Impeachmemt memo: Reasons
Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Let’s talk about the Madigan impeachment talking points memo in a few stages. Try to stay on topic as much as possible. The first thing we’ll do is look at the memo’s three basic reasons for considering impeachment proceedings…
1. The ongoing federal criminal investigations of his administration, including his role as Public Official A, have significantly impaired his ability to do his job as governor. With Ali Ata’s guilty plea, the governor has been directly implicated in a bribes-for-jobs scheme - the latest revelation of malfeasance in the governor’s office. The conviction of Tony Rezko on 16 or 24 federal corruption counts related to Blagojevich administration activities also suggests something is seriously amiss. Using common sense, and the totality of what has been learned so far about these investigations, prudence demands that lawmakers act. Already, six individuals associated with his administration have pled or been found guilty of federal criminal charges in connection with their roles in corrupt activities. Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer theoretical - it is proven.
Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances. Legislators have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the state and not depend on the federal government to save us. One thing we learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm.
2. Blagojevich’s violation of his oath of office by repeatedly attempting to operate outside of the Illinois constitution and state law - expanding FamilyCare beyond the limit authorized by the General Assembly, spending money absent express statutory authority, failing to comply with AG ruling that federal subpoenas are subject to FOIA, and a gross abuse of the constitution’s special session power - using special session as a blunt force instrument for dealing with the General Assembly and attempting to force it to submit to his will - rather than for deal with emergency situations.
3. Finally, Blagojevich’s legal problems have clearly become a distraction for the governor. He is largely withdrawn from the legislative process - spending most of his time hunkered down at home or in a political campaign office in Ravenswood hiding from the public and refusing to answer the media’s questions. Aside from an occasional meeting or event appearance, he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office. Blagojevich acts like an absentee governor - content to let his underlings do as they wish. That’s not acceptable. We need an engaged governor who wants to be the governor.
Governor Blagojevich’s inability to govern is the principal reason that the state is in its current predicament and that stalemate is the order of the day in Springfield. The first step to cleaning up the mess and getting the state back on track may be to remove the governor from office. If the evidence warrants it, we cannot afford to wait until 2010. That will be too late and he will have had two-and-a-half years to do even more damage to the state.
[Emphasis added.]
…Adding… From the Question & Answers section…
What do you think are grounds for impeachment?
While the constitution is purposefully vague about it, I believe that there are four:
1. Serious crimes, including those that are abuses of office, including obstruction of justice.
2. Incapacity - due to mental or health problems the individual is not able to do his job
3. Violations of the state Constitution’s separation of powers - especially if it is a recurrent problem and evidence of contempt and disregard for the legislature’s - a co-equal branch of government — constitutional role, including executive oversight.
4. Dangerous levels of incompetence, abuse of power, dereliction of duties or financial malfeasance. Even if someone has not done anything legally, wrong, the General Assembly should be able to remove someone who is so incompetent that he doesn’t have the ability to run his office.
Politicians are accountable to a higher degree than mere legal standards. It shouldn’t take a criminal investigation to use impeachment. Impeachment shouldn’t be seen as a mini-criminal trial. Although criminal activities may be a reason for impeachment, impeachment is a political trial based on a governor’s repeated recklessness and inability to perform the job.
Are all of these acceptable or is any of it over the line? Discuss.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:43 am:
I think the ONLY reason there needs to be is Failure to uphold the constitution of the state of Illinois.
WHile all of these are ligit, the legal problems and the Pay to play trials are minor until he is charged.
I think if MJM thinks this much about it, he should begin the process, not just make it talking points.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:50 am:
I would say they are all acceptable. However I don’t know if the feds looking you over hard is a reason for impeachment.
I think their strongest point is #2 if they expand on the violation of the consitution stuff. If you can make the ‘imperial Rod’ case I think you have something.
1 and 3 are legitimate gripes but I don’t know if they rise to the level of impeachment.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:51 am:
I’m good.
I would put emphasis on:
“Legislators have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the state and not depend on the federal government to save us.”
Too many people have been operating under the misapprehension that nothing can be done until the feds are done grinding away.
And finally, “he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office. ”
Works for me. Get it started.
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:51 am:
Point 2 is valid (it’s a more detailed version of Point 1 in the memo’s Addendum). I mentioned last night that when a guv misappropriates funds there is no recourse for the body politic except impeachment — the state police won’t come knocking to arrest the guv for transferring state funds without legislative approval.
There have been several precedents set in the last 13 or so months. That shouldn’t be one that is allowed to stand.
Points 1 and 3 here (from the memo’s intro) fall under the innocent until proven guilty umbrella. If he’s ever charged, prosecuted and found guilty then throw the book at him on those points. Right now, he has not even been accused of wrongdoing by the Justice system.
- MOON - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:55 am:
A good portion of the memo is really not a grounds for impeachment. I think Madigan should have stuck with the relevant points. However, this was prepared to inform and educate those seeking office. Many citizens of this state think Blago “Should Go”.
- DumberThanUThink - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:56 am:
Memo seems almost restrained and totally inbounds when compared to the media blast that have occured.
The Peotone Airport scandal is the latest and most incredible page in this disgusting saga.
It will likely be a huge brick on the beloved capital plan for ‘08
- wizard - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:57 am:
As much as I desire to see the guv gone, the courts upheld his rights to call special sessions at times of his choosing. That said, the way he did it is unethical. Quit “talking” about impeachment, start the process.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:57 am:
Moon, and others, please stick with just this part of the memo. We’ll talk about the rest of it in a few minutes. Patience, please. Thanks.
- The Conservative - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 8:59 am:
The impeachmeant is a smoke screen to the failure of the Democrat party of Illinois. The Gov, the Legislature and it’s leaders have failed. The State is run by the Democrat party ( every State office is controlled by Democrats)and they have failed.They cannot even get together on a budget. Corruption is all over. The leaders are ready to through Blago under the bus, Let’s see where the Federal Investigation(s) go. Perhaps there are many more that need to go. If this where a Republican run State that is all we would read about. Barack says he wants change well we need change right here in “River City” and let’s not forget Rezko and his ties to many Democrat candidates and special land deals. Let’s really have change and turn over the rocks. Hy aren’t the media demanding change…. Today’s media has lost’s way.
- 4% - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:08 am:
The question is: Who leaked the memo?
- problem - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:15 am:
If they set this standard, they’re gonna have a lot of work to do to reach it.
Not a lot of meat in any of those allegations so far.
- The Elderly Republican Tomato Farmer - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:17 am:
Talking point #2 fails to rise to the level of an impeachable offense because, for every misdeed listed, there are remedies available through the judicial system. Besides the special session lawsuit “victory,” Blago hasn’t had much success in convincing the courts to go along wih him on a number of issues. Besides, when it comes to constitutional law, it is the job of the judiciary to say what the law is (to paraphrase John Marhsall). Talking point #3 also fails to rise to the level of impeachment inasmuch as it is essentially a political issue - if the governor wants to hunker down and/or goof off during regular work days, then it should be up to the voters to decide whether or not they want to retain an absentee governor.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:19 am:
They are valid criticisms but they are not grounds for impeachment. Don’t get me wrong…I have no respect at all for this Democratic administration, which has taken corruption in Illinois state government to new heights in this first decade of the 21st century–and in the most cynical way, given Blago and his supporters’ assurances that corruption would end during their watch. Illinois Democrats think we the people are really stupid. And maybe we are…we elected him…twice!
Point 1-investigation does not = guilty.
Point 2-legislative and executive branches are always tussling over their authority. And the executive branch should push the envelope sometimes in the pursuit of getting things done…just as the legislative branch should act as a brake. Is any of this illegal? Presumably Blago has competent legal advice and I bet there are persuasive opinions on both sides.
3-This is the 21st century. Most “knowledge” jobs can be done from anywhere. Would we be complaining
about where he works if everything were going just great? Nope. This is a side issue. As governor, he pretty much gets to run his own schedule and determine his own management style. There are no rules on that…nor should there be.
The solution is probably to suffer through until 2010, unless somebody with clout could persuade him to resign, which seems unlikely. Suffering through will be unpleasant but hardly catastrophic. A blink of an eye in political and historical terms. And there are obviously several potential replacements eagerly waiting on the bench. If we pay attention, maybe we’ll get it right next time.
- Black Robe - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:20 am:
One suspects that Madigan is setting this up to put Lisa on the side of law enforcement. That is why we have the reference to Blago stonewalling the AG and FOIA requests. He well remembers the attacks on Jim Ryan that George Ryan happened on his watch as AG. Very few voters gave him a pass when he said that the Feds were investigating and he did not want to interfere. Consider Lisa’s problems. Her dad was co-chairman of the Blago campaign against Judy Baar when the insiders were well aware that the Governor’s office was improperly administered. What criminal prosecutions did she initiate? This is not about taking down Blago, this is about saving Lisa and the Dem control of Illinois government.
- Black Robe - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:21 am:
Question: Who leaked the memo?
Answer: Michael Madigan
- Fan of the Game - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:27 am:
Rich, of those you listed, I would think impeachment could begin on points 3 and 4. This would let Mr. Fitzgerald do his job, and I think it could be proved that Gov. Blagojevich has abused his powers and circumvented other legislative entities (especially JCAR).
- Macbeth - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:29 am:
Does it really matter who leaked the memo? It’s cover for the candidates — and that’s enough.
I doubt Madigan is serious about beginning impeachment proceedings. It’s all above giving the candidates cover and giving the governor notice. It’s *not* about authentic impeachment.
- Muskrat - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:30 am:
#1 is no good — it’s “he must be guilty, so we don;t need any proof.” Terrible reasoning.
#3 is no good. it’s a criticism of his style. Nothing in teh satte constitution says how many press conferences the Gov has to attend, or how he should use subordinates.
#2 is potentially valid, if backed up by a serious legal argument. But the seriousness of that is fatally undervcut by the last line of the Q-A portion says, “impeachment is a political trial based on a governor’s
repeated recklessness and inability to perform the job,” not to mention that if the grounds are the legal ones in #2, and he pulled those budget moves last year, when why do this now?
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:34 am:
I read through the entire memo.
Not only do I agree with most of it, a couple of months ago we discussed here on this blog these very points.
Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial, as I pointed out then and this memo agrees. Impeachment is a governmental process with a trial phase. This does not mean a trial as defined by a Perry Mason or Matlock TV show, but as defined by constitutional precedents over centuries. Blagojevich doesn’t have to be found guilty in a criminal trial to be worthy of impeachment. We are not discussing jailing or removing his personal liberties. Instead, we are discussing his failure in the job he is currently holding. If he is found to be guilty in the trial phase of this impeachment, he is removed from office, not locked up. He retains his freedoms, and even his political career. Impeachment does not mean Blagojevich can never again run for office. Andrew Jackson was impeached as president, but ended up as a US Senator.
This memo covers many of the concerns I and many others have expressed since 2003. We all wanted Blagojevich to succeed and gave him the benefit of a doubt longer than would have given Jim Ryan, had he been elected in 2002. We expected Blagojevich to struggle but also to sincerely learn how to do his job. He still failed us miserably.
He is worthy of impeachment, regardless of what Patrick Fitzgerald uncovers in the future.
- The Conservative - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:38 am:
Who cares’s who leaked the memo, isen’t good government more important than who leaked the memo. We wonder why people hate politicians or think everyone is a crook. Illinois is setting the standard for this arguement. I don’t care Rep or Dem, you steal and break the trust of the voters and all those that sacraficed for that right, then at the least, you should be thrown out of office.When party become more important than morality or corruption, this country is in serious trouble and Illinois is leading the way. We can differ on issues but corruption, there should be no differing of opinion on.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:41 am:
I believe that this topic should be discussed soberly. So let’s end the silly political talk about leakers and personalities and partisanship.
Blagojevich deserves to be under consideration regardless of the political process as debated by the talking heads and bloggers. Anyone thinking that a mere memo leak is the focal point of our concerns today hasn’t been considering the bigger picture Illinois faces and how far short Blagojevich has fallen as our governor. It is as though the guy stalled alongside the highway in a smoking, rusting hulk of a car, claiming that his junker would have been fine if he kept it’s speed at 20mph.
Memo or not, impeachment has been forced upon us.
- Dirt Guy - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:41 am:
Yes, there is enough. The information presented, if brought up at a shareholders meeting at a publicly held company, would be enough to warrant the bouncing out of the CEO.
Blago is the CEO of a very public entity, the State of Illinois. The shareholders are the citizens. Illinois is a big mess as is the governor. Start the removal process and forget the golden parachute.
- Fan of the Game - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:46 am:
VM brings up a tangential point when he says that Gov. Blagojevich has been given a long leash that Jim Ryan would not have enjoyed had he been elected governor. While Jim Ryan would never have been an electrifying and dynamic leader, he would have been a solid governor, showing fiscal restraint and working with the GA in Springfield to get things done. It’s supposition, of course, but i can’t help but think the state would be in much better shape financially and politically of Jim Ryan had won the day.
- Little Egypt - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:50 am:
Any single point or all of them works for me. I don’t care what points they decide to try him on. For crying out loud, let’s get the impeachment moving. Talking points - we don’t need no stinkin’ talking points.
- Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:52 am:
Dirt Guy….but the shareholders voted this guy in twice!
- Irish - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:57 am:
I agree with VM and it is ironic that he should mention Andrew Jackson being impeached and then becoming a US Senator. I am wondering if in addition to providing cover for the Dem candidates, and setting up a scenerio where Lisa M and the Madigan machine can later say they tried to fight the corruption that was Blago not the Dem party, could MJM also be trying to destroy the Blago for Senator movement before it even gets started?
- Macbeth - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:16 am:
I think much of the blame — if there’s blame to be passed around — should be placed on the *voters*. I don’t hear much of this line of reasoning. I’d like to see some demographics on the enablers for this mess.
- anon 10:46 - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:49 am:
Actually, no president has ever been impeached. Andrew Johnson (not Jackson) had 11 articles of impeachment voted against him by the US House, but the Senate aquitted him by one vote … he did, however return to the US Senate
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:51 am:
Impeach is like an indictment. Johnson was impeached by the House. He was not removed by the Senate, however. Clinton was also impeached.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:59 am:
Gee, I wish I wrote “Johnson” instead of “Jackson”. I don’t normally confuse those two. Jackson was censured. Johnson was impeached.
Sorry everybody.