Governor Rod Blagojevich is now Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich.

[taks]

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.

that doesn't make it right, and they are talking about using evidence presented during the hearing in his criminal trial.

 

The due process is protected precisely because the hearings aren't criminal

not if you read the IL constitution. due process is not tied to criminal proceedings.

 

and even a law coming out of the hearing cannot be retroactively applied.

you're conflating two totally different issues. besides, there are no laws coming out of the hearing.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems as if Blagojevich was removed by what we must consider as the appropriate process.

except that the IL house did not conduct the investigation as set forth by the IL constitution... so, no, it was not 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.

i don't think so. the only reason this one merits attention is his connection to obama, and that's probably part of the reason even the dems are quick to respond. 59-0 is a pretty strong statement that "you're a goner."

 

he's got a tough fight in his trial, and the only way he could remotely have a lawsuit is if he wins there. really, i don't know what his argument will be, but then, i don't know what he knows, either, nor do i know the context in which he made the statements he made on the wiretaps. if it were one stray comment made in jest things wouldn't be so bad, but apparently there are numerous incidents.

 

taks

[Aristes]

You've got it wrong. That the legislator selected evidence that will be used in a criminal proceding is not the same as saying that this is a criminal trial in which the prosecutors will pick and choose from evidence that will not be available for the defense. Whether it's right or wrong, the fact that hearings in the legislature are essentially political shows is the norm and has been. ...And, right or wrong, these hearings serve a political purpose. There simply must be some sort of hearing, even if it's the highly orchestrated hearings we have on display. At least some information comes to light.

 

Due process of law rises above state law and, if there is any problem, it is protected by the constitution. It really doesn't matter what IL says about it.

 

I'm not conflating any issues at all. I'm saying the limited scope of these hearings serves to protect citizens from what would be a true miscarriage of justice: denying citizens due process.

 

I think the legislature would argue that it did conduct an investigation. Sure, it must have been a pretty hasty one, and they're undoubtedly counting the criminal investigation, but they'd probably argue that they did.

 

My point is, even if he's found innocent, I think the removal should still stand. We should not have the same standard applied for removing someone from office as we do for a criminal conviction. I doubt he'll get his job back, even though he might get the court to overturn the subsequent decision to bar him from political office for life.

[Enoch]

taks, I think you're taking the "conduct legislative investigations" bit in the IL constitution too literally. When a court, law, or whatever refers to a legislative investigation, they're not actually requiring the legislators to go out and hunt down clues. They refer mostly to the legislature's subpoena power, which it can use to get documents (like, say, recordings of wiretaps previously conducted by a law enforcement agency) and compel witnesses to testify (like, say, criminal investigators who have been tracking potential illegal acts that the official in question may or may not have committed). So long as a majority is satisfied that they have found "the existence of cause for impeachment," I think the "investigation" requirement is moot.

 

I think the system looks shady in this case because there was nobody in the IL legislature who was willing to stand up for the Governor. I think the drafters of impeachment provisions generally assume that the official under investigation is going to have at least a few allies in the legislature who would bring up any evidence in his favor.

 

 

Also, the IL due process clause is almost exactly the same as the Federal 14th Amendment. IL might have a judicial definition of "liberty" that differs from that which the federal courts have come up with (which does not include the liberty to keep one's job as an elected official), but I really doubt it.

[Gfted1]

My point is, even if he's found innocent, I think the removal should still stand.

 

 

Wow.

[Aristes]

My point is, even if he's found innocent, I think the removal should still stand.

 

 

Wow.

 

It was carried out by the legislature under the existing laws. That we respect the law first and foremost, and change it if it is wrong, is most important to me.

 

Furthermore, most folks I've heard say that O.J. Simpson got away with murder. There was insufficient evidence for folks to convict him, and so he was a free man. That is the law and we respect that. However, the civil trial decided against him. My point is, just because there is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction does not mean there is insufficient evidence for the impeachment/conviction. They are two different things.

[Hurlshort]

He did get 59 politicians to unanimously agree to something. That is pretty amazing.

[taks]

You've got it wrong. That the legislator selected evidence that will be used in a criminal proceding is not the same as saying that this is a criminal trial in which the prosecutors will pick and choose from evidence that will not be available for the defense.

that's not what i said though the point was more along the ethical rather than legal argument.

 

Due process of law rises above state law and, if there is any problem, it is protected by the constitution. It really doesn't matter what IL says about it.

yes, it does matter because the illinois constitution is the legal document that defines illinois procedure.

 

I'm not conflating any issues at all. I'm saying the limited scope of these hearings serves to protect citizens from what would be a true miscarriage of justice: denying citizens due process.

you're conflating ex-post facto laws with due process. you said something about "laws coming out of the hearing cannot be used against him" which is a completely different issue than anything any of us have discussed, nor possible anyway (laws don't come out of impeachment hearings).

 

I think the legislature would argue that it did conduct an investigation. Sure, it must have been a pretty hasty one, and they're undoubtedly counting the criminal investigation, but they'd probably argue that they did.

i'm sure they would, but realistically, they didn't, fitzgerald did.

 

My point is, even if he's found innocent, I think the removal should still stand. We should not have the same standard applied for removing someone from office as we do for a criminal conviction. I doubt he'll get his job back, even though he might get the court to overturn the subsequent decision to bar him from political office for life.

maybe, maybe not. depends upon what comes out in the criminal trial, really. i mean, in the off chance that ALL of this is really a context issue and NONE is actually evidence of wrong-doing, then there will be some serious accountability issues on the way they conduct business, as well as lawsuits, whether he gets his job back or not. really, really big IF, i might add. i don't expect him to get acquitted, but i do afford him the opportunity of innocence before being proven guilty, which this process has not given him.

 

taks

[taks]

He did get 59 politicians to unanimously agree to something. That is pretty amazing.

amazing, ain't it? last time i can remember anything like that was a recent US senate vote of, coincidentally, 95-0.

 

^enoch: maybe. but i think the deeper point was that the legislature let fitzgerald run the show, which was clearly designed to improve his trial case. the irony here (well... sorry gromnir) is that everyone bashed blago for trying to sway the jury to his side while ignoring what fitzgerald was doing. hehe...

 

politicians, gotta love 'em. personally, i've never heard of any that weren't corrupt... oh wait, GD. but he quit because of what it requires as i recall.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

It's because of what it takes to get into office, they are sort of conditioned to grant special favors from the beginning. As long as political contributions are out in the open they are part of the democratic process, but there's always those kinds of favors that won't bear public scrutiny.

 

I don't see a way out of it.

[Humodour]

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?

 

He was allowed. He just chose not to. He chose to boycott his own trial and go on talk shows instead and try to convince people he was a lovable rascal.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I hear he's going to voice Atton in Kotor 3.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Aristes]

I'm not conflating anything. The point is that he is safe from any criminal charges based on the impeachment. Not only is he not denied due process, but they cannot create laws and he could not be prosecuted as a result of them if they could. You're conflating a trial resulting from impeachment with a criminal trial. I'm actually separating rather than conflating these issues by saying that they exist independently, and that the impeachment didn't result in any sort of injustice. The legislature acted out its obligated duty by impeaching him. They had sufficient evidence to impeach him and that evidence did not need to rise up to the same level as the evidence that would be necessary to convict him of criminal actions. It was for this very reason that the Republicans in the house impeached Bill Clinton.

 

So, there was no need of due process of law because of the nature of the hearing, and even if the hearing resulted in a law that would have made his prior acts criminal, he could not be charged at any rate after the fact. I'm not confusing those issues. I understand them about as well as any layman. The only identified lawyer in this thread is Enoch, and he's already stated his view, which doesn't make it settled, but certainly carries weight as a professional in the field.

 

If it comes out that he did nothing wrong in the least, which is unlikely, then I don't think he should get his job back, although I'm certain the ridiculous lifetime ban will go. Instead of giving him his job back, he can run again as someone who was wronged by the system. What should happen is the public, especially in his state, should hold law enforcement and public officials accountable. While it is a grave injustice to him personally, the important thing is policy.

[Gorth]

Is it just my imagination or does that (ex) governor look a bit like the guy in Gorgons avatar?

[Humodour]

Is it just my imagination or does that (ex) governor look a bit like the guy in Gorgons avatar?

 

The guy in Gorgon's avatar doesn't have an anachronism attacking his head.

[taks]

The point is that he is safe from any criminal charges based on the impeachment.

and the point is that is known as ex-post facto, not due process. you're conflating the two since they have nothing to do with each other nor anything anyone has said.

 

where on earth you got that i have no idea. look up the definitions. sheesh.

 

taks

[Bartimaeus]

Nothing he doesn't deserve.

[Aristes]

I understand the definitions. You're mistaking a larger argument that includes more than one narrow term for confusing the term. Certainly, you must understand that these elements of law don't exist in vacuum. How about looking up the term conflating. It's a great term. Roots are Latin. It's not that tough, even if you aren't a Latinist, to find out what it means. I knew it before you decided to use it every single post.

 

The fact is, no matter whether you look at it from a due process standpoint, an ex post facto (for you Latinists. I usually just use after the fact, which is the same thing in English), or simply as a proceedural question, it amounts to the same thing. The guy lost his job. The evidence was sufficiently incriminating (No no I'm not conflating a legislative hearing with a criminal process) to remove him from office.

 

You made a big deal about his removal and I'm saying that, no matter which big bad term we use, the former governor won't be unduly prosecuted under the legal system. So, just because due process is your big bad bane of eeeeeeevil doesn't mean that I can't broaden the subject by bringing up additional points as to why Blagojevich was not unfairly punished.

[Calax]

... loosing your job doesn't require due process. I mean come on if it did nobody could be fired for squat except very obvious criminal activity.

 

People loose their jobs on suspicion that isn't backed up, or for something that might have been made up by customers for example. Is public office different? Yes because unlike normal jobs, these guys have entire task forces dedicated to spin doctoring every action they make, and he can't be fired out of hand for making an off color joke. There will be cries of outrage if he made such a joke but I'd expect as long as he'd say sorry he'd keep his job.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

He did get 59 politicians to unanimously agree to something. That is pretty amazing.

 

[taks]

I understand the definitions.

then why did you bring it up when i never said anything about ex-post facto laws nor does it have anything to do with this situation? either you don't understand the terms as well as you think, or you don't understand what i said. and no, it's not "part of a larger" anything. ex-post facto is an entirely different argument, completely unrelated to blago's complaint.

 

taks

[taks]

... loosing your job doesn't require due process. I mean come on if it did nobody could be fired for squat except very obvious criminal activity.

it's not just about "losing your job." he is an elected official, not just some guy hired to work for GM. the guys that sealed his fate are the lawmakers, so it sort of serves to reason that they would abide by the same sorts of procedures they recommend when legal issues arise. those procedures are in place because they make the process fair. they, of all people, should strive to provide the same level of fairness, particularly when they are deciding on the fate of someone elected by the people.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I understand the definitions.

then why did you bring it up when i never said anything about ex-post facto laws nor does it have anything to do with this situation? either you don't understand the terms as well as you think, or you don't understand what i said. and no, it's not "part of a larger" anything. ex-post facto is an entirely different argument, completely unrelated to blago's complaint.

 

taks

 

You're wearing me down, taks, but I'll try to put it in different terms. I honestly don't understand your beef. There is a larger argument regarding this decision, and the former governor lost that argument, whether viewed by a single narrow term or as a larger set of terms. Perhaps he will win on appeal. I doubt it, but you never know.

 

So, you want to view it along one line. He is being denied due process. However, I say that the legislature was well within its rights. He is not suffering unduly by the impeachment in any way, including due process.

 

A man cut down a tree some distance in front of your house. You say that he trespassed to cut down your tree. I point out that the tree did not exist on your property. Not only did he not trespass, but the tree existed before you purchased the house, so you cannot claim that to have planted the tree and therefore have ownership. Furthermore the tree was dead and presented a fire hazard to the neighborhood. For all of these reasons, not only was the man free to cut down the tree, but he was obliged to do so.

 

Just because you have one narrow view of the issue does not mean that I'm forced to have the same narrow view. You may take my comments as affirming that not only is your initial avenue of attack incorrect, but all of these other avenues of attack are likewise wrongminded.

 

...And why are you so fixated on how I view the terms at any rate? Because, frankly, it seems that you have spent more time arguing over my understanding of the terms than making a better argument. I will concede that you appear to be getting back to the main point with your response to Calax.

 

Whether I understand the terms of not is irrelevant. I suppose you might want to say "sure the tree wasn't mine and it was dead, but he was still trespassing." That's fair enough. I tell you what, you can accuse me of? What? Ignorance? Fine. Fair enough. If it gets us back to the point of the whole thread, sure. Take another whack at me and then we'll get back to the larger discussion, although I warn you I will probably not confine myself to a narrow approach just because you have. The impeachment was appropriate.

[Calax]

... loosing your job doesn't require due process. I mean come on if it did nobody could be fired for squat except very obvious criminal activity.

it's not just about "losing your job." he is an elected official, not just some guy hired to work for GM. the guys that sealed his fate are the lawmakers, so it sort of serves to reason that they would abide by the same sorts of procedures they recommend when legal issues arise. those procedures are in place because they make the process fair. they, of all people, should strive to provide the same level of fairness, particularly when they are deciding on the fate of someone elected by the people.

 

taks

So... Should they have done the criminal trial first with him incarcerated and his LT stepping up to fill in until he was convicted then?

[Aristes]

If anyone is merging two separate ideas, it's taks. Impeachment/removal of public officials is not the same as criminal trials. Otherwise, we would not need the process of impeachment in the first place. The law would simply stipulate that a public official would be removed upon conviction of a crime. Impeachment has a lower threshold and takes into account misconduct in office. It is also a political rather than legal process. Don't let the idea of trails and hearings, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language, or taks assertions muddy the water. Impeachment has no truly defined criteria. The basis for impeachment is the subject of ongoing and virulent debate. It is used sparingly, but I don't see how the current impeachment in question was wrong. It seems perfectly legitimate to me.

[Humodour]

I understand the definitions.

then why did you bring it up when i never said anything about ex-post facto laws nor does it have anything to do with this situation? either you don't understand the terms as well as you think, or you don't understand what i said. and no, it's not "part of a larger" anything. ex-post facto is an entirely different argument, completely unrelated to blago's complaint.

 

taks

 

Edited February 3, 2009 by Krezack