So, Geithner was confirmed yesterday and is now officially the Treasury Secretary. Obviously as my post yesterday would indicate I am pleased by this, but I'm ready to move on.
Our embattled governor's impeachment trial got underway yesterday while good old Roddy (or, as the Daily Show dubbed him, "Scumdog Million-hairs") decided to forego the proceedings in favor of a whirlwind media tour. This whole situation has brought up something of a moral dilemma for me. On one hand, I absolutely want him out of office. Despite his claims, I do not believe that it is possible for a number of the phrases he was caught on tape using to be within the bounds of the law in any context. It is abundantly clear to me (as well as to most of the general populace) that he is guilty of trying to personally profit from the US Senate appointment. At the same time though, I do kind of agree with him that the impeachment trial is something of a farce. Basically, the legislature has decided to throw in lots of other politically-motivated charges that would never warrant an impeachment by themselves. And Blagojevich will not be given the full opportunity to defend himself due to limitations imposed because of how they might interfere with the criminal case. I said the other day that "a correct decision obtained through incorrect means is still a correct decision" and on those grounds I guess I have to still be in favor of his removal since overall I do think it's the right decision. But it has made me reconsider my position on recall elections. Previously I have been against them because I think the last thing we need is even more perpetual campaigning and a politician that governs by the poll numbers. However, this is exactly the type of situation where a recall election makes sense. I just can't figure out how you can install a recall provision for cases like this without opening the door to mass political manipulation.
And I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all the ridiculous statements being made by Blago over the last week. At last count he had compared his "courage" in making decisions to FDR, his arrest to Pearl Harbor, and likened his "persecution" now to Gandhi and MLK. Mr. Blagojevich, though I don't agree with any of those, you do remind me of this one guy that went around professing his innocence when the whole world knew he was guilty: OJ. Guess you can hope that your criminal trial goes as well as his did (well, as well as his FIRST one at any rate).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Does he have to be guilty of a crime to be removed from office?
"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."
His time as governor has been rife with controversy and public outcry. Even if he is not technically guilty of a crime (which I think he is) I think the Senate has the right to remove him anyway.
Call it the "Straw that broke the camels back" clause.
And seriously, given what has happened in the last two days, this iguy is a bigger jackass than most of us even thought.
Post a Comment