Is Blago the victim of a witch hunt?

[red]

It's a political judgement, not a legal one.... Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury and should have been impeached, but he was found innocent because there were not the votes to convict him..... opposite situation here.

OTB

I still think that was a farce. Impeaching a president for lying about sex. its juvenile.

with respect to the illinois governor- I am not sure how it should have been handled, but I lean towards waiting until he was actually convicted rather than just charged.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Wrong again. Clinton's misconduct was not connected with his position as POTUS and did not fall under the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' provision of the Constitution.

He committed a crime when he perjured himself. Perjury is beyond misconduct, no?

Or is it a a case of it depends on what your definition of "is" is?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I still think that was a farce. Impeaching a president for lying about sex. its juvenile.

Yes, but perjury is still a serious crime.

with respect to the illinois governor- I am not sure how it should have been handled, but I lean towards waiting until he was actually convicted rather than just charged.

Exactly. He was impeached based on allegtions that have not been confirmed in a criminal trial.

 

[Aardvark154]

That is what was presented during the impeachment process. The prosecutor even played what was supposed to be incriminating tapes on the subject. I didn't find them very incriminating myself.

It was but part of the case presented against him. Apparently the Illinois Senate found it convincing - a unanimous vote to convict.

If Lookingforitallthetime you want to play the role of apologist for Blagojevich, do so. As for myself I feel he’s scum and in all likelihood heading off for a spell in a Federal Penitentiary "goodbye to bad rubbish."

 

[Aardvark154]

Exactly. He was impeached based on allegtions that have not been confirmed in a criminal trial.

So what?! They are two completely separate processes.

You'd have a stronger case historically if he were a Judge but he's not he's a Chief Executive.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

It was but part of the case presented against him. Apparently the Illinois Senate found it convincing - a unanimous vote to convict.

What are you smoking? The Illinois legislature did not and can not convict Blagojevich. They impeached him based on sketchy and partial information.

Since he's already been tried and convicted in the public opinion courts, I'm not surprised the state legislature came to a unanimous vote. State senators need to get elected too.

If Lookingforitallthetime you want to play the role of apologist for Blagojevich, do so. As for myself I feel he’s scum and in all likelihood heading off for a spell in a Federal Penitentiary "goodbye to bad rubbish."

I'm not being an apologist for Blagojevich, I'm merely pointing out that the foundation of a fair justice system is the notion we are innocent until proven guilty.

It looks like you've already convicted him. Is this based on snipits of facts presented by the news media or is it because he is a Democrat?

Whatever the reason, I hope you never get called up for jury duty.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

They are two completely separate processes.

I realize that. My point is simple. Isn't this impeachment process a case of putting the cart in front of the horse? What if it turns out in the criminal trial he was innocent afterall?

I think it should be more difficult to impeach an executive that was elected by the people.

 

[danmand]

I'm not being an apologist for Blagojevich, I'm merely pointing out that the foundation of a fair justice system is the notion we are innocent until proven guilty.

I agree with you, searcher, clearly he deserves a fair trial, just like anybody
else. Isn't that the backbone of a rule of law system, that even a hideous
criminal is entitled to a defense lawyer and a trial.

 

[red]

Yes, but perjury is still a serious crime.
.

a crime for which he was never convicted and in this case the "perjury" was about an issue unrelated to his duty as president. Its not like he disregarded parts of the constitution.

 

[red]

I realize that. My point is simple. Isn't this impeachment process a case of putting the cart in front of the horse? What if it turns out in the criminal trial he was innocent afterall?

I think it should be more difficult to impeach an executive that was elected by the people.

I agree. its taking away the right to due process and what on earth happens if he is innocent?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

a crime for which he was never convicted and in this case the "perjury" was about an issue unrelated to his duty as president. Its not like he disregarded parts of the constitution.

I understand your point and agree there should not have been an appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton's sexual expolits. Who cares if slick Willy likes to fuck chubby girls?

However, there was an appointment of a special prosecutor and under oath, Clinton committed perjury.

 

[red]

However, there was an appointment of a special prosecutor and under oath, Clinton committed perjury.

alleged to have committed perjury. and again- did it really matter so much.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

You just don't get it. The commitment of any crime is not grounds for impeachment. The criminal conduct must be in the roll and office of the president, and that he did not do.

DQ, with all due respect, I DO get it.

Clinton's impeachment process went through the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives. The Senate was were the process stalled. I'm assuming members of the legislative branch had a firm grasp of the grounds for impeachment, but I could be wrong.

The grounds outlined were; perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. You can argue the validity of the claims but the fact remains Clinton was essentially being impeached on the same grounds as Nixon (minus perjury as Nixon never testified).

Likewise, illegal wiretaps is a crime committed in the roll and office of the president. So too, torture, which is prohibited by treaty and our own laws.

I understand your frustration with the fact that Bush butchered the Constitution but, in the final analysis, and with the help of Congress, wiretapping and torture were no longer illegal.

As offensive as this may be, thanks to Congress and the existence of the environment of fear, these violations were made legal.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

What did Clinton say that you consider to be perjury?

Since I have never been a member of congress (or an American citizen for that matter) it is not me who accused Clinton of perjury. It seems to me your beef is with the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives.

Again, I'm assuming members of the legislative branch had a solid grasp of the grounds for impeachment.

If you want to go back to the Clinton era then you're opening yourself up to a debate on how Bush won the 2000 election. Now, that was a real mess with more questions about the Supreme Court interfering in a States rights issue. States run elections, not the federal government. It is unprecidented that the US Supreme Court would usurp a state's right to conduct elections under its rules.

You can debate this if you want but I suggest you take it up with Aardvark and OTB. I'm on your side on this one.

 

[red]

I'm assuming members of the legislative branch had a firm grasp of the grounds for impeachment, but I could be wrong.

.

they probably do have a firm grasp of this, but I doubt it had anything to do with what happened

 

[slowandeasy]

You just don't get it. The commitment of any crime is not grounds for impeachment. The criminal conduct must be in the roll and office of the president, and that he did not do.

.

If I am not mistaken, the crime was committed in the office of the President.
At the desk of the office of the President to be exact. Perhaps Clinton was playing the role of a Police officer and he was making Monica take a breathalyzer test at the time.

I think some guys are just jealous that Billy boy, got bbbjcim...

 

[Asterix]

What are you smoking? The Illinois legislature did not and can not convict Blagojevich. They impeached him based on sketchy and partial information.

Since he's already been tried and convicted in the public opinion courts, I'm not surprised the state legislature came to a unanimous vote. State senators need to get elected too.



I'm not being an apologist for Blagojevich, I'm merely pointing out that the foundation of a fair justice system is the notion we are innocent until proven guilty.

It looks like you've already convicted him. Is this based on snipits of facts presented by the news media or is it because he is a Democrat?

Whatever the reason, I hope you never get called up for jury duty.

You keep assuming there should be a direct parallel between impeachment and a criminal trial. There isn't. the Illinois constitution is even more vauge on what it takes for a governor to be removed, outlining only the process and the requirement of a two thirds vote to convict at trial in the Senate. The reasons could be based on anything the legislatures determines; from perceived criminal behavior, to dereliction of the duties of his office, or because the Governor had taken to wearing a potted plant on his head when greeting visiting dignitaries. Impeachment of Governors in many states is based broadly on whether a Governor is fit to hold office. The evidence required is less than a criminal trial because he is not being sentenced to anything. He's being booted out of his job..

 

[red]

If I am not mistaken, the crime was committed in the office of the President.
At the desk of the office of the President to be exact. Perhaps Clinton was playing the role of a Police officer and he was making Monica take a breathalyzer test at the time.

I think some guys are just jealous that Billy boy, got bbbjcim...

having sex was not the crime but the lying

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

having sex was not the crime but the lying

Exactly.

Although, the man was leader of the free world. He coulda bagged any chick he wanted and he bagged Monica?

That's a crime in my books.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

You keep assuming there should be a direct parallel between impeachment and a criminal trial. There isn't.

No. I understand that there isn't a direct parallel beyween the criminal trial and the impeachment.

the Illinois constitution is even more vauge on what it takes for a governor to be removed, outlining only the process and the requirement of a two thirds vote to convict at trial in the Senate. The reasons could be based on anything the legislatures determines; from perceived criminal behavior, to dereliction of the duties of his office, or because the Governor had taken to wearing a potted plant on his head when greeting visiting dignitaries. Impeachment of Governors in many states is based broadly on whether a Governor is fit to hold office. The evidence required is less than a criminal trial because he is not being sentenced to anything. He's being booted out of his job.

Yes, but, the reason this legislature decided to boot this Governor out of his job is because of criminal charges laid against him. He was arrested on allegations of criminal wrong doing and then he got the boot.

He has a pending trial. What if in that trial he is found innocent?

I understand it can happen, I'm questioning whether or not it should happen.