hippiechick wrote: 
" I did not have sex with that woman " ..

Rod is standing in front of his house and making a speech. He's taking it well, and still claiming that it was just a set up job.

 dionysius wrote: 
The same can be said for Daschle, and with a whole lot of evidence to back it up in Daschle's case.

 Servo wrote: 

In the scales of ethics and responsibility, let's put Daschle in one side and Blago in the other, and...let the psychostasia begin!

Blagojevich can play the populist friend of the people all he likes. The revuslion against him is practically universal. He stands convicted by his own words, and by his own bizarre refusal afterwards to explain himself coherently or play by any known rules. We're not discussing Marlon Brando, here (though we are talking similar eccenticities). There is, and should be, a severe standard applied to prominent public servants. They serve at our pleasure. When they screw up—and Blago did so, however you want to slice it—it's dulce et decorum that they go, and go swiftly.  

 Beaker wrote: 
You say that in jest (and ignorance), but as a resident of Illinois I've been infuriated by a General Assembly that has refused to do its job on a regular basis.

Right now the news is talking about "now Illinois can do something about its budget deficit", as if it was the Governor's job to submit a balance budget to the Governor.  No...that job is, and always has been that of the General Assembly!

In this game of political brinkmanship, Tom Daschle and his cronies won, and the People of Illinois lost.

 hippiechick wrote: 
He is not innocent of being far too arrogant and much too spectacularly stoopit to hold public office.  Good riddance, technically guilty or not.

I gotta wonder why he is just  NOW.....on the last day of the proceedings...appearing?  If he wanted the chance to call witnesses, explain himself, etc. why didn't he do so when he had the opportunity?  Instead he chose to go on any and every TV show that would have him....a very odd decision it seems to me.  And why did his defense attorney quit right before the proceedings?   Lots of unanswered REAL questions, that so far Mr. B is not answering....except with smoke and mirrors.  

/ my 2 cents

 Beaker wrote: 
ha! good advice, Beak.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Well, he has kept his campaign promises.  He has been a trailblazer in health care issues — Illinois was the first state to guarantee health care for children.  Etc. etc. etc.

Before Blagojevich, Illinois state income taxes were actually higher than federal income taxes.  That practice stopped under Blagojevich.

This whole affair reminds me of "The Caine Mutiny".  Certainly the testimony of Governor Blagojevich at his (mock) trial bore an uncomfortable to Captain Queeg's testimony scene.

The moral of "The Caine Mutiny" was that maybe Queeg became unbalanced, but he was pushed; he didn't jump.

 hippiechick wrote: 
fair enough I'll go with that.
just don't put me on the jury cos I'm kind of 2 dimensional in these things.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Whether or not he is or not, he deserves his day in court, and to be innocent until proven guilty.

 Servo wrote: 
Just a minute, What makes you think he is not a bad apple?

 dionysius wrote: 
No, that is not a foregone conclusion.  In fact, the underwhelming content of the tapes revealed once again that Patrick Fitzgerald lied to us.  It's looking more and more like Fitzgerald knew from the beginning that there isn't enough evidence to secure an indictment, much less a conviction.


Oh yes I can!  There is NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States of America or the Illinois constitution that says that it's an inalienable right of legislatures to do whatever they please.  If anything, it's the other way around!

It's NOT a right.  It's not even a privilege!  It is an absence of prohibition.  And in my opinion, the absence of prohibition is not a tacit power.


The problem with that is that the firing was not done by his bosses, namely me and the other people of Illinois who hired him.  Being "fired" by his political inferiors has a name: mutiny.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Did you see the unmarked state Crown Vic at the corner leave (without using a turn signal ), and a marked Chicago Police Crown Vic swoop in to take its place?

 Servo wrote: 

You're right, Rod Blagojevich has not yet been convicted of any of these crimes in a court of law. That is yet to come, and it will come. Meanwhile, the Legislature of the State of Illinois, quite appropriately in my opinion, has exercised it's (state) constitutional right in impeaching Blagojevich. You, of course, cannot argue that the legislature did not have the right to do so. It can do so for any reason it pleases, at any time. This is not a criminal trial. This is a "possibly" dishonest employee being fired.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Well, he got his political trial.  But to call that anything but a kangaroo court would be a lie.

If they deny his pensions, this will deny him his civil right to a fair trial, since he will not be able to pay for defense counsel that's comparable to the DOJ onslaught.

All security detail for the gov are getting in their cars and splitting. One of them took a car seat out of the back of the security van, and put it in his garage.

 Welly wrote: 
Well, I did see that, but really, what was the evidence? Besides his crazy phone call, we haven't seen any other proof of wrong doing.

 aflanigan wrote: 
It's always good when we practice what the Constitution demands.  Rod Balgojevich is still innocent as far as the law is concerned.  Those who heard the tapes were not convinced that they contained indicting evidence.

Those who are so quick to call others nasty things are the first to object when the tables are turned.  And when that happens, they deserve no sympathy.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Have you been watching Gerlado Rivera?