blagorrhea

but the burris appointment lives on. my sympathy to the citizens of the fine state of illinois.

Bla-gone-evich

So I’m wondering…When he finally hits the joint, do you suppose he’ll sign up to be the husband or the wife?

I hate to be the only person in the U.S. of A. that thinks this is a lynching but when a legislature can convict a governor on such skimpy evidence I think it sends a message to other governors….don’t fuck with us or we will impeach you. I am not defending Blago but what has he done that most other politicians have not done?

Depends on the high bid.

Got caught. On tape.

Good point.

The ‘everybody does it” defense.

Unfortunately many do do it, just not where the law can hear it.

It really is outrageous that the federal executive branch would selectively release unauthenticated tapes to the state legislative branch for the purpose of removing a sitting governor. This is an absolute denial of due process. For those who have ever dealt with unauthenticated tape recordings in the judicial setting it is basic that the tapes need to be authenticated and all tapes on a particular subject matter need to be made available to a criminal defendant or a civil litigant. Neither happened here. We do not even know if the wire taps were proper.

No doubt this Governor is/was a clown but what a horrible precedent. And there were so many other legitimate ways to try and convict him pursuant to the articles of impeachment issued against him

Obama Looking at Gregg for Commerce Secretary
By Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
January 29, 2009, 5:51 p.m.
The Obama administration has been floating the idea of naming Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) to be Commerce Secretary, several Senate sources said Thursday.

Yes, they have been impeaching governors right and left in Illinois that is if you count the first time in 190 years as “right and left”. And at his trial the FBI agent who swore out the federal complaint on Blagojevich testified under oath to the authenticity of the tapes. And an impeachment and trial are political processes and if anyone had oh well listened to them or followed the impeachment committee hearings in the House they would know that due process was given. I do not see how Blagojevich failing to present a defense or demanding the right only to make the defense he wanted the way he wanted with whom he wanted on his terms was a fault that could be laid at the legislature’s door. Blagojevich had a process in which he could participate but not control. He refused.

Pat Quinn has just been sworn in as the new Governor of Illinois.

Are you kidding? The “defendant” is not allowed to challenge the authenticity of selectively released tapes or to offer witnesses to explain that he did or did not follow through on the bullshit on the tapes Outrageous. Your logic is that if you bring in an FBI agent to testify as the authenticity of the tapes without cross examination that is ok? Do I live in your country?

Did he attempt to offer a challenge to the authenticity of the tapes that was disallowed?

Unauthenticated tapes? Just how do you get more “authenticated” than wire taps authorized by a judge, and made public in the light of day? Due process did take place here, IMHO. From what I understand, the process of impeachment and removal from office of Blago, did not solely depend on these tapes.

The governor has been formally charged with a crime by the feds right. If he testifies and takes questions, he waives the fifth amendment as a pre-condition of his being allowed to remain in office. That’s problem no. 1

Problem No.2 You don’t fully authenticate tapes by having some FBI agent testify he was authorized to engage in the wire tap. You authenticate tapes in a lab determing if conversation is missing, if the recording started in the middle of a conversation and whether the tape fairly reflects the conversation in full. It is the olderst trick of law enforcement to turn over copies of tapes which are incomplete. You can be sure that the prosecutor did not release the originals to the legislature and you can only authenticate originals, not copies.

[1]i’d say it’s up to the people and the processes within illinois and whatever illinois law is on impeachments ..

[2]an impeachment is a defined political process .. it’s not a criminal proceeding …

[3] i’d further observe they apparently don’t have to suit your preferences … eh ??

I understand about how you authenticate tape recordings. My question was as to whether the defendant denied that the recordings were authentic.
Has he ?

He did not testify about the tapes because of problem no 1. He is not going to do so when he is not protected by the rules of evidence and constutional protections he has in the criminal courtroom. In the impeachment setting he can be asked anything which can be used as an admission against him in the criminal prosecution against him. Looking at Blago impartially, as far as the tapes were concerned, he was constrained to testify at all or make any statements about the tapes and then take questions from politicians.

The prosecutor who enjoys an excellent reputation should never have injected copies of the subject tapes into a political process when he knew that they would be used against a criminal defendant who would be unable to fairly protect himself against their use in the political process.

So Blago, the village idiot, was stuck with protecting his criminal defense. He could have been convicted without the copies of the tapes used against him. It is a terrible precedent.

He must be removed from office before the public hears Rahm’s voice and what he offers, not to mention the others on Obama’s staff that we learned this weekend have been subpeonaed for testimony regarding their taped conversations with the gov. Axlerod told us Obama had met with Blago, we saw news reports of the meeting. Then Obama denies ever speaking with the guy. Curious, since, to me it would be natural for Obama to recommend his replacement. Must be how the recommendation was made. We’ll know more someday.You betcha we will.

Do I dare repeat myself. Did he deny the authenticity of the tapes? In any setting? Outside, in the street?
You are too concerned with the idea that this sets a precedent. It doesn’t. It’s come up many times.
Holding elective office requires that you conform to more stringent scrutiny than private citizens.
If he wished to retain office and knew himself to be innocent, he could have chosen to forego privilege. That he chose to retain privilege rather than office should give you pause.

o.k. I am a peasant. What I don’t get is how can they impeach with out a prosecution. As distasteful as Blago’s actions are something does not sit right with me about this process or lack of.

Seems like they would have to wait until Blago was tried

I tried to make my point. You don’t say nothing when you are a criminal defendant outside the criminal courtroom. We will see what Blago’s lawyers say about the tapes after they have been examined by Blago’s defense team and what then happens in the criminal courtroom with respect to the admissibility of the subject tapes which had already been used the political impeachment process. This is some screenplay. It reeks.

An impeachment is a prosecution. Evidence is offered and may be refuted. Then the legislature acts as the jury.
What is different is that it’s a trial of a public servant and is to determine whether the person acting as a public servant should continue to be in the public service. If dismissed from service because of criminal activity a criminal trial may follow.

A hundred times, on the courthouse steps, anyone who watches televised news has seen someone or someone’s lawyer say that the evidence is bullshit and that it will be proven to be bullshit.

oh come on, bitching about the authenticity of the tapes? Blagovitch admits that it is his voice on the tapes. He has done so publicly during TV interviews, he even referenced the tapes in his defense above.

No, actually during his appearance today he referred to the tapes and never questioned their authenticity. His argument was that they did not show he had engaged in criminal or inappropriate behavior. The Senate didn’t buy his “we all do it” argument.

I find it bizarre that the argument is made because he didn’t mount a defense he couldn’t present one. This is rather like a bankrobber caught at the bank with a gun and a bag of money in his hand arguing he can’t get a fair trial because nobody will believe he’s innocent. The point is though that even in cases of obvious overwhelming guilt due process can still be observed. This is true in a criminal proceeding just as it can be in a political one, such as the impeachment trial.