Is Blago the victim of a witch hunt?

[lookingforitallthetime]

I watched the second Larry King interview tonight and I have to say, Blago made some legitimate points.

From what I've heard, nothing convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he actually tried to "sell" the senate seat. The taped conversations that I've heard were not necessarily incriminating. Sure he referenced the value of the seat but at no time was money mentioned.

Lets be realistic, the appointment had political value and anyone in his position would try to get the most political bang for his buck. That is politics as usual.

Like him or not, you have to admit he has balls. Since he seems so determined to clear his name and present his case, is it possible he is innocent? Was his impeachment unfair? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm actually starting to like this guy.

Talk amoungst yourselves...........

 

[Asterix]

I watched the second Larry King interview tonight and I have to say, Blago made some legitimate points.

From what I've heard, nothing convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he actually tried to "sell" the senate seat. The taped conversations that I've heard were not necessarily incriminating. Sure he referenced the value of the seat but at no time was money mentioned.

Lets be realistic, the appointment had political value and anyone in his position would try to get the most political bang for his buck. That is politics as usual.

Like him or not, you have to admit he has balls. Since he seems so determined to clear his name and present his case, is it possible he is innocent? Was his impeachment unfair? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm actually starting to like this guy.

You're kidding right? First off the impeachment didn't have to be "fair", it simply had to piss off 2/3 of the Illinois Senate to get it done. As it turns out it was unanimous. He might also face charges on kickbacks from gaming to children's hospitals. Add to that he is a smug idiot in way over his head.

 

[onthebottom]

He's a dirtbag, but that by no means makes him special in IL politics.... the last Governor (a Republican) is currently serving a prison sentence. Once the Messiah hypnosis wears off the media they will start reporting on all the corners that Obama cut....

OTB

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

When serving as a Governor of Illinois and bartering the elected president's seat in the most prestigious insider's club on the planet, the US Senate, and then conduct that barter and trade as though a horse trader is an insult to not only the ethics and morality of Illinois values but that of the US. I have one thing to say: Get out of my face, Rob.

You don't think there was political maneuvering for Hillary's seat?

I'm not saying it's right but it's politics as usual and not necessarily illegal. As long as he denies guilt, isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

Isn't that the primary right of a fair justice system?

 

[onthebottom]

You don't think there was political maneuvering for Hillary's seat?

I'm not saying it's right but it's politics as usual and not necessarily illegal. As long as he denies guilt, isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

Isn't that the primary right of a fair justice system?

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

 

[Asterix]

You don't think there was political maneuvering for Hillary's seat?

I'm not saying it's right but it's politics as usual and not necessarily illegal. As long as he denies guilt, isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

Isn't that the primary right of a fair justice system?

He's not being presumed guilty of a crime. He's being considered unfit for public office due to his conduct, by his peers.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

He's not being presumed guilty of a crime. He's being considered unfit for public office due to his conduct, by his peers.

Sure but the conduct in question goes on all of the time. It's called politics.

Show me a governor who doesn't engage in hardball politics and I'll show you a politician who doesnt get past city alderman.

 

[Asterix]

Sure but the conduct in question goes on all of the time. It's called politics.

Show me a governor who doesn't engage in hardball politics and I'll show you a politician who doesnt get past city alderman.

There is a balance point. Blago not only went after what he wanted, he flaunted it. The man is a self seeking shaved baboon.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

There is a balance point. Blago not only went after what he wanted, he flaunted it. The man is a self seeking shaved baboon.

Okay, so there is a balance point. A grey area. So where do we draw the line? Do we only persecute self seeking baboons we don't like?

As OTB correctly pointed out, Clinton perjured himself and broke the law yet he wasn't impeached.

 

[Asterix]

Okay, so there is a balance point. A grey area. So where do we draw the line? Do we only persecute self seeking baboons we don't like?

As OTB correctly pointed out, Clinton perjured himself and broke the law yet he wasn't impeached.

Let's back track a little. You guys have the potential to remove your PM by a simple majority vote of your MPs, correct? Removing an executive in the US is a bit more difficult, but can be driven politically of course. Most times it isn't taken lightly. A Governor hasn't been removed in any state in the US by impeachment in over 20 years. This was done by unanimous vote, as far as I know unprecedented. He had no one who would defend him, and he couldn't even defend himself. There is no grey area.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Let's back track a little. You guys have the potential to remove your PM by a simple majority vote of your MPs, correct?

On a confidence issue yes, but almost always the ruling party's caucus will follow the party line

Removing an executive in the US is a bit more difficult, but can be driven politically of course.

It appears to me that it was very easy to remove Blagojevich. His impeachment was based on allegations that were not clearly defined.

 

[Aardvark154]

Sure but the conduct in question goes on all of the time. It's called politics.

Show me a governor who doesn't engage in hardball politics and I'll show you a politician who doesnt get past city alderman.

Not necessarily true. But beyond that "so what” to the “but everyone does it argument.” That's like the defense "but there were twenty other cars speeding that day that the police didn't stop," when the real question is "where you or where you not going 60 km/h over the speed limit at the time the police stopped you."

 

[Aardvark154]

From what I've heard, nothing convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he actually tried to "sell" the senate seat. The taped conversations that I've heard were not necessarily incriminating. Sure he referenced the value of the seat but at no time was money mentioned. Was his impeachment unfair? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

First, do you honestly believe the only charge presented by the Illinois House was the Senate Seat? Second, if his impeachment was unfair so has been every impeachment trial in U.S. History, they've all been conducted under basically the same rules.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Not necessarily true.

You're being naive.

But beyond that "so what” to the “but everyone does it argument.” That's like the defense "but there were twenty other cars speeding that day that the police didn't stop," when the real question is "where you or where you not going 60 km/h over the speed limit at the time the police stopped you."

First of all I'm not defending him. Secondly the “but everyone does it argument” is relevant to the question I posed. Is Blago the victim of a witch hunt?

Think about it, the guy was picked off the street and handcuffed. When was the last time a major political figure was treated that way? I'm not saying the guy is a saint, far from it. But usually people in his standing are asked to meet with the prosecutors, not scooped off the street. The argument used was they wanted grab before he made the appointment. Please.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

First, do you honestly believe the only charge presented by the Illinois House was the Senate Seat?

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.

Second, if his impeachment was unfair so has been every impeachment trial in U.S. History, they've all been conducted under basically the same rules.

Now look who is taking the “but everyone does it argument”.

LOL.

 

[slowandeasy]

I watched the second Larry King interview tonight and I have to say, Blago made some legitimate points.

From what I've heard, nothing convinces me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he actually tried to "sell" the senate seat. The taped conversations that I've heard were not necessarily incriminating. Sure he referenced the value of the seat but at no time was money mentioned.

Lets be realistic, the appointment had political value and anyone in his position would try to get the most political bang for his buck. That is politics as usual.

Like him or not, you have to admit he has balls. Since he seems so determined to clear his name and present his case, is it possible he is innocent? Was his impeachment unfair? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm actually starting to like this guy.

Talk amoungst yourselves...........

That's the moxie of a guy like Blago. He denies his mistakes so vehemently that you start to believe him. Obviously we have not heard all the evidence against him, so it is easy for him to poke holes in story that people are hearing. The guy speaks so well, and he seems to be a master manipulator, that you want to believe him.

And this might even be a witch hunt, but there are too many levels that this has to go thru for there not to be a solid case against him.

 

[stang]

He was on Letterman last night. Even Dave seemed confused and said he didn't know why the guy was on.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i13yRHMfglc&feature=related


Funniest line in a long long time happened though:

Ex-Gov : "I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time".

Dave : "Well you're on in the worst way".

 

[The Prince]

First off there is something about this dudes haircut that makes me wonder. Maybe I am being silly, is it just me or does he need a different haircut.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

He was on Letterman last night. Even Dave seemed confused and said he didn't know why the guy was on.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i13yRHMfglc&feature=related


Funniest line in a long long time happened though:

Ex-Gov : "I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time".

Dave : "Well you're on in the worst way".

Yeah, that was good. They showed that clip on the Larry King interview last night.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

That's the moxie of a guy like Blago. He denies his mistakes so vehemently that you start to believe him. Obviously we have not heard all the evidence against him, so it is easy for him to poke holes in story that people are hearing. The guy speaks so well, and he seems to be a master manipulator, that you want to believe him.

It's not that I want to believe him, I really don't care one way or the other. While I will admit I'm playing the role of devil's advocate here, I think he's also made some legitimate points.

His denial could very well be the mark of a manipulator or it could also be the mark of an innocent man. If I was accused of something I didn't do I would probably respond in the same manner.

And this might even be a witch hunt, but there are too many levels that this has to go thru for there not to be a solid case against him.

Possibly but he seems quite confident that the case against him isn't solid.