Clean Sweep: Illinois Senate Votes 59-0 To Remove Blagojevich

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.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Arrested On Corruption Charges

Go figure. Rod Blagojevich sought to profit from choosing the successor to Sen. Barack Obama, who becomes President in January.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents Tuesday morning on federal corruption charges, officials said.

His chief of staff John Harris was also charged, the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in a statement.

Blagojevich, 51, and Harris, 46, both of Chicago, were each charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.

It also figures that curiously left out of the report is the fact that he's a Democrat. Funny how that works.

UPDATE:
According to Bruce in the comments, the MSNBC story now includes Blagojevich's political affiliation. Gee, it wasn't that hard to include. Meanwhile, here's a timeline into the Blagojevich investigation. It remains to be seen whether Obama gets dragged into this mess directly. Right now, there's no indication that Obama is involved, but the number of people involved or who have already rolled on Blagojevich is staggering:

he investigation’s been active for three years and his cronies have been rolling over on him for months, culminating in a former aide named John Wyma having somehow cooperated with the feds to obtain recordings of Blagojevich yakking about graft. (The Tribune, which broke the news, won’t say if he wore a wire.) Another top crony was convicted six months ago of mail fraud, among other things, but his sentencing was postponed from October to January amid rumors that he was singing to the U.S. Attorney about the Chicago machine in hopes of a better deal. You might have heard of him.

That last person? Tony Rezko.

Stay tuned. Chicago politics is in play, and it's guaranteed to get messy.

UPDATE:
That's not the Fitzmas that the left was looking for. Patrick Fitzgerald, who had headed up the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media, is the prosecutor involved and he's knocked over a hornet's nest here.

UPDATE:
The Chicago Tribune (currently seeking bankruptcy protection) also omits Blagojevich's political affiliation. Well, when you miss the small details, things happen. Like bankruptcy.

UPDATE:
Mere Rhetoric also plays name that party!

UPDATE:
Whoa nelly. Thanks to Michelle Malkin, Powerline, and Instapundit for the links. Much appreciated.

For those new to A Blog For All, name that party is a regular feature here, given the media's propensity to omit that detail in their reporting or to mysteriously insert and remove party affiliations from release version to version. It's no wonder so many people got questions wrong about who really controls Congress and other political questions these days. The media has done an awful job of informing their customers of basic news. It's no wonder that the bottom line at so many media outlets is suffering.

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to include the political affiliations. In fact, it's an extra three keystrokes (D) would do it. It should be part of the mandatory style guides at the AP and other news outlets. Familiarity should not be an excuse either - local papers often get their reports picked up by national outlets and if the affiliations are omitted at the first level, that error is carried forward.

Is it so hard for the media to be consistent on how it reports political scandals? When Republicans get caught, that political affiliation is often included in the headline, while Democrats often get their affiliation buried deep in the article, if they're mentioned at all.

The media makes a big deal about claiming to be objective, but consistency would be a starting place on objective reporting, and I've repeatedly found inconsistencies on how such corruption is reported across the board.

UPDATE:
CNN now leads their lede on their front page mentioning Blagojevich's Democratic party ties. Good for them.