So the masses (ok, 2 people) have been clamoring (ok, wondering) if I was going to do a post about our esteemed public servant Mr. Blagoje(bleep). Initially, I didn't have a whole lot to say about it. Most of the time when a public official gets caught (as in the cases of Sen. Craig and Sen. Stevens) there's at least some form of semi-plausible story where they might, just maybe, be innocent. That's when it's a good time to get together and try and separate the known facts from the speculation and figure out where the "truth" lies. That certainly does not appear to be the case here. As Nixon can tell you (or could of until 1994) it's real hard to weasel out of your own voice on tape. Speaking of Nixon, Hot Roddy might have a chance to surpass him in the category of "highest concentration of expletives in a career and life ruining recording." Something he can hang his hat on as he (hopefully) rots in his cell next to his predecessor.
For those who may not have read a ton about it, let's take a look at the "highlights":
"I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself."
[The Senate seat is] "a (bleeping) valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing."
"I’ve got this thing and it’s (bleeping) golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for (bleeping) nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
On Obama's preferred candidate: "they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. (bleep) them."
There's also a lot of good stuff with him trying to shake down the CFO of a children's hospital for a $50k contribution and him threatening to hold up the Cubs sale if the Trib board didn't fire some editors that were critical of him.
So, anyway, all that's out there and I think it's pretty cut and dry. And while I am disgusted and saddened by it I am also not naive and I can't be completely stunned by the revelation that we have a very crooked politician on our hands.
But what I am absolutely astonished by is the news that he apparently has no plans of resigning. I am assuming that he will be planning to use the R Kelly "that's not me on the tape" defense. That will prove to be exceedingly more difficult for him though, as he's up against a court-approved wiretap by federal agents and not a grainy video on the web.
Perhaps I shouldn't be that astonished, though. As I mentioned in the comments to my last post, we're talking about a guy trying to auction off probably the highest-profile appointment in the country right now, knowing that he's already under investigation for his Rezko affiliation, in a job where his predecessor left in disgrace and is currently rotting in jail. In that context, this latest act of arrogance or stupidity (I'm still not sure which it is) represents the model of consistency.
Actually, more than anything else I think it's delusion. This is obviously a guy who basically must feel like he's Bear Stearns (i.e. too big to fail). The level of self-denial that allows this man to actually believe that he has a chance of conducting "business as usual" for the remainder of his term is such that I honestly believe he may now have a good case to plead innocence by reason of insanity when he's eventually put on trial.
Ultimately, though, it won't really matter. There is an ever-increasing crowd of people lining up at the guillotine to have a whack. It's a race between the IL attorney general, Lisa Madigan, getting to the IL supreme court to declare him unfit for office, and the state legislature getting down to impeach him. I'm sure that somewhere on the internet there has been a betting line established.
My guess is that by end of day tomorrow he will "do the right thing" and resign. It's just taking some more time for those around him to pierce the fog of invincibility he thinks he has. One way or the other, I think we'll be welcoming in Gov. Quinn by early next week. Once Blago goes to jail that will make 4 of our last 8 governors who have followed that route. Here's hoping that Gov. Quinn can take us back under the 50% line!
Surprise loser in all of this: George Ryan. If he ever had a chance of having the rest of his sentence commuted, it is gone now.
Surprise winner in all of this: Elliot Spitzer. Congratulations Elliot! You are now just the 2nd most disgraced governor of 2008!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
My initial reaction to this was "I'm shocked, shocked! to find there is gambling going on here!"
Also, you left out my favorite part of the story that has Blago on record the DAY BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED basically daring the Feds to tap his phones, because he would NEVER do anything illegal. Hilarious. I was watching MSNBC report on him being arrested and reading in the newspaper about this dare.
I don't think it surprises anyone that an elected official would use a power (in this case the power to appoint Obama's recplacement) to curry favor, pick up political points, or pick up campaign contributions. I think the surprising thing is that he was so arrogant and blatant about it. I mean, this was a guy that was already under federal investigation.
I disagree with you John, I don't think he'll resign by the end of the week. Hearing and reading some of his comments over the last few days makes me think that Rob has literally lost touch with reality. He is still maintaining his innocence (obviously,) but the number of times his name and the word 'sociopath' have been used in the same sentence is astonishing.
And the scary thing is he could still be Governor for well over another month. Lisa Madigan may strip him of a power here or there, but if he does not resign it is doubtful that the Illinois Congress could have him removed before the newly elected officials get into office (Jan 14th?) Especially since Madigan (Michael this time) likes to move slowly.
Oh, and I still hate Lisa Madigan.
A couple of loosely associated thoughts on this issue:
I know why it took you so long to get this blog out. All the "bleep(s)" had to be edited in.
Jesse Jackson Jr., allegedly the
Million dollar candidate #5, continues to build his family's ethical reputation. Any chance of a Jackson/Kennedy wedding in the future?
Blago reminds me of Shaggy in that song, "Wasn't me".
Can we get ANY money out of this guy's election campaign fund(likely padded heavily with graft for past pet projects) to pay for the removal of the self absorbed narcissistic A-Hole's name from our toll road signs. This has ALWAYS bothered me. How much is it going to cost the IL taxpayers?
Could he still appoint himself to the senate? How funny would that be?
Yes, Lisa Madigan truly truly truly sucks.
Why do people not like Lisa Madigan? Sorry, I have no data on her.
But John, to respond to the end of your post... how do we know Quinn is not corrupt too? I mean, you're the lieutenant governor (did I spell that right?)--you've gotta know what the governor's up to and have almost certainly(however unwillingly) gotten your hands dirty too, wouldn't you think?
Aside from the allegations her daddy bought and paid for her current position as AG of IL? There's her blatant disregard for Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. Her attempt to use "leading" language on the ballot initiative for a new constitutional convention in IL. Her HUGE invasion of privacy requiring that pharmacys report who is buying Sudafed.
You want me to go on?
Also, I want to follow up on what John and I talked about earlier today.... Imagine you are a politician in office (we'll assume you're completely ethical and honest), and you stumble across some dirty dealings in your ranks. Do you publicly expose the scandal and loudly and righteously fire everyone involved, hopefully somehow managing to save yourself? Or do you cover it up?
John was theorizing that in the course of their careers, most politicians find it necessary to cover things up that they weren't involved in and didn't even know about at the time, but that would damage them if they let them be known. So it's just an unfortunate matter of if you get caught trying to cover things up. For example, Nixon. Hmmmm, I say.
So.. many... disjointed things! Start with the Sudafed. Is this about the meth labs?
I hate Lisa Madigan because Illinois has an outstanding casino license and for the past 4 years she has done everything in her power to make sure it doesn't get awarded. To anyone. Anywhere. For no apparent reason. So instead of having a Chicago casino to compete with the Gary casinos, or a Rosemont casino to take advantage of Ohare, or another suburban casino (Waukegan,) we have nothing. And for no reason.
I have no problem with the Pseudophedrine law.
I also don't think the CC language was leading.
Yes, Mike, at the moment he could still appoint himself to the Senate. But whoever gets that seat has to go through a confirmation process. Off the top of my head I don't remember who it is that has to confirm him (US Senate?) If it goes to special election there is no confirmation process.
Becks, from what I understand Quinn and Blago were anything but friends. In fact, I think I read that it has been over a year since they even SPOKE last. Doesn't mean he isn't corrupt, but he has a clean reputation and doesn't carry the stink that Blago has his whole career.
And if you ever have to bury, cover up, or obfuscate something, you are doing something wrong. If you are involved or not. If you might take heat or not.
Yes, the Sudafed law makes it a requirement to take and track ID when buying Sudafed and generics. Because Sudafed mixed with tractor starter fluid makes Meth. They tried limiting the number of boxes you could buy, but people would just buy 10 boxes at 10 different Drug Stores.
(Go Bears!)
The Libertarian side of me likes personal freedom, responsibility, and genuine Liberty that we were supposed to have. That's why I have a problem with the Sudafed laws. If people want to blow themselves up in their trailerpark meth lab, who am I to argue.
And before you get preachy, yes, my family HAS been touched by meth in a bad way.
Basically, I am completely at odds with Ms. Madigan's entire political agenda. I believe in personal responsibility and freedom, and she appears to believe in a nanny state.
Ballot issue article:
http://tinyurl.com/57y7qy
"The ballot question was crafted by a committee of the General Assembly, certified by the board of elections and submitted and distributed by White. The lawsuit focused primarily on a segment in the ballot question that states the results of the last constitutional convention vote, a line they say was biased and violated the election code by offering an explanation of the automatic call for a constitutional convention.
'In 1988, the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75 percent voting against calling a convention and 25 percent voting in favor of calling a convention,' the ballot question reads."
OK, just to clarify what I said to Becky, I wasn't saying that I thought it was ok to cover things up. But I do believe that most career politicians (and I don't have a hard definition for that) have been involved in some form of coverup during their careers.
But I think the key here is defining exactly what a "coverup" is. Certainly there are very clear cases, such as when Gov. Ryan tried to get the state investigation into the license-for-bribes scandal shut down. But what about a situation where an elected official becomes aware of something one of his lower employees did (for instance, sexually harassed a co-worker) and he responds to the situation by quietly firing him but doesn't tell the press anything about it. Are you obligated as a public servant to publicly disclose anything illegal (or allegations of illegalality) that you find out about? Even if you believe that you took the correct actions and the only thing you're avoiding is embarassment for you and your employees? And what it the person who was harassed doesn't want it made public, what are your obligations then?
I'm just trying to highlight that I think there can be a lot of grey here depending on the situation. And I think people "coverup" things in their private lives all the time. As an auditor, I've seen lots of times where we request something and in the course of getting it for us the auditees realize there's an error and they try to fix it before they hand it over to us. When Chris Farley died, his brother showed up at his place before police got there and cleaned up all the illegal drugs. My great grandfather supposedly died of a heart attack according to his death certificate, but my grandmother told me that he actually died of tuberculosis. There was a stigma associated with having TB and the doctor was a family friend so he fudged the official cause.
Obviously when you choose to live a life in the public eye you are implicitly agreeing to be more open to public scrutiny but, again, I'm just saying that I'm not instantly furious when I hear that an official "covered something up". I need a lot more information about exactly what was done before I make an official judgment.
Allright, I can see what you're saying about the "non vote is a no vote" part of the wording.
What I don't like is when that article said the Hawaiian ConCon vote was better because it was short and simple.
Making the ballot a little longer and providing a little background information is something I see as a good thing. Fair and impartial information is a little trickier.
Saying that they held a ConCon 40 years ago, but voted it down 20 years ago is factual information that is only seen as partisan to its supporters.
Putting party affiliations on the ballots can be seen as partisan in the same way. I'm sure there are scores of Republicans that would have preferred that the "R" wasn't next to their name this cycle (Bush fatigue etc...)
(BTW, it is interesting that it was Quinn fighting against the language. I think we'll be hearing more and more about him in the next few weeks.)
Also, John, it is 11am and still no resignation. Also, to add to my last post about why this could go on for a LONG time, is that whole pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. If he doesn't resign a lot of people could find it difficult to remove him from office (State Congress) or remove his powers (State Supremes) based on something he possibly, or even probably could have done.
Ted Stevens wasn't removed from power even AFTER being convicted (hell, they almost re-elected him.)
Don't want to make another long post here, but to respond to your specific (sexual harassment) example:
Fire the guy. No public remarks have to be made, people are hired and fired all the time. But if a reporter asks why, you tell the truth.
I also find fault with your TB story. I mean, That could be something vital to your family medical history. I mean, if your grandfather died of some sort of drug or alcohol addiction, it could make you more prone to addiction yourself, and don't you think that it is more important for you to have that information than it is to spare the family a little embarrassment? (I tried to use something that still has a negative social stigma.)
And I speak here with no medical training outside of House, ER, and Scrubs.
I wasn't saying that it was ok that my family's doctor covered it up (in fact I wasn't saying that any of those examples were ok), I was just pointing out examples where people do these things and even if it's not accepted you wouldn't really see anyone imprisoned for it. But as for the medical history, well, obviously my family knows the truth so that's not an issue. It's not like a doctor's going to trace my family tree back 70 years and pull all the death certificates. A lot of certificates still list "natural causes" which is decidedly unhelpful in that regard.
The sexual harassment was just an example off the top of my head to illustrate some level of grey. I do agree that anytime you outright lie about something as a public servant you have betrayed the public trust and that makes you worthy of being removed from office.
Yeah, it doesn't look like he's going to resign today, but Madigan did file papers with the IL supreme court today asking for his "temporary" removal from office. It's hard to see how that won't succeed and it's also hard to see him ever getting back into power after he's gone. I'll still stand by my statement that we'll have Gov. Quinn by sometime next week.
And I read in this story that his "approval rating dropped to an all-time low of 8 percent." I have to assume that 1) several members of the Blagojevich family were polled or 2) the poll has a margin of error of 8%.
Charged.
Not convicted.
While the evidence is pretty damning, he is still technically innocent until proven guilty.
I can see the State Supremes handing down some sort of Temporary Restraining Order, but to strip him of his powers based solely on allegations makes my stomach turn a little bit.
The only reason this is an issue is that it was a confluence of events.
1. President-Elect from Illinois.
2. Congress out of session.
3. The charges include trying to sell the Senate seat.
4. Election year (New people coming in a month.)
Expediency wouldn't be much of a priority if either of the first two things didn't happen.
We could be looking at Lisa Madigan and the State Supreme Court trumping the US Constitution based on allegations.
Like it or not, it is the Governor's right to appoint the next Senator. What if...
1. The State Supreme Court decides he is incapable of appointing the next Senator.
2. Illinois special election leads to new Senator.
3. (Somehow) Blago is found innocent on all charges.
Hindsight says Illinoisans just wiped their collective ass with both the State and US Constitutions.
I'm not advocating any particular course of action, but there are certainly arguments to be made on both sides.
"Madigan acted under a section of the state constitution that gives the Illinois Supreme Court the power to declare a governor unfit to serve." - From here
So there would be no abuse of the state constitution. They have that power. Of course, I haven't actually looked at the wording so I don't know if it's this cut and dry or if this is a creative interpretation.
Stevens was not removed because for some extremely stupid reason there is not a law against being a convicted felon in the Senate (even though being a convicted felon would preclude you from voting for yourself).
The flip side to the scenario that you painted is:
1. He's left in power
2. He continues with his day to day activities, including appointing the next senator.
3. He's eventually found guilty (which is most probable)
That to me is a much bigger crisis because it calls into question whether he actually had the authority to make any of the decisions he made between the day he was arrested and the day he was convicted.
If they temporarily remove him from office if he's somehow found innocent they can reinstate him. Obviously all the legal proceedings may take him past his present term, but so be it. This is what happens in most of the private sector. Employees are suspended with pay pending the outcome of an investigation. CEO's are replaced by shareholders just because an SEC investigation has been launched.
I do believe in innocent until proven guilty but I think there are limits. Taken in its strictest sense, you could never even take someone into custody until after they've been convicted.
Even if he hasn't been proven guilty yet in a court of law, it's obvious that the constituency has completely lost faith in him. I'm not saying that you draw authority to govern from approval ratings, but this is clearly an exceptional circumstance. Having a public servant this high in office wielding power that is seen by his constituency as illegitimate represents a crisis. That's obviously the best reason for him to step down. But if he's unwilling to do that (as he appears to be), I think the most prudent thing is to temporarily remove him pending the outcome of the criminal case.
Totally and completely offtopic here but it related to something Mike, Joe, and I were talking about on Thanksgiving.
We were discussing how much space it would take if you gathered all the humans on Earth in the same area. I'm watching this Charlie Rose interview right now (about Biodiversity) and they have a Harvard professor on there who just said that if you "log stacked" (not exactly what we were saying I know) every human on Earth it would only cover an area of 1 cubic mile (i.e. we would all fir comfortably inside the Grand Canyon).
BUT . . .(and you knew there would be one)
The average person with a first-world lifestyle requires the output of the equivalent of 24 acreas of land per year. There are a total of 36.7 billion acres of land surface on the Earth. That means that if all 6.5 billion people rose to 1st world living standards we would require the output of a little more than 4 Earths.
I verified the math and the acreage of the Earth, but I don't have a source for the 1st world energy use. I do know that it's similar to what I've read in Collapse and Hot, Flat, and Crowded though.
Article IV Section 14:
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.
Article V Section 6
Subsection b:
(b) If the Governor is unable to serve because of death,
conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or
other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by
the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of
the term or until the disability is removed.
Subsection d:
(d) The General Assembly by law shall specify by whom
and by what procedures the ability of the Governor to serve
or to resume office may be questioned and determined. The
Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
to review such a law and any such determination and, in the
absence of such a law, shall make the determination under
such rules as it may adopt.
"The General Assembly by law shall specify by whom
and by what procedures the ability of the Governor to serve
or to resume office may be questioned and determined."
Wow, that is vague. And I couldn't find anything that defines these powers. Again though, the GA is in recess.
Oh yeah, don't try to read the Illinois Constitution unless you are a lawyer or very patient. It reads like stereo instructions.
Well, his chief of staff resigned.
Link
This again makes for some humor. Assuming Rod really doesn't resign soon, he will need a new chief of staff. Who in god's name will be applying for that job?
Post a Comment