ROD BLAGOJEVICH IMPEACHED with 114-1 vote

[wndycty]

Just happened, now on to the Illinois Senate.

[lame54]

1. who's the 1?

[dipsydoodle]

2. The Highlander

:rofl:

[Connie_Corleone]

6. I thought it was Neo.

[dipsydoodle]

13. I won't argue

:) :hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

36. Which one? There's 2 of them.

:evilgrin:

[lame54]

61. Who's your daddy?

[Renew Deal]

60. That's what I want to know.

[Political Heretic]

84. Mortal Kombat!

[NJCher]

3. woo hoo!!

Let's get his mug off the radar!



Cher

[AndyA]

4. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Has the man had a trial yet?

Has he been convicted?

What he's accused of doing is wrong, and I do not condone it in any way, but considering what Bush has done for the past 8 years, without so much as the possibility of impeachment, I find this to be very concerning.

[bluestateguy]

15. Impeachment is a political, not a criminal process

Evan Mecham was impeached and removed as AZ governor in 1988. He was actually acquitted in court of the crimes with which he was charged. Alcee Hastings was also acquitted of crimes, but was impeached and removed as a federal judge in 1989.

For impeachment the bar of proof is deliberately lower than in a criminal trial.

[AndyA]

19. It's still wrong.

The man has been accused only. And talk about hypocrisy. Bush can start a war based on lies, spy on Americans and get caught lying about it, out CIA agents during war, and all the other crap he's done, and...









...crickets.

The hypocrisy is explosive.

[bluestateguy]

29. By your logic Bush has only been accused too

Bush hasn't been indicted or convicted of anything, so why should we impeach him? That is the logical extension of what you are saying.

"Bush did it too" is not a valid defense for other elected officials to committ impeachable offenses.

[AndyA]

32. You're stretching it a bit.

And where has Bush been officially accused of committing any crimes? I don't recall where a prosecutor has accused Bush of doing anything.

[acmavm]

68. True, no conviction but there are e-mails and other documented

proof of their criminal shennanigans.

Right now Fitz doesn't even have enough to put his (blago's) ass in the defendent's seat.

[SidneyCarton]

66. So the Illinois state Legislature has more cojones than Congress.

Not their fault, call Speaker Pelosi.

[n2doc]

28. Same with Clinton...Although the Senate voted to acquit. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. Well there was that one case where a guy got impeached for getting a blow job

Or "lying" about getting a blow job. Either way, it was ridiculous. They should have impeached him for NAFTA.

[bluestateguy]

57. No they should not

Making bad policy choices is not grounds for impeachment. The framers were pretty clear about this at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Impeachment is not a judicial process

He can be impeached and removed from office. It will have no bearing on the criminal investigation against him.

By the way, Bush has not been convicted of a crime, either, nor even formally charged. I believe he should have been impeached and removed from office. Would you give that innocent until proven guilty argument in his defense before the Senate had the House done the right thing?

[AndyA]

22. Yes, even Bush and Cheney are entitled to due process.

EVERY American is entitled to due process. When people are removed from their jobs without having the opportunity to defend themselves in court, it's wrong.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. The point here is that impeaching and removing is not part of criminal due process

It is a political process and independent of any judicial process.

In a criminal proceeding, the standard of proof will be much higher. The members of the state senate need only be "convinced" that Blagojevich is guilty.

Furthermore, an impeachable offense needn't be a violation of any criminal statute. The House Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against President Nixon for abuse of power over such matters a sicking the FBI or the IRS on his "political enemies." There was no law that said he couldn't do that, and there still isn't. Nevertheless, it's not something we want the President doing.

[AndyA]

46. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if someone accused you of wrongdoing,

and without the opportunity to defend yourself, a group did the same thing to you.

This is America, everyone should have the right to defend themselves against accusations.

I don't really care much for the guy, he seems a bit too full of himself for my tastes, but I don't think he's being treated fairly.

[Jack Rabbit]

62. Let me recommend to you Raoul Berger's book Impeachment

Berger wrote the book around the same time the Watergate break in took place. It became a best seller about a year later, when the impeachment and removal of Nixon became a real possibility.

He goes through a complete historical survey of the impeachment process and lays to rest the nonsense that an impeachable offense needs to be a violation of statuary law, as Nixon's defenders on the House Judiciary Committee claimed (conflating the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" with felonies and misdemeanors). Berger shows clearly that "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense and that it is usually not a violation of statutory law.

Blagojevich's attempt to sell the US Senate could be viewed as a violation of the law. He was extorting something of value from prospective nominees in order to consider them for the seat. However, it could also be viewed as a simple abuse of power as no one but the governor had the authority to fill the Senate seat vacated by Senator Obama's resignation. Therefore, apart from any criminal wrongdoing, Blagojevich should be impeached and removed from office, provided that clear and convincing evidence can be brought before the state senate that the governor shook down prospective nominees.

Mr. Fitzgerald will still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever Blagojevich did went beyond an abuse of power and violated federal law.

Sir, you are comparing apples and oranges.

[AndyA]

71. So far, "abuse of power" has not been proven.

Or did I miss the court proceedings?

If the guy's guilty, he needs to go and he needs to be convicted. But so far, I've seen nothing other than accusations. And I don't think people should be impeached for that. Especially given what has likely been going on in the White House for the last 8 years.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. Abuse of power is for the state senate to judge, not the courts

One more time with feeling -- impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. "Abuse of power" is not a statutory crime. Therefore, finding that Blagojevich abused his power in acting as he did has nothing to do with whether he should go to prison for the same acts.

[NYC Liberal]

78. "everyone should have the right to defend themselves against accusations"

And he doesn't?

There will be an impeachment trial in the Illinois state senate.

You are saying that impeachment shouldn't happen until after a governor/president/judge has been tried, convicted, and appealed to the highest court possible?

That's just ludicrous. Impeachment does not try the actual crime - its purpose is to determine if the person being impeached has done enough wrong to damage their office, enough to warrant removal from that office.

Blogo can defend himself in the Illinois Senate, and I am sure he will.

[DevonRex]

55. Impeachment is just an indictment. There hasn't been a vote to

throw him out. First there will be a trial in their Senate. Then there will be a vote on whether he will be removed or not. This IS due process.

[Blarch]

18. They didn't even wait for an indictment.

And ignored the red flag Fitz sent up when he asked for 3 more months.

Looks a bit reckless.

[wndycty]

23. Nope. . .not necessary. . .

. . .its much better to impeach a guy before he is indicted. Its bad to have a sitting Governor arrested, worse to have a sitting Governor indicted and worst to have a sitting Governor convicted.

[DevonRex]

58. Impeachment is an indictment. There will be a trial and then a vote.

[yellowcanine]

24. Impeachment is first. The trial in the Illinois Senate follows. And the standards of evidence are

not the same as a criminal indictment. It is basically a political process.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Would you say the same if Bush were impeached?

[AndyA]

30. Yes, EVERY American is entitled to due process.

When you start making exceptions for one, it corrupts the process for YOU, ME, and EVERYONE else.

Would you think it's right if you were fired from your job because someone accused you of doing something wrong, yet you weren't given the opportunity to defend yourself? I think not.

[Occam Bandage]

34. This *is* due process.

He will now stand trial in the Senate, and defend himself there. The House impeachment is akin to a grand jury; it's only to see if there is a legitimate case for trial. If he loses his trial in the Senate, he will lose his job. That is how the process works. It is encoded in the state Constitution.

[AndyA]

47. This is the equivalent of being run out of town by a group of

citizens carrying torches.

[Occam Bandage]

49. So...er...you're opposed to impeachments, then?

Write your representatives and ask for a Constitutional amendment forbidding them.

[AndyA]

50. No, I think this is just a bit premature at this point.

We don't know all the facts. I don't think the prosecutor has even completed his investigation at this point.

[Occam Bandage]

51. That is what the Senate trial will be for.

He will present his case, as will his opponents. The vote will be political, as all impeachment votes are. The cases will be made to the voters, not to a jury, and if the voters don't like the verdict they can do something about it next election. Such are impeachments.

[AndyA]

53. Yeah, I understand how the process works.

I still think it's pathetic that nothing has been done in this respect with Bush and Cheney, yet this has all come about so quickly.

[NYC Liberal]

79. So your problem isn't with this impeachment then, it's really that

it hasn't happened yet to Bush and Cheney. I'd agree with that, doesn't make this impeachment wrong.

[Critters2]

90. The point of a trial, which is what this is,

is to discern the facts.

[riqster]

67. He signed up to be the gov, knowing the laws in force

...so he can deal with the impeachment process as it exists.

[TexasProgresive]

33. Impeachment is a legislative indictment of sorts

The trial will be in the Senate.

[Richardo]

69. Impeachment is only an indictment

You're right, there has been no trial - that comes next. Then, if convicted, removal from office.

So take a deep breath - innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land.

[Political Heretic]

85. You're factually incorrect about what an impeachment is for.

A political figure is impeached if there is sufficient QUESTION of wrong doing.... then comes the investigation and political trial in the senate where that figure can be determined innocent or guilty.

Clinton was impeached but NOT removed from office because he was found not to be guilty of wrongdoing worthy of his removal.

That's how the system works, and it does not contradict innocent until proven guilty at all, as that phrase refers ONLY to CRIMINAL CONVICTION in a court of LAW.

[TheManInTheMac]

88. In order for him to have a trial, he has to be indicted...

In order for him to be indicted, he has to be impeached and then formally removed from public office by the state legislature. Otherwise, neither the State of Illinois nor the United States can proceed with prosecution until he is no longer a public official.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Gee, but no one thought it would be that close.

He got one vote. Was that his sister-in-law?

[tridim]

7. Should this news be in GD:P?

[wndycty]

8. He was impeached and one of the charges was selling Obama's seat

:kick:

[dipsydoodle]

16. Isn't that because

GD Presidential was GD Political and will be so again after the inauguration ?

[seafan]

9. If only we had a US House Speaker who wasn't a craven, cowardly enabler of.... oh, well. n/t

[polmaven]

63. If only we had a

House Speaker who understands that it takes 67 votes to convict in the Senate, and that there is NO WAY that was going to happen, and Bush and Cheney would have been even further emboldened by an acquittal.....oh, wait....we do!

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

10. it was the bleeping House vote and now goes to the bleeping Senate

[wndycty]

12. Yes but he was impeached, the question was whether or not he will be convicted. . .

. . .Clinton was impeached as President, now Blagojevich is impeached as Governor.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

20. you'ree right. i missed read your post.

i need new bifocals.

[Mz Pip]

11. That's just a vote for a trial

to remove him from office. He'll be governor ontil the trial convicts him. That could take a while.

[wndycty]

14. No the legal term is he was impeached. . .now its up to the Senate to convict

But he was legally impeached

[Mz Pip]

45. Don't they have to have a trial

in the Senate? That's what happened with Clinton. The House voted to Impeach, then there was that long circus of a trial before the Senate voted to acquit.

Point is, Blogo is still in office.

[wndycty]

48. Yeah but IMPEACHMENT is not removal from office. . .

. . .his is officially impeached, now the question is whether he will be convicted or acquitted.

[ejpoeta]

21. hasn't been impeached yet. they just voted to impeach him,

so now there will be a trial. then he will be impeached.

[wndycty]

25. You got it wrong. . .IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REMOVAL he was impeached

Not sure why folks are fighting me on this. Clinton was impeached as well.

[ejpoeta]

38. i thought it was just a vote to have a trial to impeach. hmmm...

i stand corrected. if that's all it took, then why the hell didn't they do it BEFORE the whole fiasco of burris? does anyone ever get the idea that all representatives are being OVERPAID!!!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

41. Yes (on the overapid part). nt

[wndycty]

43. The important thing to understand is IMPEACHMENT is not conviction or removal. . .

. . .IMPEACHMENT is the equivalent of being indicted.

[Renew Deal]

59. It's easy to confuse

I'd say 99.5% of people wouldn't know that.

[Schema Thing]

26. He was impeached.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. I believe impeachment is the equivalent of being indicted. Then comes a trial

in which he can be acquitted or convicted.

[Seen the light]

31. How long would a trial take?

[OwnedByFerrets]

35. Too bad the dems didnt have the balls to move this quickly on Monkeyboy

or AT ALL!

[dave29]

40. delete

delete

[Phx_Dem]

42. So, will he be removed from office? If so, when? If you know.

[wndycty]

44. No, now it goes to the Senate and they will either convict or acquit. . .

. . .but make no mistake he has been impeached.

[yurbud]

52. good. How much longer will news talk about it?

[mucifer]

56. Until IL gets republicans in for senate and governor in the 2010 election.

[bottomtheweaver]

74. Bingo.

Let's keep the heat on until they get GOP governors in every state, yeah baby!

[Jennicut]

64. Clinton was impeached too. It means nothing without a conviction.

[WI_DEM]

65. There will be a trial in the senate--that could take a while.

[davsand]

70. Chicago Dem Milton Patterson voted No,

From Capitol Fax Blog:

<"Patterson> says he read the impeachment committee’s report but wasn’t comfortable voting against the governor because he has “no first-hand knowledge of any of the evidence.”

Patterson says he went by his own “gut feeling.” He says he isn’t defending Blagojevich. But he says it’s up to prosecutors — not him — to indict the governor."

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2009/01/09/impeachment-day/



News Story here:

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=9646211&nav=menu51_2



The article also has info on the one who voted "Present."



Laura

[IsItJustMe]

73. Every hear of a political lynching. We are witnessing it.

[DCBob]

75. The man is a joke and an embarrassment to Illinois and the country.

He has played the media and the system to his benefit. The media is obsessed with this idiot while the PE Obama is trying his best to get us to focus on solutions to the economic crisis.

[bottomtheweaver]

76. He isn't playing the media, the media is porking him.

Not the same.

[DCBob]

77. If Burris was an honorable man he would withdraw his acceptance...

It is an sham appointment and degrades the office of the senate.

[bottomtheweaver]

80. Didn't stop Bush and Cheney, and I've seen no evidence that Burris

is dishonorable. Ridiculous advice that would only help republicans, which means the chances are good he'll be forced to take it.

[DCBob]

81. Not wise to set standards based on what Bush and Cheney would do..

We should expect our political leaders to do much better than that. If Burris does not withdraw he is dishonorable in my book.

[bottomtheweaver]

82. Then don't let them tell us who is or isn't honorable.

Calling Burris "dishonorable" based on a GOP-initated media swiftboating campaign is playing right into their hands, just like we've done repeatedly for the last 8 years.

[DCBob]

83. This has nothing to do with the GOP. This is a Democrats issue.

The Burris appointment is a sham. Burris is not the best candidate. Blagojevich appointed him because he was the only black guy who would stoop to take it. The whole situation is pathetic.

[bottomtheweaver]

86. It's a Dem issue now,

but a Bush U.S. Attorney brought the circus to town, and the GOP benefits by the Dems losing a Senate vote and possibly a statehouse. I've been through this in California, and I can tell you that there is no way this will end well for Dems unless Blago manages to hang onto the office he was elected to.

[DCBob]

87. How about if the Illinois Senate removes him from office and Lt Gov becomes Gov then..

he appoints a reasonable legitimate candidate. That seems like a good outcome to me.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

89. could be arranged