I’m not talking about Blago. Blago can go hang. He’s a crook and you WILL NOT find me defending him.
I’m talking about people like What Exit…??? who instantly try to connect the non-existent dots between Obama and Blago, despite there being no evidence that there is any such connection. Eight more years of witch hunts on the horizon.
Not sure what your point is, here, but let’s move on.
Are you suggesting that senators can do that? If so, can you substantiate, and if not, could you clarify?
Wait, why did WHO wait? Fitzgerald? The FBI? Who are you suggesting should be responsible for answering that?
Well, to begin with, the Senate is a part of the legislative branch, and doesn’t really have authority to direct the actions of the FBI (a part of the Justice Department, and therefore subject to the orders of the executive branch). If you’d care to assert otherwise, go nuts. You’ll probably be asked to provide some facts to back up the assertion, of course.
I think the general consensus is that G-Rod was upset with Obama because Obama had been distancing himself from G-Rod for quite some time, even before the convention, and this was compounded by Obama not coming around offering perks and paybacks when Blagojevich had something that he thought Obama would want.
How does one satisfactorily “explain” something that “never happened”?
As I understand it, he did [simply make the birth certificate available]. It didn’t [shut everyone up].
O-kaayyyy. :dubious:
If you have nothing to hide, how do your detractors know when you’ve shown it to them?
You can’t — because detractors can make up whatever harebrained allegations that they want and then demand you prove that it didn’t happen.
How do you provide evidence of a non-existent thing?
Why the fuck do THEY need to explain it? They’re not in charge of the investigation. What say did they have over if or when Blagojevich got arrested?
I’m not really clear on what you’re raving about here. You’re alleging that Obama and Durbin had some sort of say over FBI investigations?
Who is “they” in this paragraph? Is it the Feds? If that’s the case, they had NOT seen everything regarding the Senate seat, namely because it hadn’t been vacated yet. If by “they,” you mean Obama and Durbin, the answer is that they had nothing to do with the investigation and no particular knowledge of the details.
Where are you getting this insane notion that Obama and Durbin had any knowledge or authority regarding the investigation?
On the tapes, Blagojevich says he was mad at Obama because Obama wouldn’t give hm a bribe. If you have some evidence to support your fevered conspiracy theory, let’s see it.
So far, we’ve seen no indication that Obama has to explain a damn thing.
Obama’s birth certificate is freely viewable on fightthesmears.com. He produced it a long, long time ago.
This is all so nuts, it’s pretty much self-refuting.
Have you accidentally wandered onto the wrong website? Do you think you’re posting at worldnetdaily or something?
This is why bullshit artists like Berg start their campaigns: they hope people like you will believe it’s suspicious that their target (Obama) won’t answer a simple question, when in reality every time the question is answered they either ignore it or invent some reason it isn’t credible.
“Prove that your birth certificate wasn’t forged!”
“I did! Prove that I didn’t show it to you.”
Pardon me if this has been said already, but this move strikes me as a granstand ploy by the AG. Just impeach the guy already. Why go all extra-constitutional?
Time pressure. Impeachment takes time. Letting Blago go on running the state government another week obviously is unacceptable, and somebody has to run it.
It’s unpalatable, to be sure, and I do hope the Illlinois supremes see it as unacceptable for the state, instead of just to the Democratic Party.
I can easily see an argument being forwarded that AG Madigan’s construction of the term “disabled” is novel. I don’t think that novelty in and of itself is sufficient to invalidate an interpretation, but a competent lawyer will certainly attack it on those grounds at least.
At least, that’s the stated reason:
I don’t think her definition of “disability” is going to fly.
FWIW, the following is a cut and paste from an email from a friend of mine who is an Illinois attorney re the Illinois AG’s lawsuit :
Last week, the Attorney General filed an original action in the Illinois Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 382 seeking Blagojevich’s removal. While the goal might be laudable, I wonder whether this lawsuit is such a hot idea even if it were constitutional, which I doubt.
Rule 382 gives the Court original jurisdiction over the issue of “the ability of the Governor to serve or resume office.” Article V, Section 6(d) of the Illinois Constitution states that “[t]he 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.” As far as I can tell, the Illinois Supreme Court has not construed either Rule 382 or Article V, Section 6(d) and, thus, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court can, under this rule and constitutional provision, order the removal of the Governor. however, the precedent that this case creates might be problematic in the future. Can a future attorney general who disagrees with the governor (or who wants the governor’s job) and who anticipates that the Court will support a removal petition, be able to initiate the removal of the governor through a lawsuit?
One more legal complication – Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution states that “[t]he 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.” Given the fact that the Constitution gives a coordinate branch of government (the legislative branch) the authority to remove the governor, I don’t believe that the judicial branch can simply remove him. To do so would violate the separation of powers doctrine in Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution.
O.K., sorry for the const’l law lecture. I think that Blagojevich should, for the good of the nation, leave office but it should happen by: (a) resignation or (b) impeachment in the Illinois Legislature.
I’m opposed to any attempt to remove the governor through a judicial process without a showing that he’s been hit in the head by a truck or the like. Blagojevich is, to me, clearly a bad governor, but being “bad” isn’t a disability, it’s just bad. We have a process for that: impeachment. The idea of an state supreme court removing the governor on the motion of one person seems too much like a judicially sanctioned coup/
I don’t understand why they think impeachment will take months. I would think the Legislature is capable of moving on this pretty quickly if there really is a need for urgency – and if there is, it is to that body, and not the Supreme Court, that people should be making their cases.
If you’ve got a plane ticket to Chicago, I’ve got two days off from work and a brick…
Well, according to the news Blago’s on his way to Springfield…
I read the complaint over the weekend. I’m sure that stuff goes on all the time, but it is still breath-taking. I recommend that everyone read it for the full effect.
WTH? Why should they move on this quickly because he’s a governor? If I did this and had to spend time at court and/or jail I would be fired. Screw him.
Because, constitutionally, nobody has the authority to fire him. He can be impeached or the courts can rule him disabled to serve and those are the only options.
A Time magazine profile of Lt. Gov. Quinn: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1866690,00.html