A blog for all seasons; A blog for one; A blog for all. As the 11th most informative blog on the planet, I have a seared memory of throwing my Time 2006 Man of the Year Award over the railing at Time Warner Center.
Justice. Only Justice Shall Thou Pursue
Judge James Zagel signaled Tuesday he may be prepared to impose a stiff prison sentence, saying he thinks Blagojevich lied when he told jurors he never tried to sell or trade an appointment to President Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat for campaign cash or a top job.
Throughout the first day of his two-day sentencing hearing, the impeached executive-turned-reality TV star known for his jocular personality was somber and ill-at-ease, staring down at the floor. His wife sobbed as a letter from their daughter was read begging Zagel not to send Blagojevich to prison.
The hearing was a stark contrast to the circus atmosphere around Blagojevich's trials on multiple counts of corruption.
The conciliatory tone came as something of a surprise — just days after defense filings that, as many times before, stridently declared Blagojevich's innocence and said he had been duped by aides but never intended to cross any lines into illegality.
Attorney Sheldon Sorosky told Zagel it was illegal for Blagojevich to ask for a job for himself in exchange for naming Obama's replacement in the Senate.
"There's no doubt this is a crime to do this in relation to the Senate seat, we accept that," he said. "I am just saying that does not call for a 15- to 20-year jail" term as prosecutors have requested.
He got a pretty harsh sentence all things considered. There was no reason to give him any leniency whatsoever. His only remorse was in being caught.
Blagojevich will be able to spend the holidays with his family; he wont be taken into custody until February 16, 2012.
Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat whose former aides say once saw himself as a presidential contender some day, was found guilty of 17 counts of wire fraud, attempted extortion, bribery, extortion conspiracy and bribery conspiracy. He was acquitted on one charge of bribery, and the jury deadlocked on two counts of attempted extortion.
The verdict appeared to be the conclusion, at last, to the spectacle of Mr. Blagojevich’s political career, which began its spiraling descent shortly after Mr. Obama was elected president in November 2008. A month after Election Day, Mr. Blagojevich, who under state law was required to pick a new senator to replace Mr. Obama, was arrested, and federal agents revealed that they had secretly recorded hundreds of hours of damaging phone calls by him and his advisers.
Mr. Blagojevich, a lawyer and former state and federal lawmaker, was accused of trying to secure campaign contributions, a cabinet post or a high-paying job in exchange for his official acts as governor — whether that was picking a new senator, supporting particular legislation or deciding how to spend state money.
The outcome came as a victory for federal prosecutors, whose earlier trial of Mr. Blagojevich resulted in a deadlocked jury on most counts and led people to wonder whether Mr. Blagojevich’s behavior would ultimately be deemed crass political deal-making but not a crime.
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff, wanted to run for Mayor of Chicago. That would seem to be straight forward since Emanuel is from Chicago but nothing is really that simple. Several of his political opponents filed a lawsuit against Emanuel appearing on the ballot because they claim that he did not comply with a state statute requiring his presence in Chicago for a year prior to the election.
Emanuel’s attorneys are expected to use Lampkin’s dissenting opinion to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court. In today’s ruling, Hoffman wrote: “We ... order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot from Chicago’s Feb. 22, 2011.”
Emanuel had won two previous rulings — by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and a Cook County judge. The case was appealed to the appellate court, which handed down the ruling before noon Monday.
Opponents have argued Emanuel is not a resident of Chicago because he rented out his North Side home while serving as chief of staff to Obama. The renter —Rob Halpin — refused to allow Emanuel to move back in after Mayor Daley’s announcement last year that he would not seek re-election. Halpin briefly ran for mayor himself.
His opponents in Chicago may have a point if he doesn't meet the necessary residency requirements as Illinois law requires candidates for municipal offices be a resident of the city for a year prior to elections. Emanuel, who resigned as White House chief of staff last year to run for mayor, was challenged on the issue by several Chicago residents. It becomes a timing issue, and whether he was a resident of Chicago for the year necessary to qualify or not.
The Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision found that Emanuel didn't comply with the statute. Emanuel probably figured that he didn't lose residency because he never intended to give up his domicile - and thought he could simply return to Chicago without having any problem with the time. However, when he stopped renting in Chicago that was used as a defining date by the court to rule that he had given up domicile.
The problem is that Emanuel continued paying property taxes on the Hermitage house property, had an Illinois drivers license, and otherwise made no actions that would indicate he gave up his residency (from the decision):
At all relevant times, including the time he was in
Washington, D.C., the candidate continued to pay property taxes for
the Hermitage house, continued to hold an Illinois driver’s license
listing the Hermitage house as his address, continued to list the
Hermitage house address on his personal checks, and continued to
vote with the Hermitage house as his registered voting address.
I don't understand how they could have ruled the other way, and to me the dissent's opinion is the more persuasive. This is typically the kind of standard that would show that a taxpayer did not give up domicile or residency and was therefore subject to tax by a given jurisdiction.
The majority's framing of the opinion shows that they ignored the very provision that they were ruling upon:
The issues in this appeal distill essentially to two: whether
the candidate meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
"resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the
election" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008)), and, if not, whether
he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code
provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost
his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on
business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)).
Even if the court mistakenly found against Emanuel on the first part - that he didn't reside in Chicago for the applicable time, he was still protected by the second part - he should not have lost residence by reason of business of the United States. He was the President's Chief of Staff and working in furtherance of the business of the United States.
I don't think it's an overreach to say that the Chief of Staff is a position doing the business of the United States. He's the right hand man for the President of the United States. You don't get much closer to the business of the United States than that.
Yet, it should be clear that both sides knew that all the lower court rulings were never going to be the last word. This was a case destined for the state supreme court.
Today, the Illinois Supreme Court has made an initial ruling to put Rahm Emanuel's name back on the Chicago mayoral ballot. They have yet to decide whether to take Emanuel's appeal of the Court of Appeals decision issued yesterday that said that Emanuel was ineligible to run for Mayor since he was not in Chicago for the requisite time period.
Less than 24 hours after an Illinois appeals court bumped Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago's election for mayor, the state's supreme court put that ruling on hold and ordered the city to include his name on any ballots being printed.
"The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.
The court said it acted after receiving legal briefs from Emanuel and from his legal opponents who claimed he was unqualified because he did not meet residency requirements of state law. Today's order left unresolved whether the state's high court would take up the entire case on a speeded-up basis, but the order gave Emanuel the rapid relief he was seeking -- to keep his name on the ballot.
Illinois taxpayers are going to be taking on the chin with massive tax hikes enacted by the lame duck legislature. The legislature had hoped that the tax hikes, which include raising the personal income tax from 3% to 5% and the corporate income tax rate from 4.8% to 7%, would raise $7 billion.
For years, Illinois, like so many states, pretended that it had not fallen off a budgetary cliff. It was spending too much and taking in too little revenue, but every year it would kick its problems into the next. Unable to pay its bills, it finally accepted reality last week and raised taxes on incomes and businesses — a first step toward getting its house in order.
The action was immediately ridiculed by several governors around the nation who are still pretending that they can cut their way out of the enormous shortfalls they face, without raising taxes. Wisconsin and Indiana predicted a windfall of angry corporations and residents would head their way from Illinois. Even Gov. Chris Christie, the New Jersey Republican, vowed to fly to Illinois to invite businesses there to defect to his state.
That makes great political theater. But businesses and voters in Illinois, and around the country, should take a closer look at the facts and figures, including their own.
After 22 years of not raising income taxes, Illinois saw its budget shortfall grow to $15 billion. It had the lowest state credit rating in the nation, and it wasn’t paying its bills to hospitals and schools.
The Illinois tax rate was low before and remains low for big states. The income tax will rise from a flat 3 percent to a flat 5 percent. That will cause pain at the lower and middle levels of the economic scale, but the state’s millionaires will probably stay put. (The top rate is 10.55 percent in California, 8.97 percent in New Jersey and New York, and 7.75 percent in Wisconsin.)
Right there in the first paragraph epitomizes the problem with Illinois and other states whose budgets are now massively out of whack.
The states were spending far more than the revenue they were taking in - regardless of the tax rates that were being imposed. Raising the taxes, which is what states like New Jersey and New York have done in the past did not solve the budget equation.
These states simply continued spending more than their revenues would allow. Over time, that built up massive structural budget deficits that required deficit spending - taking out debt to pay for ongoing operating costs.
The Illinois solution of raising taxes is not going to solve the state's fiscal problems because the state refuses to address the spending component. Years of inadequate control on spending resulted in the deficits, and raising the taxes wont solve the problem either - and the Illinois legislature has already acknowledged as much.
Illinois is one of several states around the country in huge financial trouble. It has billions in debt and no way to pay for its annual expenditures. The outgoing legislature has decided that the way to close the deficit (but not eliminate it) is to raise taxes.
The state is facing a $13 billion budget deficit that must be resolved by the end of the fiscal year on June 30. This includes $6 billion in unpaid bills to social service agencies, schools, contractors and others. In addition, the state's pension plan is severely underfunded.
To address these shortfalls, the Illinois House and Senate approved:
* Temporarily raising the personal income tax rate to 5%, from 3%.
* Temporarily hiking corporate income taxes to 7%, from 4.8%.
* Imposing a moratorium on new programs with spending growth capped at 2% per year, with the exception of increased school aid of more than $700 million.
The House postponed a vote on increasing the tobacco tax to $1.99 per pack, up from 98 cents. And lawmakers defeated a proposal to borrow $8.75 billion to clear the current stack of unpaid bills.
The state's Senate also approved a measure allowing the state to borrow $3.7 billion for the fiscal 2011 pension payment. The House approved this debt issuance last May.
Democratic lawmakers were racing to pass the tax hikes before the newly elected legislators are seated later Wednesday. Republicans, who gained ground in the November election, are firmly opposed to hiking taxes, preferring instead to cut spending.
The fiscal package remained in flux until the end. To gain support, Democrats scaled back the personal income tax spike to 66%, down from an initial proposal of 75%, and also reduced the jump in the corporate tax rate, which was originally set to rise to 8.4%.
The tax hikes, steep as they are, won't eliminate the state's deficit, since they are only expected to raise about $7 billion. Complicating matters is the defeat of the bond measure to cover the unpaid bills.
I'm surprised that the tobacco tax hike didn't get passed in order to reduce the personal income tax hike, but the fact that this budget plan is full of borrowing to pay current costs only increases the deficits down the road and doesn't address the structural deficit caused by borrowing to fund the massively underfunded pension.
State taxpayers are getting slammed from all sides, and the state's teetering on the brink of insolvency. Tax hikes cannot solve the state's fiscal woes. Invariably, the tax hikes do not produce the revenues expected, leaving the state in an even worse fiscal situation. Yet, doing nothing could lead to municipal bond defaults and even worse news down the road.
In fact, Wisconsin expects to see an influx of business and individuals relocating to avoid the onerous taxes being imposed by the Illinois legislature and likely to be signed by Gov. Pat Quinn (D) although Gov. Quinn disputes that possibility.
Illinois currently has a 3% personal income tax rate, which would increase to 5%. That compares with Wisconsin that has rates ranging from 4.6% to 7.75%. Iowa has rates ranging from 0.36% to 8.98%. Much more likely is that individuals may turn to Indiana, which has a personal income tax rate of 3.4% and whose state fiscal situation is stable.
Illinois has opted to impose draconian tax hikes to deal with years of debt rung up by irresponsible state spending. The measures are claimed to be temporary tax hikes, but if the state can't correct its budget situation, those tax hikes may linger on (it is tough to eliminate taxes once imposed).
The states did not see organic growth in tax revenues. Instead, these states saw gains only after imposing higher tax rates.
And there are several high profile states that continue to see declining tax revenues, even with the higher taxes. Meanwhile, corporate income tax collections remains off as sales and personal income tax collections have moderated.
The second-quarter gains were driven by growth in sales and income taxes, both of which have been raised in many states. Second-quarter sales-tax revenue increased 5.9% in the 47 states surveyed by the Rockefeller Institute, while the take from personal income taxes grew 1.6%. Collections from corporate income taxes, which tend to be volatile and are just a small slice of most states' collections, fell nearly 19% over the period.
Some 30 states saw tax revenue in the second quarter rise from a year earlier. Many of the strongest performers were places where collections were hard-hit by the recession. Florida saw a nearly 14% increase. Arizona—which, like Florida, has been among the states most affected by falling real-estate prices and lackluster construction activity—saw a 3.9% increase.
Still, revenue declined in several big states. In California, tax revenue declined 0.9%, despite a nearly 12% increase in income-tax collections largely driven by higher taxes, according to the Rockefeller Institute. Illinois saw revenue decline 7%, while Michigan's collections fell 3.8%.
Prosecutors are going to have to rethink how they retry Rod Blagojevich after the jury couldn't agree on all but one of the charges against him. How juries respond to cases is an important aspect of figuring out what to do next.
I think that prosecutors should narrow down the number of charges and focus on fewer but more serious claims. Some think that prosecutors shouldn't do that since they were so close to convicting him because of 11-1 verdicts (you need unanimous to convict).
"I think the government will take its time and re-think the presentation of its evidence. I'm not as sure as other commentators that they have to do it a whole lot differently than they did," said former federal prosecutor James E. Barz, now a trial lawyer with the Mayer Brown law firm. "They convicted him on one count, and they had jurors willing to convict him on every other count ... particularly on the Senate counts if they were 11 to 1," Barz said. "There's still an awful lot of evidence. I don't know that you have to do it a lot differently."
While some jurors said prosecutors presented a confusing case that lacked a timeline, others cautioned against a major streamlining of the allegations.
"Take a charge out here and there, to me, would have been counterproductive in that you lose the -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- the totality of everything together," juror Ralph Schindler told the Chicago Sun-Times.
"The lack of a smoking gun, for lack of a better phrase, probably made it more difficult. But the evidence we had, it led me to where I should have gone," said Schindler, who said he thought Blagojevich was guilty of trying to sell the Senate seat.
Prosecutors made a deliberate effort to keep Rezko and Levine off the witness stand. After his conviction, Rezko wrote a letter to a federal judge accusing Blagojevich investigators of encouraging him to lie, while Levine's drug use became a distraction during his testimony in the Rezko trial.
"I have two words of advice: Rezko and Levine. They should be all over the case. They should be all over the proof," said Leonard Cavise, a law professor at the DePaul University College of Law. "If you're looking for the quid pro quo, follow the money; those two guys know where the bodies are buried."
Prosecutors have a tough call to make with Rezko and Levine, precisely because those could be major distractions and take the spotlight off Blagojevich and put it on to Rezko. Then again, the fact that Blagojevich was surrounded by shady characters who are all out there trying to save their own hides shows that there is no honor among thieves.
It looks like Illinois wants to get in the game for having one of the worst budget situations in the nation. Illinois' fiscal situation rivals that of New York or California, and no one in the state wants to do a damned thing about it.
Like those other states, Illinois spent billions more than it could afford and there are no federal bailouts awaiting it this year.
For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget.
Then there is the spectacularly mismanaged pension system, which is at least 50 percent underfunded and, analysts warn, could push Illinois into insolvency if the economy fails to pick up.
States cannot go bankrupt, technically, but signs of fiscal crackup are easy to see. Legislators left the capital this month without deciding how to pay 26 percent of the state budget. The governor proposes to borrow $3.5 billion to cover a year’s worth of pension payments, a step that would cost about $1 billion in interest. And every major rating agency has downgraded the state; Illinois now pays millions of dollars more to insure its debt than any other state in the nation.
“Their pension is the most underfunded in the nation,” said Karen S. Krop, a senior director at Fitch Ratings. “They have not made significant cuts or raised revenues. There’s no state out there like this. They can’t grow their way out of this.”
As the recession has swept over states and cities, it has laid bare economic weakness and shoddy fiscal practices. Only an infusion of federal stimulus money allowed many states to avert deep layoffs last year.
States face a choice. Make those layoffs, reduce benefits to state workers, or raise taxes.
Raising taxes isn't an option because taxpayers are sick of funding state workers' benefits that exceed those of the private sector. Reducing benefits isn't an option because the unions generally refuse to give up hard earned benefits and they also stand in the way of layoffs. Layoffs aren't always an option either because the politicians get flack from the unions, who form a major constituency to be satisfied in elections.
So, the states go from bad to worse in their fiscal situation.
The politicians make awful decisions to leverage future state fiscal responsibility to fund current obligations - borrowing heavily, which increases the debt load. Ignoring the pension obligations or worse - borrowing to make payments has made the Illinois situation a particularly perilous one.
And while the NY Times wants to blame the failure to raise taxes on the state GOP, Democrats have been the ones to pass budgets that are in deficit year after year - ignoring the balanced budget requirements. Corruption and graft have left the state devoid of any leadership.
Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo.
Administration officials as well as Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will make an official announcement at the White House.
Officials from both the White House and Durbin's office confirmed that President Barack Obama had directed the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a sleepy town near the Mississippi River about 150 miles from Chicago. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting Tuesday's announcement.
A Durbin aide said the facility would house federal inmates and no more than 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
The facility in Thomson had emerged as a clear front-runner after Illinois officials, led by Durbin, enthusiastically embraced the idea of turning a near-dormant prison over to federal officials.
The White House has been coy about its selection process, but on Friday a draft memo leaked to a conservative Web site that seemed to indicate officials were homing in on Thomson.
The Thomson Correctional Center was one of several potential sites evaluated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to potentially house detainees from the Navy-run prison at Guantanamo Bay. Officials with other prisons, including Marion, Ill., Hardin, Mont., and Florence, Colo., have said they would welcome the jobs that would be created by the new inmates.
Closing Guantanamo is a top priority for Obama, and he signed an executive order hours into his presidency directing that the process of closing the prison begin. Obama has said he wants terrorism suspects transferred to American soil so they can be tried for their suspected crimes.
The logistics of this remains to be worked out, but it is merely a charade to claim that the President is upholding his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.
The Obama administration may buy a near-empty prison in rural northwestern Illinois to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay along with federal inmates, a White House official said Saturday.
The maximum-security Thomson Correctional Facility, about 150 miles west of Chicago, was one of several evaluated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and emerged as a leading option to house the detainees, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because a decision has not been made.
President Barack Obama wants alleged terrorism suspects from the controversial military-run detention center in Cuba to be transferred to U.S. soil so they can be prosecuted for their suspected crimes.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has been hinting at a possible new use for Thomson, and he issued a statement saying he would hold a news conference Sunday to outline those plans.
Why exactly is Gitmo so controversial? Well, it's a symbol of the Bush Administration's policy towards those terrorists it captured on the battlefield and by other means, and it is therefore an anathema to Bush opponents. Therefore it must be closed.
There's no real strategic or tactical reason to shutter the Gitmo facility because the detainees are quite secure there and are treated according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions despite the fact that all the detainees completely and utterly ignore the Conventions and as terrorists are singled out as an unprotected class under the Conventions.
Illinois has been hit hard by the economic troubles, and their response - raising taxes. Democrat Governor Pat Quinn acknowledged that he intends to raise Illinois income taxes by 50% on taxpayers making more than $56,000. That puts the middle class squarely in the cross-hairs.
As CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports, Quinn said Friday that he plans to hike taxes from 3 percent to 4.5 percent for families that make more than $56,000 a year.
Quinn has been hinting about the problems in the state budget this year for some time. He gives his first address on the subject next Wednesday.
Illinoisans have had a lower income tax rate than other states for some time. This would be the first increase in 20 years.
In addition, some business tax breaks would be eliminated, and Quinn promises to tighten state government spending.
Quinn will balance the increase by raising the standard tax exemption up to $6,000 per person from $2,000, to help low- and middle-income families.
The income tax increase could bring in nearly $4 billion. The budget deficit is expected to be more than $9 billion by the summer of 2010.
This is yet another move to raise broad-based taxes in the teeth of a recession. Any tax cuts at the federal level will be swallowed whole by the state tax hikes.
This is yet another version of the long running shell game, and Illinois residents will be paying the price for out of control spending at a time when revenues cannot hope to match the intent of the politicians to spend.
Pass the popcorn. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) says Sen. Roland Burris (D-Blagojevich) should resign from the US Senate after continued revelations about Burris and his relationship with disgraced, impeached, and removed former Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Quinn is calling for a special election to fill the seat.
The fun in Illinois politics hasn't ended now that Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from the governorship. Nope. Not by a longshot.
The effects of his stint in office will be felt for a long time to come.
Right now, his choice to replace Barack Obama in the Senate looks like he's going to go down in flames of his own after lying about whether he had contacts with Blagojevich's office over who would replace Obama. He's also lied about whether he raised money for Blagojevich; he did. He's got multiple versions of stories, and each one calls into question his credibility.
Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama— unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.
The story gets worse with every telling.
Enough. Roland Burris must resign.
His protests that he had nothing to hide just don’t square with his obvious attempts to hide something, as evidenced by the evolving truths in three sworn statements to the House impeachment panel. His Jan. 8 testimony before that panel contradicted the affidavit he’d filed three days earlier. On Feb. 5 he submitted a “clarification” detailing the contacts he’d failed to mention on the stand.
Now he has admitted that the governor’s brother hit him up to raise campaign cash, and in at least one conversation, Burris raised his prospects for being appointed to the Senate.
Rob Blagojevich’s attorney has acknowledged that the feds likely have at least one of those conversations on tape. Burris told reporters Monday night that he “talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on,” but “they said ‘We aren’t giving money to the governor.’”
The hole just gets deeper and deeper, and Burris keeps digging. He has no credibility.
That's not a good way to start your career in the US Senate. Yet, this is completely par for the course in Illinois politics where being governor goes hand in hand with an indictment and conviction in Club Fed. His backers have no credibility either as they sat on evidence of Burris' wrongdoing themselves. That includes Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Perjury and obstruction of justice charges are just the beginning for Burris, who may have to have the stone masons carve in another line on his gaudy mausoleum - criminal. And while he would like to think of himself as a trailblazer, his current actions are little different than Blagojevich's - lying and obstructing justice and the investigations into whether there was wrongdoing in who would get Obama's seat.
More to the point, the problem with Illinois politics, and indeed politics across the country is that the corruption we see is pervasive and systemic. A starter might be to clean up the corruption at the local level and work all the way up through the ranks. The corruption is so pervasive that everyone thinks that this is the way politics gets done. Of course, the reality is that none of this will change because the voters keep sending back the same people who are responsible for the mess they're in. In fact, they're already making excuses and offering up a ready tolerance for such actions.
For now, we're left with knowing that the US Senate has opened an ethics investigation into Burris' actions. If it's anything like a House investigation, Burris has nothing to worry about; they're still not quite sure whether Charles Rangel broke the law and/or multiple ethics violations by cheating on his taxes, violating House ethics rules and disclosure rules, and breaking NYC housing rent control/stabilization guidelines for years on end.
It isn't the end of the Blagojevich affair by any stretch, contrary to CBS News headlines, but it is the end the road for disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was removed as Illinois Governor by the Illinois Senate 59-0.
Blagojevich spoke before the Senate yesterday and rambled on about how he had done so much good for the state and that if he had committed a crime, others should go down as well, including President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and various members of the Illinois political establishment.
I'm sure that sat well with all those folks.
In the end, it didn't affect the outcome, especially since Blagojevich hinted at his culpability when he stated that he had not knowingly committed criminal acts.
Once the State House impeached him earlier this month for abuse of power, the Senate did what was expected and voted to throw Blagojevich out of office. And on an identical 59-0 roll call, it barred the two-term Democrat from ever again holding public office in the state.
"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor," said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago.
The state's Democratic Lieutenant Governor (and one of Blagojevich's strongest critics), 60-year-old Quinn, was promptly sworn in as governor.
Blagojevich, 52, had boycotted the first three days of the impeachment trial, calling the proceedings a kangaroo court. But on Thursday, he went before the Senate to fight for his job, delivering a 47-minute plea that was, by turns, defiant, humble and sentimental.
He offered familiar lines: He was innocent. The trial rules were unfair. His goal always was to help people.
"You haven't proved a crime, and you can't because it didn't happen," Blagojevich told lawmakers. "How can you throw a governor out of office with insufficient and incomplete evidence?"
"I think what's been very disappointing and very frustrating to everyone involved in the process … is that the governor could have brought forward information and evidence and witnesses, and he refused at every turn to do so," Illinois State Attorney General Lisa Madigan said on CBS' The Early Show. "He didn't participate when the House was considering impeachment. He obviously refused to participate in the actual trial in front of the Senate.
Blagojevich had gone on a media blitz this week, appearing on major network morning programs and taking the plea to the people, claiming that he had never intended to carry out criminal acts and that he had done much good for the people of Illinois.
Still, Blagojevich does have a point about the impeachment process; it wasn't exactly about due process and the ability to rebut charges with the presentation of evidence. That was due, in part, to the criminal charges and the case pending in federal court on corruption charges. The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, didn't want to undermine his criminal case and so limited the amount of evidence provided for impeachment purposes.
That's right folks. It's going to be epic. Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), who is under criminal investigation for a variety of corrupt activities and is currently being impeached by the Illinois Legislature, wants to make a closing statement at the close of the testimony tomorrow despite refusing to participate in the proceedings to date because he believed them to be unfair.
Given his penchant for reciting poems, referring to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimmy Stewart, and other famous folks, his appearance will definitely be noteworthy.
This is courtesy than none other than Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), who is currently making the rounds to all the media outlets while the Illinois Legislature considers his impeachment.
Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was accused of attempting to sell Barack Obama's US Senate seat to the highest bidder has been impeached, the first time in Illinois state history. The Chicago Democrat was impeached by an overwhelming majority.
In a historic vote, the Illinois House has impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, directing the Senate to put the state’s 40th chief executive on trial with the goal of removing him from office.
The vote by the House was 114-1 and marks the first time in the state's 190-year history that a governor has been impeached, despite Illinois' longstanding reputation for political corruption.
Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeaching the governor. Patterson, from Chicago's Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn't feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor. He declined comment on whether he approved of the job Blagojevich is doing.
UPDATE: And for the record, the Chicago story doesn't mention Blagojevich's political affiliation. He's a Democrat, not that it matters to most of the press, who would only find reason to include party affiliation when a Republican is involved - and include that detail in every available headline.
“I’m here to tell you right off the bat that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Mr. Blagojevich said, during his quick public statement at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
“I will fight this thing every step of the way. I will fight. I will fight. I will fight,” he said.
Mr. Blagojevich is accused of, among other things, trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.
On Wednesday, Mr. Blagojevich told reporters that the day “will soon be here” when he’ll tell his side of the story.
The Chicago Democrat is following a path tread by many other politicians in similar circumstances. They'll deny and avoid responsibility for any and all illegal and corrupt activities up until the moment they get what they or their lawyers believe is a reasonable deal from prosecutors and he'll admit to some form of wrongdoing.
The other alternative is to fight the claims and end up being convicted. You can ask Republican Sen. Larry Craig how his fight against his toe tapping in a restroom stall turned out.
How exactly will Blagojevich show that he's not guilty of the crimes alleged? Expect him to claim that everything was taken out of context, and that this is the Chicago way.
His proof?
It's the way things have always been done in Illinois and Chicago politics. If you want anything done, you have to play along. He was just better at it than everyone else. No one likes a sore winner, so they're on him. That's why he's innocent.
Hey, I didn't say it was rational, made sense, or even reasonable. I'm just saying that Blagojevich probably believes that he's done nothing wrong because this is how Chicago politics has always operated and had no reason to doubt the tactics used and the pay to play for Obama's seat.
Sen. John McCain remains a US Senator and will not become the next President of the United States in part because he alienated far too many Republicans with all of his "mavericky" statements. Republicans who turned out in record numbers in 2004 for President Bush's reelection stayed at home and on the sidelines as Obama's people turned out in record numbers.
That trend continues today, when he's far more likely to criticize Republicans for going after Obama's connections with corrupt Democrat Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich than to go after Obama and his connections with shady characters, corrupt politicians and the Chicago machine.
In a surprising rebuke to the warriors who fought for him through tough times, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday sided with President-elect Barack Obama and scolded the Republican National Committee for fanning the Illinois corruption scandal.
On ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked: “The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, has been highly critical of the way President- elect Obama has dealt with this. "He's had a statement every single day, saying that the Obama team should reveal all contacts they've had with Governor [Rod] Blagojevich. He says that Obama's promise of transparency to the American people is now being tested. Do you agree with that?”
McCain replied: “I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary. You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody — right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don't know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama's campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me.”
It's absolutely infuriating that McCain continues to think that the Republicans are in the wrong whenever there is a scandal involving Democrats for simply pointing out the Democrats scandals.
After all, the media has done an awful job of sorting through all of Obama's past dealings in Illinois politics and even now are busy trying to erect a barrier between Blagojevich and Obama, despite the fact that there's no way that the two camps didn't talk about what would happen to Obama's seat once he was elected President. If the GOP isn't out there highlighting the connections between Obama and Blagojevich and the possibility of further criminal conduct among Obama's staffers (hey, I'm talking about Axelrod and Emanuel who have made multiple contradictory statements regarding their conversations with the Blagojevich staff on Obama's seat situation), who will?
That isn't to say that Obama engaged in criminal acts relating to Blagojevich's attempt to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder and profit personally from the transaction, but Obama did work with Blagojevich on his 2002 campaign for governor, and has been close to Blagojevich - who has been under a cloud of suspicion for corrupt activities ever since 2002.
No one who knows anything about Chicago and Illinois politics should be surprised by any of the revelations about Blagojevich, despite the stunning audacity of his demands for profit from Obama's seat. What is surprising is how Obama has seemingly risen above all the corruption and emerged without even a whiff of taint from decades of corrupt politicians surrounding him on all sides - at least that's how it is portrayed by a media that did all it could to push Obama to win in November.
Never mind that Tony Rezko's conviction still may provide some troubling questions for what Obama knew and did and how he came to own his Chicago home. Rezko is also a close personal friend of Blagojevich and helped Blagojevich win the election in 2002.
Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Chicago Tribune has learned.
The revelation does not suggest Obama's new gatekeeper was involved in any talk of dealmaking involving the seat. But it does help fill in the gaps surrounding a question that Obama was unable or unwilling to answer this week: Did anyone on his staff have contact with Blagojevich about his choice for the Senate seat?
Blagojevich and John Harris, his former chief of staff, face federal charges in an alleged shakedown involving the vacant Senate seat, which Illinois law grants the governor sole authority to fill.
It makes absolutely no sense that Obama and the Illinois governor's staffers wouldn't be having conversations about what would happen to the seat and who both sides would like to see replace Obama. It's simply farfetched that there were no conversations as Obama and his press flacks had been maintaining all week since the news of Blagojevich's indictments hit the airwaves.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
So, what took so long? Was it that difficult to realize that telling the truth was the best and only course of action to take and that stonewalling would lead to the appearance of impropriety? Did Emanuel and Obama not realize that they're dealing with a prosecutor in the form of Patrick Fitzgerald who'd already secured convictions for obstruction of justice and perjury against "Scooter" Libby because he couldn't keep his story straight with investigators? The inability to come up with a coherent story could land Obama's top staffers, including Emanuel and David Axelrod in hot water.
I also find it hard to believe that we'll get a full investigation from Obama's own people into whether anyone had conversations or engaged in unethical or illegal activities; there's simply too much self interest involved to get a true and impartial investigation. The federal prosecutors are going to have to investigate and let the matter take them where the evidence leads.
Right now, I really don't think Obama himself is implicated in any of the direct corruption alleged against Blagojevich attempting to sell Obama's seat. That's not to say that Obama couldn't later be implicated in other schemes Blagojevich was running - and there's apparently plenty of corruption to go around.
It also raises questions as to Madigan's suddenly active role in seeking Blagojevich's ouster through the courts. She's ignored the corruption in Illinois all along, and yet now finds her voice even as she's been mentioned as a possible replacement for Obama. That doesn't suggest that she's involved in the corruption, but it certainly should raise questions as to her motivations.
For his part, Blagojevich continues to carry on state business even as calls for his resignation continue to pour in. There are also reports that he's consulting with his lawyers about possibly resigning this coming week, but as I've stated previously, Blagojevich would not resign unless he's got a deal in place with prosecutors.
