« Problems leaving comments here? | Main | Review: Blackberry Storm cellphone »

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Beldar predicts that Blagojevich won't be impeached until convicted in court

This post may may make some people in Illinois mad at me. I'll have to risk it.

Prof. Ann Althouse is having fun ridiculing Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's efforts both before the press and before the Illinois Supreme Court. Madigan is trying to persuade that court to effectively remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office based on an argument that he's "disabled" due to the allegations that have been made against him in the pending federal indictment being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Earlier, Prof. Althouse wrote: "Given that ‘conviction on impeachment’ is one of the specified reasons for inability to serve, using this procedure as an alternative to the impeachment process looks like an abusive power grab." Prof. Glenn Reynolds adds: "I agree with Ann Althouse. The way you get rid of a crooked governor is via impeachment. Why play games here? If the case is so obvious, that shouldn’t take long."

I agree with both Prof. Althouse and Prof. Reynolds. Even though it would remove the reins of power from the hands of a crook, using the "disability" provision of the Illinois constitution in lieu of impeachment would be legally, politically, and intellectually illegitimate.

But picking up on Prof. Reynold's point about impeachment, the question about whether Blagojevich is "obviously crooked" becomes "obvious to whom?" and "under what standard of obviousness?"

That Blagojevich is a banal, petty crook has been "obvious" to anyone who cared to see such things long before he was indicted and arrested. Under a practical, common-sense standard, that should have been obvious to the voters of Illinois who nevertheless elected and then re-elected him.

But elections have consequences. Among them is the fact that once a crook is elected, constitutional niceties must be observed to remedy the situation.

With respect to Gov. Blagojevich's liberty, he's guaranteed all of the process due under federal law to anyone accused of such crimes, and Fitzgerald — who wants a conviction that will stand up against any appeals — will ensure that he gets it. But another consequence of Blogojevich's election is that the people of Illinois will have to be punished with him as their governor until political pressure can induce him to resign, or he's duly impeached and convicted by the Illinois legislature.

The people of New York elected as their governor a habitual liar and whore-monger, but he at least had the decency to resign when caught. The people of Illinois elected someone far worse, and one of the respects in which he is worse is that when confronted with his crime, he hasn't had the decency to resign.

To impeach and remove Blagojevich from office, the Illinois legislature would have to act without benefit of the actual proof of these allegations which Fitzgerald will use, in due course, in court. Legislators would have to display the political courage and common sense to say, in so many words: "Even though these are so far only alleged crimes rather than crimes proved in court to the satisfaction of a jury backstopped by trial and appellate courts, we are going to use the discretion granted us by the Illinois state constitution to accept a lower, lesser burden of persuasion and proof than do the federal courts in criminal matters, and we're going to hold Gov. Blagojevich responsible for these alleged crimes now." They will have to listen to Blagojevich's fervent, hypocritical pleas that he's presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then they will have to say boldly in response: "True, but that's in court, and this isn't a court. We're already sufficiently convinced that you're guilty."

The political legitimacy of such an impeachment would be, and should be, subject to close scrutiny — by the voters who will, in due course, consider whether they wish to re-elect legislators who voted for such an impeachment. For that is the procedural check on legislatures which abuse their impeachment powers — a theoretical check, but one sufficiently effective that their impeachment powers remain very rarely used, and almost never abused. (That's the realpolitik reason, and probably the only reason, why Nancy Pelosi hasn't tried to impeach Dubya, even with Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.)

*******

The ability to discern right and wrong is so uncertain among the voting public of Illinois, however, that incumbent legislators can safely figure that they won't be punished at the polls if they join Blagojevich's pious pleas of "innocent until proven guilty." Indeed, they may still more fear a backlash (either at the polls or, more likely, from other corrupt Illinois politicians, of which there will be no shortage even when Blagojevich is history) from doing the right thing by voting for legislative impeachment and conviction.

Indeed, the harshest criticism that can be leveled at the people of Illinois is the old truism that people generally get the government they deserve. To get a government sufficiently principled that its legislators will have the courage to impeach and remove an elected governor who's not yet been convicted in court, the public must first have voted for honest legislators who act according to principle. I frankly doubt that enough of those have been elected in Illinois.

Thus, my prediction is that an insufficient number of Illinois state legislators will have the courage necessary to impeach Blagojevich before he's convicted in federal court. That's likely to be many months from now. And that, too, is a consequence of awful electoral decisions made by the people of Illinois. It's a pathetic, tragicomic circus, worthy of the ridicule of decent people when viewed from almost any angle.

Yes, it's terribly unfair to the minority of Illinois citizens who've been outvoted by peers who preferred the likes of Blagojevich and the ethically challenged legislators who won't yet impeach him. Those good people — who number in the millions, but not sufficient millions — have my sympathy and respect.

But everyone who voted for these clowns is going to be stuck with them, and they richly deserve the government they've got. For them, I have no sympathy and no respect.

Posted by Beldar at 03:21 PM in Current Affairs, Law (2008), Politics (2008) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar predicts that Blagojevich won't be impeached until convicted in court and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


Comments

(1) John Bigenwald made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:07:26 PM | Permalink

As one of those in the minority - thank you for your sympathy. I'm afraid you are exactly right. They will hide behind legal niceties forgetting that this is a political question with a political answer.

Remember, the AG is the daughter of the Speaker of the House. She is also a considered a candidate for governor in 2010. She's looking for cover so it doesn't appear that her father got rid of a rival. She's already had to battle nepotism charges over her nomination for Attorney General.

This is what happens when so many seats in the legislature aren't competitive. They are used to keeping their heads down and out of the line of fire. As long as they don't stir the pot they can keep their phoney-baloney jobs. Now that there is a chance to lead, nobody knows how. Pathetic.

(2) Darcy made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:21:23 PM | Permalink

So sadly true. But a part of me wants this to be around long enough to shake out all of the bad guys - or as many of them as possible.

(3) J Bowen made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:22:16 PM | Permalink

I vote in IL. My only beef with what you wrote is that you shouldn't say IL when you mean Chicago. It's hard to imagine a Dem winning statewide office here without Chicago owning him.

The rest of us, Republican or Democrat, could be saints and it wouldn't be enough.

(4) Steven Den Beste made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:28:22 PM | Permalink

One way you can tell that Beldar is right is that the legislative leaders there are talking about swift action on a law to prevent Blago from appointing Obama's successor. If they were planning to swiftly impeach Blago, they wouldn't need such a law.

(5) BT made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:33:50 PM | Permalink

As a resident of the City of Chicago and a rare conservative here, I have been saying essentially the same thing you just said and what you have said certainly does not offend me. The sad part is that things will not change. The Rs and Ds are both corrupt. The R party here is a joke. Oh well.

(6) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:40:58 PM | Permalink


Dear Mr. Dyer: What about the Daley machine? It has surely bent the direct connection between the voters and their legislators. (I add at once that the no-name GOP machine is just as culpable.) If you are a Democrat, but detest corruption, what do you do? Vote for the Daley candidate i.e. 200 proof corruption? Or go for the GOP, i.e. 190 proof corruption. Illinois is a case where a "None of the Above, try again, fellas" line is badly needed on the ballot.

Blago? He'll be gone. When the hopelessly conflicted Atty Genl. {a) her old man is the Speaker of the Illinois Assembly, the body that has to undertake the sordid task of impeachment. This back door maneuver spares him the unpleasant task and b) the Atty. Genl. has cast covetous eyes on higher offices before now. This is an easy way to knife a rival.) is trying such shabby maneuvers to get rid of Blago, he's toast. The longer it drags on, the worse it looks for The One, who can be hammered daily on his background. There's another danger: Blago is Commander-in-Chief of the Illinois National Guard and top boss of the Illinois State Patrol. Let him start howling that there are plots against him, the Atty. Genl's being only the most promininent, and calling on the troops to help him keep his throne, excuse me, mansion and what happens? Does The One federalize the Guard, obeying Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution whereby:

"The United Sates shall guarantee to every State in this Union and Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion and on Application of the Legislature or the Executive (when tdhe Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Ponder this clause, keeping in mind Blago's antics, the Illinois National Guard and the Illinois State Patrol and The One's Commander-in-Chief role under Article II. What a gaudy show! There will be thousands of deaths caused by apoplexy from unseemly mirth. I myself will need a stadium to contain my snickers.

Also ponder the billions that The One is going to shovel out. Illinois will not get dime one until this matter is settled. So if the Bar, in the person of the Atty Genl, is unsuccessful in its coup, the Legislature will groan into action, and Blago will be handed over to the tender mercies of Fitzgerald, who is beginning to learn what it is like not to be a moral superhero in the eyes of the press.

Ponder this too: what triggered this blowup? Why, The One's departure, reisigning form the Senate long before 20 January. Why leave before 20 January? Have to give up that Senate salary while the harpy Michelle screeches that she's not made outta money and why we gotta give it up? The answer is obvious: The One's native laziness got the better of him. He didn't want to be part of the Senate that had to vote bailouts. Let someone else do all the dirty work, while he communes with the Great Destiny that is his. You could argue that The One had no idea that Blago would be so obnoxious in hawking the seat. If so, how smart can The One claim to be?

Ponder this: The One has chosen Rahm Emanuel as his Lord High Executioner. Trouble is, Emanuel is also a United States Representative. He can't hold onto that job even while he hefts the dripping meat ax for The One. He will have to resign. Who will appoint his replacement? Why, Blago. Still think that Blago will be around until conviction? Your arguments are mighty, and for the sake of the show, I would dearly love to see them come true. But I think they will be overwhelmed by business as usual for what John Kass calls The Combine, and by The One's desperate need not be like the Bumpkin, a disaster from Day One.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster


(7) patch made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 4:57:39 PM | Permalink

Just a point for Gregory Koster. Vacancies in the House of Representative are filled by special election, not appointments by the Governor.

There was talk after 9/11 to change that in the event large numbers of Representatives were killed/disabled in a similar event, but you would need a constitutional amendment.

(8) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 5:15:12 PM | Permalink

Mr. Koster, you're usually accurate about your facts. I may be wrong, but I had read that Governors in most states can appoint Senators in situations like this--but they can't appoint members of the House of Representatives. That seems like a strange anomaly, but I report it for what it's worth.

These bad government follies that hang over Chicago like the stench from an overflowing cess pool are amusing, but they are a distraction.

Most of the damage for the Anointed One could have been prevented if he had not exhibited his annoying instinct of lying to the press and covering things up until he's figured out what he wants to do. If he'd responded to a question "Did you or your people talk to Blago" with the words "Yes, we did. It's entirely appropriate for an outgoing Senator to communicate with the Governor re a replacement", this nasty little mess would have moved on--or at least away from Obama.

Both the funniest and the saddest line I've heard in the whole mess was Rush Limbaugh's call for "due process for Blagojevich--or at least as much due process as the left is calling for with regard to the inhabitants of Guantanamo".

Because Blago is a distraction, and because the Obama crowd would like to move on, they're willing to throw him under the bus as fast as they possibly can. In short, sentence and execution first, trial later.

(9) Joe Jackson made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 5:24:26 PM | Permalink

We Southern Illinoisans are always held up to be rubes by self-proclaimed sophisticates in Chicago. Maybe they're right. But at least we know right from wrong and can spot a crook a mile off. Which means we could spot Blagojevich, and can spot other state pols, without our glasses.

(10) Illini West made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 5:41:57 PM | Permalink

Chicago far outnumbers the rest of the Illinois population, so we are victim to whatever their latest scheme is (including various forms of raising taxes and fees that fall disproportionately on us, with little or no benefit in return).

You're right, Illinois deserves the governor it reelected -- but pity us poor downstaters who have voted against him and suffered the consequences for years.

(11) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 5:55:59 PM | Permalink

Dear All: That's what happens when you read too quickly. From Article I Section 2:

"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."

Mr Myers & Co are right; a writ of Election is not a temporary appointment. Ooohh, the embarrassment.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

(12) Mahon made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 6:12:18 PM | Permalink

The small difficulty for Illinois pols is that if Blagojevich is impeached, he gets to present a defense. He undoubtedly knows a lot about the people who would be sitting in judgment on him and might well be willing to share. It could be a fascinating couple of weeks.

(13) James made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 6:15:12 PM | Permalink

Hi Beldar,

Just a note regarding impeachment.

The other reason why impeachment doesn't require the proof of court is because the punishment is much less severe. Getting fired is less severe than going to jail.

Of course, for the Democrats, losing power is worse than sending a politician to jail. I heard these arguments a lot during the Bill Clinton impeachment. It went something like:

My God, we can't throw Clinton out of office. That's much too terrible. It would be far better to prosecute him later and send him to jail.

James

(14) M. Simon made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 6:49:39 PM | Permalink

With Chicago running the State is no wonder the rest of Illinois is in a Down State.

(15) PD Shaw made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 6:50:47 PM | Permalink

I disagree with some of the assumption here; no doubt because unlike Beldar, I am from Illinois.

First of all, proposed articles of impeachment have been floating around the legislature since approximately last year for other abuses. They were drafted by the House Speaker. There was an impeachment rally last Spring; legislators have come out in favor of impeachment at least several months ago. The Governor will likely be impeached for more than recent events.

Second, the Constitution was changed in 1970 to remove any suggestion that criminal conduct is the basis of impeachment. The previous Constitution indicated that impeachment was based upon misdemeanor offenses, which was removed. The Constitutional history indicates that anything can be the basis of impeachment and thus no grounds for impeachment currently exist in the Constitution.

Third, the Illinois House rejected the notion at the outset of an impeachment process initiated ten years ago that an elected official has a due process right to their job. Nonetheless, they gave that public official the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses during the House impeachment hearing. They need not have done so then, they need not now.

Today's paper shows that at least 116 of the 177 members of the legislator want the Governor to resign immediately. 108 of the 177 want impeachment proeceedings to begin immediately. (43 could not be reached in both polls) The votes to impeach and convict appear to be present already.

(16) Bob made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 7:29:33 PM | Permalink

If there is a trial, my interest is-- if the graft reached back to the 2004 senate seat-- and who paid for that.

(17) Fresh Air made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 7:36:01 PM | Permalink

Beldar--

While I understand your point, you need to realize that Blago is widely hated by Democrats as well as Republicans, especially by Speaker Mike Madigan (father of A.G. Madigan). Blago's approval rating now stands at 8 percent. The word here in Illinois is he is going to be impeached early this week, with or without objective "proof." His behavior is well-enough known and bears a strong resemblance to so many other politicians in the Land of Lincoln that legal standards are not required for the legislature to convict him. IMHO, of course.

(18) A.W. made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 8:18:58 PM | Permalink

Well, althouse and all are having sport with the Ill. AG, but in fact the AG has a point.

If the impeachment clause in Ill. lists impeachment, death and so on and then says "or OTHER disability" then the list has just become a list of disabilities. So she may use the term "plain" too much, but she is not off base.

I say that as a person who is appalled by the idea that a mere accusation could cause a person to be "disabled" in this sense, although we might qualify it here by pointing out that it is an accusation supported by alot of evidence, right out of his own mouth. Its not like this could happen to any governor.

And all the people who claimed that Bill Clinton couldn't go forward in the Paula Jones matter, claiming that it would be "too distracting" and then later claiming that when the Lewinsky scandal blew up as a result, would have a hard time arguing now that Blaggy is not just as distracted now by this, if not more so.

So as a quirk of the Ill constitution, maybe he can be removed for this and nothing more.

Let's just hope the rumors that he will resign monday turn out to be true.

(19) Xrlq made the following comment | Dec 14, 2008 8:25:12 PM | Permalink

Not sure I understand the premise of this post. Can't the IL legislature try impeachments on its own, as other legislatures do? Clinton's impeachment didn't require a criminal indictment, let alone a conviction, to proceed. No, he didn't get booted out of office in the end, but that's because his approval ratings were well north of 8%, not because 20 Senators were holding out for a criminal conviction.

(20) LarryD made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 9:09:19 AM | Permalink

17th Amendment

... When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

US Senators were originally selected by the legislatures of their states, US Representatives have always been elected.

The differences in how a vacancy is filled area a consequence of this and the different paths the Constitution has been ammended.

I don't know about the IL Constitution, but impeachment at the federal level has always been understood to be political in nature, thus the House can impeach, and the Senate convict, for any reason that can move a majority of each and that they are willing to face their constituents for in the next election.

(21) LarryD made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 9:10:21 AM | Permalink

17th Amendment

... When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

US Senators were originally selected by the legislatures of their states, US Representatives have always been elected.

The differences in how a vacancy is filled area a consequence of this and the different paths the Constitution has been ammended.

I don't know about the IL Constitution, but impeachment at the federal level has always been understood to be political in nature, thus the House can impeach, and the Senate convict, for any reason that can move a majority of each and that they are willing to face their constituents for in the next election.

(22) kimsch made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 10:22:47 AM | Permalink

In Illinois it takes only 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach a governor. That's it. There doesn't have to be any underlying cause, or crime, or anything. The Gov can be impeached for picking his nose - IF impeachment gets 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Cook County in Illinois has half the population of the state, so it's not all of us.

(23) kimsch made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 10:28:25 AM | Permalink

In Illinois it takes only 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach a governor. That's it. There doesn't have to be any underlying cause, or crime, or anything. The Gov can be impeached for picking his nose - IF impeachment gets 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Cook County in Illinois has half the population of the state, so it's not all of us.

In Illinois, the Governor appoints an interim Senator by statute, not by the Constitution, so the Legislature can strip that power from the Governor.

(24) kimsch made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 10:28:59 AM | Permalink

In Illinois it takes only 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach a governor. That's it. There doesn't have to be any underlying cause, or crime, or anything. The Gov can be impeached for picking his nose - IF impeachment gets 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Cook County in Illinois has half the population of the state, so it's not all of us.

In Illinois, the Governor appoints an interim Senator by statute, not by the Constitution, so the Legislature can strip that power from the Governor.

(25) kimsch made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 10:30:18 AM | Permalink

In Illinois it takes only 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach a governor. That's it. There doesn't have to be any underlying cause, or crime, or anything. The Gov can be impeached for picking his nose - IF impeachment gets 60 votes in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Cook County in Illinois has half the population of the state, so it's not all of us.

In Illinois, the Governor appoints an interim Senator by statute, not by the Constitution, so the Legislature can strip that power from the Governor.

(26) LJBrown made the following comment | Dec 15, 2008 6:36:04 PM | Permalink

One man's cesspool is another man's soup.

(27) hunter made the following comment | Dec 16, 2008 7:44:28 AM | Permalink

I think the Gov. has some cards- or tapes0- of his own to play.
This is far from over.
Illinois sounds like it has a very deficient constitution, by the way.

(28) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Dec 16, 2008 10:03:52 AM | Permalink

Headline on story re this situation in today's Los Angeles Times. "OBAMA CLEARS SELF AND STAFF"

I understand that similar headlines ran in papers across the country. Move on folks, nothing to see here. That's the meme--and maybe the rubes who read those papers will swallow it.

(29) Carol Herman made the following comment | Dec 16, 2008 1:45:22 PM | Permalink

Gee, I didn't think you could have "a conviction in court" without a trial.

And, I think Blago could convince a court that "free speech rules" apply. He can say anything he wants AS LONG AS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY ACTUALLY TRADED HANDS. Plus, I bet he says he was under TOO MUCH STRESS! Worried about his role. And, consumed by sleepless nights. Where "free speech" with all those "bleeps" tend to be something "everybody does." And, why make free speech a crime, now?

While I got slapped down, here, for suggesting Chelsea was in the running for her mom's seat! And, lo and behold, today DRUDGE front line's Chelsea's "resume" for her mom's seat. Yes. It stipulates that there have been a number of times YOUNGER than the age required, senators have made it to the US Senate.

As if the media can change politics! How much ho-hum do you need? Since stories in the media have shelf lives worse than fresh milk?

I think Blago gets to name the next Illinois senator. And, with good lawyering? I think he can "beat the wrap."

One thing Fitzmas did was JUMP THE GUN!

DOn't they teach you guys anything in law schools? If the "payment didn't occur" ... you can't put someone in jail ... assuming he uses the FU word, and any other prosecutor, other than Fitzmas, wouldn't have been up there "with baseball analogies." OR with Lincoln rolling in his grave!

Fitzmas? A good lawyer should be able to dance circles around him. You just don't try cases in the courts (if you want to call them that), of public opinion.

Of course? If you can win by lobbing crap into the media, who needs to spend big bucks on lawyers?

Consider what it's worth to hold onto a diploma that earns you bucks.

Stop it, already, that you guys toss red meat out into the public venue; and then you swear up and down to the judge "that you're a virgin." And, you haven't contaminated your jury pool.

By the way, Judge Jones, in the Kitsmiller case, explains WHY only the BENCH heard the evidence. Turns out, the plaintiffs wanted an INJUNCTION. Ta da. You don't have to be a lawyer, now, to know ONLY JUDGES can issue INJUNCTIONS.

Of course, in any horse race you can put your money on Fitzmas. But don't expect him to prvide much to other prosecutors who "might" take their jobs seriously.

True, law schools arean't noted for graduating heroes.

(30) Postergal made the following comment | Dec 17, 2008 5:34:42 PM | Permalink

Laws are laws. If the law requires a specific burden of proof, then such should be observed. Let the proper and legal procedures and processes be observed. If evidence is overwhelming against him, then let the process take its course. Surely, seeing him being impeached will not be long.

(31) DRJ made the following comment | Dec 18, 2008 8:02:44 PM | Permalink

Once again, Beldar is right:

"Illinois lawmakers could be forced to build their impeachment case against Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a raft of relatively small grievances, rather than the blockbuster Senate-seat-for-sale allegations, for fear of undermining federal prosecutors' criminal investigation.

Members of the state House impeachment committee said Thursday they will do nothing that would interfere with the investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. If Fitzgerald asks lawmakers not to interview certain witnesses, they will abide by that, they said.

"We do not want to get in the way of the United States attorney doing the work he does, and so whatever he says about where we can and can't go in our investigation, we are going to just simply say, 'Fine, sir,'" said state Rep. Lou Lang, a suburban Chicago Democrat.

The committee would then probably emphasize some lower-profile allegations of misconduct against Blagojevich. Among them: defying the Legislature, failing to honor reporters' Freedom of Information requests, and trading state jobs and contracts for campaign contributions.

The latest complications, along with other developments, suggest it could be more difficult to dislodge Blagojevich than it appeared just a week ago. On Wednesday, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected a request to declare him unfit to serve, and Blagojevich's lawyer made it clear that the governor is not going down without a fight."

(32) Carol Herman made the following comment | Dec 20, 2008 2:30:57 PM | Permalink

In Israel, two men lost their political careers, in moves that are similar to Fitzmas, here. In other words? In the "court of public opinion." Which is a disgrace. Since it's easy to smear someone by screaming stinking headlines over and over, again.

As Donavan said to Congress, back in the 1980's, AFTER he was exonerated: WHERE DO I GO TO GET MY REPUTATION BACK?

Fitzmas has a record! He played this same trick against Bush & Cheney. When he knew full well that ARMITAGE 'accidently" leaked Plame's CIA status to Bob Novak. And, then, Novak was told he'd go to jail if he dared tell the truth!

As to what you heard from Fitzmas, with all his "stylized" bleeps ... is that among ALL the evidence he had, NO CRIME HAD YET OCCURRED. To this day you don't even know who will get Obama's seat. While Biden is trying to get his son into his senate seat! And, Caroline Kennedy, using the press, is trying to force Paterson in giving her Hillary's seat.

So, go ahead. Buy popcorn.

Fitzmas has yet to convict anyone in a court of law!

And, every single GOOD LAWYER knows he's worth his fees, when his client gets in trouble; and he crafts the defense.

Heck, Fitzmas can't prove that "Lincoln is rolling in his grave!" All he can prove is that he went in front of the TV's audiences; and he got up to the pitcher's mound, and PURPOSELY threw a prosecutor's blow across Blago; and he did this without a judge being present.

I can't wait for the discussions to begin, within our court system, of how easy it is for one corrupt judge to sign off on Fitzmas, and give him access to "wiretaps."

And, then watch Fitzmas create a smear.

Which, by the way, was meant to get Obama. And, if not Obama, than Rham.

BUSH & CHENEY? Never did begin to use the "bully pulpit" to ever defend thesmelves. SO what sticks there? THE SAUD'S! Bush thought he'd give the Saud's a piece of Irak. And, hell, he might throw in Jerusalem, too.

What legacy is left for Jr? I do not know. But Plame's game fell on deaf ears.

Americans are getting smarter every single day. (While this is not true about the politics in Israel.) But there ya go. We have the better system!

And, I can't wait to watch Blago playing this one out!

So far? The press has a single victory in this department: NIXON.

And, Nixon failed to use his own stature as president, to figure out a better approach. Maybe, he thought he was the smartest lawyer in the room?

There ya go. The smartest lawyer in the room isn't the talent, right now, you want to hire.

(33) Carol Herman made the following comment | Dec 20, 2008 2:58:38 PM | Permalink

TWO WONDERFUL COMMENTS!

One made by E.B. White, in an essay he wrote for the New YORKER Magazine, back in 1940. His essay was titled "What Democracy Means to me." And, he starts out by saying: "In America, voters elect their representatives by "being right more than 50% of the time."

It's a real 50/50! Just a little bit better, of course. And, then? The winner HAS ALL. Even if there's a lot of people not very happy, by the way the voting came out. (Well? If you bought a ticket for a horse race and your horse doesn't win, nobody says you have to say a nice word about the winning horse.) While all you can really do is rip up your ticket. Big deal.

Then, there's the wonderful quote I remember Adlai Stevenson made, back in 1952. He was running against Eisenhower. And, a woman, supporter, ran up to him and said: "Every intelligent person in America is gonna vote for you!" And, he responded, "in that case, I lose."

Just not enough intelligent voters make the difference.

So, ya get used to it. And, Eisenhower's portrait went up in all Federal government offices. (Most Americans were happy.) The 1950's. Just before the 1960's, began.

I do wish Blago a lot of luck. I consider Fitzmas a joke. And, a disaster as an honest prosecutor.

(34) DRJ made the following comment | Dec 23, 2008 1:26:32 PM | Permalink

More support here for Beldar's premise that the Illinois legislature will abstain from considering the Governor's indictment in deciding whether to impeach him.

The comments to this entry are closed.