Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't those "armed guards" be the same ones that Reid refused to use to enforce subpoenas against obstructing Bushies?

I'm leaning towards the view that Burris is a legally appointed Senator and there are no valid grounds for refusing him a seat. The legislature in Illinois refused to act before the appointment was named - this is on them.

He can attend, but is only allowed to stand up until the election.

Not being from Illinois, I hadn't heard of Roland Burris until a few days ago. What little I have heard about him since has often included some allusion to his relatively clean record of public service.

Well, I don't know what kind of standards we should be using, but Burris strikes me as a complete jack-ass. He is clearly all too happy to throw the racism card down, despite it being a ridiculous canard and hard to argue considering Obama's own opposition to his appointment. That he would consider showing up to take the oath of office knowing the huge spectacle it would create makes it plain that he is willing to sacrifice his career in public service and his reputation in a fool's pursuit of an office he will never hold with any legitimacy, regardless of the legerdemain he uses to get the seat.

This whole thing is completely ridiculous. Just follow the damn law. Yes, it's slow but has this country just collectively forgotten all about the Bill of Rights? I guess it seems like a "quaint" formality after 8 years of Bush, but damn, I hoped that Obama would restore the rule of law and notions like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process." Blagojevich hasn't been impeached and is well within his rights to appoint this guy. Any allegation that Burris bought his seat is a personal slander against Burris, and he should demand that people either indict him or stop saying it. The racism accusation is ridiculous and unnecessary, but not illegal. I don't know where the Senate or Obama get off trying to prevent someone they apparently respect from taking the seat.

Burris's "relatively clean record" includes pushing for the execution of a man who turned out to be innocent.

And yes, jello-spine Harry is going to be utilizing the same law enforcers who should have been enforcing subpoenas. We need a Senate majority leader with a real spine.

If Reid has a real spine, next time he mentions the Burris mess he'll threaten to use the same force to stop Norm Coleman from being seated if there's even a hint that he might win one of his nuisance suits -- if only to set the wingnuts off for another round of frothy, pseudo-rabid ranting.

[That will be the last time you post something like that if you want to continue commenting here. -Mod]

paraphrasing Burris and Rush, Who represents Illinois during Obama's first months in office?

Blago will be impeached and removed from office by Valentine's Day? We can hope, I suppose. But Burris will still be the junior senator from Illinois, unless he is impeached also -- but has he committed impeachable offenses?

Paraphrasing David Broder, it's a national spectacle from the majority party in the world's greatest deliberative body. And it isn't even Bush's fault.

It's irrelevant to the discussion, but Burris obviously suffers from a severe personality disorder. W

hat other kind of appointment would we expect from Blago?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Roland_Burriss_Monument_to_Me.html?showall

Sheesh. Let Burris do his legally appointed job and just refuse to caucus with him. Is it really that difficult? I realize that Democrats want to avoid the appearance of being a culture of corruption like the GOP is, but this is taking it much too far. Armed guards to keep him out? That's just ridiculous.

Making a big deal of this is going to piss off the public and the media will have another field day.

It is understandable to delay Burris in principle for awhile, but it would be irrational and unfair to ultimately deny him just for the spite that Blago picked him. If the guy is qualified, if we could say "he is a good pick anyway", then only a foolish ad hominem emotional reaction would be revealed by getting in his way. Is anyone thinking this through? Look how it makes Democrats look bad, it helps the unfair but easily advantaged prejudice meme etc. However I must say, I am less sympathetic to Burris than before just for the very reason, he's jerking that race card a bit.

media will have another field day.

This is a lose-lose situation. If you seat him the media will focus on Burris' clients who got funding with the help of Blagojevich.

Love the racial slurs. Burris and Rush are right about race being an issue. That much is clear.

This is a lose-lose situation.

Unfortunately, it really is. Thank you so fucking much, Milorad R. Blagojevich. My hope is that the Senate Dems will not make a bad situation worse; that they'll soon complete the necessary--and it really was politically necessary--sound-and-light show of protest and seat Burris with as many highly visible and vocal explanations as possible as to why they have to do this. That won't shut up the GOP's "look how Dems protect Blago" or the MSM's profound stupidity, but we do what we can. Then we start working on strong primary challengers for 2010, because I highly doubt Roland will get out of the way in two years regardless of what he said two days ago.

Hey, Danp, per our discussion yesterday, did you see that Minnesota law allows the GOP to hold up Franken's seating until legal disputes have been resolved? Apparently it's a weird state thang.

Who cares if Burris has a large family gravesite. There are probably hundreds of thousands of such things in cemetaries across the country.

This was a legal appointment. Unless the Senate has reason to believe that Burris did some quid pro quo, or that Burris is too dumb or corrupt, they should seat him. Obama endorsed Burris against Blago in 2002, so he must not be that bad. Second, we have other Senators who actually have committed crimes (Vitter) or are much dumber than Burris (Mark Pryor, for one).

If the guy will be a reliably liberal vote, then let him in. It's the fault of the IL legislature for not getting their shit together.

Love the racial slurs. Burris and Rush are right about race being an issue.

I see one idiot doing the slurring. Knock that shit off, Winkandnod. Good job giving cover to Bobby Idiot Rush.

did you see that Minnesota law allows the GOP to hold up Franken's seating

I did. Apparently Minnesota's forefathers couldn't forsee the modern Republican party. Arf!! With any luck, the courts will dispatch his nonsense as quickly as they have the previous challenges. Meanwhile we need a Dem appointed US Attorney there to look into Coleman's campaign laundry operation.

It's the fault of the IL legislature for not getting their shit together.

Okay, this kind of comment is wearing thin. There are a couple of things going on here that people either don't know or are ignoring:

--The IL constitution would have to be amended to allow a special election. I don't need to tell you what a lengthy process that would be. In addition, Illinois is flat broke and doesn't have the cash for a special election or for amending the Constitution.
--Although the general assembly can impeach and convict for virtually any reason--they can kick Rod out for his criminally bad hairdo as long as they have the votes for it--they understandably were hesitant to do so while they determined whether they could get info from Fitz that would bolster the impeachment case.
--At the same time, no one was really sure until last week's press conference that Blago would be insane and defiant enough to refuse to resign. There was a strong feeling that he might be trying to use a resignation to improve his odds in the courts. Now we know he's not.

Lay off the general assembly, please. They're slow, but understandably so.

shortstop - PS I owe you an "oops."

No, no, Danp, I wasn't aware of Minnesota law when we had that convo, so I was surprised, too, to learn of it later yesterday. (I thought the GOP was refusing to seat Franken pending certification.) No "oops" necessary.

Just seat Burris.

1. I don’t care for Burris, but he meets the Senate threshold. That said:

A) The political decisions regarding Rolando Cruz are troubling
B) His judgment in appearing side by side with Blagojevich shows poor judgement
C) His muddle of conflicts of interest, which is pretty normal in Chicago (state contracts, lobbying, donations to Blago) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/31/burris-could-be-illinoiss-senator-but-was-he-a-good-ag/

2. Our State Assembly has failed Illinois miserably

3. Rush’s behavior during the introduction was very disheartening, and bad politics-but effective

4. Grafty Rod, is the Governor and has the power to appoint for this vacancy

Just seat the fool, and pray that Mark Kirk does not win the seat in 2012 from this mess.

Like I said before, I don't see enough discussion here of how good Burris is or isn't per se for the job - isn't that what should matter most, not unfair tainting from who picked him etc? One of the prime indicators of Burris' character is how much he yanks racism card. He already has (himself, very much directly?), so that worries me. (Kudos to someone for bringing up, why not retaliate with "anti-Semitism" per Franken! BTW what does Franken think of Israel's conduct - the usual progressive distaste at how they are managing their circumstances?) In any case, this makes Democrats look bad.

(Heh, and got to be careful when seeing "Rush" - it doesn't always mean the orotund oracular obfuscator himself.)

No matter what...Blagojevitch has not been convicted of anything yet and is still the governor of Ill. who has the power and right to appoint Obama's vacated senatorial seat to Burris.

Senatorial Democrats are acting foolishly by standing in the way, especially if they were to use such tactics as armed guards preventing Burris from entering. This fiasco is embarrassing enough without the senate making it worse. They have no legal grounds to prevent this appointment and Burris isw as acceptable as any of them.

Why is it the only time our elected dem leaders act like they have any balls is when they are attacking one of their own. Why weren't armed guards barring the entrance of Cheney from the senate chamber for condoning and ordering torture...and bragging about it. Plus outing a CIA agent during a time of war...and not just any agent but one involved in tracing down Nuclear weapons programs and arms in the ME specifically.
Senate Dems should act like they did in condemning Move on...and single handedly writing a letter to Rush for his treasonous war comments which the very republicans who condemned Move On would have no part of signing when one of their own did it.

If a poll were taken right now that had the results that 80% of dems wanted Burris barred and prevented from taking the Jr. Ill. Senate seat...THEN Reid and the rest would seat Burris without incident as per their normal record of responding to what their constituents want.

Burris was appointed by an elected sitting Governor without a hint of foul play. It's the way the law and the rules are set up to work. Senate resentments don't change any of that.

A funny thing is...while, in theory, the Senate could deny Burris access to the floor (until and unless he's sworn in), as a sitting governor, Blagojevich has senatorial floor privileges.

(Kudos to someone for bringing up, why not retaliate with "anti-Semitism" per Franken!

Aren't Franken and Coleman both Jewish?

Mr. Burris might be as straight-arrow as portrayed or he might be a craven power-seeker - I don't know. The only thing about the whole Blagojevich mess that I can see from afar is (1) the media and political elites are pulling out all the stops to convict Blago in public opinion because he has EMBARRASSED their establishment; and (2) the evidence that he did anything illegal is very thin on the ground.

On public-policy grounds I can agree with the normally-cautious Fitzgerald's decision to arrest the governor before the "conspiracy" had actually done anything. It was the better choice to break it up before it happened than to get a conviction down the road. But the problem with the quick arrest is that, while making a deal to sell a Senate seat is illegal, bragging on tape that he might do it is not. Impeachment by the State legislature is more likely than a federal conviction, but from what I'm reading, this is not a quick, simple process. A good defense can drag it out for months.

Finally, Blago's point is sound that the State of Illinois should have a voting Senator filling the seat of President Obama - both for Illinois and for the Obama administration. Democrats are still one vote short of filibuster-proofness, remember? Why should Senate Democrats either throw away or alienate a needed vote? Especially since the governor's other point is also sound - that the issue is about him, not his appointee. It seems to me that this elaborate ostracism ritual is too costly. Nothing the Democratic poobahs do to cast Blago into utter damnation will convice me that they are pure. Better to prove that they can move into the Obama administration with all their assets in position.

Y'know, people, there's an easy solution to all of this....

Has anyone---anybody at all---asked Pat Quinn if he would vouch for Burris? If he will, then all he has to do is stand up and say something like this:

"The people of Illinois are entitled to proper representation in the United States Senate. Because of the criminal allegations surrounding Mr. Blagojevich's* previous attempt at filling this vacancy, I have decided that it is in the best interests of all concerned for me to unilaterally assume responsibility for filling this vacancy, and will be forwarding my own paperwork to SoS White for certification of Mr. Burris as the junior Senator for Illinois."

It's the perfect solution. Illinois gets a qualified junior Senator, Blago the Hutt gets marginalized (Quinn not only slaps him down, but causes him to lose face big-time by addressing him mas "Mr." instead of "Governor"), and the Quinn/White tandem uses the certification process to establish "the new 'No-Blago' power" in Illinois.

...Illinois is flat broke and doesn't have the cash for a special election or for amending the Constitution. -shortstop

If you fly over our state, you can actually see it shrugging with our pockets turned inside out.

I was wondering earlier if the concon results would be different if voted today.

But the problem with the quick arrest is that, while making a deal to sell a Senate seat is illegal, bragging on tape that he might do it is not.

Why do people keep saying this? Fitz and numerous other attorneys not named Genson have explained repeatedly that conspiracy to sell a Senate seat is indeed illegal and is what the governor is actually charged with.

shortstop: Fitz and numerous other attorneys not named Genson have explained repeatedly that conspiracy to sell a Senate seat is indeed illegal and is what the governor is actually charged with.

"Conspiracy" requires more than one conspirator, and it requires some actions specifically in support of the aims of the conspiracy. Fitzgerald has asked a judge to postpone the indictment til April, which suggests that even he does not think he has the evidence to nail Blago yet.

Fitzgerald released information supposedly to warn everyone that Blago was trying to sell the senate seat, and give them time to act to prevent his doing so. But the only actors who could have prevented Blago making the appointment were the Illinois Assembly who, as you wrote, were understandably slow to change the law or initiate impeachment proceedings.

To me, the only really surprising development was the expectation of some people that Blago would go quietly -- when do power-hungry people give up their power just because someone asks them to?

Why do people keep saying this? Fitz and numerous other attorneys not named Genson have explained repeatedly that conspiracy to sell a Senate seat is indeed illegal and is what the governor is actually charged with.

And using the telephone to do it constitutes mail fraud, which they are also charging.

"Conspiracy" requires more than one conspirator, and it requires some actions specifically in support of the aims of the conspiracy. Fitzgerald has asked a judge to postpone the indictment til April, which suggests that even he does not think he has the evidence to nail Blago yet.

Er, remember Blagojevich's chief of staff? The guy on the other end of the conversations? The guy Blagojevich was talking to about the alleged illegal activity? The guy who has been charged, along with Blagojevich, for conspiracy and mail fraud?

Are you truly this stupid, or is it an act?

What DJ said re stupid/act/etc., not to mention that there are multiple charges pending, Fitz clearly said in his presser that the complaint doesn't cover all of them, and the dude has a very longstanding and well-earned reputation for a) liking things tidy and b) only bringing charges he can make stick.

"This is a lose-lose situation."

So what? This guy (Burris) has got a month in the lime-light then it's bye-bye. The moment Blago gets kicked out of office, all the air will come out of this appointment.

Enough with the hysterics.

Chaboard is probably right, its all on them the Illinois legislature. Oh and Susana Mendoza of the first district, blasting away on FOX News about how Blagojevich is not liked even though he signed most of her legislation, has a lot of Spanish people in her area. Her parents are immigrants wonder if they are citizens. Not very funny is it? Maybe Fitzgerald is listening to the wrong phone…or maybe was and she does not know it. FISA, FISA here we come.

In the Illinois Constitution

Section 4. Freedom of Speech

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense.

Anybody can say anything they want on the telephone, even Al Capone knew that. Perhaps that is why Elliot Ness had to work through the IRS to get Capone.
Ladies and Gentleman of America it is going be interesting to hear the Fitzgerald telephone taps. Anyway it is supposed to a simple misdemeanor not a felony to swear or proposition over the phone.

What do you think? Anyone politician or business person usually would say of course that catch all phrase “Whats in it for me�? I would!! Come on its got to be worth something. Of course these kinds of exchange happen all the time. But for what ends? Each person is leading the other on. Which could be Blagojevich’s defense? Just to see where that person on the other end will go. With out doubt, that could be the truth.

That is a hard on for any prosecutor to work with this limitation. As I said before according to Illinois Constitution Fitzgerald blew it. Now he wants ninety days because new people are coming forward in the crime spree charge? Or did Fitzgerald need to make that grandstanding announcement to get publicity.

Well that’s good for another indictment or possibly Fitzgerald wants to grandstand hand cuff and arrest Blagojevich again for new stuff. We all caught on all that what is left for Fitzgerald is to catch someone that might lie about something totally out of context. Which is lame, the same lame two year legal worthless rant, that totally is little value in the Valerie Plame case as a prominent attorney in our government of the people by the people, for me now he stincks in the public arena.

The original arrest and allegation is standing with what he has, this is not like the war in Iraq where Fitzgerald has the ability to send in a surge of reinforcements, or in this case whistle blowers.

It is down right lame, even though my personal opinion was to go after Bush and Company, to grandstand and accuse an executive while in office during operations. This maybe the one single good reason Pelosi took impeachment of Bush off the table. Bush and the complicit media would have drive by fun blaming the democrats for the failure in the war. Just as the republican’s, and sympatric Democrats blame Blagojevich for not being able to do his job and resign. Can’t you read what is happening here?

Section 6. Searches, Seizures, Privacy and Interceptions

The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 7. Indictment and Preliminary Hearing

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment other than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

The General Assembly by law may abolish the grand jury or further limit its use.

No person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary unless either the initial charge has been brought by indictment of a grand jury or the person has been given a prompt preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.

So where is the hearing? Or where is the grand jury? Or where are the Charges everyone say Blagojevich is guilty every Cable station has Blagojevich guilty! Of what please someone tell me…

Here is Illinois handbook, for me, there is no comment about any wrong doing or any cloud over Blagojevich especially being investigated for over two years by the FBI. That is very curious and serious to leave this out by the Secretary of State Jessie White. Don’t you think? Sheesh...

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/handbook/0708handbook.pdf

I said before according to Illinois Constitution Fitzgerald blew it.

Um, Fitzgerald is the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, charging Blagojevich with violations of Federal law. The Illinois Constitution has nothing to do with this.

Try again. Better yet, don't.

To use armed guards to keep a black man from entering the Senate to take what many people consider to be a legitimate appointment to his seat in the Senate is truly insane. The symbolism to George Wallace and James Meridith will get Harry Reid impeached. The Dems or Dims should cut their losses, seat him, let him vote, and refer it to the rules committee. As for the governor, this prosecutor has been after him for five years. If he doesn't have the evidence now, he aint got it.

Aline is right to the extent that such imagery would look very bad for Democrats. Like I keep saying, Burris himself is the key to his acceptability, not the foolish fallacious spitefulness of blaming him for Blago's faults.

As for the governor, this prosecutor has been after him for five years. If he doesn't have the evidence now, he aint got it.

He's got plenty. On this, and on many other things. He's getting more. Rezko is talking again.

Email your Senators. Tell them to:

Say they are relieved that Blago chose someone qualified despite Blago's ALLEGED transgressions.

Praise Burris for his long, spotless service to the people of Illinois.

Point out that he may be a "placeholder" Senator but the People of Illinois will be able to decide that in only two more years.

Note that it is imperative that ALL Americans have full representation in the Senate to help enact the urgent agenda of President Obama.

If necessary, point out as well that if he proves to be involved in Blago's schemes the Senate has the power to remove Burris at that time.

Say it is time for the American people to move on the important work of the Senate and to let Illinois work out its problems with its Governor.

PS. Ask them how sure the Lt. Gov. is not doing the same thing as Blago (tho more artfully) and how squeaky clean they know the Lt. Gov. to be.

Take a page from the Republican's and don't let this "scandal" keep festering. Burris will be a reliable Dem vote. The black caucus will be glad. You won't look like doofuses who ignore Burris' qualifications just to pile on Blago while the piling on is good.

Maybe he does have the goods but it doesn't matter. The issue here is Mr. Burris. His appointment is legal and he is entitled to be seated even if he was appointed by a crook. As Steven Chapman said yesterday regarding Blago and the appointment, this situation is reason to change the law regarding appointments not defy it. Reid just seems spiteful because the governor did something he was ordered not to do. He is meddling in the State of Illinois business when he should be concentrating on Obama's agenda.

"... I don't see enough discussion here of how good Burris is or isn't per se for the job - isn't that what should matter most, not unfair tainting from who picked him etc?"

No, I really don't think "how good [he] is for the job" is what should matter most. I think it would be egregious for the Senate to start weighing in on who is or is not the "best" a la the Caroline Kennedy brou ha ha in NY. The Senate SHOULD only consider the Constitutional qualifications.

Start thinking where this road of "don't like the appointer, kill the appointment" could go. The Senate as a body should not insert itself into the local politics of an appointment.

And as for "how good he is for the job" think what would have happened under the ReThugs. They could have refused to accept a pro-choice appointment by a Democratic Governor on the grounds that a pro-life appointment would have been "more qualified."

PS. Ask them how sure the Lt. Gov. is not doing the same thing as Blago (tho more artfully) and how squeaky clean they know the Lt. Gov. to be.
Posted by: Just Seat Him

You must not be from Illinois. If you were, you wouldn't imply anything as idiotic as suggesting that Pat Quinn is corrupt. Pat Quinn is tooth-achingly clean. A consumer advocate. He's been a gadfly to the political establishment for years. In Illinois, the governor and lt. governor run separately in the primary. Quinn was not the running-mate Blagojevich wanted. They haven't spoken to each other for over two years.

I once heard Pat Quinn tell a joke that was kinda lame. Not offensive, just not particularly funny.

That's all we've got on him.

Burris seems to be a decent appointment with the additional armor of a black skin, so how can they punish him for the sins of another?

I keep hearing what a great upstanding guy and loyal Democrat Roland Burris is.

Why would a straight-arrow mensch who's only interested in being a caretaker start off his Senate career by alienating every Democrat not in the immediate orbit of Planet Blagojevich, from IL native son and president-elect Obama to the entire Dem Caucus he proposes to join???

Why doesn't this singular act of political folly reveal Burris as a narcissistic shit-stirrer whose personal ambition trumps any sense of what's good for his state, country, and party???

“I said before according to Illinois Constitution Fitzgerald blew it.

Um, Fitzgerald is the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, charging Blagojevich with violations of Federal law. The Illinois Constitution has nothing to do with this.
Try again. Better yet, don't.
Posted by: DJ on January 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK “

Hey DJ you bring up a pretty good point so the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution is worthless… I must defend my assumption with a simple explicit and precise example...

Take a look at the federal constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

So what jumps out to me is
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
An impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
Which district shall have been previously ascertained by law?�

Previously ascertained by law…the way I read this is the law must be obeyed within the district within that district.

Just as in some districts in Nevada Prostitution is legal, no way in Illinois…or is the bunny farm just ignored...

Previously ascertained by law…the way I read this is the law must be obeyed within the district within that district.

"The law must be obeyed within the district within that district." Did you burst a blood vessel thinking that up?

As US Attorney, Fitzgerald must act within the US Constitution and the statutes enacted under it. If he proceeds with a complaint (which is, right now, what Blagojevich is faced with), Blagojevich is entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause exists to show that he is guilty, where he could cross-examine the witnesses. Fitzgerald has the right to supercede the complaint with an indictment by a federal Grand Jury. If he gets an indictment, the Grand Jury will have ruled that there is probable cause (more likely true than not) that Blagojevich is guilty. Then it would go to a trial to determine if, in fact, he is guilty. By statute and court rules, Fitzgerald asked for extra time to try and get an indictment, stating that he is reviewing information and interviewing new potential witnesses. Blagojevich's attorney has not objected. The official ruling on Fitzgerald's request will be on Monday.

Just as in some districts in Nevada Prostitution is legal, no way in Illinois…or is the bunny farm just ignored...

Prostitution is not a federal crime, thus the Feds do not prosecute it (why, ultimately, the Feds did not prosecute Eliot Spitzer). It is a state crime, prosecutable by the states as they determine (illegal everywhere in Illinois, for example; legal in Nevada except, IIRC, in the counties that Las Vegas and Reno are located in).

Is an appointment to the Senate by a sitting governor a permanent action like a pardon? Or will there be serial appointments in which the latest one is the legal one?

How will impeachment of Blago erase the appointment since he will still be governor until tried on the impeachment charges? And if he is relieved of the office, how will it effect the appointment?

DJ, you just made the point, especially with Spitzer that is why, "for me", my argument in defense, for me, is right. This stuff is easy and off the cuff no high blood pressure problem.

Please I don’t mean get you upset or anyone else I am not in for Blagojevich or Burris I just want to see the do process play out. It is just fun to look up the stuff and realize how much the Mainstream Media is totally not reporting the truth.

All telephone calls likely may have been done within Illinois, in the district for which Blagojevich is alleged to commit a crime spree. Even if telephone conversations are across state lines it is very easy for Blagojevich to commit to saying he needed to survey, in his own way, the quantity and quality, perhaps not as smooth as the public might think things go, but within conversation to an end of truth for him, regardless of cursive language used.

Prostitution is not a federal crime, thus the Feds do not prosecute it (why, ultimately, the Feds did not prosecute Eliot Spitzer). Again, my point, Spitzer lied out of context which is just plain and simple lame legal waste for Fitzgerald to grasp for. For me, it’s more like the legal pollution that Bush and Company unloaded on America for the past years. You must be one of those Legal Bush buddies?

“It is a state crime, prosecutable by the states as they determine (illegal everywhere in Illinois, for example; legal in Nevada except, IIRC, in the counties that Las Vegas and Reno are located in).�

So,

Being honest with you it was only a hunch in determining the prostitution angle but it exactly ties into the governor’s executive power and Blagojevich’s personal will to exercise his power compared to Spitzer. Obviously Spitzer caved a whole lot too quick for me.

Let’s take it a step further about the media knowing very well just as anyone can look up the Constitutional right of an appointed Senator like Burris falls under

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives
Shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace,

*** be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.***

So,

getting arrested by trying to appear before fellow members of Congress is in violation of Article One…Therefore submit this as evidence for any party to seek the truth in any legal proceedings that I am witness to, CNN, MSNBC, FOX major broadcasting stations know with simple grade school understanding of that law.

Actually Blagojevich, if motioned, or even in the state of shock did not mention that he is in preparation to go to work, Fitzgerald and the Judge that issued the warrant are in violation of do process.

Please DJ; don’t tell this applies to only Senator and Representatives. George Ryan was given executive privilege to surrender. So you see Fitzgerald is publicly grandstanding, which could be considered in Illinois in violation of the free speech amendment here. Look in the Illinois handbook…

What's the procedure for taking the oath of office?

Some references refer to the VP, but he's not necessarily the only one.

So does Dick Cheney show up to do the honors?

Welcome any input about how the oath is administered and who's eligible, etc.

getting arrested by trying to appear before fellow members of Congress is in violation of Article One…Therefore submit this as evidence for any party to seek the truth in any legal proceedings that I am witness to, CNN, MSNBC, FOX major broadcasting stations know with simple grade school understanding of that law.

Except for the fact that Mr. Burris is not Sen. Burris until he is actually sworn in. You flatter yourself by describing your understanding of the fats and law as "grade school."

Actually Blagojevich, if motioned, or even in the state of shock did not mention that he is in preparation to go to work, Fitzgerald and the Judge that issued the warrant are in violation of do (sic) process.

Really? That's a question for the court to decide. I don't recall Blagojevich's attorney arguing that his arrest was illegal; he's arguing his innocence.

Please DJ; don’t tell this applies to only Senator and Representatives. George Ryan was given executive privilege to surrender. So you see Fitzgerald is publicly grandstanding, which could be considered in Illinois in violation of the free speech amendment here.

Not every accused person is offered the courtesy of surrendering himself for arrest. George Ryan was. That is not "executive privilege" (have someone smarter than you look it up on Wikipedia.

Look in the Illinois handbook...

Do you stay inside the lines when you color in it?

As for toowearyforoutrage's reasonable questions, the Vice President is President of the Senate. When the new Congress convenes on Monday, he will be present to administer the oath of office to the newly-elected, and re-elected, Senators. If for some reason the Vice President is unavailable, I suppose the President Pro-tempore of the Senate would do the job.