Illinois Dems Move To Force Blago To Leggo
Illinois Dems are stepping up their efforts to impeach Blago:
Key Illinois Democratic legislators are circulating a letter urging support for the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was arrested this week on federal corruption charges relating in part to the selection of President-elect Barack Obama's successor as a U.S. senator.State Rep. John Fritchey, head of the House Civil Judiciary Committee, sent out the letter Thursday asking Democratic colleagues to say by Friday whether they support a move for impeachment and would like to be added as a co-sponsor of legislation.
This is significant, because it could mean that the political will might be weakening for a special election to fill Obama's Senate seat -- and that support is growing for clearing away Blago to make it possible for his successor, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, to appoint someone to the seat.
This would force many legislators, and Quinn himself, into the awkward position of backing an appointment after having declared support for a special election, but it could also mean the seat gets filled much faster, putting the mess behind everyone.
Well, it would be much cheaper and quicker...although not at all democratic. Oh well, just pick Schakowsky and I'll be happy. :P
December 12, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it would cost 30 million for a special election. Money the state doesn't have. I still like the Ill supreme court move. Quick, efficient and get the criminal out of office so that he cannot do any further damage, pending of course his criminal trial and the fact that he is presumed innocent.
December 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, the cost issue is an important one too, had forgotten that
December 12, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great job with the headline Greg
December 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I don't know why you would assume that having the state Supreme Court decide it would be quicker than impeachment. There would have to be hearings, arguments, deliberation, etc., etc., etc. There's discussion of beginning impeachment proceedings next week, and I can't imagine who would be defending Blago, so there's no impediment to moving quickly. Once impeachment proceedings start, Blago will resign.
Second, having the state Supreme Court removing a sitting governor strikes me as bad way to go about it. It sets a very bad precedent. Impeachment is a perfectly good way of removing corrupt officials, and even if it did take longer, I think it's better to do things right. It's the legislature's responsibility and they need to be held to it.
December 12, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of things:
1. You wouldn't have a trial in the supreme court, you would have a hearing. It could happen in a week.
2. It would only be a temporary removal pending his criminal trial. He is acquitted then he is reinstated. Seems fairer to me.
3. Impeachment is a trial in the legislature. You would have witnesses and testimony. It would jeopardize his ability to defend himself in his criminal trial. Also, it would be a long and drawn out process. Blago will never resign. He's a looney toon.
December 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Why in the world would the Illinois Supreme Court want anything to do with setting THAT precedent? Most high courts want nothing to do with slopes that slippery. Madigan can ask them to do it, but I think that option has a 50-50 shot *at best*.
2) The problem is that the criminal trial is a ways off. There's the matter of returning an indictment, scheduling, procedural hearings, etc. There's no way this gets fast-tracked - especially since Blago would have to agree.
3) The problem is that the impeachment would take place in the Illinois House. Then, the Illinois Senate would have to *convict* him. The first could probably happen fairly quickly - but not the second.
It took Goldwater going to tell Nixon that he would be convicted to get him to resign. Does Blagojevich have enough respect for ANYONE to listen to a Goldwater-type message?
I mean, when the President-elect, the DNC chairman, the entire Illinois Dem delegation in Congress, the mayor of Chicago, the entire Dem delegation in the US Senate, your own LTGOV, and pretty much every big-name Illinois Democrat except the House Speaker all say you should resign, and you still don't listen...*shrugs*
December 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but he still isn't booted out until the conviction, which will take forever. He will never resign by the way.
I dunno about the Ill supremes. I get the point, but I still like the simplicity of it.
December 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even in a hearing there has to be due process which means time for briefs, arguments, etc. etc. If you think the Ill. Supreme Court is going to remove a sitting governor in a week you're dreaming, even if they were foolhardy enough to decide the case, which they aren't.
Impeachment could be accomplished in a matter of weeks, and there's no way Blago is going to suffer the indignity of getting the boot on a unanimous impeachment vote, which is a given. He'll resign before the final vote.
December 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the first paragraph.
However, I don't think "dignity" is high on the Blagojevich list of concerns. :-) And impeachment in the IL House isn't the end - *conviction* in the IL Senate is.
December 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well it will save the state of Illinois $40-50 million for a special election when there billions of dollar in debt.
December 12, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice headline--thanks for giving me my first laugh of the morning.
December 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering how do the people of Illinois feel about Quinn and letting him make the decision. Personally, if I was a resident, I would see this as a scandal that resulted from a corrupt politician (and his wife) with the support of those most immediate around him. I wouldn't be placing the blame on the entire party, just as many of the CA Repubs didn't blame all their Repubs for the act of Duke Cunningham. I think it was a knee jerk reaction to the scandal that somehow the residents of IL would now have lost all faith in their entire government.
December 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt many IL residents would blame Quinn for any of this, and I don't think there would be much of a problem if he appointed the replacement, although I suspect most people would prefer a special election.
December 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Illinois resident, I want that Senate seat filled with a Democrat ASAP so we're ready to move on the President's plans on inaguration day. That is first priority. A special election would be nice, but right now there is no time and no money (either in the state's coffers or the pocketbooks of the newly unemployed).
December 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is correct, IMO. Also (though this is a lesser consideration) an immediate appointment would get a leg up on seniority over the incoming freshman class.
December 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHY HASN'T TENA RESPONDED TO THIS POST YET?! WHAT IS SHE HIDING? THE TPM TROLLS DESERVE TO KNOW!!!
December 12, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man I'm almost going to be sorry when Blago is gone-O because he has provided Greg with some of the best material I've seen him post, ever.
LOL!
December 12, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this suggests to me is that the potential for a Democratic loss in a special election may be greater than some (myself included) would think.
Doesn't mean it's *likely* - just that it's *more likely* than originally thought, and they may not want to risk it.
As for the "embarrassment" of switching to an appointment by Quinn, I say nuts to that. For Illinois Dems, getting Bla-gone is much bigger - if for no other reason than to get some of the klieg lights currently on the state switched off, and to start addressing the multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall without the specter of Gov. Blagojevich (D-Done For) hovering over any potential federal help.
December 12, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta ask. What does "dole/quayle" mean? Just curious.
December 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regretfully, I didn't have the Optima Bold font to make it more obvious, but the McCain star-and-bars logo in the middle is a clue. :-)
December 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I get it. That's a major insult to quayle. He wasn't nearly that bad.
December 12, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I made a few other campaign signs: McSame/Failin, Dipstick/Lipstick, McDaddy/Trophy Vice. But I needed one with fewer characters for the avatar. :)
December 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't play one on T.V., but it seems to me that the IL Dems don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to impeachment. Blagojevich hasn't even been indicted yet, let alone convicted. Does the IL constitution have a clause that allows impeachment of the gov. for being an outrageous asshole? Because that's all that seems to be "impeding" his execution of his duties, not any trial and conviction.
Jumping the gun on removing him from office isn't likely to fly if the rule of law still has any sway in this country(unless I woke up in Russia this morning and nobody told me).
December 12, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether the IL House impeaches Blagojevich doesn't depend on the progress of criminal proceedings against him. They have perfectly decent legal grounds to pursue this.
December 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't a clue as to what those grounds could be. Would you please elaborate?
December 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind that impeachment is a political remedy to a political problem. Impeaching a person is not a criminal proceeding. The results, regardless of the severity of the offense, is the same: removal from office.
Should he be impeached and convicted, he could sue, but he would loose. And he would be out of office in any event.
Neither the House or Senate are chambers of law enforcement; they can bounce his sorry ass in less than an hour on a voice vote and there isn't boo that could be done about it. Politicians never offer due process unless it suits them to do so. All this hand-wringing about due proesss is bunk.
Because he will receive due process in his criminal trial.
December 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunk it may be, but it strikes me as somewhat undemocratic that one branch of govt can kibosh the other without some criteria that governs the process. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" seems to come to mind....
December 12, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "criteria" you seek may be found in "checks and balances".
A publicly elected executive who is egregiously removed from office by the legislative branch certainly has civil redress as an option (including what would likely be a very phat settlement check). The key here, natch, lies in how "egregious" the removal is.
Also, legislators are politicians. Any politician seen anywhere near an unjustified removal has his career on the line. Most places require more than a simple majority to accomplish this anyway, so you would generally need bipartisan support for this measure.
December 12, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Checks and balances" are not criteria; they're merely terms that describe the civics in place. To what I'm alluding is the process as defined by the IL constitution, which says:
It looks to me that there has to be a) a state investigation; b) findings of EVIDENCE of violations of state law; c) a state Senate trial. Unless the Feds are going to hand over the fruits of their investigation to the IL House, it is doubtful that the impeachment process will precede a Federal conviction. I still hold that the IL Dems don't have a legal leg to stand on (unless they've already investigated and are ready to impeach).
December 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may hold that limb all you like. Subsequent developments will saw it off while you're hanging on to it, as public statements by, among others, the IL AG, the State Senate President, and the IL LtGov will attest. You're about the only person attempting to argue that Blago can't be impeached.
An "investigation" is whatever the state legislature says it is. In this case, the US Attorney for Northern Illinois has already uncovered more than enough "evidence" to start impeachment proceedings in the IL House. It seems pretty clear to almost everyone that these are hardly small-time claims against him, and in their totality, likely render him unable to govern.
Should they vote to impeach, then the IL Senate would try Blagojevich. Should they vote to convict, then Blagojevich is removed from office.
You also need to remember that the eventual criminal indictment against Blagojevich will likely have many of the same counts that were brought against Tony Rezko (as it was Rezko's information that helped speed along the federal investigation of Blagojevich). That adds significant weight to the issue of "cause for impeachment".
This is NOT a "criminal" investigation the Legislature would hold. The only remedy they can enact is forcible removal of a convicted public official.
Combine that with the brutally obvious attempted misdeeds alleged in the recent criminal complaint, and the only "crime" the Illinois Legislature would be committing would be to NOT pursue Blagojevich's impeachment and conviction, should he refuse to resign.
December 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The IL constitution is merely a limb? A limb which the elected officials of the state plan to "saw off"? I hope you're not a lawyer. If so, you should be disbarred and have your license revoked and shredded.
No, Perry Mason, an investigation is guided by existing statutes and the possible violations thereof. They can't make it up as they go along.
If they're investigating possible violations of state law, then they're investigating uh....crimes. Hence, they'd be holding a criminal investigation.
Finally and to bring it full circle:
Try reading it again, this time for comprehension. I never said that Blagojevich can't be impeached. I contend that the IL Dems do not yet have the body of evidence of violations of state law established to the degree that would enable them to initiate the impeachment process. All of your speculation about eventual indictments involving Rezko et alia don't constitute a prima facia existing body of evidence and neither does wishful thinking. They may get to the point where the body of evidence is reliably evident "eventually," but as it stands RIGHT NOW, they don't have a leg to stand on.
December 13, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. The legal grounds are whatever the legislature says they are because there's no one with the power to overrule them.
December 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
To amplify this point, many places have laws saying that convicted felons cannot serve in public office. Hence, a felony conviction would eliminate the need for impeachment proceedings (see: Kilpatrick, Kwame).
I am not sure if such a law exists in Illinois. Usually, my home state's governors get dragged off to jail *after* their terms expire. :-)
December 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the IL Constitution, specifically Article 4, Section 14, calls for the House to be more than whimisical about the impeachment process. There has to be a demonstrable violation of existing state law, not some act thrown together for the sake of (in)conveniently removing someone who falls out of favor for whatever reason. Regardless of my or anyone else's feelings about Blagojevich, due process is clearly more than just an exercise in "hand wringing." For my part, it's one of the reasons that I voted for Obama and, in my own little way, helped this whole brouhaha to start.
December 12, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to point that out. If this was a GOP guv, we'd have:
December 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...this is funny to me, but in Illinois' case, it's also inaccurate.
George Ryan (R-Inmate 1368413) was Pay-Rod's immediate past predecessor. He was found to have engaged in graft dating back to his days as IL Secretary of State, and illegal acts during his term as Governor.
To be fair to the Illinois GOP, they made it very clear that Lyin' Ryan, who wasn't even indicted until almost a year after he left office, should not attempt to run for re-election.
December 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink