Illinois AG threatens to act soon against governor

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois' attorney general is threatening to go to the state Supreme Court to have Gov. Rod Blagojevich declared unfit to hold office if he doesn't resign soon.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan told CNN on Thursday that she is prepared to take action. She says the best thing is for the governor to resign.

Blagojevich (bluh-GOY'-uh-vich) was arrested Tuesday on charges that he put President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat up for sale. He reported to his work on Wednesday, ignoring calls for his resignation.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVNAcA-xtCA6PKQ8h5s7dBlD_BKwD950HJQG0

[Dennis Donovan]

1. By many accounts, he's mentally ill, and not in the old Soviet kind of way...

...but actually, certifiably crazy.

[robcon]

2. What are those "many accounts"???

I am not aware of any accounts saying Blagojevich is crazy.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she listed several sources stating so...

I don't remember specifically who they were, sorry.:hi:

[robcon]

5. ok. I wanted to know if it was a psychological opinion, or a political opinion.

He's a megalomaniac in the political way... but I doubt it was clinical megalomania.

He was blind to even the idea that he would be caught, even though he knew Fitz was investigating him. He thought he was bullet-proof.

[robcon]

11. Further on this from CBS2 Chicago...

Some Question Blagojevich's Mental Health
Jim Williams CHICAGO (CBS) ―

Gov. Rod Blagojevich knew for months he was under investigation, so why was he caught on tape making so many incriminating statements? Some are wondering if there's something wrong with his mental acuity.

As CBS 2's Jim Williams reports, right after the feds announced the charges against Blagojevich, there were angry shouts across the country. "disgusting" and "arrogant" is what many called him.

However, after some reflection, there is the serious question people like Marian Cassler of Chicago are asking: "When you know you're being watched, why would you do something like that? You have to have something wrong."

"Well, we think he's nuts, that he has some kind mental problem that he would have the audacity to do such a thing," said Chicago resident Meg Olsen.

Could it be that Blagojevich has a mental illness that has impaired his judgment?

Dr. Daniela Schreirer is a forensic psychologist at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology and she does not see any sign of mental illness in the public Blagojevich, but believes he does have sociopathic traits.

"We're just talking about traits. We're not talking about full-blown diagnosis. But certainly, there's the same sense of entitlement, the same sense of thinking I am superior. I can do whatever I want. I am not going to be caught," Schreirer said.

Could a claim of a mental illness be the Blagojevich's best defense in court?

"There's a difference between being crazy and being legally insane," said CBS 2's Legal Analyst Irv Miller.

Miller says don't expect Blagojevich's attorneys to even try that defense.

"Now, he's saying through his lawyer 'I didn't know I was doing anything wrong.' That doesn't mean he had a mental disease or defect which is going to get him off the hook in a federal courthouse," Miller continued.
http://cbs2chicago.com/governor/Blagojevich.mental.health.2.884667.html

[No Elephants]

6. Trying to shake down the President Elect of the United States while you KNOW you are under

investigation by the freakin' FBI seems crazy to me. So does publicly inviting anyone and everyone to tap your phone. Maybe it's drugs; maybe it's insanity, but something is loose.

[Mike Daniels]

21. That whole "You want to tape me? Go for it!" performance reminded me of Gary Hart

What is it with politicians daring the media to find something on them when the politician knows they're bent?

Do they want to be removed from office by design? I can't think of any thing that would make sense in that you're practically committing career suicide with that type of taunt.

[slackmaster]

12. I think he's a megalomaniac, like many politicians

Whether or not he qualifies for an actual diagnosis, I have no idea.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Does the Illinois Constitution provided for declaring an official unfit to hold office?

:shrug:

This is an interesting strategy, but is it legal?

[maddezmom]

8. not sure, but some guy on MSNBC just said it could be a temporary fix

so that Quinn could name Obama's replacement. :shrug:

[The Stranger]

7. As usual, when it is a Democrat's blood in the water, the GOP doesn't waste time.

Oh our Nancy Pelosi Traitor/Disaster. She will go down as the worst in history.

[maddezmom]

9. Madigan is a Dem

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

13. Even worse. Just like Pelosi and Reid turning on the automakers and demanding restructuring plans,

while Paulson pours 32 times that paltry sum into his buddies' pockets on Wall Street, and no one asked a god damned motherfucking question before giving up the money.

[davsand]

15. Lisa Madigan is not only a Dem, but one I am proud to claim.

I worked to elect her the first time and I worked (not terribly hard work, however, because she's popular in this state) to see her re-elected. I have worked with her office a fair amount in the last few years and without exception that group of people is dedicated and committed to serving the people of Illinois.

As I recall hearing, Madigan's office was asked by the Feds to stand down on any investigation into Blago quite a while ago. Otherwise, I suspect Blago would have been taken down sooner.




Laura

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Seems like you are playing this game:

[The Stranger]

14. It is a really easy conclusion to reach: A war criminal sits in the White House still insulated by

the "Democratic" Speaker of the House, and there is a feeding frenzy because some small-time governor was too explicit about the usual quid pro quo that fucking everyone gets for making a political appointment.

How's that for a conclusion?

[kevsand]

17. Thank you so much...

...for relegating the fifth largest state in the union to "small-time" status. You probably should quit while you can still see over the edge of the hole you're digging.

[The Stranger]

18. Is that the only thing you want to address in the thread?

How about the rest of it?

[kevsand]

19. The rest of it is irrelevant.

Bush/Cheney/Pelosi is an entirely separate issue from Blegojevich. The situation in Illinois is f*cked up enough without making it an allegory for the sins of the universe. Your rant is off topic to begin with, so yes, I will decline to address it.

[The Stranger]

25. It isn't that difficult.

A Democratic governor is caught making explicit quid pro quo pronouncements regarding his making a political appointment -- when such appointments are always implicitly quid pro quo -- and there is a lynch mob of Republicans and Press Whores waiting for him, and seeing the lynch mob, the Democrats turn on their own.

Meanwhile, there is a war criminal in the White House, with an additional bipartisan Senate investigation's report being issued just today supporting the case against the war criminal in the White House, but no one can bring the necessary justice to the nation because the Pelosi Traitor has been covering for the war criminal's crimes and not only preventing impeachment, but preventing it from even being used for political leverage.

Something's not right here.

[kevsand]

27. I never said it was difficult.

Intellectual dishonesty never is.

1) Blagojevich broke the law. Your assertion that everyone else does it that way fails to change either the law or our responsibilities under it. Your implied excusal of Blagojevich is in direct contradiction to your insistence that the law be followed in regards to the President.

2) When Lisa Madigan takes the necessary legal action to remove Blagojevich from office, she is doing her job and fulfilling her obligations under the law. Whether anyone else is doing their job or not is irrelevant, at least to the extent that it neither justifies nor permits you to criticize Lisa for doing hers. Your implied criticism of Lisa Madigan solely for doing her job and obeying the law is in direct contradiction to your insistence that Pelosi do the same.

You are correct only in your generic statement that something is wrong. You are entirely incorrect to imply that what is wrong is the fact that Lisa Madigan is doing her job.

I'll say it again. These are two completely different and separate cases.

[The Stranger]

28. You are having difficulty nevertheless.

Blagojevich broke the law. Your assertion that everyone else does it that way fails to change either the law or our responsibilities under it. Your implied excusal of Blagojevich is in direct contradiction to your insistence that the law be followed in regards to the President.

Blogojevich has been indicted, not convicted, but nice rush to judgment on your part, thanks very much. Everyone else does it this way because political considerations are not in violation of the law, buying and selling an office outright is against the law. Outside of the simplistic black and white, the gray areas here seem to elude you.

When Lisa Madigan takes the necessary legal action to remove Blagojevich from office, she is doing her job and fulfilling her obligations under the law. Whether anyone else is doing their job or not is irrelevant, at least to the extent that it neither justifies nor permits you to criticize Lisa for doing hers. Your implied criticism of Lisa Madigan solely for doing her job and obeying the law is in direct contradiction to your insistence that Pelosi do the same.

Lisa Madgigan is under no legal duty to do anything of the sort. That is bullshit. If she has some sense that there has been a crime committed, she can have it investigated. Trying to remove a governor from office, who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is not "doing her job," it is carrying water for the Republicans. And the statements you make about who is "permit(tted) ... to criticize Lisa" is bizarre indeed.

This is politics, plain and simple. The media whores and the Republicans carry double standards that are worlds apart. A murderer remains protected in the White House, while a fool caught on tape doing what everyone else does is being removed before the ink is dry on the indictment.

Wake up.

[kevsand]

29. I'm not having any difficulty.

You, on the other hand, are living in either a parallel universe or a self-constructed state of illusion. You very obviously are not living in the state of Illinois.

Blogojevich(sic) has been indicted, not convicted, but nice rush to judgment on your part, thanks very much. Everyone else does it this way because political considerations are not in violation of the law, buying and selling an office outright is against the law. Outside of the simplistic black and white, the gray areas here seem to elude you.

Blagojevich hasn't even been indicted, so your technical hair splitting is entirely inaccurate as well as irrelevant. It's not a rush to judgment when the criminal act is in plain view (or in this case, earshot). Political considerations are not at issue here, because that's not all he was asking for; he actively sought a sale price, which as you admit, is illegal. There are no gray areas here. Simple reality itself seems to elude you.

Lisa Madigan is under no legal duty to do anything of the sort. That is bullshit. If she has some sense that there has been a crime committed, she can have it investigated. Trying to remove a governor from office, who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is not "doing her job," it is carrying water for the Republicans.

As the elected Attorney General, she is most certainly under a strict legal duty as an officer of both the court and the state to uphold the Illinois Constitution and all state statutes. That includes removing a governor from office who has become incapable of performing his duties. You can disagree whether Blagojevich fits that definition, but that is ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide, not you or I. If Lisa is convinced that the case can be made, she is morally, ethically, and legally required to pursue it. This particular point of law has absolutely nothing to do with the possible commission of a crime, as you inaccurately suggested. Rather, it has to do with succession of office. The "investigation" has already taken place. All that's left now is the formal presentation of the evidence.

Finally, I am really f*cking tired of people who have never lived in Illinois coming here and telling us poor, ignorant bumpkins who have lived in Illinois all our lives and been politically active that entire time that we don't really know what's happening in our own backyards. We have lived with this monster for six years now, and he should have been taken out long ago. If you had even bothered to investigate for even two minutes the depth and breadth of this man's perfidy, you would never for an instant consider defending him or attacking the people who are finally standing up and holding him accountable. You might even learn how to spell his name correctly.

This man has destroyed or defiled everything he has touched. We are only now beginning to wake up from a statewide nightmare. Removing him is not "politics," it is self-defense.

[kevsand]

30. I was mistaken to say he wasn't indicted.

Apparently that formality did take place later Tuesday afternoon. My apologies for the error on my part.

[Doremus]

31. How does the 5-year investigation of Blago play into your scenario?

If the pukes were waiting to pounce, what took 'em so long? :shrug:

[razorman]

16. What if he gets so pissed at those he thinks have done him wrong

that he goes and appoints a Republican to the seat to spite them before he loses the power. Can anything be done, since he apparently will have appointment power, even from jail?

[Posteritatis]

20. The Senate has the power to swing the denial bat at any appointment (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Actually, the Senate probably cannot do that

They may be on tricky legal ground if they try that. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states:

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Since there was no election, the Senate could not judge any election or returns. As for qualifications, those are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. The 1969 Supreme Court decision Powell v. McCormack set the precedent that Congress canno exclude a person, who has met the requirements written in the text of the U.S. Constitution and who has been elected to Congress, from serving in Congress. The appointed Senator could be expelled, but that would require a 2/3 vote.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. That Republican would probably have a very difficult time in the 2010 election

[David__77]

22. What? He hasn't resigned?

What's keeping him?

[Endangered Specie]

26. Same reason Ted Stevens didn't resign I guess