachment to be a long drawn out affair. The House, as well as the Senate, could impeach Blago by unanimous consent based on the public information if they so desired.

The AG's motion is just a stunt, and hopefully, the court will expose as such by quickly rejecting it out of hand.

"It's not clear what this means, and the point can't be made often enough that it would be really odd if the Obama team was not talking to Blagojevich about the seat."

Someone should explain that to Axelrod.

The most obvious explanation, based on facts to date, is that Obama, Emmanuel and Blagojevich were discussing political deals, and Obama and Emmanuel became aware that Blagojevich wanted cash. What everyone said before Obama and Emmanuel realized they were being shaken down may be on tape, and may sound bad.

Blagojevich might think he'll be vindicated because he believes he has incriminating evidence against others, or believes that he was entrapped. It's possible that there are so many Democratic legislators involved that they are afraid to bring impeachment proceedings.

Fitzgerald has a strong reputation for competence, persistence, and probity. If he thinks Blagojevich is guilty of crimes, then I expect he'll nail him like he nailed Libby.

The House, as well as the Senate, could impeach Blago by unanimous consent based on the public information if they so desired.

I'm sure at this point there would be strong public support for such a move. But are you sure that they don't have rules they have to follow? And think of the precedent: impeaching a governor based on an arrest by a federal prosecutor when none of the evidence has been heard by a jury and none of the witnesses has been cross-examined. Is that really a good idea? We have only heard the parts of the tapes that the prosecutor has deigned to release -- sounds bad, but the defense attorneys will certainly assert their client's right to examine each tape in its entirety.

If Blagojevich really believes he'll be vindicated(which is what he seems to believe), he has an ethical obligation to try to remain in office. We are not really a country that believes that the accused should give up when the press reports part of a prosecution's case.

On what basis does he feel he'll be vindicated? It's not enough that he simply "feels or imagines" this.

I have yet to hear one iota of evidence that he would be vindicated. In light of what we all now know, The onus is on him to indicate just precisely how believes he possibly could be "vindicated".

We have yet to find one reason why he shouldn't be removed from office, and a hundred and one why he should.

We are talking about the senate seat in Chicago here. We are talking about the nation's integrity.
We are talking about not colluding with those we clearly know are absolutely wrong-headed and does not have the best interests of the U.S. citizens involved. That's putting it mildly, actually.

And think of the precedent: impeaching a governor based on an arrest by a federal prosecutor when none of the evidence has been heard by a jury and none of the witnesses has been cross-examined. Is that really a good idea?

I think the standard should be this: is there enough unambiguous, indisputable evidence of wrongdoing to warrant his removal? This would be a distinct question from whether there is enough evidence to convict him of a crime or not. Assuming the tapes we've heard about aren't, like, fakes, the Illinois legislature could reasonably conclude that Blago deserved impeachment on the basis of what was in the tapes. Leave it to a jury to decide whether he is criminally liable.

I actually think the argument that Blogy can't function as Governor and should be removed by the Supreme Court has more validity than he is impeachable. We don't have FitzG's evidence yet and I suspect that FitzG moved too soon on Blogy to distract us from Republic Windows and Doors and Bank of America getting $35 Bil for the purpose of keeping companies in business, then cutting the money going to Republic.

I think it's entirely possible that Madigan's move is just a head fake. Just one more pressure point applied to Blago, to make him reconsider and stop digging his heels in. It signals that "we'll get you, *one way or another* and no amount of prayer will help you"

It is, therefore, the responsibility of the State Legislature to do it. The Supreme Court should have nothing to do with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this wouldn't have happened at all, if the State Legislature hadn't seen a need for the AG and Supreme Court to take such actions, and enacted a law permitting it.
No?

Blago's approval rating in the state was down in single digits before his arrest. Illinois is in the middle of a budget crisis and Blago is totally unable to work with the legislature. There's no criterion in the IL Constitution for why a governor can be impeached; all it takes is a majority of the House saying he's impeached. And all it takes is a 2/3 majority of the Senate to then remove him from office. In other words, there's nothing like the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause in the US Constitution that has to be satisfied; the legislature can remove him from office because they don't like his taste in ties if they can get the required majorities.

There is a huge breach of legal detail that is blasted ranted and continuously broad casted in the cable medium. This is the perfect example of America’s problem with wild ranting on cable news. All adding to the chaos and avoiding a whole lot of deep issues that are loaded with the basic corruption.

The two examples are flipping between Blagojevich and Union busting, the Unions are painted as the cause of America’s economic melt down. And the association by the news medium that are not discussing it fairly. Here, Blagojevich has not even appeared before a judge or jury to hear his side of the story. This is just like Wild West hanging, throw a rope around the guy’s neck and hang him. Likely what Bush and Company wants done. For me, there is more than just some so called crime spree going on. This absolute out of control grandstanding with the three main cable networks that are prosecuting, judging, convicting, and governing the electorate.

For me if one can, like the attorney general of Illinois just move forward ignoring the due process, and don’t care about due process. We the people should realize that perhaps the right is right. Obama, wants to get rid of gitmo in gitmo at least there was jail time if not due process. But here we have a complete break down in Constitutional Law. To me, it looks more like Gitmo maybe closed but it has expanded to all of America.

Imagine all this chaos just from telephone conversations, for me which means if the mainstream media is complicit with the Bush Machine as it does sound just a few minutes ago Chris Mathews is giving the news story that an Asian Indian group is collecting money for Jesse Jackson Jr. . How does Mathews Know this?

That should be some tightly held information by the FBI. Don’t you think? Mathews just raised the anti in this political game actually for me Mathew is a star witness that should be called to the public investigation. Hey who told Mathews about such insider information?

Check this out from the Illinois Constitution which has rights that have been breach profoundly by all the major networks.

SECTION 8.1. CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS.
(a) Crime victims, as defined by law, shall have the
following rights as provided by law:
(1) The right to be treated with fairness and
respect for their dignity and privacy throughout the
criminal justice process.
(2) The right to notification of court proceedings.
(3) The right to communicate with the prosecution.
(4) The right to make a statement to the court at
sentencing.
(5) The right to information about the conviction,
sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.
(6) The right to timely disposition of the case
following the arrest of the accused.
(7) The right to be reasonably protected from the
accused throughout the criminal justice process.
(8) The right to be present at the trial and all
other court proceedings on the same basis as the accused,
unless the victim is to testify and the court determines
that the victim's testimony would be materially affected
if the victim hears other testimony at the trial.
(9) The right to have present at all court
proceedings, subject to the rules of evidence, an
advocate or other support person of the victim's choice.
(10) The right to restitution.
(b) The General Assembly may provide by law for the
enforcement of this Section.
(c) The General Assembly may provide for an assessment
against convicted defendants to pay for crime victims'
rights.
(d) Nothing in this Section or in any law enacted under
this Section shall be construed as creating a basis for
vacating a conviction or a ground for appellate relief in any
criminal case.
(Source: Amendment adopted at general election November 3,
1992.)

All I know is that Demi Moore is going to Lisa Madigan in the upcoming Oliver Stone movie, "Bla-Go."

The Illinois law allowing the state Supreme Court to temporarily remove the gov was designed for medical emergencies that might incapacitate the gov. It wasn't meant for political incapacitation, which Madigan can't supply proof of anyway. For all we know, Blago is acting so abnormally right now he might actually come up with a good idea or two. Madigan is trying to look important and failing.

"...who abandoned the seat as he prepares to enter the White House."

abandoned?!? Interesting choice of words there.

Guess "resigned" just didn't capture the nuance quite right ... >: [

This is a case of a lawmaker being "above the law."

It's called trespassing. I mean that literally.

It's time we change the law to reflect this.

If I went on a business property, and they didn't want me there, as a patron or worker, the cops would be called and I'd be arrested.

In the military, they have dishonorable discharges.

Blago won't quit - why gee, interesting. GOP wants to take away workers rights by the way of Unions, but, they don't want to quit or stepdown?

I have no doubt that Blogo is a sleazeball, but isn't there a little legal matter of being innocent until proven guilty?