Why Illinois Governor Blagojevich

Is Getting A Raw Deal

High Profile Chicago Lawyer Joel Brodsky Makes A Solid Case

The Governor Is Being Railroaded

Embattled Governor Rod Blagojevich is going on radio, television, and is

shouting from the roof tops that he is being removed from office by a trial which is
tantamount to a lynching without even the pretense of due process. The Governor
is right. There can be no doubt about it.

The first argument that the Illinois State Legislature, the Governors
political enemies, and uniformed public opinions, make is that impeachment is a
political act, and that due process rights do not apply. This is patently wrong, and a
reading of the Illinois Constitution confirms this fact.

Article IV, Section 14, of the Illinois Constitution covers impeachment and
removal from office. Read this section and you will see that when the framers of
the Constitution set forth the Senates procedures in impeachment proceedings, they
stated the following: (1) the Senators were under oath to “due justice according to
law”; (2) the case is to be “tried” by the “Chief Justice”; (3) that a 2/3 vote is
required to “convict”; and (4) that the decision of the Senate is a “Judgment”.

I don’t know about you, but when I hear words like “justice according to
law”, and reference to a trial with a judge, and a conviction resulting in a
judgment, I don’t think of a purely political process. These words call for a trial in
the judicial sense, with all the trappings and guarantees of due process, fairness,
the presumption of innocence, the right to call witness, and contest evidence.

So then, how is the Governor Blagojevich being denied due process under
the Senate Rules for Impeachment? Let me just focus on a few major ones to
make my point. But before I do this you have to understand that the Governor was
not impeached for any specific act of wrongdoing. (Are you surprised?) There is
only one (1) Article of Impeachment against the Governor. It refers to thirteen (13)
acts of the Governor over the last six (6) years, some specific and some vague, and
then states that “Under the totality of the evidence, some of all of these acts of the
Governor constitute a pattern of abuse of power”, and therefore the Governor,
twice elected by the people, should be removed. The Governor removal then, is
not being sought for any specific act, such as trying to sell a US Senate seat, but is
being sought for the vague reason that he “abused his power”.

First, Rule 8 prohibits the Governor from objecting to the record of the
House impeachment proceedings. If you will recall, when the matter was before
the House the Governors attorneys asked to be allowed to call and question
witnesses, and were denied the right to do so. They were told that they would get
their chance at any trial. Now, that turned out to be a lie. This record, not
submitted to any adversary challenge or cross-examination, is now evidence in the
Senate trial, and the Governor cannot contest it.

Next, the worst and most outrageous of the Rules is Rule 15(f), which
states that under no circumstance can the Governor call any witness that interferes
with the investigation being conducted by the US Attorney. This gives the U.S.
Attorney, who has stated publically, and in no uncertain terms, that he despises the
Governor, the right to prevent the Governor from calling any witness he says he
doesn’t want the Governor to call. Who has ever heard of a prosecutor having the
absolute right to prevent a defendant from calling a witness in his own defense?
This is justice Taliban style. The Articles of Impeachment, paragraphs one (1)
through eight (8), (that’s 8 of 13 paragraphs), specifically refer to events that are
part of the U.S. Attorney’s investigation. Rule 15(f) means the Governor cannot
compel or call any witness in regard to eight (8) of the thirteen (13) allegations
against him.

Of the remaining five (5) allegations against the Governor in the Articles of
Impeachment, paragraphs nine (9) through twelve (12) concern actions taken by
him during his first term of office. Well guess what, after taking these actions the
Governor was re-elected. The people have spoken. After an election campaign
where all of these so called abuses were disclosed to the electorate, the Governor
was chosen by the people for another term. Now, the legislature is trying to undo
the choice of the people, and remove the Governor for something the people have
voiced their approval of. Just in case you lost count, these leave only one (1)
allegation against the Governor, which concerns the hiring and firing of state
employees. Not only is this allegation vague and innocuous in scope, but it is
ridiculous. Everyone knows how hard it is to fire a civil servant. It takes time,
effort, and due process to fire one, than the Governor is getting in the impeachment
proceedings.

Rule 8 also states that the Governor can make an objection to other
evidence to the Chief Justice, who is the Judge under the Constitution, but that the
Senate can overrule the Judge’s ruling by a majority vote. Now who ever heard of
a trial where the prosecutor asks the jury to overrule the judge!!!! The inmates
have taken over the asylum.

Rule 14 allows the Governor to make a motion challenging the Articles of

Impeachment submitted by the House. However, argument on the motion is
limited to 15 minutes. That’s outrageous. On such an important matter the Senate
limits the time to consider arguments of the parties to 7 ½ minutes to each side. A
$100 small claims case gets more time. One gets the feeling that they simply don’t
want to waste time because the Senators already know what they are going to do.

Rule 15 gives the Senate veto power over whether or not the Governor can
subpoena any particular witness or document. A majority of the Senate must vote
to allow the issuance of a subpoena. Who has ever heard of the jury telling a
defendant who he may compel to testify as a witness? More importantly, how can
the Senate even vote on whether or not to compel the testimony of a witness when
they don’t even know what the witness will say? The rule gives the Senate control
of the presentation of the Governors case.

What is really going on here is a power grab by the Illinois State

Legislature. They want to emasculate the executive branch of government, and
eliminate the checks and balances on their legislative power. What future
governor will dare challenge the legislature if this sham of a trial removes the
Governor from office? The power will all lie with the legislature, who will be able
to do whatever they want, with nobody to challenge them, and single person who
can be held accountable.

More than that, how about this scenario: Pat Quinn becomes governor
filling out the two (2) years left for Blagojevich. Then at the next election, as she
indicated she would, Attorney General Lisa Madigan runs for governor, supported
by her father, Mike Madigan, the Speaker of The Illinois House Of
Representatives. Remember the House holds the purse strings, and controls the
budget of the State Of Illinois. With Lisa Madigan as governor and her father
Mike Madigan as house speaker, we might as well change the Illinois State Motto
from “Land Of Lincoln” to “Land Of Madigan”.

Governor Rod Blagojevich is getting railroaded, and the people of the State
Of Illinois will be the victims of this sham of a trial along with him if they don’t
take up his call, and call for a fair trial for their elected Governor.

Joel A. Brodsky