AVD wrote:

Interesting read.  Jock Gill would be rolling over in his grave, except he's not dead.

Because of how the internet was used to deliver this link?

doctorontop wrote:

The case being made in the article seems to be more emotive than directly attributable to Obama. A plea to a political position rather than a credible set of allegations that would be needed to warrant a presidential impeachment under 'High Crimes and Misdemeanour's'.

In Illinois, our Governor Blago was impeached and removed from office for political reasons. At the time, he had not been indicted, nor was he formally accused of anything. He had run afoul of the Speaker, Mike Madigan, and his removal from office was orchestrated by said Speaker. We live in strange times in which an OJ defense works for both sides of the fence. I think after the 2010 elections, links like that from the OP will be more abundant, and they won't be taken lightly.

AVD wrote:

Thats the whole 'new media' idea (although its no longer new at all).  You preach to the converted and know that the unconverted are not going to believe you so there's no need to build a credible case. In fact you can freely twist 'high crimes and misdemeanor's' to completely differ from what it means or meant at the time as established by case law and get away with it because the converted wont bother to check and the unconverted won't be sold.  Just making the job of preaching to the converted a lot easier.  I see it as an efficient amplifier for an otherwise untenable position.
Case would be a lot stronger if they didn't mention the Clinton impeachment, since that sets the judicial standard as being the newest case law 

I would hope that congress would need more than political differences as a justification for impeachment. For example Clinton lied about a sexual relationship. A far stronger case. This just seems to make a mockery out of the process of elections. I think publicly we try to hold politicians to higher standards than wee meet within our own lives but underneath we hold a certain amount silent cynicism as to if they are capable of living up to the dream. Has the spirit of democracy been so subverted?

doctorontop wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

In Illinois, our Governor Blago was impeached and removed from office for political reasons. At the time, he had not been indicted, nor was he formally accused of anything. He had run afoul of the Speaker, Mike Madigan, and his removal from office was orchestrated by said Speaker. We live in strange times in which an OJ defense works for both sides of the fence. I think after the 2010 elections, links like that from the OP will be more abundant, and they won't be taken lightly.

I am from the other side of the pond so I do not know much about the machinations between the Illinois speaker and Governor Blago but I would be interested in how the speaker managed to get the support to remove the Governor. I agree the OJ defense does go both ways but isn't that the price we pay for a free society.

The Governor was a huge embarrassment, it didn't take a lot to get the rest of them to line up for the kill. Appointing Roland Burris to fill the Senate seat that President Obama left vacant was the straw that broke the camels back. It was alleged he tried to sell the seat, and they came up with a little bit of intrigue between Blago and Burris, but they never proved he did offer to sell the seat. He was impeached and removed anyhow.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

doctorontop wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

In Illinois, our Governor Blago was impeached and removed from office for political reasons...

but they never proved he did offer to sell the seat. He was impeached and removed anyhow.

Your assertion that the ex-Governor was impeached for political reasons may be true, in that lots of people have done lots worse things in various offices including that of the Governor and not been impeached.

However, the constitutional requirements were duly followed, he was impeached by the Illinois Assembly, and it was all perfectly legal. If you don't like it, lobby for a Constitutional amendment to require that, say, an elected official can't be impeached without being first convicted of a crime, or whatever it is you think the threshold should be. Heck, I might even kick in a few bucks, if you come up with a sensible idea. But the law is the law and the Constitution is the Constitution and it does not matter what the motives of those bringing the impeachment were, only that it was done lawfully.

You seem to be confusing the impeachment process with a criminal proceeding. The two have very little to do with each other. This is an easy mistake to make: the ex-Governor himself encourages it, although as a former Constitutional official and an attorney himself he surely knows better. It's quite true that the level of due process the ex-Governor was accorded would not have satisfied the Due Process clause of either the US or Illinois Constitutions, but since he wasn't being criminally tried that is totally irrelevant.

M

I think the feds have enough on Blago, Rezko and the rest of them. That also doesn't change the fact that Madigan would have done anything possible to get rid of Blago even if there wasn't the evidence. Who doesn't expect Madigan's daughter to be the Demo candidate for governor in the next election?

StMarc wrote:

GeM Photographic wrote:

Who doesn't expect Madigan's daughter to be the Demo candidate for governor in the next election?

Me.

M

OK, other than you? 

Maybe that won't happen, but from what I read last year, it certainly sounded like Madigan's plan.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

She announced her intentions of remaining in, and running for, her current office. She said her reasons were family related.

Yeah... the budget is fucked, and if his daughter were in the Governor's office, Madigan couldn't blame it on the Governor like he has been doing for the past umpty years. Also, she's more use to him as the AG prosecuting (and not prosecuting) the people he wants prosecuted (and not prosecuted.) The Governor of Illinois is not a particularly powerful executive, especially if the one power she can really stick it to the Assembly with (the line-item veto) she won't use because it would upset Daddy. Nothing goes in the budget that Madigan doesn't want in there, so she's no good to him on that front as Governor.

M

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I don't follow the daily minutia of her political life, and she isn't a headline grabber, but when she does make news, it usually revolves around social issues, and I almost always find her position favorable. Divorce her from her father, ad I think you might find a quality human being.

I know nothing about her as a person. I'm sure she practices good hygiene, is civil in conversation and kind to children and animals. As an attorney, I think she makes a good politician.

As far as prosecuting enemies of her father, I think most of those people would fall under Federal jurisdiction due to the nature of their political positions, witness Blago and Ryan for recent examples. Evil, under the table contractors, I think would also fall under the province of the Feds. Since you're a lawyer, maybe you could outline who, when caught messing with politicians, would fall under State jurisdiction.

Other than RICO violations, there isn't a lot that the Feds could prosecute you for that a state AG (and here I mean any state AG) couldn't prosecute you for. In fact, under the principle of separate sovereigns they can usually BOTH prosecute you. It's not like using your public office for private gain, etc, isn't a crime under state law too.

The reason the Feds are so often involved is that a) the state AG's office often has massive conflicts of interest that keep them from being effective advocates of the public's interest, and b) their budget is larger and they love love love sticking it to the local yokels.

M

Usually in a case where the Feds get involved in local politics, the state is just as glad not to have to deal with the internal strife a state prosecution would involve. However, it does happen from time to time.

Probably the most famous case of "Separate Sovereigns" in recent history is the McVeigh case (although of course it didn't involve political corruption, at least not on the part of the suspect.) McVeigh could have been prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma as well as the Federal Government, even though both crimes stemmed from the same set of actions and normally multiple convictions would be a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. (See: Double jeopardy (section Separate sovereigns) Historically it was often also used to prosecute violators of civil rights statutes who were found innocent or given de minimis punishments during the Civil Rights movement. If the local prosecutor let a defendant cop a plea, they couldn't be tried again in state court, but they could be tried for the same set of actions under a separate Federal law.

It is probably most common today in drug cases, although again, usually the larger budget of the Federal LEA and the fact that the state is off the hook for the legal proceedings and costs of incarceration means that so long as the Feds get him, the state just moves on.

M

How does being tried by the Feds, after a state acquittal, not involve crossing swords with double jeopardy? Shouldn't it be set up where one jurisdiction has precedent over the other, and however the shoe drops, everyone has to abide by it. It hardly seems fair... how long has this duality been in existence?

Why do you suppose the Feds didn't go after OJ?