Here is how I would schedule it if I were the IL Speaker:
Tuesday, December 23 : Play the tapes in the morning. In the afternoon, ask the Governor’s lawyer to respond. Hold a committee vote to recommend articles of impeachment
Wednesday, December 24, 8am: Forward the findings to the full house. Debate lasts until 3pm. Vote to impeach. Go home at 3:30pm for Christmas Eve.
Thursday, December 25 Merry Christmas!
Friday, December 26, Forward Articles of Impeachment to Senate, Senate debate and prepare rules for trial
Monday-Tuesday December 29-30 Prosecution Case
Wed- December 31 Defense case
Thur=Jan 1 Happy New Years!
Fri- Jan 2 Defense finishes.
Monday Jan 5 Full day of debate and final vote on guilt.
The fact is you HAVE to give people time to prepare a defense. I have never been a supporter of G-Rod, but I am totally against not letting him defend himself properly.
It seems you hear one recording and you make a lynch mob.
Furthermore it sets a precident that if the governor of any state does anything that makes the people mad, he’ll be out of office in an instant.
This is why we got wishy washy politicians at all levels. There only concern is staying in office or getting re-elected NOT in doing what’s best
This has to be done in an above-board manner, and that’s all the more true because Blagojevich is so obviously guilty. It’s unseemly to rush to declare him unfit or impeach him without takign the whole process seriously. The sheer force of political blowback will keep him from making a Senate appointment, and this needs to be done right.
Per my schedule, his lawyer can make his case to the panel recommending impeachment. He also has two full days to present his case to the full Senate.
The only evidence I’m using on the prosecution side is the tapes. What does he need to do that would take more than one week to prepare a defense against that?
If he has a legitimate defense, he can present it. I don’t see the purpose in pissing around for months…
Lawyers on both sides cant just drop everything and work on the case. While I’m sure in such a high profile case, there are lawyers climbing over each other to take it, the fact is that a generic “prep time” is given to meet the needs of all cases
As for the tape, Blago’s lawyers have to be given time with them, to study whats on them, and to research an appropriate defense. They need to find and study cases pertinent to the investigation in order to be able to cite precedent that helps him. The same thing is given to government lawyers. They will find other cases to bolster their claims. And of course, each side will need time to find counterarguments and examples
There may be witnesses to testify on behalf of each side. Blago may bring people in to help his tarnished image, and witnesses need to be coached at least on what the case is about and what the defense/prosecution strategies are. Professionals called in have to be paid, and a payment worked out. All witnesses, unless subpoenaed, have to be given time to fit testifying in front of a court with their own schedules, and travel arrangements have to be made. And remember, exculpatory evidence has to be shared by the prosecution and the defense has to be given time to prepare a response
All this cannot be done in the span of a couple days, thats why they have pretrial hearings and motions that are argued before the actual trial phase begins
Add in the Illinois legislature and others who have a vested interest in the case and the delay grows exponentially longer
I think you’re talking about Blago’s trial. His impeachment could in theory be done a lot quicker. It is intentionally and constitutionally a political, not a judicial process, Blago has not the same rights as in a process where his rights and freedom are at stake, and the legislature can decide to convict and remove him for whatever reasons seem good to them. Based on an excerpt from the Illinois Constitution someone posted in another Blago thread, forget which one, it does not even contain the vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” language of the U.S. Constitution.
The impeachment process has no more to do with the legal process at the state level than it does at the federal level, namely none. It’s purely a tool of statecraft, to be used to remove an official whose continued presence in office so strongly imperils the government they serve that it cannot be tolerated. There is not a requirement to permit a “defense” at all, other than the requirement imposed upon the legislative body holding the “trial” to make its extraordinary action appear legitimate.
Now, what defense could Blag offer? That it was, perhaps, *not *his voice on the tapes offering to sell a Senate appointment to the highest bidder? He *did * just that. Accept it. Not it’s time for the IL legislature to do what it has to do. No question about it.
He’s claimed he wants to tell “his side of the story”. Well, what’s stopping him, then? Its implausibility, or nonexistence, maybe? What else do you think it could it be?
What higher level of corruption do you think it *should *require? What higher level is even possible?
Give people the power to do it in so cavalier a fashion and pretty soon it’ll be overused. In a hyperpartisan time like now, I would want more protections, not less, so that frivolous suits dont overwhelm the system. Its not about how bad we think he is, its about how bad it can be proven. So yes, he does need time to prepare an appropriate defense.
Personally, I dont like him, I think he should be out of there, but I dont want elected governors to be able to impeached so quickly. Facts may yet come out that lessen his guilt. The only thing most of us have judged this case on is the release of a few seconds of audio tape. I would like to hear the whole tape, plus look into what evidence the feds have on this guy (the investigation has supposedly been going on for years) before rushing to judgement. And yes, saying the guy should be out of there in a manner of weeks after hearing a sliver of the evidence against him IS definitely rushing to judgement
A fair justice system provides protection for everyone, even ones who are heinous to ideals. And keep in mind, all he’s done that we know of is talk about selling it. He hasnt actually done anything (spare me the attempted murder argument, this is different and you know it).
Even so, the general requirement that noone be deprived of what is his save with a due process and right to be heard is extended even to the political process precisely for a political reason: so that the people can be assured that indeed it is being used when the need arises “to remove an official whose continued presence in office so strongly imperils” the state, and not as a legalized coup, and they can trust the Legislature to only act when it’s worth it.
Uh, that’s just plain wrong. All most people know about is the Senate seat controversy, but he’s done a lot of shit before that. He’s been slimy for ages, he just hadn’t been caught on tape.
What “legalized coup”? What lack of a “right to be heard” is lacking under my plan?
Play the tapes and ask Blago what he has to say in his defense. Listen to him carefully, weigh the evidence, and vote.
Don’t fuck around forever allowing him all of this wiggle room. The tapes are what they are. Answer to them to our satisfaction or get out of the Governor’s mansion.
“His”? An elected office is the property of the people, who choose which individual to hire to fulfill its duties. The governorship of the state of Illinois belongs to the people of Illinois, not to Blagojevich. The idea that it is “his” is what allowed him to think he could sell the Senate seat for personal gain.
That’s why it takes a supermajority of the “trial” body, which ftr consists of other individuals who are also chosen and hired by the people and are accountable to them on Election Day.
Who entrusted him with it for a specific time period, not “until you piss off public opinion” (else there’d be a recall provision).
Y’know, I think there’s a misconception here: nobody AFAIK is denying that under the relevant constitutional provisions the Legislature is empowered to establish an expedited political trial process. What we’re (or at least I’m) looking at is what may be the thinking (or rationalization if you prefer) behind the Legislature not wanting to do it that way. A number of people here seem to think there can be ** no** possible/conceivable reason, explanation or excuse for not doing it or for being cautious about it, but reasonable people may say yes there can be – they may not upon closer examination hold up in this case, or may be a wild reach, but that’s another argument.
And of course, there is one other, so far not mentioned major reason why members of the Legislature, who are themselves Illinois elected officials, would wish to tread lightly on the ground of establishing precedent for a fast-track political trial for removal of an Illinois elected official… A few of them may have something to worry about making it that quick – beams and motes in eyes and all that.
Change “not” to “or”. Note, once again, that a recall provision (in places where it exists) requires only a simple majority, of an electorate that can get excited by inflammatory TV commercials (cf. Gray Davis, CA).
An impeachment/removal takes a supermajority of elected representatives, all of whom are accountable, and the process can be much faster if there is a true grave situation.
I asked before, and will again - what might that acceptable defense conceivably consist of? Whaddaya got? Use your imagination all you want.
Their seats are not their property, either. See above.
Whoa there, pardner… I don’t see why you are challenging me to put up a defense argument for Blago – the OP/thread title is about the whys and whynots of the *PROCEDURAL *part of the impeachment: what’s the Legislature’s excuse/rationale to not act fast. Not about what plausible defense argument he can put up in the actual impeachment (which right now, doesn’t seem like anything would stand up any better than temporary takeover by alien Lizard People). It’s those procedural rationales/excuses of political/legal “form” that I said may be brought up, and were earlier in the thread, but may then not hold up, or be a wild reach (and which you, jtgain, BrainGlutton, etc., are sensibly arguing why they do not hold up).
Chalk it up to that the relevant committees are probably chaired by lawyer legislators and they’re used to thinking things over lawyerly and acting lawyerishly. We can scream until we’re blue in the face that the circumstances require a different attitude and we can even be right, but they are the ones chairing the committee.
Which I agreed with, BTW
Which the Illinois voters will have to take up with them, but meanwhile if Illinois legislators are like those anywhere in the world, they’ll rather count on taking their chance with the voters two years down the road than risk becoming themselves subject to “swift justice” if THEY have some skeleton in their closet. That you’re right and they’re wrong doesn’t count in their calculation.
The legal (or legal-like) system is always ridiculously slow. I’m not sure why, probably has something to do with people being lazy.
Coming to a sound judgement is not aided by dragging anything out for months. It absolutely never is. It just leads to confusion, indecision, forgetfulness, apathy, etc.
Good new arguments begin to matter less because jurors have already made up their mind. Or bad new arguments begin to matter more because with fatigue the jurors lose perspective. In either case, things go out of whack.
If you really feel the extra time investment is worth it, there are much better ways to go about it. You could have three quick trials and take their average. You could have one quick trial, let jurors’ minds rest for a few months, and then rehash through the whole trial again to see if anything sticks differently.
Methodically spending weeks on one point, then on another, just totally conflicts with how humans think.
Tell me, here on Great Debates, when the hell was there more clarity on the 10th page than on the 2nd?
Nowhere, in this particular case. I would like it to proceed faster, but such a pace sets up a precedent that I’m uncomfortable with establishing.
You see this case and argue that things should move quickly, or that bureaucracy should take a backseat and make an exception. I fear where that exception would lead. As such, there are established procedures for impeachment and barring someone coming right now and confessing, I dont see the need to not follow procedure and proceed at a breakneck pace
Human thinking is highly flawed and enormously inefficient, as numerous posts in this very forum on the subject of, oh, say, 9/11 and the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, for example, amply demonstrate. Careful application of method and rigor is how we combat the falsehoods that our imperfect minds produce.