Illinois Attorney General Threatens To Oust Blago
The pressure is definitely building on Rod Blagojevich to get off the stage:
If Gov. Blagojevich refuses to relinquish power and avoids impeachment, Attorney General Lisa Madigan is prepared to force his hand, aides said Tuesday.The state's chief law enforcement officer is prepared to invoke an obscure Illinois Supreme Court rule under which the state's seven justices could vote to oust a sitting governor deemed unfit for office.
This would involve Madigan making the case that the court has the ability under the state constitution to determine the "ability of the Governor to serve" -- and to declare that Blago has no ability at all. It may seem obscure, but it just might work in a state that is desperate to get rid of this guy as soon as possible.
If this worked, then the state might not end up having a special election, after all. Instead, the new Dem Governor Pat Quinn would have the opportunity to make an appointment -- though it could still be possible for him to support the special-election push, as a cleaner resolution to this whole disaster.
I like it. Get down to court right now to stop this circus. They can oust him pending the trial and if he is aquitted, fat chance, he can resume his duties.
December 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Madigan. Let's just get this thing done and move on.
December 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good - get the mofo out of there! He was a prosecutor and one of my pet hates is prosecutors who break the law.
To hell with Blago - get him out of there soonest.
December 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right-wingers, since you seem to have reason to believe that Obama is implicated despite Patrick Fitzgerald directly saying that, and I quote, "Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with this." I can only conclude that you have some kind of evidence that Mr. Fitzgerald is currently unaware of. It is absolutely crucial that you get that evidence to the federal prosecutor as soon as possible.
You can contact the United States Attorney's Office at the following phone number:
(312) 353-5300
December 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Oust him. Install the Lt. Governor and let him appoint Obama's replacement. The State should not have to fork over $45-50 million for a special election and the people of Illinois should not have to go 5-6 months without a senator. Besides, Obama will need as many senators as possible to get his agenda through.
December 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oust the son of a bitch!!!
December 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. This strikes me as an end run. There is a perfectly good means of removing a governor from office (Illinois has no recall provision) and that's impeachment. If the legislature doesn't have the cojones to impeach him, they shouldn't expect the State Supreme Court to do their job for them. In fact, having an alternative to impeachment just encourages them to shirk their responsibility.
December 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree!
Why look for an exotic way out! This is why we have impeachment clauses!
December 10, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but impeachment would take a long time and you would have a trial and procedural issues and etc., etc., etc. Also, he would have defense issues that could come and bite him in the butt in the criminal trial, which really wouldn't be fair. My guess is that procedurally, impeachment comes after criminal conviction. However, in this case, the charges are so outrageous and problematic for him to perform his duties, that he should be ousted temporarily until the criminal trial and the lt. governor should step up. Simple solution to an incredibly screwed up situation.
December 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, impeachment takes longer, and the State of Illinois needs to have two senators working with Obama now, not three, four, or six months from now.
December 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be slower, but I'd rather do things the right way, even if it takes a little longer. Besides, the evidence against Blago is so overwhelming, I can't imagine him not copping a plea of some kind. What's his defense?
December 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. This is a person who said on Monday that he had nothing to hide. He's not exactly operating with a full deck, it appears, so why would he think about copping a plea?
December 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I heard a political corruption criminal defense lawyer pointing out a host of complicated defenses on msnbc yesterday. I am not versed in the defense issues, but it sounded really complicated, as well as plausible. Also, I am not familiar with illinois impeachment procedures and laws, but I am willing to bet that there has to be a conviction first in the criminal case. Otherwise, you would be violating his due process rights. Very complicated situation.
December 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The state constitution doesn't specify grounds for impeachment, and leaves determination of grounds for impeachment strictly up to the House of Reps. It also specifies that impeached officers are still criminally liable.
December 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Innocent or guilty doesn't matter when considering a plea = the only thing that matters is the deal.
If he is offered a deal, he's 89 times a fool if he turns it down.
December 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think that we could all stipulate that he is 89 times the fool right now. He was under a microscope and his ads were being convicted left and right and he was doing what he did???? He is probably 1000 times the fool at least.
December 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - I understated the extent to which the damn fool is a fool!
December 10, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
10,000X
My mind is still boggled, and gets boggled anew, everytime I try to contemplate this. He's been under investigation for THREE YEARS and he still had the utter hubris to do this.
December 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the part that floors me. The guy knew he was being investigated, and as a former prosecutor, had to know there was likely a wire up on him. And he still went ahead with this.
Can you say pathology? Sure you can...
December 10, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
After l'affaire John Edwards, I didn't think I could ever be surprised again by the degree of delusion and hubris under which politicians operate. But Blagojevich has proved me wrong.
December 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Gary Hart challenging the press to follow him around was stupid and then promptly booking a trip on the Shagboat level stupid combined with Ted Stephens levels of venal corruption.
December 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
With impeachment, there is always a chance (however slim in this bizarre instance) of an acquittal in the state senate. Get rid of him now, by whatever necessary or expedient means, and sort out the aftermath later.
The longer he's there, the more grist for the looney-tune wingers seeking to deflect attention from their own malfeasance.
December 10, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should allow the state a moment to step back and consider its options.
December 10, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats also got some good news today when Dem Rep. Dennis Moore who represents a very Republican district (KS-03) said he would run again, a week after saying he might retire. And in Kentucky, Republican Senator Jim Bunning announced he would run again - and given his stature that's good news for Dems as well.
December 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
ABC News has fingered Jesse Jackson Jr. as the "anonymous "Senate Candidate #5" whose emissaries Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich reportedly claimed offered up to a million dollars to name him to the U.S. Senate."
December 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch!!
December 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Now that is not surprising. I thought it was him as well.
2. Good, he shouldn't get the appointment anyway. That avoids a huge political problem.
December 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's certainly credible right now. . .
What a stinking mess.
MSNBC is chattering about Obama's connections, while simultaneously repeating that he has no role in this. Contessa Brewer claimed that Obama stated on "Meet the Press" that he couldn't get involved with New York politics because he was "all tied up in Illinois politics". Which was pretty much just the opposite of what he actually said.
December 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least Obama hasn't been palling around with Jesse. I got the impression Obama tried to put some distance between them during the campaign.
Thank heavens.
December 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. JJ, Jr. has been a campaign co-chair for his campaign. He was a surrogate for the campaign and he spoke at the convention. But if anyone offered Balgo money on Jackson's behalf, it should be on tape. We don't have to take Blago's word for it, you know, since he's been so credible and all.
December 10, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, he was honorary co-chair. However, his mouth got him in huge trouble after new hampshire and in some other instances and he was pretty much silenced since then. From what I have witnessed, he is a horse's a** and that is why he got pushed aside.
December 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're practising revisionist history. Jackson commented about Hillary's tears, as dis many others. Please point out what else he said and why he's a horse's ass.
I'm not defending Jackson but it's simply not credible to say he was pushed aside after NH. He wasn't. He had the same role he always had which was he really wanted to be in Obama's inner circle but never really was. But his position never changed.
December 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember the specifics of the other instances. I remember his mishandling of the clinton tears thing and then some other interviews shortly thereafter on a few other issues and he bombed. His comments on the clinton issue was really bad, misguided and inexcusable by the way. I remember my reaction, that is all.
Then I think it was shortly before super-tuesday he was barely heard from until recently on the senate seat crap.
He was the honorary co-chair, but his mouth was zipped shut. It's just my opinion by the way.
December 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't remember any specifics but you feel comfortable saying he bombed and calling him an asshole and saying he was sidelined? Alrighty then!
December 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I didn't like him at all and thought that he was doing obama a huge disservice. I'm not allowed to have an opinion that he came across like an a**? Crucify me.
December 10, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can respect that. What I can't respect is pretending that you used to like him until he did or said something during the campaign--something you can't recall.
Also, I can call up at least 20 times Jackson appeared on TV and the campaign trail on Obama's behalf post NH, disproving your claim that he was sidelined. Shall I?
December 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply that I used to like him.
Incidentally, I followed this election heavily and I really don't remember him doing much after the primaries prior to Super Tuesday. I remember he was on the tube all the time prior to the new hampshire thing and then it was more sporatic until Super Tuesday and then it was virtual silence. He may have campaigned for him or did the odd one-off interview, but it was nothing like before.
No need for you to go through the 20 times that you recall. It is what it is.
December 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I won't go through 20 but here's a few to disprove the sidelined theory:
During the convention, he appeared on NPR (8/26), Morning Joe (8/28) and CBS Early Show (8/29) all on behalf of the Obama campaign. On 9/5, he filled in for Michelle at an NAACP banquet in Charleston, SC.
December 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but obviously it would have looked strange if he didn't do any interviews during the convention and actually I do remember seeing him during the convention by the way. Also, he did a speech at the convention as well. The point was that he was heavily out there prior to super tuesday and then he wasn't. It is what it is.
December 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh. So, now he was sidelined until the convention not post-election, huh? And. Why would it look strange for him not to appear for Obama during the convention? There were hundreds of Obama supporters who didn't do media for Obama during the convention?
And, if you want, I can wrangle up appearances he made on Obama's behalf in February, March, April, May, June and July. Shall I or will you concede that you were wrong about him being sidelined? Being mistaken is cool; trying to defend it in face of evidence to the contrary isn't.
December 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. No, I will not concede the point. He was totally sidelined.
2. Knock yourself out. Add up all the appearances and interviews before shortly after new hampshire and I am sure that there were more then, than between super-tuesday and the election. A hell of alot more. I never said that he didn't do any interviews and that he was sequestered from public appearances. I conceded that there were other interviews and appearances. The point was that he was not as prevelant and out in front as he was early on.
That was the point.
3. By the way, I really don't care. I'm glad that he was sidelined because he was doing more harm than good. Also, I am glad that he is candidate 5 presumably, because I don't want him in the senate.
December 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You said you specifically remember that he was sidelined until after the election. You didn't say he did fewer appearances. But since you don't care . . . LOL
December 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, by the way I specifically remember that he was sidelined until recently, post election. Gee, I wonder why.
December 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nuts. Let seven judges remove a governor because they think he's unfit to serve? If they use it here, do they really think it won't be used for political purposes in the future? The way I'm reading this, he wouldn't get a hearing in front of the judges. Does that mean he would be removed solely based on the allegations in the indictment?
There's a lot of craziness out there right now about this whole thing, and the potential for a lot of very bad precedent to be created. Everyone needs to relax and enjoy the holidays and think about this again with a little perspective of time.
December 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, unlike the US supremes, namely the 4 hack judges, generally state supreme court justices aren't political hacks and they worry about their legacy. The four cretins on the supreme court could care less. They are appointed for life and want to serve their republican masters. I don't see a problem with it and don't foresee it being used as a political tool on the state level. If it was, the legislature could revoke the law.
December 10, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should try reading "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin. Enlightening. And scary.
December 10, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, from my experience, this is amazingly wrong. From what I've seen (Texas, California, and Michigan) State supremes are, if anything, much more hack-ish than anything SCOTUS has to offer. You should see the partisan antics the Michigan Supreme Court have participated in recently.
December 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, then two things:
1. They get voted out by the people. Many states have provisions to get voted out by the people, unlike the supremes. I'm not familiar with the states you mentioned. I am familiar with some states where the supreme court justices got voted off the bench by the people.
2. The legislature can change the law and remove the right of the state supremes to act to remove the governor.
December 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I take that back on cali. I'm familiar with the cali supremes and I wouldn't call them political hacks when it comes to certain things, like potentially ousting a governor. Also, a bunch of justices were voted off the Cali supreme court years ago.
December 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a citizen of Illinois, I pray to JESUS that he resigns. But if he doesn't.... Madigan needs to use this obscure law. The Supreme Court of Illinois will follow her lead.
Then let Quinn name the successor to Obama. Let's not risk losing a Democratic seat.
December 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a miserable skunk?
I'm sure the mofo wants to use the office to stash the remaining skeletons- cover up and clean up the mess that is yet to unearthed.
Otherwise, I see no reason for him not to resign.
As long as he is in power, this story will only gain steam.
December 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All courts of appeal like the Illinois Supreme Court review evidence presented in the trial court, BUT DO NOT TAKE AND HEAR EVIDENCE themselves. How is the AG going to establish the evidence of unfitness in the Supreme Court when there has been no trial? I don't see that the court is going to skip the evidence step and just jump to the guilty step. Talk about a rush to judgment, whew!
December 10, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, that is not entirely true. They would file a petition with the supreme court, with evidence attached. It's like a complaint filed in the lower court. The judges would then hear and weigh the evidence. It's not convicting the guy, it's removing him from office because he is temporarily unfit to serve based on the pending allegations.
December 10, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aaaahhhh.....my avatar's been co-opted! Guess it's time for a change.
December 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The feds already have wiretaped Pat Quinn.
December 10, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says who? There is no indication that Pat Quinn was wiretapped. The complaint makes mention of the "deputy governor" and the chief of staff being on tape. But Pat Quinn was not the deputy governor; he was the lt. governor. Big, big difference.
December 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone want to lay odds on how grateful for this breaking yesterday Larry Craig was?
December 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of this is a bit worrisome because it's easy to flip into a political tool.
Is Blago guilty? Highly likely, to the degree that we're all laughing about it when not getting annoyed with the Senate implications. But at the moment he's just accused. As much as we need a Dem replacement for Obama in the Senate *pronto*, and we don't want Blago doing the appointing, it's really bad precident to do rush job impeachments or having the IL SC step in to bounce someone who hasn't even stood trial or had the chance to defend themselves.
Step back and think not of Blago, but instead of a certain Alabama Gov that Rove's Shop was out to get, and got good. What if indictments had been handed down back in 2002 rather than 2004 after he lost re-election. And that the instant they were handed down, the AL Congress or AL SC tossed him out?
We'd be a bit troubled by it since he had not hand a chance to defend himself.
Blago appears to be a Keystones Cops level corrupt pol. If guilty, he deserves what he gets. One would hope that he resigned, but that appears unlikely.
But I would prefer that the Locals focus on:
* promptly moving to ensure that Blago doesn't make the appointment
* work more methodically to remove him from office in a fashion that doesn't set a bad precident for someone who is actually *innocent* of charges
On the first, there likely is the fall back that the US Senate will refuse to seat a Blago appointment. Democratic Senate Leadership *right now* should come out with a statement that they will not seat any appointment made by Blago unless that appointment is endorsed by both Senator Durbin and President-Elect Obama. That does give Blago the "out" of doing the right thing with a quality appointment, which his Crisis Management Team (if he has one) would likely agree is good for him at this moment from a PR standpoint. But barring that, just send a clear message that the Senate won't seat an appointment without those endorsements. That will be enough to ensure that Blago can't screw things up.
With that in hand, the IL General Assembly can then would more methodically through the process of removing the appointment from Blago, and in removing him from office.
To quote someone far wiser than any of us:
"I almost feel that I dislike you both, but do not let us be hasty."
-Treebeard
:)
Seriously, we probably need to take just one step back and think through future possibilities rather than acting in haste on a skunk like Blago. This of all the hasty things that have been done in the last 8 years, and how they turned out.
John
December 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-put -- but of course I'd say that, as I was just about to write something similar (in re the ability to Senate to refuse to seat any member).
I think there's an argument to be made for impeaching him despite the lack of a conviction, since (if my layman's understanding of Illinois state law is correct, and I welcome enlightenment from professionals) it is not necessary for a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge to exist in order for impeachment proceedings to commence. (Consider the hypothetical case of a governor who is duly elected and then proceeds to do nothing. Nothing at all. This is surely not a crime, yet such a refusal to carry out the duties of the office could and should lead to procedural attempts to remove the office-holder.)
My quick read of the Illinois state constitution suggests that the extent of the penalties (for a conviction under impeachment) are (a) removal from office and (b) disqualification from future office. I'll argue that in part, (b) has effectively already happened and that while (a) has not, surely his effectiveness is minimal. So while I'm mindful of the need not to set a poor precedent while in haste, I'm somewhat supportive of the calls for impeachment.
December 10, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The move came as the governor prayed with several ministers in his home before heading to his office, telling them he is innocent and will be vindicated "when you hear each chapter completely written," according to one of the pastors."
Last refuge of a scoundrel. Why do these preachers always so gladly show up? Because they want to be seen with famous people, too. Everyone's a wh**e, I guess.
December 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink