* 9:00 am - Click here to read the “Proposed Report of the Special Investigative Committee.”
UPDATE: Well, they’ve removed the link. Not sure what happened there. Attempting to find out.
UPDATE 2: OK, the link has now reappared. Go ahead and click here.
* I kinda like this line from page 58…
…the purpose of impeachment is not to punish the officeholder. The purpose it to protect the citizens from the abuses of an official.
* As I told subscribers a few days ago, the committee conclusion focuses not on individual acts by Gov. Blagojevich, but by the totality of the evidence that he abused his powers. With a hat tip to a commenter, this is from today’s report…
Like any citizen, the Governor is entitled to his day in criminal court. But he is no ordinary citizen. He is the supreme executive officer of this state. The citizens of this state must have confidence that their Governor will faithfully serve the people and put their interests before his own. It is with profound regret that the Committee finds our current Governor has not done so.
…the Special Investigative Committee…finds that the totality of the evidence warrants the impeachment of the Governor for cause.
* Here’s something to keep in mind. From page 4 of the report…
The respected Watergate Report noted that, historically, less than one-third of the articles of impeachment drawn up by the US House of Representatives have explicitly charged the commission of a criminal statute.
* You’ll recall that defense attorney Ed Genson introduced as exculpatory evidence the Obama Transition team report, which concluded there was no inappropriate contact with the governor or his staff. Genson also introduced as evidence a DVD of Congressman Jackson’s press conference, when he said he had not been a part of any pay to play on the vacant US Senate seat. The committee’s response is on page 15…
In the Committee’s opinion, the unsworn information the Governor’s counsel introduced does not refute the notion that the Governor was scheming to obtain a personal beneift for the Senate appointment or that he was dispatching individuals to negotiate on his behalf. Whether those subordinates succeeded in their endeavor, or whether they even carried out their directives, does not change the fact that the Governor asked them to negotiate on his behalf.
Moreover, the Governor’s counsel does not deny that the Governor made the statements contained in the [criminal complaint] […]
In any event, these intercepted conversations reveal far more than mere idle “talk.” The Governor, on many occasions, put his “words” into action - he directed many individuals to conduct inquiries and negotiations with interested parties, setting in motion (or at least attempting to set in motion) his plan to sell the US Senate seat. When a governor issues a directive to others to act, his words translate into action. The Committee refuses to write off a myriad of conversations and directives as nothing more than harmless chatter.
Finally, the recorded words of both the Governor and other parties to these conversations reveal that the Governor and others were aware that the plans they were discussing were, at the very least, clearly improper, and quite probably illegal.
* The governor’s failure to appear before the committee is also being used against him. Here’s a sample of that from page 16…
…if the governor never said the words attributed to him in the [criminal complaint], or if there was an innocent explanation for his words, the Governor had every opportunity to testify before the Committee and say so…. The Committee is entitled to balance his complete silence against sworn testimony from a federal agent.
* On the alleged attempt to blackmail Tribune Co…
The Committee finds that the evidence outlined above, taken almost exclusively from the Governor’s words or those of his top aides, reveal a clear intent to condition the provision of State financial assistance on the Tribune Company’s firing of members of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune… [which] consituted a clear abuse of the Governor’s power.
* Regarding the attempts to link campaign contributions to official acts…
The sworn testimony of the named individuals shows that the Governor was overseeing elaborate schemes to link State contracts or appointments to State positions with campaign contributions to the Governor. These actions constitute a clear abuse of power.
* On the attempts to undercut JCAR and illegally expand health care programs…
…the Committee does not accept the suggestions from the Governor’s counsel that the actions of an agency should not be attributed to the Governor… There is no doubt that the Governor knew exactly what DHFS was doing and blessed its actions.
*** 10:37 am *** Ed Genson is dreaming…
Blagojevich’s defense lawyer, Ed Genson, said there is no surprise in the report’s recommendation to impeach the governor.
“They came there to impeach him,” Genson said. “This whole procedure was a farce. They knew what they were going to do when they came in.”
Genson said he thinks the governor’s case can be won in the state Senate “if they follow the rules.”
“If they abandon every known rule of fairness as did the House, I’ll have a problem. But I expect them to be fair,” Genson said this morning.
As I’ve been telling some commenters below, it will take 20 Senators to block the governor’s removal. No way will that many Senators vote “No.” No way. And if you believe differently, name them all.
Discuss.
* Related…
* House impeachment panel looks at Blagojevich hiring practices
* ‘We’re beating a dead horse’: Some ready now for impeachment vote
* Impeachment panel’s work may end soon; Burris to testify today
* Close to an impeachment report
* Blagojevich lawyers object to tapes’ release
* SJ-R Opinion: Enjoy it while you can, governor
- Joe - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:02 am:
Dead link :/
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:03 am:
Try it again
- Joe - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:04 am:
The link is gone from the committee page, now.
- Concerned Observer - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:12 am:
Here’s the money statement:
“Like any citizen, the Governor is entitled to his day in criminal court. But he is no ordinary citizen. He is the supreme executive officer of this state. The citizens of this state must have confidence that their Governor will faithfully serve the people and put their interests before his own. It is with profound regret that the Committee finds our current Governor has not done so.
“…the Special Investigative Committee…finds that the totality of the evidence warrants the impeachment of the Governor for cause.
“The committee, therefore, recommends that the House consider an Article of Impeachment against the Governor.”
(page 59)
- meatless - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:12 am:
Is that all it will be or will they continue to expand it?
It seems rather thin right now.
- Anonymous Conservative - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:12 am:
I must have looked at just the right time, because it worked for me, but now I see that it is gone also. It was with great joy when I read their conclusion.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:15 am:
===It seems rather thin right now===
Are you nuts?
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:18 am:
It’s the appropriate conclusion
- meatless - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:26 am:
No - at 60 or so pages, it seems thin.
I thought they would put more in there.
Such as - will the tape transcripts eventually go in?
- ValleyGal - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:27 am:
The last sentence states “an Article of Impeachment.” This eventually goes to the Senate for trial, so I’m curious about why they chose one article instead of several.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:28 am:
To all you legal geniuses out there, and to those who seem to only want to take out the garbage after a judge and jury has determined beyond proof that the garbage is garbage - read this document and adjust your thinking.
- Concerned Observer - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:29 am:
Thanks for the tip, Rich. And like you, I really like the first few pages, where it gives what amounts to a history of the word “impeachment” and really draws a separation between the criminal and the political spectrums.
- Macbeth - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:29 am:
I especially like the references to Watergate in the intro — and Ford’s idea (a fascinating one, actually) that an “impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history.” (page 3).
- Blago Sphere - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:33 am:
They indicated that the non-meeting; meeting which occurred the other day was for the purpose of Committee members to review a DRAFT of the report and offer input as to recommended changes.
Is this still considered a DRAFT however? If not, why would they call it a PROPOSED REPORT; rather than THE REPORT, if they were not anticipating additional changes? Will proposed changes be offered publicly within the meeting framework, or have all the Committee memmbers already weighed in on the report since the non-meeting meeting?
I am trying to get a better understanding of any substantive changes, and their effect on the potential timing on a Committee vote, as well as a House vote.
Thanks for any informed opinions; as well as the entertainment value of those that are uninformed.
- Downstate weed chewing hick - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:34 am:
Rich, the quote from page 58 you reference is incorrect. It should say, “The purpose..is not to punish the officeholder…” But I agree with you that it is a very important quote to define the importance and the objectives of these proceedings.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:43 am:
Thanks. Can’t copy and paste from the original, so I’m typing like crazy.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:44 am:
===so I’m curious about why they chose one article instead of several. ===
Because the article is abuse of power. It’s the totality of the argument, not individual acts. If you subscribed, you’d already know that.
- oneman - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:46 am:
=== seems kind of thin ===
I thought the far side comics on pg 43 were a bit of filler myself
- Blago Sphere - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:46 am:
This report really should call into question a deriliction of duty on behalf of legislators not to have established this committee and undertaken this investigation sooner. Aside from the Criminal Complaint many of these abuses of power occurred years ago; well before he was even re-elected. The report does a good job of laying out the impacts some of these actions since the Governor was arrested. It does little to address the impacts to the state and its citizens from each of the incidents of abuse of power or the totality of the evidence outside of the Criminal Complaint.
Given the information outlined within this report; a significant majority of which was publicly known, I would not want to have to answer for endorsing and supporting his re-election, and for not forming the committee and undertaking this investigation much sooner.
- Maggie - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:46 am:
Waste of time. The senate is not going to impeach. The same is true of the jury in a criminal trial. Not guilty.
The jury pool in the U.S. Senate, Illinois Senate and future jury pool are all contaminated.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:47 am:
===The senate is not going to impeach.===
How much do you want to bet?
Seriously, how much?
- Hoping For Rational Thought - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:52 am:
Maggie,
Senate does the convicting not impeaching. The House will impeach and Senate will convict. Illinois Senate will most assuredly convict since the Governor doesn’t have many friends there anymore plus and overwhelming number of voters clearly agree the Governor should be removed. He has abused his powers and clearly thinks of the Gov. office as a way to improve his personal situation. Remember his own words he ranks HIS legal, HIS financial, and HIS political situation to be the determining factors in who he should appoint to the Senate. NOT who will best serve the citizens of Illinois.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:53 am:
The report is well written. The chronologies provided are excellent. Given the abuse and mismanagement detailed from the very beginning of his administration, it is remarkable that we ever re-elected this guy.
- Macbeth - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:54 am:
The rumors on the morning talk radio shows (Wade and Roma, etc.) are that there’s an increasingly serious concern of the governor not convening the Senate on the 14th. Apparently, Jack Franks thinks that this would be a way that Blagojevich could get the “last laugh.”
I can’t imagine that. (Apparently, there’s a procedure — if this happens — that the governor could be bodily brought to the chambers. Is this even in the realm of possibility? That seems truly over the top.)
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:54 am:
===The senate is not going to impeach. The same is true of the jury in a criminal trial. Not guilty.===
I’m not sure what might happen in a criminal trial, but the Senate will vote to to impeach. The only thing that might prevent it is for the governor to resign. He’s probably not going to do that, so…
- Can You Say 4 More Years - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:54 am:
Blago’s already working on his re-election in 2010.
- MikeintheSuburbs - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:55 am:
The impeachment document is like an indictment, so it doesn’t have to go into a lot of detail. This one is more than sufficient. Also, testimony from direct knowledge witnesses is not really necessary. They can use hearsay, as is done in grand jury proceedings, so the tapes are not needed. Of course, there are really no rules so they can do whatever they want. The only limiting factor is the realization that whatever they do now to this Governor, future Legistlatures can do to them.
Unlike the US Constitution, there is no “high crimes and misdemeanor” requirement, which I think is troubling. As I am reading the state constitution, it looks like only a bare majority is required in both houses. They need to be careful they don’t lower the bar too much. A “clear and convincing” standard of proof for the trial portion in the Senate might not be such a bad idea. I’m sure they have enough to meet that here and it would help protect people in the future who might not be as obviously corrupt as Blago the Bad.
By the way, I think I predicted two weeks ago in my post that Obama would weigh in on the Burris appointment, and that Burris would be seated. I notice there are no articles or references to yesterday’s news on that so far in this blog today.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:55 am:
Rich,
Looking ahead, without the tapes, the meat of the articles are things that happened prior to the Gov’s re-election, does this not give the State GOP the ammunition to go after the Democrats that backed Blago for Re-Election?
Also, I may need to request suggestion for a new Nickname. It looks like this will be over sooner than later.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:57 am:
===does this not give the State GOP the ammunition to go after the Democrats that backed Blago for Re-Election?===
If they did, it could be pointed out that Republicans worked closely with Blagojevich on the capital plan, after they knew all that other stuff as well.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:57 am:
By the way, there’s more to come on that angle.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:57 am:
Page 11 and 12 is the hurdle Burris will need to clear today during his appearance. The document outlines how Blagojevich acted in a consistent pattern regarding the appointment. Blagojevich would not appoint an individual without receiving something in return. We have it repeatedly on tape.
So how did Burris get the appointment from a governor who clearly states that he won’t give it away? This is a fact. Burris wants us to believe the opposite. That somehow after being arrested, Blagojevich saw The Light, and God led the Governor to him. This can’t be an acceptable believe after having had the fact laid out to us like this. Considering the importance of the appointment, Blagojevich has permanently tainted Obama’s seat as long as Blagojevich exercised his right to name an Obama replacement.
Burris is tainted as a result, regardless of how he wishes to claim otherwise.
- Deep South - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 9:58 am:
That’s right. The Senate will not impeach. The House probably will, though, and the Senate will determine if Blago’s guilty or not-guilty. The jury pool in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate are probably contaminated, you’re right, but alas this is not a “criminal” trial, it is a political trial. One doesn’t need to subscribe to know this stuff, it is probably in every seventh grade civics book in the country.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:01 am:
===Illinois Senate are probably contaminated===
It will take 20 Senators to block the governor’s removal.
Name them.
And if you can’t, don’t bother commenting on this topic again.
- True Observer - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:02 am:
The whole impeachment thing was to protect Obama from the Blago fallout.
Now that Obama has thrown in the towel, there is no need for the impeachment.
In fact, it would be in Obama’s interest for the whol thing to die out.
Impeachment by House - Close call. Chance of not passing.
Conviction by Senate - Zero chance.
Burris is going to be U.S. Senator. Senators can hand out a lot of plumbs. Most of the State Senators are not up for reelection until 2012.
- You Go, Rich! - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:03 am:
Rich, you’re a bit randy today!! I love it.
- Deep South - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:05 am:
T.O.,
The only thing you got right is that Burris is going to be U.S. Senator. The next question is when.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:05 am:
The whole impeachment thing was to protect Obama from the Blago fallout.
Considering what we know and what we have been through over the years with Blagojevich, this is a very insulting thing to say. Not just dead wrong, but damn insulting.
- phocion - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:05 am:
As I recall, Nixon resigned after the House Committee recommended impeachment to the full House of Representatives. Will Blagojevich follow in Nixon’s footsteps?
- Macbeth - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:06 am:
I can’t see how a senator could choose *not* to convict. The question would hang about what kind of deal (legal or potentially illegal) was struck between the senator the governor.
It seems to me that a vote *not* to convict — and likewise a vote not to impeach — is political suicide.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:07 am:
It will take 20 Senators to block the governor’s removal.
They ought to ask Burris if he plans on calling some of them on the Guv’s behalf (would that be wrong? Unwise, stupid, yes…but wrong?)
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:07 am:
True Observer, you are seriously out of whack sometimes. Today’s comment was the weirdest one yet.
- Downstate weed chewing hick - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:08 am:
===The senate is not going to impeach.===
The criminal case has been rushed, so we dont know what it will look like when it is eventually ready for trial. Smart money in on conviction. As for the Senate, I see little possibility of RRB surviving impeachment. Have you heard one single Senator that’s even on the fence?
- Blago Sphere - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:12 am:
How about this from Page 60-
Among other things the Committee must ensure that their constituents have not lost confidence in the Governor’s ability to perform his duties.The effect of the Governor’s abuse of power, therefore, is relevant to the impeachment inquiry.
Thus the Committee would be remiss if it did not comment on some of the events that have transpired since the Governor’s arrest” }
It goes on to outline the U.S. Senate’s refusal to seat the Governor’s appointed Senator, having previously announced its intention not to seat ANYONE appointed by the Governor following the revelations accompanying his arrest.
Wouldn’t they also be remiss in commenting about the measures contemplated in potentially denying the Governor the opportunity to make the appointment in the first place (especially by the legislature); prior to it having been made as well:
1. Contemplation of amending the statutes to require the vacancy be filled by a Special Election.
2. Extremely rare legal action in the form of a petition to the Illinois Supreme Court in an effort to have the Governor declared unfit to serve.
While it highlights the fact that the U.S. Senate has initially rejected the appointee; due to its timing the report also will not reflected that they are back-sliding on this as well; and its quite likely that the appointee could be seated well before the conclusion of any trial to be conducted bassed on this report.
- Concerned Observer - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:13 am:
I just want to point out, True Observer and Concerned Observer do not know each other, and are not related (despite our last names)
- Hoping For Rational Thought - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:18 am:
True Observer,
Close call on impeachment? Are you serious? How will it be close?
And in the Senate, no conviction? If you believe that then answer Rich’s question and list the 2 Senators who will vote not to convict. Can you even get to 10?
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:19 am:
Re TO… I donno Rich… TO has a point: Burris is going to be U.S. Senator. Senators can hand out a lot of plumbs. Most of the State Senators are not up for reelection until 2012.
The Feds will be raining plums FYs to come. We ought to know if Burris is going to be steering some of them….
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:19 am:
===Conviction by Senate - Zero chance.===
“You don’t need a weather man/ To know which way the wind blows.” And its blowing toward conviction.
- Ghost - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:19 am:
The more interesting question, who is more deranged? the Gov who thinks he is re-electable/canidate for energy secretary/president; or Burris who thinks he can win re-election.
The Republicans could run a can of campbells soup against Burris and win.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:20 am:
Macbeth is 100% correct, politically it would be Suicide for them NOT to impeach the Governor. Blago’s numbers and other polling numbers show this. I don’t know where these people are from but either the Governors office is flooding this blog with staffers trying to sway opinion, or they just got in from Mars. HE WILL BE IMPEACHED!
- unspun - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:21 am:
Rich:
Your teaser from 9:57 is killing me. When you gonna put some meat on that bone?
- Hoping For Rational Thought - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:28 am:
At 10:18 I obviously meant 20 instead of 2 but 2 maybe close to the real number
- OneMan - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:28 am:
== Rich:
Your teaser from 9:57 is killing me. When you gonna put some meat on that bone ==
Channeling Rich
Subscribe…
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:30 am:
Baar, the same goes for you.
Name the 20 or stop the goofy speculation.
- Wacker Drive - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:33 am:
Does Jay (Old Pumpkin Head) Hoffman count?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:34 am:
Re: the 9:57 teaser - whatever it is, it won’t make Tom Cross look good. The larger question is, with all the swirling news elsewhere, wil it matter much?
- MikeintheSuburbs - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:34 am:
The Senate vote to convict may well be unanimous. No Republican is going to vote for Blago and the Dems will all want to prove that they are light years away from him. I don’t see that he has any support. Rich?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:34 am:
Punkinhaid is a House member.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:35 am:
Since his arrest, the only person stupid enough to touch Rod Blagojevich has been Roland Burris.
Mr. Burris is like a three-year-old who always wanted a puppy, and is now claiming that his dead raccoon isn’t dead, and isn’t a raccoon.
Reid, Durbin and Obama are too concerned about telling Burris the truth. Since the Senate rules don’t specifically require Roland’s dead pet to actually be either alive or a dog, they are willing to play along with him.
This entire thing is a farce and an insult to Illinoians.
- I'm just saying - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:38 am:
Rich I dont’ think we can name two, Maybe Rickey is dumb enough, that’s it…..
- Oakparker - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:40 am:
There seems to be a near certainty that everyone in the senate will vote to convict. For starters, I saw Donne Totten on Chicago Tonight a few nights back and he did not sound like he was ready to convict. I imagine that Rickey Hendon and Emil Jones’ son will vote against conviction. There may be others.
Then the question is how many senators have family members and (county/ward/township) ommitteemen and other leaders of their sponsoring political organizations in high-paying state positions? Can they trust Pat Quinn to keep their people on the payroll? Can they trust Pat Quinn to not interfere with state contracts that involve people allied to their political organizations?
It is easy for the House to impeach when nothing has really changed as a result of their action. If the Senate convicts there may (or may not) be a lot of jobs and contracts at stake. Do the mavens here see this as a potential problem? Maybe Pat Quinn is cutting deals with everyone. I don’t know.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:41 am:
You named three. Just 17 to go.
- phocion - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:41 am:
Punkinhaid may be the one vote not to impeach.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:41 am:
And you’re probably wrong on at least two of those three.
- Blago Sphere - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:42 am:
No question that the Republicans are vulnerable for having worked closely with Blagojevich on the capital plan, after they knew all that other stuff as well. Especially considering that a substantial funding source considered was going to be the expansion of gambling.
Given that the Governor has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to try to intervene in this area on several levels (appointing Kelly as a negotiator; engaging Holder in an effort to rationalize Rosemont) there is no reason not to believe that he would continue to do the same.
The states already over-reliance on gambling revenues; and the industries now proven vulnerabilities as a stable and consistent revenue source also call into question both the Governor, and the Republican legislators judgement on this issue.
There is no question that their desperation in trying to get something done on a Capital Plan clouded their judgement as to who they were willing to hop into bed with in an effort to try to get it done.
I am not sure what their defense to that issue might be; other than “well we didn’t support him for re-election, but he’s the only Governor we’ve got, and we desperately need a Capital Plan”
Given what’s now been highlighted and brought much more into focus for the public I am not sure how that will fly.
The average voter I think will definitely be asking themselves though; why didn’t we impeach this guy years ago, and unfortunately their cynical response to the question is likely to be “because it seems like they are all corrupt anyway”
- Secret Square - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:46 am:
With Emil Jones gone, the only Senator I can think of who might, possibly, vote against conviction is Rickey Hendon. Or maybe Jimmy DeLeo, if you believe John Kass’ theory that he is the “real” governor and wouldn’t want to lose that status. So where are the other 18 votes for acquittal going to come from? Probably Mars, or whatever planet Blago thinks he should be living on.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:46 am:
===if you believe John Kass’ theory that he is the “real” governor and wouldn’t want to lose that status.===
LOL
- cover - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:49 am:
If the Governor does not convene the Senate on 1/14, wouldn’t that prevent the Senate from holding an impeachment trial, or from considering any legislation?
Such a move might give Lisa Madigan a reason to go back to the Supreme Court to ask them to remove the Governor. By refusing to convene the Senate, not only would he violate his Constitutional duty under which “the Governor shall convene the Senate” to organize itself (Art. IV, Sec. 6), he would effectively shut down the Legislative branch of government.
- Macbeth - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:50 am:
This is a difficult and indelicate question — and it might be fodder for deletion (so my apologies in advance) — but the Tuesday Burris/Rush/Blagojevich conference got me thinking: is there a chance that we’ll see the race card (or evidence of racial politics) play out in the senate conviction?
This seems to be Blagojevich’s strategy now, and I’m wondering the pieces are falling into place for more what happened during the Tuesday press conference.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:51 am:
===wouldn’t that prevent the Senate from holding an impeachment trial, or from considering any legislation?===
No.
- cover - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:56 am:
Hey, Ghost @ 10:19, the GOP would need to be smart enough to run the Campbell’s soup can, and not someone with the caliber of Alan Keyes. I think Genghis Khan could get more votes than Keyes did in 2004!
- 10th Indy - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:56 am:
I’m guessing that even after the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, the governor does not go and Genson is starting to make the case that the proceeding is flawed. Could we wind up with two governors one in Springfield and one in Chicago, kind of like the Avignon Papacy? You gotta wonder how long before Blago calls Quinn the anti-governor?
- Blago Sphere - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 10:59 am:
Given the release of the Z Scott Report yesterday has anyon solicited any comments from Tammy Duckworth, I haven’t seen anything published that includes any comment from her.
I also find it interesting that I have not seen anything published which includes even a short quote about this issue from Edwin Eisendrath. Has he left the country, or has he just gone underground? I would think he would be a natural to seek comment from on this sordid affair.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:02 am:
I’m concerned about including information and events that was publicly known about the Gov prior to the 2006 election in the article of impeachment. The voters knew this stuff and discounted it. If the ultimate arbiters in a democracy (that isn’t concerned with basic civil rights such as the Courts) don’t consider these events worthy of removal, I’m not sure the Leg should.
As to Blago’s future, it looks dark, I see an impeachment and a conviction in the Senate. I don’t, however, see a criminal conviction, yet. I think Fitz should have drawn up an indictment based on what he had and if more witnesses came forward, kept those charges on hand to charge him in a new trial. I don’t like this business of publicly arresting a man before you’ve made a prima facie case to a Grand Jury. I understand why it was done in this case, but I would feel better about it if they had speedily followed up with an indictment.
- Wacker Drive - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:03 am:
If the Governor does convene the Senate on 14th. Wonder what kind of reception he’ll get?
They could all turn their backs on him, that would be priceless.
Oh look a kitty.
- Maggie - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:09 am:
Right now I’m counting 17 Democrat Illinois Senators in the eastern part of this state who are going to need 100% proof of guilt to throw this Democrat governor out.
I apologize if that upsets you Rich. Just stating a different opinion.
- Hoping For Rational Thought - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:12 am:
Maggie,
Who? What districts? Is there anything in the detailed polling data that shows that kind of public support. I can’t imagine there is. I respect different opinions but that seems wildly overly optimistic bordering on fantasy.
- littleguy - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:15 am:
Since the govs days are numbered I was wondering when Blago goes to be arrained on the indictment will he and Ed Genson take the Blue Line downtown since he will not have state police to drive him. Not bad for Genson, since complients of the gov he can ride rapid transit for free. Ex-gov. will have to pay full fare.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:19 am:
Excellent report. The House took their duty seriously and gave the governor the opportunity to respond. No Star Chamber here.
One item that seems to be missing is the Loop Magnet School miracle-million, Would that fall under a screwup and not an Abuse of Power, or doesn’t anyone know yet?
- phocion - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:20 am:
Maggie, please name those 17 Senators.
- ivoted4judy - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:20 am:
Maggie;
PLEASE PUBLISH THAT LIST OF 17!!
- Plainfielder - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:24 am:
My guess is State Sen. Linda Holmes will likely vote against impeaching Blago if there’s some others she can duck from cover with.
She has usually supported the Blago-Emil Jones school of thought on most things.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:24 am:
===Right now I’m counting 17 Democrat Illinois Senators in the eastern part of this state who are going to need 100% proof of guilt to throw this Democrat governor out.===
Either name them, and provide supporting arguments or find yourself banned.
- ivoted4judy - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Rich
I think you need some new technology for the comment section of the blog.. some sort of breathalizer (sp) test prior to typing ,, It is quite obvious that Maggie would fail the test today. GOD LOVE HER THOUGH,
- ivoted4judy - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:28 am:
Plainfielder
Holmes is a STRONG yes on impeaching Elvis.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:31 am:
ivoted4judy is most likely right, Plainfielder. You lose.
- Rod sez I'm pork - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:34 am:
10th Indy: Hat tip for the reference to the Avignon Papacy. Which city is Rome and which is Avignon?
Sur le pont d’Avignon
Ron y danse, Ron y danse
Sur le pont d’Avignon
Ron y danse tous en rond
Too late for an Impeachment song?
- Little Egypt - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:36 am:
The House WILL impeach. The Senate WILL convict. By now, every legislator in this State knows that THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING. Sorry to burst your bubble Maggie. I don’t care if you name names, if it doesn’t come out of their mouths that they will not vote to convict Blago, then it’s just your opinion and nothing upon which the rest of us can hang our hats.
- Little Egypt - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:37 am:
Is Maggie really Cassandra?
- Little Egypt - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:37 am:
Or Bill?
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:53 am:
I can name 20. Rickey Hendon and his 19 other personalities.
- Secret Square - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:53 am:
10th Indy and Pork, no question about it, Springfield = Rome (the traditional seat of government) and Chicago = Avignon (the “alternate” seat of government chosen because it was believed to be closer to the real center of power; in the case of the medieval papacy, that was where the French kings lived.)
- Anon III - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:54 am:
In substance what has happened is that the Gov has lost the confidence of the legislature – long time ago. Now the GA has gotten up the “testicular virility” – to quote a phrase – to advance what is functionally a “no-confidence vote” under the form of a bill of impeachment.
Perhaps they should stop pretending, call a constitutional convention, and merge the executive and legislative branches. Then GA would name state officers to serve so long as they have the support of a majority of the GA. That could work, and possibly result in effective and accountable state government.
So what does the other side look like from the top of the impeachment hill? If impeached, Blago likely cuts a deal with the Feds and goes to jail, simply because he will not be able to raise the cost of his defense, and the Feds may move to freeze the campaign fund as the fruit of a criminal enterprise. The prospect of Blago cutting a deal has to put some spine in state senators who have to decide how to vote on impeachment.
If the Gov is impeached, then in 2010, the Democrats go to the voters without Obama at the top of the ticket, but with Jr. Sen. Burris (D-Blagojevich) running for election, and a player yet to be named running for governor, and all trying to pretend that they never supported the only ever impeached Illinois governor.
If there is no impeachment, the Gov stays in office and goes on trial, a long-long trial. If he goes on trial, he will be convicted, as politicians in the Northern District of Illinois are presumed guilty. In the 2010 election, with Sen. Burris (D-Blagojevich) at the top of the ticket and the ex-Gov in the slammer, it will be even worse for the Dems.
This guy isn’t Elvis, he’s Rosemary’s baby.
- Mongo - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 11:55 am:
Dear Maggie
Senator Garrett will likely vote yes.
Senator Schoenberg will likely vote yes.
Senator Link will likely likely vote yes.
Senator Crotty will likely vote yes.
Senator Cullerton will likely vote yes.
Senator Harmon will likely vote yes.
Senator Lightford will likely vote yes.
Senator Silverstein will likely vote yes.
Senator Kwame Raoul will likely vote yes.
Senator Maloney will likely vote yes.
Those are Senators I either know and have talked with about this or have heard their remarks about the Governor in other settings. There certainly are other Senators I have no clue about (Trotter, Noland, Munoz, etc)…but OMG it would take a huge safe harbor for anyone to feel safe on a no vote in this situation.
But please oh please I’d love to see the list of 20 you think are a no vote…
- Deep South - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 12:01 pm:
Eastern part of the state? Is that some sort of geographical voting bloc? Are there 17 senators in the “eastern” part of the state? I think someone is playing with you Rich.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
Maggie is clearly delusional today. Let’s move on.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 12:14 pm:
Maggie actually meant the eastern side of Chicago. But those senators are all wet.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
I also find it interesting that I have not seen anything published which includes even a short quote about this issue from Edwin Eisendrath. Has he left the country, or has he just gone underground? I would think he would be a natural to seek comment from on this sordid affair.
It was hard enough to get a quote out of him when he WAS running:-)
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 2:01 pm:
Also, I’m pretty sure that Hendon is a “Yes” vote on removal.
- Concerned Observer - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 2:41 pm:
I’m relatively sure I’d have seen something about this before now if it were old, so my apologies if so. But the Sun-Times has a copy of the Arya memo…and wow, is it devastating.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1368377,bob-arya-memo-impeach-panel-blagojevich-010809.article
- Tim - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 3:05 pm:
Thanks for posting the link to the Arya memo. I was a bit disappointed that the Arya and Tall letters to the committee are not posted online and require a request to the House Clerk… transparent government, anyone?
- Tim - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 3:10 pm:
Re Eisendrath: I recall seeing a brief quote from him shortly after Blago was arrested. It was nothing out of the ordinary, just him saying how unfortunate this is and how it could have been avoided if he’d been chosen in the primary.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I read it, and Google News doesn’t turn it up anymore.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 3:31 pm:
Eisendrath called into NPR once discussing what Tim mentions. Nothing out of the ordinary, and he started interjecting so much they thanked him and got him off the air.
- Inish Mein - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 5:24 pm:
Let me first say my thanks and NEVER ENDING APPRECIATION to you Rich Miller- this is an incredible service. And thank you for calling people on their smack today.
- Inish Mein - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 5:27 pm:
And of course- my thanks to Rep. Franks- he has been swinging this bat for a long time getting ready for this pitch. The hearings sounded vaguely similiar to the CMS hearings of three years ago.
- Dame Illini - Thursday, Jan 8, 09 @ 8:59 pm:
Eisendrath had a couple of good pieces on Huffington Post about this whole debacle. I’m glad someone is speaking up! Blago and Burris are an embarrassment to all of us who call Illinois “home”. What has happened to our political leaders? Who is left to stand up for what is right and just? Evidently, not anyone currently holding an elected office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=edwin+eisendrath&sa.x=26&sa.y=6&sa=Search#1066