Governor Rod Blagojevich is now Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Illinois governor guilty of abuse

 

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been ousted from office after being convicted of abusing his powers. Senators voted 59-0 against him after an impeachment trial, despite his claim that he had "done nothing wrong" and that there was no evidence of a crime. He was charged with trying to sell the seat vacated by Barack Obama when he was elected president. In a second vote, Mr Blagojevich was banned from holding public office in Illinois for life. He had been arrested in December and faces a criminal trial over bribes allegedly taken during his two terms. Mr Blagojevich is now replaced as governor by Patrick Quinn, a fellow Democrat and the state's lieutenant governor. No other Illinois governor has been impeached, let alone convicted in a Senate trial. In a last-minute bid to save his position, Mr Blagojevich addressed his trial on Thursday, having earlier said he would not take any part.He told senators: "There is no evidence that shows there was any wrongdoing by me as governor." He expressed annoyance that he was not able to bring his own witnesses. He said President Barack Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel was one witness he would have liked to question, but rules prevented him from doing so. He appealed to senators, at the end of the four-day trial, to consider his position, saying: "Think if you were innocent and rushed out of office. "A crime has not been proven. How can you throw a governor out of office with incomplete evidence?" Since Mr Blagojevich was arrested last month, he has persistently denied the charges against him and has refused to resign.There is no trial date set in the criminal case. "If I thought I had done something wrong I would have resigned in December," he told senators. "I didn't resign then and I'm not resigning now because I have done nothing wrong." He says he is the victim of a political vendetta. Impeachment prosecutor David Ellis, in his rebuttal, emphasised that Mr Blagojevich had refused to appear under oath to answer questions, opting instead to make a closing speech. In his closing remarks, Mr Ellis said: "The evidence showed that throughout his tenure as governor, the governor has abused the power of his office and put his own interest above the interest of the people." The impeachment followed an investigation by a 21-member committee of Illinois legislators, which looked at testimony from FBI agents who wiretapped phone calls to and from the governor's office about who should fill President Obama's seat. It is alleged the conversations show that Mr Blagojevich was trying to use the seat to get himself or his wife a job.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[taks]

there's gonna be some legal issues with this...

 

taks

[Laozi]

sucks, I liked Blagojevich, sure he was a democrat but he was clearly a conservative at heart.

[Calax]

I think that he did abuse his power (to deny it was stupid on his part) and he deserved his punishment. I was actually unaware he was in custody given that he's appointed a senator, and used his power as governor otherwise, and he showed up on every talk show under the sun (even if it was an ambush softball interview with Geraldo).

[Laozi]

Haven't you ever seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

[Kor Qel Droma]

Wiretaps FTW!

[Blank]

U.S. politics has needed a makeover for a while. This is a good start. "The ends justify the means," types of thinking are ridiculous in this case, where a simple senate appointment was all that Blagojevich needed to do. If you cannot appoint a senate seat without suspicious dealings, you need to take a time out in my opinion. He sounds like a nice guy, but the 21 member committee of Illinois legislators and I think he should take a break from politics for a while.

[taks]

i'm curious how everybody "knows" he "abused his power" when he was not even allowed to call his own witnesses or offer evidence that is contrary to what was presented? while i understand the wiretaps are damning, that's not an excuse to avoid due process. the due process clause in the illinois constitution does not limit itself to criminal trials and the excuse that the illinois senate rules are looser than criminal laws is abhorrent.

 

the fact of the matter is that once this got out, the dems were in a hurry to save face and "do the right thing" and the prosecutor (fitzgerald) was in a hurry to bolster his career by taking down such a high level politician. travesty that we have come this far but sank so low.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

i'm curious how everybody "knows" he "abused his power" when he was not even allowed to call his own witnesses or offer evidence that is contrary to what was presented? while i understand the wiretaps are damning, that's not an excuse to avoid due process. the due process clause in the illinois constitution does not limit itself to criminal trials and the excuse that the illinois senate rules are looser than criminal laws is abhorrent.

 

the fact of the matter is that once this got out, the dems were in a hurry to save face and "do the right thing" and the prosecutor (fitzgerald) was in a hurry to bolster his career by taking down such a high level politician. travesty that we have come this far but sank so low.

 

taks

 

He hasn't been thrown into jail, he is just being removed from his office. It is just like losing a job. He also didn't even show up to the first three days f the trial, so it's not like he was taking many steps to try and keep his job.

 

This will turn into a criminal trial, and he will get to go through due process for that.

 

I agree with you that the prosecutor was using this as a launching pad for his career, but that's lawyers and politicians for you :D

[taks]

He hasn't been thrown into jail, he is just being removed from his office.

not my point... he's being deprived of his liberty (his job) without due process.

 

He also didn't even show up to the first three days f the trial, so it's not like he was taking many steps to try and keep his job.

certainly that doesn't help his case, but he knew he wouldn't be able to defend himself before the trial began, so i don't buy this argument as very convincing, either.

 

This will turn into a criminal trial, and he will get to go through due process for that.

but he's already fried, particularly in the media, and his career is over. what happens if he gets acquitted? what happens if it turns out he's right?

 

I agree with you that the prosecutor was using this as a launching pad for his career, but that's lawyers and politicians for you :D

doesn't make it right and people that believe in the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" should be appalled at such actions. his whole impeachment is a political statement.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

The funny thing is the only difference between what Blago did and what every other politician does every day is he explicitly stated he wanted payment for political favors, instead of it being understood.

[Hurlshort]

He hasn't been thrown into jail, he is just being removed from his office.

not my point... he's being deprived of his liberty (his job) without due process.

 

This happens every day in plenty of other careers. He got more than many people do by actually having a three day trial before they canned him. If he feels it was unjustified, he can take them to court and sue them like every other career.

 

As a teacher, I have a very clear understanding of just how unfair this system may be. My career can be ruined by mere rumors. But on the other hand, if a teacher is trying to extort money from parents or students, I want them removed from the classroom immediately. Like the governor, they are in a position of power and can cause serious damage if they aren't dealt with quickly. I would rather see an overreaction than a delayed reaction.

[Enoch]

He hasn't been thrown into jail, he is just being removed from his office.

not my point... he's being deprived of his liberty (his job) without due process.

Wow. Do you realize that, by extending Due Process protection to employment, you've just made it impossible for employers to fire anybody for pretty much any reason without first having hearings, appeals, and piles of bureacratic mumbo-jumbo? And here I thought that you would be the last person around here to embrace the French perspective on employment law.

 

Anyhow, based on a quick look at the IL state constitution, I doubt Blago has much hope of success in a court case to challenge his impeachment. The state constitution, unlike the federal one, doesn't require any "high crime or misdemeanor." Instead, it simply requires the legislature to find "cause for impeachment." That seems to be a deliberately low standard. (There are probably court cases giving more depth to this, but I'm not all that motivated to look.) He might have a case based on Due Process, though, in that an impeachment under the IL constitution can both remove an official, and disqualify him/her from holding public office in that state in the future. The former isn't a protected right under Due Process, but the latter certainly is. But I don't know if the removal that passed yesterday included a bar on future service.

[Rhomal]

sucks, I liked Blagojevich, sure he was a democrat but he was clearly a conservative at heart.

 

If you refer the traditional meaning of the word, perhaps. If you mean the modern meaning of the word I don't think so. A guy who cared about universal heath care (or close to it), civil liberties and public transit all go against the grain of modern GOP/conservatism mentality.

 

As for his impeachment; while it seems there was some kind of wash my hand & i'll wash yours going on a few things bother me;

 

a. Watched some of the interviews of those who voted to oust him and I have yet to hear one, dem or rep say 'yes he broke this law and why I voted the way I did'. No one that I saw went on record to claim a specific law he broke it was all 'well hes corrupt' and yet couldn't name any specifics beyond generalizations.

 

b. Rather then innocent until proven guity it really seemed the other way around, at least my understanding of the way the rules of the hearing went. And that IMO I have to say does play into some of the claims he made saying how it was fixed against him.

 

c. In the end it seemed this was a convient excuse by the leg. branch to oust him becasue they simply didn't like him. I am not claiming he smells like roses, I certainly do think he did some underhand dealings, but the way they approached it certainly worries me. So anytime the leg branch does not like their gov it's ok to inpeach him without a fair hearing and rights one gets at a trial?

 

d. Sadly the public in general don't want to know how 2 things are made, sasuages and laws. This is, to our dismay, how the political system works, backroom dealings. Now he went over the top I feel but generally the only difference between what happened here and the other 49 states is the curtain was pulled back in this case for the public to look.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Rhomal

[taks]

Wow. Do you realize that, by extending Due Process protection to employment, you've just made it impossible for employers to fire anybody for pretty much any reason without first having hearings, appeals, and piles of bureacratic mumbo-jumbo?

um, no, apples and oranges. this is an impeachment and senate hearing, the government office equivalent of an indictment and trial. what was being used was evidence that is expected to be put forth in a criminal trial to follow.

 

He might have a case based on Due Process, though, in that an impeachment under the IL constitution can both remove an official, and disqualify him/her from holding public office in that state in the future. The former isn't a protected right under Due Process, but the latter certainly is. But I don't know if the removal that passed yesterday included a bar on future service.

i'm not sure why you say the former is not a protected right under due process? either way, overall, due process was what i was getting at.

 

^hurlshot:

If he feels it was unjustified, he can take them to court and sue them like every other career.

that's pretty much what i was saying... he may have some legal standing in this issue. even the illinois constitution seems to have been violated a bit, though i'm not in a position to say how. apparently the house is supposed to do the investigation, but what happened is fitzgerald did it for them, and used evidence that blago has not yet been allowed to examine for himself. very, very bad, IMO.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

But I don't know if the removal that passed yesterday included a bar on future service.

 

It did, a lifetime ban.

[taks]

even worse...

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

But I don't know if the removal that passed yesterday included a bar on future service.

 

It did, a lifetime ban.

 

On Illinois public service offices only. But it might as well be a ban on political office forever, nobody is going to touch the guy now.

[Enoch]

Wow. Do you realize that, by extending Due Process protection to employment, you've just made it impossible for employers to fire anybody for pretty much any reason without first having hearings, appeals, and piles of bureacratic mumbo-jumbo?

um, no, apples and oranges. this is an impeachment and senate hearing, the government office equivalent of an indictment and trial.

That's not how legal precedent has seen it. A closer analogy would be a company's board of directors voting to oust the CEO-- there are internal rules to govern how it's done, but the CEO's due process rights don't come into the equation at all. The government office equivalent of indictment and trial is, well, indictment and trial.

 

But I don't know if the removal that passed yesterday included a bar on future service.

 

It did, a lifetime ban.

That does make it a lot more problematic. Numerous court cases have held that the right to stand for election to a public office cannot be taken away from someone without due process. There was, of course, some process given here, but it was far short of the process he would get in a court of law. If Blago wants to spend a lot of money on lawyers, he can probably get that aspect of the ruling invalidated-- he might even be able to get a federal court to declare that portion of the IL state constitution void under the federal constitution. But such a suit would probably do nothing to reverse his removal from office.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Enoch

[Hurlshort]

It's kinda like cutting off a guy's private parts and then banning him from sex. The first action pretty much guaranteed that, no need for the second.

[Enoch]

It's kinda like cutting off a guy's private parts and then banning him from sex. The first action pretty much guaranteed that, no need for the second.

Well, Marion Barry did get re-elected...

[taks]

That's not how legal precedent has seen it.

legal precedent where? illinois? their constitution is sufficiently vague, i.e., due process is not specified to criminal cases alone, to leave open plenty of wiggle room. the fact that evidence that will be used in a criminal trial was marched out without any opportunity for blago to contest it seems to be on pretty weak ground, too.

 

That does make it a lot more problematic. Numerous court cases have held that the right to stand for election to a public office cannot be taken away from someone without due process. There was, of course, some process given here, but it was far short of the process he would get in a court of law. If Blago wants to spend a lot of money on lawyers, he can probably get that aspect of the ruling invalidated-- he might even be able to get a federal court to declare that portion of the IL state constitution void under the federal constitution. But such a suit would probably do nothing to reverse his removal from office.

indeed, i agree that this is his best argument. keep in mind, i also agree that i don't think he will get anywhere, just that i think he has a case to be made, albeit not the best on the planet. this bit, btw, is almost like a non-compete clause in an employment contract. i've signed plenty, and they mean almost nothing simply because such contracts cannot prevent me from seeking an income from my stated profession.

 

taks

[Enoch]

That's not how legal precedent has seen it.

legal precedent where? illinois? their constitution is sufficiently vague, i.e., due process is not specified to criminal cases alone, to leave open plenty of wiggle room. the fact that evidence that will be used in a criminal trial was marched out without any opportunity for blago to contest it seems to be on pretty weak ground, too.

I was basing my argument on federal constitutional law, which is what Blags would almost certainly have to rely on, since it would be rather difficult to make the argument that the IL state constitution should be read to describe an impeachment proceeding explicitly in one section, but implicitly add huge modifications (i.e., full criminal procedure rules) in an entirely separate section. And, after all the criticism that the Courts have taken over expansive readings of the "liberty" portion of the 14th Amendment (e.g., the "liberty of contract" cases in the early 20th century, as well as the reproductive rights cases more recently), they are very very reluctant to expand the scope of this requirement to anything beyond actual imprisonment.

[taks]

I was basing my argument on federal constitutional law, which is what Blags would almost certainly have to rely on, since it would be rather difficult to make the argument that the IL state constitution should be read to describe an impeachment proceeding explicitly in one section, but implicitly add huge modifications (i.e., full criminal procedure rules) in an entirely separate section.

the IL constitution also explicitly states that the house is supposed to handle any and all investigations, which seems to me to be some major modifications, no? i mean, the very guy that was in charge (sort of) the senate hearings got to pick and choose the evidence from his stockpile saved up for the criminal trial. at best it is unethical. he is attempting to sway public opinion prior to the actual trial, i.e., contaminate the jury pool. it worked, since everyone across the country thinks this guy is guilty.

 

personally, i don't see how he could ever mount a legitimate federal case anyway.

 

what i think could happen is that he could end up with a fat lawsuit for having his name, reputation, and career ruined IF (very big if) he wins any criminal case against him.

 

taks

[Aristes]

That's the sort of thing that happens all of the time in legislative hearings. That's the norm. Because they're not criminal trials, and because you can't arrest someone after the fact, legislators always pick and choose. The due process is protected precisely because the hearings aren't criminal and even a law coming out of the hearing cannot be retroactively applied.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems as if Blagojevich was removed by what we must consider as the appropriate process. Could this set a bad precedent in that other governors are removed by capricious legislatures in the future? Sure, but that's a different story, a different argument, and undoubtedly won't make much difference for Blagojevich at any rate.