This needed saying. Due process seems like the first thing to be discarded in this fast food media world we live in. And I think it was Joe Queenan who was first to bemoan the focus on the "for sale sign" when the intervention with B of A was a far more serious infraction. Perspective must be maintained and I thank you.

How rude of me not to include a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203299_pf.html

(and I'll rate this time)

Hate to say you're right---but you're right.

He's not going to walk though. 50% of the last 3 Governors didn't walk. And Blago doesn't have the money (they are freezing his assets) the power (he has no friends on either side) or the politics. He has hosed everything he's touched.

So it will take a bit longer---but I'd bet the last remaining shreds of my 401k that he will not walk.

Paul, while Blago has been excellent raw material for many jokes, no one should forget the "innocent until proven guilty" premise which is your focus here.

Chicago Guy wrote: "Hate to say you're right---but you're right."

Don't hate to say it - it's music to my ears... :)

Stacey - thanks.

crossposted with designator: exactly.

Paul, there you go being reasonable again. You're not going to get many ratings that way. At least not here.

Now, my hope for the Blago situation is that he sings like a bird. Let's give the jury system a workout on lots of these guys.

Being convicted, de facto, by the public may be death to a politician. But this fellow, Rod Blagojevich, will no doubt serve time in one way or another after the air has been cleared, after his case case has been prosecuted in a court of law and he has lost, after the last appeal of course. . . . I've heard from newsaccounts and so on how rough-and-tumble and tight-knit the politics are in Chicago, that megapolis in Mid-America. But machine politics cannot stand up to Justice, ever.

Paul, another thought on this relates to Providence, RI and former Mayor Buddy Cianci. I think Blago would be well served to find a Chicago radio station willing to air his own talk show (chances are great that he may not find one, however). While Buddy was found guilty twice and served time twice, it certainly helped him in a public relations capacity, within the state, to have his own radio talk show. Also, he should hook up with Don Imus, just as Buddy did, if he hasn't already done so, for some national comic exposure on his show, as well. It might do wonders for him and his mounting problems.

designator: gmta about Rhode Island ... here's a piece I posted the other day over on Infinte Regress ... The Caffees and Blago in Brotherhood ...

Paul, I wasn't aware of the "Brotherhood" series until I saw your reply just now. I'll have to sign up for the Showtime channel and check it out as I am interested in all things "Rhode Island."

I agree. Blago is no different than you or me... he will go through the legal process then we'll see. (rated)

Good points all, Paul. I think the man is an idiot with bad hair, but that's hardly illegal in this country. Even he deserves his day in court to make his case, for the evidence to be seen and heard, and to be judged by a jury of his peers.

designator: You'll love Brotherhood.

shiral: yeah, if bad hair were a crime, I'd be serving life in prison...

God DAMN it. Every time I want to go join a lynch mob, somebody has to go and frakkin' remind me that we don't do that here in America.

Thanks and thumbed.

Nonsense! Silly, sophistic nonsense. `Whether or not Blagojevich is guilty of criminal conduct is for a jury to decide. But it is clear is that he enjoys neither the confidence nor the trust of his constituents, or of the members of Illinois' government.

Blagojevich is a public servant. As such, the interests of state take precedence over governor's private interests. He should step aside immediately.

Oliver - so you have no problem with Blago stepping aside, even if he in fact is not guilty of the crimes?

What that would mean is that, when it comes to public, elected officials, the mere charge of a crime by a Federal prosecutor is all that is needed to make the official leave office, and void the results of the election that put the official in office.

You're comfortable with what that does to our democracy - that a single prosecutor with a charge as yet unproved in court, and denied by the elected official, can outweigh the result of millions of voters?

You think what I say is "sophist"? If we're going to resort to name-calling here, it strikes me that what you're saying is fascist.

Paul,

I think it may very well be in the public interest to get on with the impeachment with due haste. Whether he did the crimes or not, he certainly is on tape as willing to give that impression, and when it comes to public office wherein there is an exercise of power, he ought to be relieved of duty, paid, and whomever is the successor should be serving as governor until a legal decision is rendered or an impeachment proceeding completed. If he is innocent, that will be proven. In the meantime, the citizens of Illinois deserve a governor who can clearly and cleanly do the job.

If a police officer was in this position a similar procedure would be followed. People in a position of trust ought to be held to a higher standard and be required to follow a procedure that protects the public. Due process is not the only concern to be weighed here.

I think the calls for his head amount to a chorus of condemnation, not a demand for a lynching. People want him to resign, but I doubt anyone would want to deprive him of due process.

Problem is, the guy is desperate, and on top of that, he's an ass. That is really why Illinois will only have one senator while he gets his day in court.

Despite the love-in around here with your comments, there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed. First, Blagojevich is not another 'joe public' citizen as he holds a special office of trust of the people. Second, his insistence to not step down brings disrepute to the office. And third, though mostly a personal thought, his abject 'holier-than-thou' attitude leaves me with a little Shakespeare in my mouth: 'the man doth protest to much'.

In the end, he should immediately step aside and let justice be served if for no other reason than to ensure, if only optically, that the public office is above repute. As it looks now, any thug can hold office

Is it against the law to discuss a possible crime? Is it against the law to talk about the value of a US Senate seat? San Francisco ex-mayor Willie Brown said he would love to be on Blagojevich's defense team -- he thinks that the prosecution doesn't stand a chance. It's going to be interesting!

I think you're missing the point. Resigning as Governor is a far cry from being convicted of a crime, paying a fine, or serving time in prison. Nobody is suggesting that he should be *convicted* before trial. The question is whether he should serve as Governor.

We've heard the tapes. He hasn't denied saying those things. A very well-respected, scrupulously honest prosecutor with a long record tells us Blago *did* say those things.

Now take the matter of law out of consideration for a moment. Pretend there's no law against what he is accused of having done, and there is no prosecution, and no prospect of prison time. Consider just the tapes, and what they tell us.

Can this man continue to be effective as Governor when everyone believes he's a cheating, corrupt sleazebag? One of his key duties right now is to appoint a replacement US Senator, and yet anyone he appoints would be seen as illegitimate simply because they were appointed by Blago. It's a ridiculous state of affairs.

Guilty or innocent, he needs to not be the Governor now. If he turns out to be acquitted - or even if he's convicted and serves his time - he's welcome to come back in a future election and convince the voters that he can do the job again.

Fitzgerald has his hands full trying to beat the Combine.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kasstuesdayblago12-16dec16,0,5311000.column

So Illinois crumbles as it falls towards insolvency. Rezko has apparently decided to get the best seat on the bus to prison.

Definitely, let's allow "justice" to prevail. Like there's even a chance in hell of that happening.

I agree that Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty. But since the charges are serious and by a Federal Prosecutor. Blagojevich should not be allowed to stay in office while wait for trial. He should be suspended with full pay. That will be fair to him and the citizens of Illinois.

This reminds me of Spiegleman, and Spitzer, and even Ted Stevens for some reason; that if you dare to fight the interests of the entrenched Status Quo, you are an expendable obstacle.

"December 8 - Governor Rod Blagojevich announces the State of Illinois will cease doing business with Bank of America.

December 9 - Governor Rod Blagojevich, who has been reportedly under investigation by the federal government for three years, is indicted based on a recent wire tap.

When is the last time you saw a governor take a high profile stand for a small business and working people against a multinational bank?

The FBI sure shut that down quick.

The FBI has been wire tapping Blagojevich for years.

This means they knew in advance that he was organizing a campaign to throw a spotlight on:

a) big banks who choking their clients credit lines even after they received their free billions from the tax payers

b) employers who are booting employees without warning, severance, or making good unused vacation time as required by law

They could have dropped him at any point, but they waited until this campaign started to resonate nationally."

I have been in Chicago all my life. The rumors of our corruption are greatly exaggerated. The Governor has been criticized since he took office by people who want his job. He is innocent until proven guilty.
So far he is guilty of swearing on the phone ,an indoor sport that is enjoyed by Rahm Emanuel and John McCain, the latter being well
protected by his understanding colleagues. I consider this scapegoating until i have the facts. .

Suzanne wrote: "If a police officer was in this position a similar procedure would be followed."

Different situation on a crucial point, Suzanne: the police officer was not elected by the people of the state. An officer stepping aside is not quite the same as a governor doing so. There's no negation of the democratic process in an officer stepping aside.

You make a valid point Paul. And for all the O.J. defenders who have convicted Blago in their minds, you're hypocrites.

P.S., Paul, how DARE you respond to comments!!!!! Blaphemer! ;-)

Paul, you write: "An officer stepping aside is not quite the same as a governor doing so. There's no negation of the democratic process in an officer stepping aside." You're implying that there *is* some negation of the democratic process when an elected official resigns, though. That's flatly false. Elected officials resign frequently, for various reasons, and that in no way negates democratic process. Sometimes, they resign because of a major scandal that makes the public lose confidence in them. Do you think when Eliot Spitzer resigned, that was a "negation of the democratic process"?

The analogy with a police officer was flawed, but only a little bit. There's no administrative supervisor who will force the governor to step aside if he doesn't resign, as there would be with a police officer. There is, however, the legislature's power of impeachment, which is what they're intending to excercise if he does not resign. That, too, is a perfectly legitimate part of the democratic process.

Paul,

You know as well as I do that there are no perfect analogies here. While you are right that it isn't perfect, the mechanisms available are not dissimilar. The point is that both the police officer of any rank and a governor are meant to uphold the law. If there is any question about their dedication or capacity to do so, administrative leave, or some equivalent, certainly ought to be available. His rights as an individual should not be superior to the rights of the constituents who he serves, whether they voted for him or not.

Thank you for this. I feel like I'm always the only one wanting to run from the bandwagon. You'll see my thoughts on this at OS entitled, "US Attorney Fitzgerald: Hero or Horse Led to Putrid Waters?" If you get the time during this busy season, check it out. And thanks again!

looks like we got a peek at the sausage factory and we didn't like it. this is not just politics, these conversations are ordinary business as well. and, it is everywhere. blago, surely has some sort of overweening need for enrichment but his taped conversations are very ordinary and rather meaningless. and he was venting. his excitement at finally hitting the jackpot was that palpable. he's a scrunge, a mouse with the ego of a rat. whether it is criminal has more to do with our ethos than justice. if we criminalize this, and it's fine with me that we do, be prepared to turn in your supervisor at work. it will mean we are expected to report wrongdoing or we can be hauled in.
those who enter politics purely for the love of public service are the usual suspects: patricians , or intellectuals for whom the common good is the central objective of their lives.
the rest, punt.

Why do you all forget that it takes two to tango? In economic terms,
there is a law of supply and demand. Are you all sure that nobody in Illinois would be willing to "purchase" the Obama senate seat?
We do not know all the facts. So let's just wait.

YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT.....

Yes, Blagoyevich is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, he shouldn't be forced to resign as governor just because of the charges against him.

But, the Illinois legislature should throw him out of office for other reasons. In fact, there were many legislators in Illinois, including Democrats, who have wanted to impeach him long before the latest accusations came up.

For starters, the man refuses to even work in the State Capitol. Instead, he works from a campaign office about 200 miles away from Springfield. He has also refused to meet with legislators, refused to talk to them, refused to return their phone calls.

His dereliction of duty is profound and disturbing. He acts like he's a monarch who can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

I say first change the law on appointments. Then, boot him from office. Then, Fitzgerald can do his thing -- which will eventually include far, far more charges than the ones that led to Blago's recent arrest.

Nevertheless, it is important that people like you write columns reminding us all that the law is more important than whether or not there is an incumbent governor whose behavior appears to be embarrassing. Rated.

Shalom,
ZWrite

cos wrote: "You're implying that there *is* some negation of the democratic process when an elected official resigns, though. That's flatly false. Elected officials resign frequently, for various reasons, and that in no way negates democratic process. Sometimes, they resign because of a major scandal that makes the public lose confidence in them. Do you think when Eliot Spitzer resigned, that was a "negation of the democratic process"?"

Ok, cos, I'll spell it out for you: Spitzer resigned because, presumably, he thought he was guilty. No negation of the democratic process there. But Blago is saying he's innocent. If he therefore resigns because of media pressure, because all the self-appointed arbiters of what's right in a democratic society insist that his resigning is that right thing to do, and he therefore can no longer govern in such an environment, that is indeed a negation of the democratic process.

Paul: Now that really makes no sense to me. You're saying that what he *feels* about the situation is what determines whether his resignation is "democratic" or not? Any sense of logic I got from the original post (logic I disagreed with, but there nonetheless) is gone now.

cos wrote: "Any sense of logic I got from the original post (logic I disagreed with, but there nonetheless) is gone now. "

Suit yourself.

There's a big difference between being convicted of something and behavior that is unbecoming an elected official that demonsrates his or her judgment is seriously flawed. The case for the Governor to resign now is based upon the latter, not the eventual trial by jury.

It's not just about law-breaking. Governing a state takes a certain level of judgment that this Governor has clearly shown he doesn't have. He's not trusted. He's not effective. And he is crippling Illinois government with his actions. Telling him he has to resign is not saying "you are guilty of a crime."

Grokitt makes an interesting point regarding the timing of the indictment. It followed hard on the heels of the BofA announcement that Blago made. Spitzer found himself in a similar situation, being in a position of investigating powerful economic interests and being brought down (I am not arguing that he shouldn't have been based on his actions, just pointing out the timing). And then there are those who believe John Kennedy's Exec. Order 11110 eliminating the Federal Reserve's power to lend money to the Federal government at interest, along with the creation of Treasury certificates based on silver reserves was a reason for his death. Again, I am not taking sides, just pointing out interesting coincidences.
However, in the end, the single most important thing today is what Paul reminds us of here, innocent until PROVEN guilty. If we are willing to allow this fundamental concept go by the wayside, we allow finally everything important in constitutionally elected, democratic governance to go with it.

While I agree that due process is good, reasonable and necessary, I do not agree that Blogojevich remaining in office is good for the country. Again, every thing that you said is accurate with respect to innocent until proven guilty, but that is the subjective view from the point of justice. The question of efficacy of good government is subjective from another viewpoint. Good government is biased in the interest of itself. By that I mean, from the context of justice, no one knows whether the charge is accurate but the accused at this point. But there is an objective truth somewhere. And the fact that certain specific acts, while not necessarily criminal, have certainly rendered the Illinois Governor's office inert, and has the potential to do so to the U.S. Congress. Just as "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not limited to actual crimes in the penal code, so is it necessary for public office holders to stay above reproach to remain viable. Some scandals with regard to the public trust are worse than others, and this one is about as bad as it gets for reasons that we are all aware. Due process protects Blogojevich, and all others as it applies to presumption of innocence, but if there is an objective fact here, and if the accused is in possession of that fact, and the fact is that the accused is at least professionally irresponsible, if not actually fully criminally guilty, then the best of all circumstances is for the accused to remove himself. The crime may or may not exist. But the injury to society begins with the Governor laying down with dogs. Whether he actually has fleas is tangential.

The guy has every right to protest his innocence.

If the hard evidence that has been leaked proves actually to be “hard evidence”, I suspect he eventually do time.

And if the hard evidence that has been leaked proves actually to be “hard evidence”…probably the more ethical move on his part would have been to resign.

But if the hard evidence that has been leaked proves actually to be “hard evidence”…the chances of this guy having anywhere near enough ethics to do so seem mighty slim.

We’ll see how this plays out.

I doubt very seriously if he will benefit from the nomination when it is made, regardless of who or what actually ends up making the nomination. Somehow or other, the nomination SHOULD BE MADE! The APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE MADE. A second senator from Illinois is needed in the Senate, both for the sake of the Senate and for the people of Illinois.

One more thing. The office of Governor is neither Blogojevich's property, nor is it his life. There is space between due process, and Blogojevich being "forced" to do anything. Within that space is the "best" choice. Blogojevich should resign. He can still receive due process.

Paul, I think there are two flaws in your logic:

1) that blago doesn't know whether he's guilty, and
2) that the "innocent until proven guilty" concept rightly applied to prosecution also applies to impeachment--or other removal of our employees from public office.

on #1, perhaps you mean, "Rod Blagojevich just announced that he won't resign as Governor of Illinois, and . . . I think that's for the good of the country IF HE KNOWS HE'S INNOCENT."

the thing about his decision on resignation is fundamentally different than others calling on him to resign, in that he is the one person who knows for certain exactly what he did. (those his moral capacity to see right/wrong may well be in doubt.)

based on the transcripts of certain phone calls--a small portion of his dealings--i consider it highly likely that he did in fact commit crimes. so i would have to modify your statement to something like "in the very unlikely event that blago knows he's innocent . . . he should fight."

i'd agree with that, but i think it's remote.

#2. you say "Our laws say that people accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty."

as some others have pointed out, our laws say that about criminal prosecution by the state--leading to imprisonment and/or fines and a status of felon (for major crimes), which results in forfietiture of additional basic rights, like voting.

i don't believe that concept holds in civil litigation (where i think both parties enter with an equal presumption, right? or no?) and it does not hold with impeachment.

the people--and our representatives in the legislature--have the right to remove a person for any reason, if we are unhappy with their performance. they are not guaranteed due process, because we are not charging them with a crime, merely firing them.

and no, we don't guarantee them the same rights as other employers who may have to fire for cause. they hold a special place of power over us, and we retain the right to fire them at will at any time.

the US constitution lays out intentionally vague criteria for removing a president (without looking it up, i believe it's "high crimes and misdemeanors"--correct that if i missed.)

the Illinois constitution does not.

the full text of Article IV, section 14 follows:

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con4.htm

SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to
conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence
of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of
the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial
officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When
sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or
affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor
is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not
extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to
hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to
prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

paul, i don't get why you're holding "media pressure" as the party responsible for potentially forcing resignation.

wasn't most of the breathing population of the country outraged as soon as we saw the transcripts, regardless of and before the media pressure?

i think it's fair to say that the pressure is due to blago's own recorded statements.

i think both the public and the IL legislature have the right to say,

"Look, we have possession of a shitload of your recorded statements which are highly incriminating. Whether or not you succeeded in selling this seat--and a host of other things--you personally made repeated statements which seem to make it very clear that you did. But there are two sides to every story. So please offer a convincing defense, or leave, immediately. If you don't, we will throw you out. As a senior public official, the burden of responsibility lies on you, so make it good."

if he is prepared to do that, asap, and does it convincingly, he does not need to resign.

if he feels he is in such legal peril that making his defense would impede a criminal trial, then he has acted so recklessly as governor, that he has imperiled his position and has to make a choice: fight for his job, or give up his job to play it safer in court.

---

there was a big push in the state a few years ago to make this somewhat easier, with a recall process, which blago helped block. in a recall, the voters can decide, on a whim, to remove him. (as they did in CA.)

as it is, that power/authority resides with the legislature.

Dave Cullen wrote: "the people--and our representatives in the legislature--have the right to remove a person for any reason, if we are unhappy with their performance. they are not guaranteed due process, because we are not charging them with a crime, merely firing them".

Dave, you're completely right that the people have the right to remove public officials from office, via impeachment (which is the equivalent of an indictment) and then being found guilty in a trial.

In the case of Blago, neither has happened.

And, you're wrong that he is not entitled to "due process" in the trial that would follow his impeachment.

Resigning now would short circuit that whole process, and deprive the people of Illinois of their election governor, just because a Fed prosecutor has brought charges against him (and has not even brought a Grand Jury indictment).

Easy for you to say... you live in NY!

This is not about Blago and his rights. This is about his ability to govern. While we in IL are living through the worst fiscal crisis for state government EVER, we have a governor who is absent, distracted, unpopular, and unable to lead with any credibility in this current crisis. It would be best for his constituents (if not for him) for Blago to do the best thing for the state (and not for himself) and resign.

You're wrong, Paul.

Due process, innocent until proven guilty, blah, blah, blah, are all out the window when a corrupt politician is caught red-handed. Do you really believe he's clean? Blago will resign after he's made the best deal for himself that he can. Bet on it.

Cheers,

David

D. M. Schwartz wrote: "You're wrong, Paul. Due process, innocent until proven guilty, blah, blah, blah, are all out the window when a corrupt politician is caught red-handed."

I'm afraid not, D.M. For example: Bill Clinton was impeached, and then found not guilty in the Senate trial. And there's no evidence, except for what Fed prosecutor Fitzgerald says, that Blago was caught "red handed". That's for the impeachment and trial to determine (and, in additional, a possible criminal trial).

Once he's charged, his party should at minimum suspend him until the matter is resolved in the courts: or he should suspend himself. [[Then, in the interest of the people of his state, he should resign to ensure that politically there is an unsullied leader in place who can lead effectively. The Treasurer of Ontario did just that. He was vindicated. He was voted in the next time around.] It is quite possible that business leaders, international investors and others would simply refuse to meet with him or to meet with any delegation of which he is a member for fear of betraying the people of his state. Misappropriation, fraud and theft, the types of charges here, require that the accused not participate in the activity under question. If he's cleared, the substitute stands down and he resumes his position. Unless the term has ended, then he runs again. That's the risk of politics isn't it? After all, it's not "employment". In Canada, we say that political representatives sit at the pleasure of the Queen. I guess in the US, they might sit at the pleasure of We the People? oh well.

There is an intersection here that Paul doesn't like. You can call it the place where the rights of the citizens of a state hold their elected officials accountable (and the laws that are written to enforce said officials responsibilities) and his rights as an individual (due process, etc.) I am sure there are legal precedents that establish the order in which each law will take precedence. I don't have time to do the legal research. I am just pretty clear now that Paul likes Due Process best. That isn't proof that Due Process is the overarching legal principle that will govern all the issues under these circumstances. There will be a procedural order that is established in law that will be followed. Due process will be a significant part of this, but it is not the only law that will be considered.

Yes, Blago is innocent until proven guilty, but that's not what his resignation is about. I live in Chicago, and nothing will get done (and there's a lot that needs to get done here) until he steps aside. Blago can step aside temporarily without admitting guilt. I think it's ego, and not legal defense issues, keeping him from doing so. I suggest interested readers get some local perspective from Chicago-based BuzzFlash editor Mark Karlin, if interested, here: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/150

Catherine wrote: "In Canada, we say that political representatives sit at the pleasure of the Queen. I guess in the US, they might sit at the pleasure of We the People?"

In the US, we don't associate any pleasure with our politicians... :)

But, more seriously, "the pleasure of the people" is precisely what I'm talking about here. If the people's representatives see fit to impeach Blago, and other representatives find him guilty in a trial, that's the democratic way of going about this.

Blago's resigning just because Fitzgerald has accused him is not.

Maybe since I'm a native of Jersey City, and have been following Jersey politics most of my life, where we have learned to live with just a bit of corruption in our beloved politicians, I just don't see this Blago thing as such a big deal, not with all the death and destruction still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continuing downspiral of the economy. Maybe the citizens of Illinois see it differently.

Then there is that pesky matter of presumption of innocence, and the state has a process, where they can impeach him, prosecute, or both.

I hate to sound like a Republican, but let's let the state decide.

What would be even "healthier" is, if guilty, he simply pleaded so.

jeffpickens wrote: " ... I just don't see this Blago thing as such a big deal, not with all the death and destruction still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan..."
I have a question and a suggestion.
What does corruption in New Jersey and Illinois have to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?
I know how to solve a problem of corruption. Every state should publish a Price List for all elected positions. This would lead to elimination of the unnecessary costs of investigations, impeachments etc and spead up the process.

Agreed on all points. The only thing we know right now is that he's a swaggering asshole -- which is not illegal in the United States... at least, not yet.

And while my own cynicism regarding human nature tells me he's guilty as shit, that is (fortunately) not how our justice system works.

Not only his Blago's refusal to resign important in that it reminds us of a basic American legal principle, it's important in combating the knee-jerk herd mentality of politicians. It's good when politicians stand up for themselves (or for someone else) regardless of popular consensus. Granted, it'd be nice if this happened more for altruistic causes, but I still get the sense in the Blagovitch case that people are thinking, "How could he have done THIS to US?" as if WE are all some unit and THIS has already been established, when that is not the case.

The reasoning behind why he should not be allowed to remain in office is twofold. First and foremost is the lack of public confidence. There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that he has indeed been asking been asking for bribes. The taped conversations alone are incredibly damning. But these issues lead us to question whether or not he can govern effectively under a hail of legal battles. Not only is it distracting to his responsibilities, but it changes how people deal with him. How can he have normal political relations when his colleagues don't want anything to do with him?

His alleged crimes are such that they call to question his very ability to govern. How can we trust that his appointee would be scandal free? As far as I'm concerned, every move he's ever made has been the result of a quid pro quo, money/power for favor exchange.

If Democrats allow this man to remain in office it puts a serious stain on their ethics. The evidence is too powerful. Were the charges not directly related to his honesty as an officeholder, the issue might be different. But the representative of the people should not have such a clear indication of corruption and still remain in office, selling appointments and exchanging favors.

Isn't there a law against prosecutor's releasing tape recordings made of suspects? How is a suspect going to receive a fair trial if already found guilty in the media? Is this not a case of obstruction of justice?

This has happened here in Boston as well where a Federal Prosecutor released some blurry photographs perporting to show a couple of public officials receiving bribe money. Of course the media jumped all over it It occurred to me that it was just another slap at the Constitution delivered in the dying days of this horrible administration.

Perhaps better days are coming where

qu1jot3 wrote: "What does corruption in New Jersey and Illinois have to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?" What it has to do with it is that Cheney and Bush and their cronies are unrepentant and will most likely never be held accountable for their horrific war crimes, and this Blago thing is being reported as if it were the Crime if the Century. How about some sense of proportion?

jeffpickens quoted me, but attached a wrong name to the quote: "What does corruption..." I think that a feeling of hatered toward President Bush does not allow jeffpickens to see reality. On October 11, 2002, the US Senate gave their official approval of the Iraq War with a vote of 77-23. Of 50 Democrats, 29 voted for war. Hillary Clinton was one of them. Now she is going to be Secretary of State. President -elect Obama made this decision. Obama also left Robert Gates to be in charge of Department of Defence. Based on this information, jeffpickens can add Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the list of the people accountable for "horrific war crimes." What's wrong with this logic?

Calif Mike - sorry for attributing your quote to the wrong guy, I must need a new pair of reading glasses. I am well aware of the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion, but Barack was not even in the Senate at the time. But it was Cheney and Bush who authorized the gulags like Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and torture. It is a quantum leap in logic to say that Hillary and Obama are equally responsible for the war crimes of Bush and Cheney. Anyway, the Blago saga continues, now that he is attempting to appoint a new Senator.

jeffpickens, I am afraid that you may indeed need a new pair of reading glasses. I never said that Obama was in the Senate at that time. I said that he selected Hillary as the Secretary of State knowing her position regarding the Iraq war. I was not taking about equal responsibility.
But members of the US Congress are not little innocent kids who did not know anything. Anyway, we will see what happens in the future.