Bye bye, Blago: State senate removes governor, 59-0
posted at 6:02 pm on January 29, 2009 by Allahpundit
I regret to inform you that the circus has officially left town.
The governor said he would like to apologize, but couldn’t because he didn’t do anything wrong. The senators watched attentively. Many leaned forward in their seats. Some took notes.
“It’s painful and it’s lonely, but I want you to know I never, ever intended to commit a criminal act,” Blagojevich said.
The two-term Democratic governor spoke for 47 minutes, then smiled and winked at reporters as he passed the press box on his way out of the Senate.
As the sound of the calliope starts to fade, the thought of not having him to kick around anymore becomes simply unbearable. So let me toss something out here, Ron Burgundy style, and if you don’t like how it sounds, send it right back: Fox News analyst Rod Blagojevich. Think it over. Exit question: Good idea to set a precedent of impeaching people who haven’t been convicted of any crime? (Exit answer: No.)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Suppose Governor Bludsacquer (I-LA) decides that he doesn’t like the daily grind in Baton Rouge and moves to his private island in the Bahamas. He doesn’t bother to show up for work for 8 months, never signs any legislation, doesn’t answer his phone, won’t return calls. Has he committed a crime? No. Should he be removed? Yeah.
factoid on January 29, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Not via a kangaroo court with no means to confront what was against him.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 6:56 PM
AP’s totally wrong on this one: Blago WAS CONVICTED.
Says so right here:
Bit more of a quote from the story, noting the word “convicted” being used twice:
So, there ya go. It’s been decided: Convicted.
ChipDWood on January 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Well, unless he’s psychotically vindictive…which he may well be, I don’t see it happening. Unless the Federal case against him results in a long prison sentence.
If he’s not facing hard time, they’ll (Obama Cartel) just buy him off.
Just wait and see.
BigWyo on January 29, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Damn, I was hoping the train wreck was going to continue.
Tim Burton on January 29, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Well this sucks. I was hoping that Blago would keep me entertained for as long as King Kilpatrick (Hizzoner) did.
Dubn8tr on January 29, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Fixed that to recognize the situation for what it was.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:01 PM
being convicted in a sham trial is not really a conviction is it ?
runner on January 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Bollocks. The proceedings were perfectly constitutional. He got royally fucked in the ass by his own corrupt cock.
Good riddance to the POS. Sadly, for IL, there are only more corrupt fuckers waiting in line for the throne.
The people of IL really need to exercise their neurons and get their act together.
LimeyGeek on January 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Correct. Just a pre-ordained conclusion of a process.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Kangaroo courts can be correct to the letter yet be set to be like the pre-ordained Blagojevich conclusion.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Now he can co-host with Huckabee.
meci on January 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Let’s not forget to keep our eye on this one also:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWIyYjQxMjVmMTVmYzk2MGI3YTJlZDVmYzRkYzI1OGQ=
Keemo on January 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I hope Blagojevich starts talking enough to get some of those who participated in the kangaroo court to be removed as well.
It would only be fitting to see him help clean up Illinois by making others follow him on the way out.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM
A bit of self-censoring would be nice.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 7:14 PM
A dream, or a nightmare?
I have four words for you: President Joe Biden.
VekTor on January 29, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I think I like it.
izoneguy on January 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Only if followed by Blagojevich with a position at the federal level.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM
This is F-ing golden
Dollayo on January 29, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Very bad idea, indeed.
- Bill Clinton
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:24 PM
AP, re: your exit question and answer
Um, Andrew Johnson? Bill Clinton? Richard Nixon?
2 of the 3 were impeached without being convicted of a crime. Granted, they beat the rap, but they were impeached. Nixon resigned before getting to that point (he most likely would have been removed), but he was still not convicted of any crime at the time or after his resignation, later made moot by Ford’s pardon. And these three are just the federal precedents. I’m sure there are quite a number of governors over the years in the same situation.
JeffWeimer on January 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Especially when the federal investigator decides to depart from policy and gets some evidence struck out from his attempt.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM
clinton was convicted of a criminal act first, then impeachment proceeding came
runner on January 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM
There was no kangaroo court there.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM
While I’m not defending Blago, it was political. Everyone knows that Illinois is so corrupt that nobody is spot free and everyone was scared to death that Blago would expose their spots. That’s why they’ve tried to portray him as crazy (unfortunately for him he really didn’t help himself with his actions).
However, I think everyone in Illinois is about to find out that they may have just unleashed a can of worms on themselves. Now that Blago officially has nothing to lose, it’ll be interesting to see who he happens to rat out.
MobileVideoEngineer on January 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM
The legislative impeachment process is not supposed to be related to the judiciary.
mycowardice on January 29, 2009 at 7:34 PM
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Refresh my memory. I do recall some judge suspending his right to practice law (after impeachment proceedings?), but what judge and jury convicted him of what crime before he was impeached in the House, which in effect, as with the Illinois House, served as a grand jury.
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Goodness, what will Jon Stewart talk about now?
Kafir on January 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Hilarious! That would be, um, bleeping golden. “I don’t know if you know this, but I’m kind of a big deal.”
CP on January 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM
what is your question ?
runner on January 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM
And he can’t do that now?
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:38 PM
But a Kangaroo court insists on the pretense of non-political impartiality, real or not. An impeachment makes no such claim, it is by its very nature, a political event. It does not rely on the same standards of evidence or high standard of proof of guilt. An executive can be impeached for any reason deemed by the legislature as meeting the constitutional criteria. In Johnson and Clinton’s cases the reasons were thin indeed, but acceptable to the legislature.
JeffWeimer on January 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Fox doesn’t have any credibility, try CNN.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Something tells me this is far from over.
It has the smell of dirty democrats.
christene on January 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM
LOL That was me being polite about the kind of vermin that Blago is….let me tell you how I feel about Daley et al…. ;)
LimeyGeek on January 29, 2009 at 7:42 PM
ROFL You should take that show on the road.
LimeyGeek on January 29, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Bingo.
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
christene on January 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Exactly Seth’s just bellyaching coz his pinup boy got fragged.
LimeyGeek on January 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM
One less sneaky corrupt Liberal Democrat,
from Chicago Thugsville Politics!
And without Elliot Ness’s help at that!
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 7:45 PM
If you read the rest of my post you’ll see that I think he will. I think the Illinois crooks didn’t think before they acted. They probably just thought that Blago was simply trying to save his political life, which at first that may have been his only concern, but now he’s probably in “if I’m going down, I’m taking someone with me” mode since he literally has nothing to lose now.
I don’t think everyone really thought this all through. Now watch anyone who’s had any contact with Blago get an “Oh crap” look on their faces once he starts talking specifics instead of just politics.
MobileVideoEngineer on January 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I hope Blagojevich does not drop out of sight. I was really starting to like this guy (even the hair). Maybe he’ll cooperate with Fitzgerald and tell all. Nothing to lose.
GO BLAGO GO! TELL US WHAT YOU KNOW!
DrStock on January 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM
If impeachment were to require a prior criminal conviction, whats to stop a governor from pardoning himself? Catch 22.
meci on January 29, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Oh my, somebody fell down the rabbit hole.
Cheshire Cat on January 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Exit question,
Like lying ‘Sexual Predator’Bill Clinton!
As,the most memorable.haha!
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM
MobileVideoEngineer on January 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM
You and I are thinking the same thing. I think there may be a shootout at the OK corral before this is all over. Sure hope so. Great entertainment.
DrStock on January 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Hell hath no fury like a
woman scornedpolitician impeached.MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 7:51 PM
The key is in the language- and most specifically with the verbage. Always is with the press & the left. The message means more than the fact/ the verb meaning more than the noun (though that may not make sense for squat. Go with me here.).
The talking point in this case being “convicted”. The man’s guilty, you see- therefore it’s ok to impeach him before any crime’s actually been found.
I just love the way the press defends those which they love, and leaps at those that threaten them harm.
Don’t expect a correction for the misplaced verb from the Yahoo news or the AP, etc. It’s the message to be sent.
Striaght from Rahm to the Cajun, Forehead, and Stephy.
ChipDWood on January 29, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Retribution eh,
and Obama’s from
Chicago too,oh my,
and now,Blago’s a
loose cannon,maybe
politicaly gunning
for a tad of revenge!
Haha.
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Seth, the streetlights are on, its time for you to go home, you can play tomorrow.
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 7:59 PM
We must protect the Obama at all costs!
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 8:02 PM
You know whose fault this is ?
/Moonbat with BDS.
William Amos on January 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Innocent until proven guilty is a conservative message, I think that is plenty clear now.
Liberals don’t need a court of law to convict, just a posse of a few “good” men, a nearby tree, a strong rope, and a few “witnesses” sayin “I saw him with my own eyes”…of course Jefferson with cash in his freezer, will we have to wait for a “conviction”…
right2bright on January 29, 2009 at 8:07 PM
ChipDWood on January 29, 2009 at 7:54 PM
no dear, the operative words are SHAM TRIAL
runner on January 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I agree, total sham trial.
Look. He hasn’t committed any actual crime. I’ve always hated the Conspiracy catch all. During a debate with my Father on the issue, I argued that Conspiracy is merely freedom of though. You’re thinking of committing a crime. Until you actually do commit the crime, in this case, accept cash or offers for an appointment, then you are innocent of any wrongdoing in my book.
If I had been a Senator, I believe I would have voted No on the Impeachment and removal from office of the Governor. He may be a crooked SOB, but you have to present Proof that he did it, not that he was talking about doing it.
Snake307 on January 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM
gee, I hope Blago doesn’t get mad and start to talk or anything
notagool on January 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Blago “suicide” watch starts now.
There’s no way these guys are going to let him live. They have too much to lose, he is the DC Madam of Chicago politics. The MSM is talking about closure, and how its over, the stories will be sparse and he will just end up one night with a suicide note affixed to him. My advice to Blago would be to stay away from planes and balconies. Fitzgerald’s giving them some time, he probably just figures if he lets him hang out amongst the masses for a few months somebody might make his job easier. Book publishers will wear black to mourn the event.
LevStrauss on January 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
LevStrauss on January 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
+100
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM
+Infinity.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
From Wikipedia, but seems accurate.
It seems there’s some confusion here about what an impeachment is.
Disturb the Universe on January 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
no more poetry no more rambling comparisons to historical figures, this is how it ends, this is all there is…This can’t be all!! When does the Corruption Trial Start?
Dr Evil on January 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
The vote was closer than I thought it would be, considering he is a democrat with an extremely low popularity even among democrats. This is Chicago – I expected the vote to be somewhere around 73 – 2 when you include the dead voters.
Corsair on January 29, 2009 at 9:37 PM
The only Democrat with any balls is gone. I actually like Blago.
lavell12 on January 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Didn’t the Left call Blago,
‘Mental’!
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 10:19 PM
This headline should’ve had a Finally: in front.
Rosmerta on January 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I think this is a little better in explaining it:
Impeachment refers only to a legal statement of charges against an officeholder. It is similar to an indictment in criminal cases. An officeholder that has been impeached must then be tried and convicted before he or she is removed from office.
In Illinois, the impeachment process that is outlined in the state constitution is modeled after the procedures in the U.S. Constitution. Neither the Illinois Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution defines what an impeachable offense is.
Although most people may believe that a criminal offense is necessary for impeachment and conviction, it is not required by either Constitution.
http://www.impeachment.senategop.net/Background.html
JannyMae on January 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Charges were made. Blago was convicted and removed from office.
Reading further in that link, the Illinois State officials followed the procedure for impeachment:
So, an impeachment procedure may be accompanied by criminal prosecution, but a criminal conviction is not necessary prior to an impeachment.
JannyMae on January 29, 2009 at 10:52 PM
He may be a pathological liar and guilty as guilty can be. I don’t know all the facts yet. He sounds guilty based on the audio tapes. That said, if the Illinois Senate didn’t prove he did anything wrong at this impeachment trial (did they?) then this is definitely not a good idea. In fact, it’s abuse of power and sets a dangerous precedent. Anybody can accuse you of doing something wrong and before you can defend yourself you lose your job. Hmm.
apacalyps on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Exit answer:
NoSure. But then, I can think of dozens of reasons to impeach this lowlife piece of crap, none of which have anything to do with his arrest by the U.S. Attorney’s office for attempting to sell the right to appoint a Senator.Still, it has been fun to have this prick to slap my Illinois Democrat friends with. Tomorrow night at the Robbie Burns party, I’ll be swimming in local libs. Hey! Maybe I’ll wear a Rod Blago wig!
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM
“Sham Trial”?
You idiots. He doesn’t need to be convicted of a felony to be impeached and removed from office. There are hours of tapes of this guy, and many conversations wherein he is actively attempting to sell Obama’s seat.
That’s plenty of reason to remove someone from the Governor’s office, according to every single person in the Illinois General Assembly, such as they are.
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Heh.
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM
One pretty much knows, although it’s hard to imagine the string of profanity that Princess put together today. Must have been impressive!
These two are a mess – they were conspiring to figure out a way to make some retirement money, and they just lost two incomes totalling $275,000 in about a week. Bummer.
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Just for you Jaibones:
even if the pro-forma of an impeachment was preserved it did not make the proceeding just. Blago decided to challenge Daley, Maddigan and other bosses a few times and they reminded him who is really in charge and what they can do. They decided on the outcome first (removal from office), and the process (impeachment) and input to the process (recordings for example) second. That is why it is all a sham organized to look like a fair proceeding.
runner on January 30, 2009 at 12:02 AM
-Great point, and thanks to the intellectual… wickeditude of the readership of H.A. I’m starting to get the picture:
There is no criminal conviction here- and that point should be made clear by the source of the story, rather than printed to be “assumed” as the case.
As in the word “Convicted” used twice in the span of twenty words.
There is no criminal conviction here.
It’s. All. In. The. Verbage.
Message. Sent.
ChipDWood on January 30, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I see there are a lot of people drinking Blago’s Kool-Aid here today. The man tried to sell a United States Senate seat! Having been caught before the opportunity to do so doesn’t make it okay. Think about it: If you are are making calls to find someone to kill your wife for you and the police find out before someone actually kills her, should you remain a free man? Of course not. Conspiracy to commit a felony is a serious charge.
Blago is unfit to be the Chief Executive of Illinois. The tapes prove what he was trying to do. That evidence was presented to the legislature. He put up no defense to the evidence against him. Instead, he chose to make a political speech as a Closing Argument. Try that in a real court of law and you’re gonnna get thrown in jail too. He basically pled “No Contest” to the charges against him.
All of his blustering this afternoon (late morning in Chicago) was an attempt to sway a potential jury pool in his actual criminal trial.
For once, I actually agree with Mayor Daly. He is koo-koo!
rmel80 on January 30, 2009 at 12:58 AM
** New Headline ~ New Story **
Not a huge deal, but more to illustrate the “crux of the verbage”- peruse at your pleasure the differences:
First posted, AP reporter Christopher Wills, Jan 29, 6:37 pm ET:
…Then posted, just a bit ago:
I mean, maybe he wasn’t convicted after all.
Not like it’s a big deal, but I got screen caps to hold it up should the need be.
And to think- this will be the very first (D) to hold the Presidency with an active and plunging blogosphere.
Know what I’m sayin’?
ChipDWood on January 30, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Bad things happen to rats, y’see? They sometimes come to like….a bad end, y’see? Wouldn’t want to have that happen, now would we? Because, you know, accidents always happen…especially to people who have fucking valuable information they want to spread around, y’see?
=)
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:03 AM
And obviously impeachable. But does the 59-0 vote (or the media) really convince anyone that the rest of them are clean?
I sure hope Blago does not go gentle into that good night.
misslizzi on January 30, 2009 at 4:04 AM
He couldn’t.
It was a pre-ordained conclusion.
sethstorm on January 30, 2009 at 5:35 AM
Why do some insist on confusing this trial with a criminal trial? It wasn’t.
anuts on January 30, 2009 at 7:21 AM
……….. and his position is filled by THE SAME RADICAL LIBERAL! Nothing has changed here, move on……..
IL. deserves EXACTLY what they vote for time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time….
and time and time and time and time again, but wonder why nothing gets better, it GETS WORSE! ROFL! LMAAO!!!
So do the moronic idiots in VA,OH, MN,PA,FL, ect.
Mark Garnett on January 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM
My memory is an imperfect thing, but I do not believe this is true. As I recall, at the time Clinton’s defenders were clamoring that he hadn’t been convicted of anything, so instead of impeachment, he should be censured. Only after his impeachment and Senate trial was he found in contempt of court for his false testimony and had his license to practice law suspended (note: Somehow Congress forgot to censure him).
Impeachment is not a criminal process, but a political process to remove someone demonstrably unfit for office (not simply someone we don’t like), such as someone who obstructs justice or tries to sell a Senate seat. And, although I can’t say I’ve been following the in’s and out’s of this impeachment, if a precedent is set it is limited to Illinois–we have no reason to believe other states would run their impeachment proceedings as Illinois has.
DrMagnolias on January 30, 2009 at 7:40 AM
No, we are not confusing it…but one of the tenets that the U.S. has is “innocent until proven guilty”.
This was a lynch mob in ties…they convicted him and prosecuted him without any trial…yet Jefferson was allowed to stay on for months…Frank ran a bordello, the new treasure secretary is a tax evaded, Rangle never paid his tax fines…and this guy was ACCUSED of something.
right2bright on January 30, 2009 at 7:53 AM
How does that explain Frank, or the new treasure secretary…or Jefferson with a few bucks in the freezer?
right2bright on January 30, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Innocent until proven guilty is essential in criminal prosecution. Fine. We all agree. This was not a criminal trial, so the above is irrelevant. It is not necessary to prove someone of a crime when firing said person.
anuts on January 30, 2009 at 8:06 AM
What does that have to do with how the state of Illinois impeaches their governor?
anuts on January 30, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Those are problems at the federal level, not individual states. They are dreadful problems, and perhaps they would actually be dealt with if the 17th Amendment were rescinded, but as it stands, it unfortunately falls to the uninformed constituents to vote these cads out of office.
DrMagnolias on January 30, 2009 at 8:16 AM
LOL
Giving Joe a bit of his own arithmetic, I see.
Conspiracy is not merely thinking of committing a crime. It requires an agreement between at least two people to commit a crime, along with what is called an “act in furtherance”. This is something done to enable the comspirators to commit the intended crime, but does not have to be illegal per se. Nor does the act have to be done by all the conspirators.
In a hypothetical example, you and I agree to rob a bank. Then, one of us buys a gun for use in the robbery, or maybe a car to get away afterwards, neither of which is illegal unto itself. The purchase is the “act in furtherance”. This act plus our agreement equals a conspiracy.
Bigfoot on January 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM
False. This particular circus has left town; the wonderful thing about Illinois politicians is that they always provide for a fantastic show, no matter who is currently running this madhouse.
fiscallyconservative on January 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Don’t forget, we still have a criminal trial to look forward to. Impeachment is merely a political device. Fitzgerald is not going anywhere.
Vashta.Nerada on January 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I’m sure I’m by no means the first to express this sentiment. I think I’ll express it anyway. Blago, on your way out, don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
flutejpl on January 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Next up on Pay-Per-View:
Cage Match!
Blagojevich’s Hair versus John Bolton’s Mustache.
VekTor on January 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »