Blagojevich: Senate impeachment trial unfair

[MacBeth]

CHICAGO – Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday called his upcoming impeachment trial a "sham," saying it would deny him the right to due process because he couldn't call witnesses.

Blagojevich spoke to reporters outside his Chicago home Thursday morning, a day after he missed a deadline to tell the Senate which people and documents he wanted to subpoena for the trial to remove him from office.

The two-term governor is accused of abusing his power by scheming to benefit from appointing a person to fill President Barack Obama's Senate seat, circumventing hiring laws and defying General Assembly decisions. He was impeached by the state House on Jan. 9, and his trial in the state Senate is set to begin next Monday.

He has denied any wrongdoing.

Federal prosecutors have asked the Senate trial's prosecution and defense not to call witnesses involved in Blagojevich's criminal trial.

"The impeachment trial is a sham," Blagojevich said before going on his morning run.

"What the Senate and the House and Legislature is trying to do is to thwart the will of the people and remove a governor elected twice by the people without a fair hearing, without due process," he said.

Impeachment prosecutor David Ellis proposed calling only one witness involved in the criminal investigation of Blagojevich — an FBI agent familiar with recordings of the governor's conversations. But Ellis said he would drop that request if the U.S. attorney objects.

Last week, renown defense attorney Edward M. Genson pulled out of earlier arrangements to represent Blagojevich at the impeachment trial. Two other members of the governor's defense team, attorneys Sam Adam and his son, Samuel E. Adam, also withdrew, comparing the proceedings to a "lynching." They said they didn't have adequate time to prepare or subpoena power.

On Thursday, Blagojevich said he agreed with their actions. He said the lawyers "have chosen not to participate in the impeachment process in the Senate because they believe, rightfully so, that the rules of the Senate that don't allow me as governor to call witnesses are unfair and deny fundamental due process," he said.

The governor said he would like to call Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, citing comments Emanuel recently made that he had never gotten the impression that Blagojevich wanted anything improper in return for naming a Senate replacement.

While Blagojevich ignored the filing deadline Wednesday, Ellis continued to pursue the case against him. Ellis filed documents listing the people he wants to call. Most are members of the House committee that recommended impeachment.




news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor

[crazielollie]

This fellow ran a "reformer". He is that. When the story first came out, the talking heads were saying "how awful". 5 days later they were asking whether most politics wasn't run this way. In Illinois, this is common practice. In Chicago, one doesn't hold a job working on the roads without supporting the powers that be that gave them the job. It's the same in many areas of this country. City, county and state workers "pay their dues" to keep their jobs. Occasionally we hear about a public official who takes "gifts". It's usually pretty blatant and easy to find because they don't expect to get caught as most aren't. They usually aren't unless it's politically expedient to do so.

As to this, he's right. This is a kangaroo court. It's amazing that so many who are concerned about justice don't see the injustice in this. He continues to perform his duties as governor and even if he is no longer "in favor". He has the right as well as the duty to do so. He also has the right and the duty to defend himself.

[crazielollie]

He continues to perform his duties as governor and even if he is no longer "in favor". He has the right as well as the duty to do so.

Sorry - He continues to perform his duties as governor even though his is no longer "in favor" and he has the right as well as the duty to do so.

[Pax]

He could also step down and then it would be his successor's duty and responsibility.

[crazielollie]

pax,

If the man believes he's being hung out to dry in a political sense and that he is not guilty of the charges, why would he and beyond that, why should he?

[wayneinfl]

It may be a kangaroo court. But it's possible this kangaroo court is right. A busted clock is still right twice a day.

And just because this is Chicago politics that doesn't mean it is ethical politics. Or even legal. I don't care if it happens everywhere else in the country. It's still wrong to demand money and favors to hand out an office.

[crazielollie]

Wayne,

I agree with you. The only thing is the man has been convicted of nothing up to this point and all that's being done is on the "assumption of guilt". This just ain't how it's supposed to work.

[Pax]

Wayne,

Because he's on tape trying to sell the Senate seat.

That is unethical and that is illegal.

That is why he would, and that is why he should.

[Pax]

p.s., Elliot Spitzer had not -- and as far as I know, hasn't yet -- been convicted of anything when he left his job as Governor of New York.

In your opinion, should he have stayed?

[crazielollie]

pax,

But he didn't sell anything nor did he accept payment so while ethics are in question, he didn't break the law. Trade offs in congress are not ethical but they happen all the time. The idea that one is willing to vote against something they believe is right in order to get something they want more isn't ethical but there is no law against it.

Elliot Spitzer left of his own accord. It's not a question of whether he should have stayed or not. He admitted his offense and walked off into the sunset. This man has not. The two situations are very different.

Have you heard ALL the tapes? If I speak to someone about selling something illegal to them but don't, have I broken a law? There's no saying that after all the talk he may have appointed someone that didn't offer him a thing. He's quirky enough to have done just that.

Not allowing some they requested as witnesses probably has a lot to do with the fact that there are those involved in impeaching him that might be taken down by the questions that would be posed. If he continues to push, I think a lot of dust will be stirred and he won't go down alone. Not a convenient time for it but think it will result in some "house cleaning" in Illinois. Doubt he'll be governor when it's over but this may be a good thing. Too many that I know aren't anywhere near clean or ethical are being very vocal in hopes of getting rid of him and shutting him up quickly. He's got chutzpah and I can't see anything bad happening as a result of this but can see a potential for a lot of good. Go Blago!

[Pax]

Lollie, the situations are the same. The only difference is that Spitzer has sufficient capacity for shame to acknowledge when he's been caught red-handed and bow out, and Blagojevich does not.

As for whether Blagojevich actually committed a crime... well, to use an example, there is such a thing as "conspiracy to commit murder," so there is a precedent for convicting someone of planning to do something even when he hasn't actually done it.

However, I'm primarily interested in impeachment, which simply is removing someone from office for unethical practices -- it doesn't require a legal conviction -- just the judgement of the state's senate and house of representatives that the man is ethically unfit for office.

As for horsetrading in politics, you're right, it goes on all the time, it isn't great, but politics may not work without it -- it's a form of compromise, after all -- it's not illegal, and it does inhabit the precise center of a very dusky-colored gray area. But there are limits. Politicians have gotten in big trouble for "pay to play" politics, bribes, etc. You can say that Blago never explicitly asked for a bribe, by which we usually mean money, but bribes come in many forms, and don't necessarily mean money.

It IS a gray area. It's entirely possible that Blago wasn't caught up so much by behavior that was unusual, but by being so outrageously blatant about it. Your argument seems to be basically that -- that he did nothing wrong, but he was just so obvious about it, and what Blago really has is not so much an ethics problem (relative to other politicians) but an image problem. So be it -- it's an image problem. Right now, his image is that he crossed the line from acceptable horsetrading into outright bribery demands (again, where bribes don't necessarily come in the form of money).

Beyond that, I would just ask you, where would YOU say the line is between acceptable horsetrading and outright bribery demands? In an ocean of gray, where IS the line, for you, where unacceptably unethical pay-to-play starts? What (aside from money -- too obvious) can a politician ask for in return for political favors, that you would find impeachable and/or prosecutable?

[crazielollie]

pax,

You seem to know all about the federal charges against him. I don't. I've heard reports about a few tapes. Still don't know who he was talking to or whether or not the person they say he was "horsetrading" with was one he seriously would have gone all the way to the end with. Did anything actually change hands or was he just running off at the mouth? Did he initiate the call or was he just playing with someone who called him? I don't know and as of now, there is a claim to have a case but still requiring another 90 days to move on it. Hmmm!

I don't find any of it acceptable. That's not the point. This man hasn't been tried on anything and assuming guilt without knowing all the facts is a poor substitute for justice no matter who it's done too. That he hasn't gotten along well with the politicians in his home state is a known fact. On the other hand, some of the things he danced around them and managed to get done weren't all bad - just not what the opposition, even in his own party wanted to see.
If there were impeachable offenses, why didn't they do just that before the announcement of the tapes. The tapes are their political weapons but since they won't be available totally until after it's all over - well, it's a pretty convenient dust up to use to get rid of him.

The point is, I don't know that he was involved in pay to play. They may have him taped playing with someone he had no interest in appointing to the office in question and seeing just how far they'd go. By things others have said, he didn't do this to everyone he talked to about the appointment nor to everyone he considered. Why not? Why only release 4 tapes rather than all? Where are the other indictments? If he was playing then those he was talking to should also be up on bribery charges. It's not that it isn't serious only that I don't know if it's true and neither do you. He claims innocence and as far as I know, in this country, he's innocent until proven guilty which should be a slam dunk if the gossip is true and not require another 90 days of preparation. Actually, the fact that all this was put out before the prosecution had their ducks in a row is strange.

I find every bit of political favors unethical. Still, we have senators that we know took lucrative deals from people they could do some good for. None of them are being impeached and it's a damned shame. Blago needs to go to jail if they prove their case but they haven't.
Spitzer left because of the shame but maybe also because it kept him from being tried and sentenced (why I don't know). Spitzer admitted to a crime and they let him go just by giving up his job. Is that justice? Blago won't let go because he claims he's innocent. Before I say the man needs horsewhipped, I'd like to know whether or not he is guilty. Guess that doesn't matter to you.

[Pax]

Fair enough, Lollie.

You and I do see to be on opposite sides of the issue.

I personally think he's dirty, given what I've heard of the tapes. I've been wrong before, I might be wrong now. Either way, it's clear that at the very least Blago has an image problem, and it's one of his own making -- He pulled a Gary Hart-like "follow me if you think I'm dirty" gag and got caught in the same snare.

We the people are in the least position to be able to know what really happened, whether he's really dirty, what his intentions really were, whether it really rises to the level of corruption, whether at the end of the day he's just primarily a victim of even dirtier politicians out to get him.

I don't really care if he gets legally convicted or not -- to be honest, there probably isn't really enough to convict him of anything jailable under federal law. But at the very least I don't think he deserves to be governor of Illinois, and frankly, I think this scandal also has seriously damaged his ability to carry out the responsibilities of the office. I think he should go.

[MacBeth]

FBI tapes played at Ill. gov's impeachment trial



SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Gov. Rod Blagojevich was hundreds of miles away but his voice boomed through the Illinois Senate's chambers Tuesday as his impeachment jurors listened to FBI wiretaps of conversations in which he seems to demand campaign contributions in exchange for signing legislation.

One person on the recordings assures Blagojevich that a horse-racing track owner "is good for it" and just has to decide "what accounts to get it out of." Another assures him the track owner knows he must keep his "commitment" soon.

Blagojevich replies with comments like "good" and "good job." Legislation sought by the racing industry had been sent to the governor's desk, and on the tapes, he says to reassure a racing lobbyist he hopes "to do this so we can get together and start picking some dates to do a bill-signing."

Senators conducting the trial, which Blagojevich is boycotting though it could remove him from office within days, listened intently as the fuzzy, indistinct conversations echoed through the room — the heating system, reporters typing on laptops and the occasional cough accounting for the only other noise.

Neither the governor nor the others on the call — the governor's brother and chief fundraiser Robert Blagojevich and former chief of staff Lon Monk, officials say — specifically mentions money or any amounts.

The governor was arrested last month on a variety of corruption charges, including scheming to benefit from appointing President Barack Obama's U.S. Senate replacement and demanding campaign contributions in exchange for state services. He denies any wrongdoing and neither his brother nor Monk has been charged.

Before the tapes were played Tuesday, an FBI agent vouched for the accuracy of those and other Blagojevich quotes that were included the federal criminal complaint against him.

Again and again, agent Daniel Cain told state senators he had accurately quoted Blagojevich in a sworn affidavit filed when the governor was arrested. At each stage, House prosecutor David Ellis displayed the most damning quote on a poster board.

The affidavit quoted Blagojevich saying his power to name a replacement to Obama's vacant Senate seat was a "valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." Ellis asked if that was accurate. Yes, Cain replied.

As Blagojevich's private words took center stage in Springfield, the governor remained in New York for the second day of a media tour focused on portraying the impeachment as unfair and politically motivated.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Blagojevich did not directly answer when asked whether he will step aside quietly if convicted by the Senate.

"I'll respect the law and the Constitution and the rules," he said, "and whether or not there are legal remedies to pursue beyond this we haven't really discussed ... but I'm not going to rule out what some of those options might be."

Blagojevich also said he hasn't done anything to prepare state government for the switch to a new governor.

"This was completely unexpected and not something that we envisioned happening," he said.

Blagojevich doesn't deny making the comments alleged by federal prosecutors. But he says they were taken out of context and don't amount to anything illegal.

"In the end, a lot of it was talk and exploring ideas," Blagojevich told the AP. "I never, ever intended to violate any criminal law."

The allegation at the center of the tapes played for senators is that Blagojevich pressured John Johnston, owner of two Chicago-area harness-racing tracks, to donate money by the end of 2008, when a new ethics law would restrict donations.

Prosecutors say Blagojevich threatened not to sign legislation giving tracks a portion of casino-generated revenue unless he got the donation.

It's not clear whether Johnston ever made a donation; federal prosecutors have seized Blagojevich's campaign records. Johnston has not been charged with any illegal activity.

The about five minutes of recordings played Tuesday represent only a handful of the many made during the federal investigation. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is keeping most of the recordings secret, but permitted senators to hear the material dealing with just the horse track allegation.

Blagojevich's arrest triggered impeachment proceedings in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers have spent six years butting heads with Blagojevich. The House voted 117-1 to impeach Blagojevich — the only "no" came from his sister-in-law — and now the Senate is conducting a trial on whether to remove him.

Blagojevich says the trial is meant to get him out of the way so Springfield insiders can raise income taxes. He also says the Senate's trial rules are so biased that he can't present a real defense.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense is allowed to summon any witnesses whose testimony might interfere with federal prosecutors' criminal case against Blagojevich, although their public statements could be introduced as evidence. But Blagojevich has not asked to call witnesses or present any evidence at all, and said he does not plan to participate in any way.

Senate President John Cullerton says it's not too late for Blagojevich to defend himself at the impeachment trial instead of pleading his case to the media.

Seats for Blagojevich and his attorney sat empty in the Senate chamber, where Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald has ordered the trial to go forward as if Blagojevich had entered a not guilty plea.

No other Illinois governor has been impeached, let alone convicted in a Senate trial. It would take a two-thirds majority — or 40 of the 59 senators — to remove Blagojevich. The Senate also could bar him from ever again holding office in Illinois.

If the Senate votes to oust Blagojevich, Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn would replace him.

The outcome of Blagojevich's impeachment trial has no legal impact on a separate criminal case against the governor. No trial date has been set on those charges.

Audio and transcripts of the wiretaps played at trial: www.ilga.gov/senate/InterceptedCommunications.asp



news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_impeachment

[MacBeth]

Politico.com Breaking News:
-----------------------------------------------------

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached Thursday by a unanimous vote of the Illinois state Senate.



For more information... www.politico.com