Governor's lawyer sparks fireworks at hearing

[BlueJessamine]

Source: The State Journal Register

Fireworks have started early between Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyer and state lawmakers looking into impeaching him.

Ed Genson, Blagojevich’s noted criminal defense lawyer, today made several complaints about the proceedings of the 21-member House select committee investigating impeachment.

Genson asked that three lawmakers be booted off the committee - Republicans Jil Tracy and Bill Black and Democrat Jack Franks - because they had made several statements that he said negated their impartiality in the proceedings.

“They made comments which shows they can’t be fair,” Genson said. “They made comments which shows that Rod Blagojevich cannot get a fair and impartial hearing of this committee.”



Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1720698681/Governors-lawyer-sparks-fireworks-at-hearing

[Joanie Baloney]

1. That's right!

Throw the shoe at 'em!!

Gall-durned committee members with their dagnabbed personal opinions!

;)

[napi21]

2. MSNBC showed a brief live clip of the exchanges between

Blogo's lawyer and the chairman of the panel. The clip I saw, he cited a law that states "no quotes, excerpts, or clips of tape recordings will be permitted to be presented to any court, federal or other unless copies have been presented to the defense in advance." He claimed that made this who procedure illegal. The Chair. strongly responded "This is NOT A COURT of any kind!

It does make interesting TV viewing.

[lapfog_1]

3. WTF... does Genson think that this is a trial? A court of law?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding.

Tell him to STFU.

[elleng]

5. WTF do YOU know what you're saying?

Did I miss your 'sarcasm?'

Genson knows what he's doing. YOU STFU!

[lapfog_1]

6. Nope you did not miss a sarcasm tag.

and, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

An impeachment is not a legal process, it is not run by the Judicial branch.

Asking members of the Illinois legislature to excuse themselves because of statements they may have made about the "case" is silly and stupid.

Impeachment is a political process, used to remove someone from office, whether they actually committed a crime OR NOT. That doesn't matter.

So, no, I won't STFU.

His lawyer is trying to make it seem like it IS a legal finding of guilt and he is wrong.

[elleng]

8. "They made comments which shows they can’t be fair."

.

[lapfog_1]

9. Look back a few years to the Impeachment of President Clinton.

There is nothing fair about it. He was Impeached but not removed from office.

It's not required to be fair about impeachment.

There is no charge placed on the legislature to "weigh the evidence" but only to represent the will of the people.

[elleng]

12. 'Impeachment

is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to forcibly remove a government official. The second stage is conviction.

Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office, but rather is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[lapfog_1]

14. The keyword is "parallel"

or analogous. But not the same. It's a political process, not a criminal one (or even civil). Sometimes (like in the impeachment of the President of the US) there is the presence of a member of the judiciary (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) at the trial that removes the party, but that doesn't make it a criminal procedure.

Again, it's a political process, undertaken by a legislature on whatever grounds they deem necessary. There doesn't even have to be a reason stated or specific charges made. A member the legislature only has to introduce the articles and have a majority (or sometimes a super majority) of the body vote "Aye". To remove, a "show trial" is conducted, and again, to "convict" and remove from office, all that has to happen is for a majority (and this time, almost always a super majority, depending on the state constitution) to again vote "Aye". And that's it. The Governor is removed from office. It doesn't mean that he or she will be hauled off to jail or that they will even have a record. They simply aren't the governor anymore.

Given that the Supreme Court for Illinois just rejected the "unfit to serve" complaint filed by the Attorney General, I hope the Legislature moves quickly to impeach and remove from office Mr. Blagojevitch.

[The Stranger]

4. Amazing how Democrats will impeach another Democrat, but Pelosi Traitor protects a war criminal in

the White House STILL.

[lapfog_1]

7. Perhaps if we had a tape of some sort...

oh wait, Cheney just gave an interview where he admitted to directing torture.

Well, I won't hold my breath.

[The Stranger]

10. What is beyond freaky is how they even try extra-constitutional and bizarre measures to impeach him.

Asking the Supreme Court of Illinois to declare him unfit to serve? Looking at the same time how the Pelosi Traitor protects the war criminal junta, this is a total mindfuck.

[lapfog_1]

11. Well, the Illinois supreme court decided not to hear the

"unfit to serve" argument. Rightly so. The proper thing it to impeach Blago. Hopefully they just do it, even if they have to hold the impeachment over Christmas.

[The Stranger]

13. Why would they try extra-legal means of removing him from office?

He hasn't been convicted of anything and is innocent until proven guilty, right?

Why is there such a witch hunt going on?

[lapfog_1]

15. Well, the complaint was about his mental state of mind.

which isn't exactly extra-legal. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this complaint without comment. So I guess he would have to engage in more "traditional" crazy behavior to have the Supreme Court decide that a mental fitness examination would be in order.

Impeachment, OTOH, is not extra legal either, nor does it require any such notion a "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

It's not a criminal proceeding. There is no presumption of innocence. Hearsay evidence can be presented. In fact, no evidence at all is actually required. The legislature can vote to impeach pretty much on a whim. They can vote to "convict" and remove from office the same way.

[The Stranger]

16. Giving an attorney general license to go to court to question a governor's mental state of mind is

exactly why there is such a thing as impeachment.

Do you have a link to what you contend regarding "no evidence at all is actually required" for impeachment?