How freaking long does it take to impeach a governor?

[Lemon law]

To answer the OP's other question of how long the impeachment convict process can last, I maintain it can be done in a single day if the evidence is there.

And what happened to day in the Illinois house is that the evidence, in the form of an Affidavit and the testimony from an FBI agent was finally unveiled. As the evidence moved from a vague nebulous charge, and became hard and compelling evidence that Blago was indeed doing what the arrest charged him with. Even if the OP was wrong with the many month implication and missed the fact Blago is not actually indicted yet.

Before that, Federal Prosecutors somewhat respecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings had to first ask a Federal judge for permission to share their evidence with the Illinois legislature.

Now stage one is completed, the Illinois house voted overwhelmingly to impeach, and now it goes to the Illinois Senate for the convict phase. So far I have seen no links to see when the Illinois Senate will take it up, but they could take it up as early as Monday, or even Saturday if they care to do it on a weekend. If Blago gets convicted in the Illinois Senate is yet to be seen, but I am pretty confident he will.

As for Burris, Blago could have appointed Jesus Christ instead of Burris, and that Blago candidate would be equally tainted. Almost everyone concedes that Burris is not corrupt, and current objection to Burris
have nothing to do with Burris and everything to do with Blagojevich.

 

[akshatp]

Anyone watching ths blago news conference?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: mugs
Since when is breaking the law a sound business practice (you're assuming that he did attempt to sell the seat, so I think it's OK for me to make that assumption too)?

Nice try. :roll:

Since the time laws were created. Just ask any number of wealthy drug dealers, raking in huge wads of cash by 'breaking' the law.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Blah....blah.....blah.....blah........my macro.......blah blah blah blah....... :roll:

Yes, I'm saying that Bush isn't guilty of "treason, murder, torture, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Precisely because he hasn't been convicted of said criminal behaviors let alone even charged. Your idiotic macros are proof of nothing.....if there were any real substance in them Bush would have been at least charged with something by now.......and guess what? He never will be because your messiah will be just as dirty in office and won't want to set a precedent his predecessor will surely follow after his departure from office. Bank on it you hypocrite.

And no, I will not kiss your ass, so don't waste your time begging for it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm starting to wonder if we should impeach all democrats. Is there a single one thats not corrupt?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BoomerD
My only concern is that as bad as it looks, he hasn't been convicted of anything...YET.

Yes, it LOOKS like the guy is a typical corrupt Illinois politician.

It LOOKS like the feds have enough evidence to bury him.

BUT, he hasn't had his day in court...yet.

Once that's done, if he's found guilty, (and I presume he will) impeach him and send him to Joliet or one of the Federal Penitentaries...NOT one of the fancy-schmancy country clubs like Martha Stewart vacationed at. Someplace like Lompoc, Leavenworth, or ???

That didn't stop you libs from harping on George W. Bush.

Just had to bring up "he who should not be named", didn't you?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Blah....blah.....blah.....blah........my macro.......blah blah blah blah....... :roll:

Yes, I'm saying that Bush isn't guilty of "treason, murder, torture, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Precisely because he hasn't been convicted of said criminal behaviors let alone even charged. Your idiotic macros are proof of nothing.....if there were any real substance in them Bush would have been at least charged with something by now

The verifiable data at the links in my "macros" prove a lot more than your meaningless denials and your complete inablity to refute any of them. Do I really have to post them, again, to make the point, or are you competent enough to search for some of them and refute them? :roll:

.......and guess what? He never will be because your messiah will be just as dirty in office and won't want to set a precedent his predecessor will surely follow after his departure from office. Bank on it you hypocrite.

As I said, I can post plenty of documentation that your Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals are guilty of those crimes, including facts, dates and statutes.

If you're saying Obama is "dirty" as Bush and his gang, prove it, or it is YOU who is the hypocrite and liar. It'll be a welcome change if you can come up with anything more than your typical bluster, denial and bullshit. Can you do it? :Q
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I love it when the OP doesn't even read their own link, jumps to conclusions from there. From the article-

Blagojevich was arrested December 9, but has not been indicted. A federal judge in Chicago told Fitzgerald he has until April 7 to decide whether to charge the Illinois governor.

Blago hasn't even been indicted,... -snip-

I don't understand how he can be arrested without being charged?

We have an accusatory legal system. So Blago was arrested and charged, right?

I thought the Grand Jury was convented to determine if someone should be charged, right?

But he's already been charged when booked, right?

Any criminal lawyers in the house who can explain this? This has been bugging me for days now.

Edit: "Indictment" and "charge" seem to be basically the same thing:

The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of the time, place and manner in which the defendant is alleged to have committed the offense. Each offense is usually set out in a separate count.

Fern

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
First off...Democrat I am...Liberal I'm not...so piss off.

Next, Bush, as our nation's highest elected official SHOULD be "harped on" for everything he does wrong. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Then, as much as I'd like to see it happen, Bush will never be formally charged with anything...Cheney either. BOTH probably should be charged with a variety of crimes for their lies to the American people, with the wrongful deaths of our troops in their illegal war in Iraq, for allowing a myriad of environmental raping by their corporate supporters, all in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar...

I'd also like to see them both charged with war crimes for Iraq...but it ain't gonna happen...

Youse neocons have "harped on" Clinton for years...why do you think your boy deserves any better treatment?

Why are they not going to be charged? In my view, they really HAVE to be charged if we are going to go forth with any kind of standing in the world.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I'm starting to wonder if we should impeach all democrats. Is there a single one thats not corrupt?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a deflection, right now, for every corrupt democrat, there are three or more corrupt Republicans, but even though I may be a partisan democrat, I still think the vast bulk of both the democratic and republican party are not basically corrupt. Maybe not perfect, who is, but still not basically corrupt.

I too may fear no evil, but I sure hate stupidity and those using piss poor reasoning without an iota of reasoning or support behind their opinions.

The refreshing concept behind the Blago example is that both democrats and republicans, on a bi-partisan basis, are both united in throwing a rascal out. They had to wait for the real evidence to come in, vague innuendo not sufficient, but now that the evidence is in, they are collective moving forward fast to give Blago the old heave ho.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is this going to affect Burris at all?

No

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Blah....blah.....blah.....blah........my macro.......blah blah blah blah....... :roll:

Yes, I'm saying that Bush isn't guilty of "treason, murder, torture, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Precisely because he hasn't been convicted of said criminal behaviors let alone even charged. Your idiotic macros are proof of nothing.....if there were any real substance in them Bush would have been at least charged with something by now

The verifiable data at the links in my "macros" prove a lot more than your meaningless denials and your complete inablity to refute any of them. Do I really have to post them, again, to make the point, or are you competent enough to search for some of them and refute them? :roll:

.......and guess what? He never will be because your messiah will be just as dirty in office and won't want to set a precedent his predecessor will surely follow after his departure from office. Bank on it you hypocrite.

As I said, I can post plenty of documentation that your Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals are guilty of those crimes, including facts, dates and statutes.

If you're saying Obama is "dirty" as Bush and his gang, prove it, or it is YOU who is the hypocrite and liar. It'll be a welcome change if you can come up with anything more than your typical bluster, denial and bullshit. Can you do it? :Q
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >

LOL, who needs a trial when we've got your macro? Why don't you forward your macro to Fitzgerald. I'm sure if there's some substance to it he'll get right on the prosecution. You've got the "proof" right, how can he and the rest of the media just ignore it? I don't need to refute anything because Bush isn't, and won't be, on trial. You and your macros are a joke.

 

[sportage]

I think he'll resign sometime this weekend.
The way he's talking now has changed.
He's accepting the end is near.
I'd expect sometime Sunday he will resign.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Blah....blah.....blah.....blah........my macro.......blah blah blah blah....... :roll:

Yes, I'm saying that Bush isn't guilty of "treason, murder, torture, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Precisely because he hasn't been convicted of said criminal behaviors let alone even charged. Your idiotic macros are proof of nothing.....if there were any real substance in them Bush would have been at least charged with something by now.......and guess what? He never will be because your messiah will be just as dirty in office and won't want to set a precedent his predecessor will surely follow after his departure from office. Bank on it you hypocrite.

And no, I will not kiss your ass, so don't waste your time begging for it.

Nice crystal ball you've got there, Corn.

Obama will be just as dirty as Bush in office? Did you just slip up and admit that Bush is dirty? One thing's for sure- Obama would have to work really, really hard towards that goal to fulfill your prophecy, accomplish nearly as much as Bush has done while sleepwalking..

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Chicago should be sold to Mexico, or at the very least walled off with a tunnel that only goes to the sea.

LMAO, says the guy from New York.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I'm starting to wonder if we should impeach all democrats. Is there a single one thats not corrupt?

You post like the guy who brings nothing to the dinner party he was invited to. Bringing nothing to the table is something you are very familiar with. That is as ridiculous as saying we should impeach all republicans. Is there a single one that's not a closet gay or pedophile? Seriously guy, grow up and turn off the troll.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Nice crystal ball you've got there, Corn.

Obama will be just as dirty as Bush in office? Did you just slip up and admit that Bush is dirty? One thing's for sure- Obama would have to work really, really hard towards that goal to fulfill your prophecy, accomplish nearly as much as Bush has done while sleepwalking..

If you believe that Bush is the only President whose tenure included "torture" and other assorted "war crimes" you are naive. Bush's mistake was that he was stupid enough to be a little too open about it. I doubt you believe that our hands have always been as white as snow in dealing with so-called threats to our national security up until Bush was elected to power. There is no doubt in my mind that during the modern era we've done many bad things to many bad (and maybe some not so bad) people that no one knows about......and if you say you believe we'll resume a pure and meek foreign policy after Bush is gone, those comments are doubtful rooted in naivete, but instead are likely the result of intellectual dishonesty rooted in partisanship. The fact that Bush won't face any charges for his "crimes" after he leaves office will be proof enough to me that Obama is no different. As I said earlier, you can bank on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Corn, when you have to resort to putting words in other people's mouths, you've run out of arguments. Which what you just did, so I take it you really have nothing to say, other than to defend your abilities as a seer of the future... maybe you came to admire such skills when Nancy Reagan consulted her astrologer...

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, Corn, when you have to resort to putting words in other people's mouths, you've run out of arguments. Which what you just did, so I take it you really have nothing to say, other than to defend your abilities as a seer of the future... maybe you came to admire such skills when Nancy Reagan consulted her astrologer...

Obama will be no more and no less "dirty" than any of his predecessors. He very well may be smarter and to be honest, Bush set the bar incredibly low in that regard. I made no attempt to put words into your mouth, I stated my opinion regarding what I believe and merely related another opinion or two if you believed the contrary. You'll note the usage of the clarifying words "if" and "doubt" laced throughout my post. Perhaps I should have simply been a little more obvious in asking the following questions:

Do you believe the Obama administration will bring Bush up on charges of treason and war crimes given the supposedly overwhelming evidence of his guilt? If not, what do you think is stopping him?

If Bush's prosecution does come to pass I'll be the first to congratulate Obama on his superior ethical standards--you can take that to the bank too.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

If you believe that Bush is the only President whose tenure included "torture" and other assorted "war crimes" you are naive.

If you believe that justifies allowing him to get away with it, let alone excusing it, you should consider moving to another country. You suck as an American.

Bush's mistake was that he was stupid enough to be a little too open about it.

Bush 41's mistake was not pulling out in time to avoid fathering his idiot son. Nixon was smart but mean. Dubya's a freaking moron.

Bush's mistake was that he was stupid enough to be a little too open about it.
.
.
The fact that Bush won't face any charges for his "crimes" after he leaves office will be proof enough to me that Obama is no different. As I said earlier, you can bank on it.

Interesting. First, you deny Bush committed any of the crimes I've documented in my other posts. Then, you admit he did commit crimes, but "Bush's mistake was that he was stupid enough to be a little too open about it."

You can't have it both ways. Does that mean you support prosecuting Bush AND Obama for any crimes either of them commits, or has committed, as President? If so, I've already established that your Traitor In Chief is already on the hook for treason, murder and torture and other war crimes, along with many other crimes... you know... the ones YOU said he admitted because, "he was stupid enough to be a little too open about it."

And since you have no evidence Obama has committed any crime, and you've got nothing but wild speculation about any alleged "crimes" you believe Obama MAY commit, does that mean you'll accept the American standard of justice and give him a pass until you can establish even a hint that he's actually committed ANY crime? :roll:

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you believe the Obama administration will bring Bush up on charges of treason and war crimes given the supposedly overwhelming evidence of his guilt? If not, what do you think is stopping him?

No, that very likely won't happen. That's not evidence wrt Obama's intentions one way or the other.

The Constitution itself disallows prosecution, the only stated penalty for Executive malfeasance being impeachment, and Dems simply haven't had the strength in the Senate to accomplish that. Past precedence also indicates that the US is unwilling to face our own demons or lose face in the international community in such a fashion- witness both Nixon/ Watergate/ Cambodia and Reagan/ Iran/ Contra...

Clinton was so hated on the Right that he was nearly removed from office for a single offense much less egregious- I suspect a few repubs came to their senses remembering the knobjobs they'd received in their own offices... and the lies they'd told to prevent disclosure.

As I pointed out, none of which reflects on Obama in the slightest, only on the clarity of your crystal ball and the usual "they're just as bad!" projections and obfuscations typical of the rabid Right.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

If you believe that Bush is the only President whose tenure included "torture" and other assorted "war crimes" you are naive.

If you believe that justifies allowing him to get away with it, let alone excusing it, you should consider moving to another country. You suck as an American.

When Obama "lets him get away with it", will he also suck as an American? What will you say when after 4 years of an Obama administration Bush isn't charged with treason or war crimes. After all you've got the proof and Obama knows it. Wouldn't that make him culpable too?

The only thing I admit is my belief that we as citizens know very little about the depths our govenment will go to in protecting our national interests. I know of no specific actions taken by Bush, or any other former President, which would lead to conviction of any felony or capital crime. As I stated earlier, your macro is a joke and is proof of nothing other than the blatant partisanship of its hypocritical author. In my eyes, that makes you suck as an American. Your filthy mouth and other ethically challenged behavior means you also suck as a human.

Have a nice day!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Do you believe the Obama administration will bring Bush up on charges of treason and war crimes given the supposedly overwhelming evidence of his guilt? If not, what do you think is stopping him?

No, that very likely won't happen. That's not evidence wrt Obama's intentions one way or the other.

Not evidence per se, I will grant you that. Doesn't make it any less likely though.

And I don't believe the constitution prohibits the prosecution of the President for capital crimes and felonies after he has left office. Admittedly I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I can find nothing which prohibits this. Perhaps you could point me to it?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Do you believe the Obama administration will bring Bush up on charges of treason and war crimes given the supposedly overwhelming evidence of his guilt? If not, what do you think is stopping him?

No, that very likely won't happen. That's not evidence wrt Obama's intentions one way or the other.

Not evidence per se, I will grant you that. Doesn't make it any less likely though.

And I don't believe the constitution prohibits the prosecution of the President for capital crimes and felonies after he has left office. Admittedly I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I can find nothing which prohibits this. Perhaps you could point me to it?

The fact that the Constitution lays out impeachment as the penalty for malfeasance in office by the president makes it difficult to go beyond that. At least, any competent defense team would make the argument that such a prohibition exists, particularly when the alleged crimes were committed as a matter of national policy with the backing of congress. If a president murdered his wife it would be a whole different matter.

Pursuing such a line of prosecution would likely create even greater division within our society, possibly provoking a constitutional crisis, something we don't need at any time, particularly not now.

Not that I like it, at all, but we have to let it go. The only justice we'll find will be in the judgement of history, and I don't think it'll be kind to Bush or the country who supported his leadership. There's cold comfort in that for those of us who opposed the Bush regime all along, and an opportunity to reflect and to learn for those who did, who were effectively propagandized into a war of aggression and a lot of other sorts of immorality. Not that all so affected will make use of the opportunity, but it's there, and it's the best we'll get.

 

[Lemon law]

We have to realize that Illinois, along with 43 other US States, has no past precedents in place to guide them in impeaching a governor. And only in the past three days or so has the actual evidence, rather than just vague innuendo materialized. And once that evidence, in the form of FBI testimony and Affidavits, materialized, the Illinois House voted a bill of impeachment by an overwhelming margin in a single day.

Now the Illinois Senate must first come up with a bi-partisan agreement on how the Senate trial will proceed, get the trial on the Calender schedule, and then its likely to take much more than a day to conduct the trial and ask for a vote.

By all usual standards of the US justice system, this is proceeding at a lightning fast pace, yet there will be always idiots who demand instant gratification, and are willing to sacrifice innocent until proven guilty in favor of a rush to judgment, with all the creditability of a lynch mob.