For a Chief Executive, yes. The question the Illinois House posed to the Illinois Senate was had Blagojevich Abused Power as Governor they unanimously said yes. Not only that they felt he had done so, so blatantly that they bared him from any future public office.lookingforitallthetime said:
Is Blago the victim of a witch hunt?
- Thread starter lookingforitallthetime
- Start date
Did commit perjury. He reached a plea agreement and was disbared for five years and resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court Bar.red said:
lookingforitallthetime said:
No, they decided to boot him because after listening to the FBI tapes, they decided that he was unfit for office.
The arrest/indictment might have been the impetus for commencing impeachment proceedings, but they were not the "evidence" on which Blago was impeached.
As far as the outcome of the pending trial, it has no bearing. the legislative impeachment proceeding is completely separate and distinct, with it's own set of rules and standards of evidence, from the criminal trial.
I largely agree with you on the above Don. Where I disagree with you is "where the grounds frivolous" I would say that they were not frivolous, but on the other hand did they rise to the level of being "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" again I would say that they did not.DonQuixote said:
It is not necessary, BY LAW (the Constitution of the State of Illinois) to have a "proper trial" to remove the Governor from office.danmand said:
The impeachment process is much different from a criminal trial.
Feel free to "interpret" it any way you like, but the fact remains that he was removed from office in a perfectly "legal" fashion.
Then he doesn't go to jail.red said:
Guilt or innocence in a criminal court is a very different question than impeachment. There are different standards of evidence, and different procedures. Blago has not been convicted of any criminal act, and he remains a free man today.
But let us emphasize what others have already said: impeachment is about removal from office. Undoing the result of an election. It has nothing to do with criminal matters, except insofar as questions of criminal behaviour may give rise to articles of impeachment.
As for Clinton? I understand the US Constitution quite well. And his impeachment proceedings made clear that the constitutional problem for him was that he tried to raise the Office of the President (the Executive Branch of government) above the Judiciary. That's his impeachment in a nutshell. And the Democrats in the Senate voted to elevate the Executive Branch above the Judicial Branch - saying in effect that it's okay for a President to lie under oath to a Judge, despite the Constitutional declaration that they be separate but equal.
Impeachment and trial is a political/legislative not a judicial process. In a similar way to a bill of attainder.danmand said:
The "trial" requires impartiality but it is not judicial.
I like the guy..he help the seniors get free bus rides, help the poor children get better health care, etc plus he has guts, unlike many wimpy D's, including Obama...too bad he isn't president or vice president 
slowandeasy said:
I was disappointed he wasn't "man enough" to think first in the long term best interest for the people he was serving, than I was jealous....thanks to his dumb actions Al Gore lost and now look what happen
Oh, if it was CIM, how did it get on her dress?
Evidently she doesn't swallow.S.C. Joe said:I was disappointed he wasn't "man enough" to think first in the long term best interest for the people he was serving, than I was jealous....thanks to his dumb actions Al Gore lost and now look what happen
Oh, if it was CIM, how did it get on her dress?
Those who supported the impeachment would not agree.Asterix said:
However, I basically agree with you that it was a waste of time and money. That doesn’t, however, mean that I don’t believe that what President Clinton did wasn’t both illegal and wrong.
[Waving hand frantically]Asterix said:
OOOHHHHH! Me me me me me me me??????
To make sure that he (she) has a "winnable", if not airtight, case.
But, the person presenting the case for the House is not a prosecutor. That's the difficulty here the process we are all familar with is the criminal judicial process, therefore we want to draw analogies to that process, yet it is not neither judicial nor criminal.Asterix said:
There is no imprisonment, there are no fines - the “punishment” is that you are removed from office - holding elective or judicial office is a privilege (under the Constitution or under the Crown) it is not a right.
They decided by listening to portions of taped conversations. Snipits of a taped conversation can easily be taken out of context.viking1965 said:
As I've said repeatedly, I understand this.viking1965 said:
