This man is a monster.

(I am curious who the one person was who voted for him).

Man, this guy sure got under the IL legislature's skin; he played them like a fiddle until this point.  I aplaud his ruthlessness at the same time as I dearly hope for justice to be served.

Blago was jogging during the hearings. With stones like his I'm surprised he can walk, much less run.

Color me shocked.

I think Rep. Patterson wanted a little attention, don't you?

We must understand, as laypeople, that the "innocent until proven guilty" applies ONLY to criminal trials.  Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

The result is that a vote for impeachment, which does not require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," can certainly be flawed or biased, and still be a legitimate activity.  That does not mean it always WILL BE flawed or biased, though.

That said, with the whole country watching this, it is foolhardy to try to compromise Blago's opportunities to have his say, or for them to try to "railroad" him out of office.  Failure to do their best to be fair could be politically costly, and those voting to impeach him are FULLY aware of that.

But to those who keep reminding us that he's innocent till proven guilty, they must understand this difference between criminal trial and a trial in the Senate for impeachment.  The standard for the latter is NOT as stringent, for the simple reason that a criminal trial can subtract the liberty - sometimes the life - of the accused, whereas the impeachment can only remove him from office.  Big difference.

In addition, a trial for impeachment is usually one which must be done swiftly, in order to prevent further harm from a person in an official position of public trust.  The accused has many rights, even in an impeachment proceeding, but so does the public (a thing which our criminal laws ignore far too often).  In an impeachment proceeding, the public's welfare MUST come first.

Do you perceive these distinctions?

If this impeachment was politically motivated, that isn't for me to say.  But judging from what I've heard and read, Blago is a pretty hardnosed, corrupt governor.  The problem I have is that what's publicized may not be all the relevant information we need to know - so judging by a trial in the "court of media-inspired public opinion" is not a way to be confident in your opinion.  At best it can only be one that is based on partial information, most of it second-hand.

I do think he should have either stepped down entirely, or let Pat Quinn take over until all the legal stuff - including the criminal trial - have run their courses.  As a service to the public, it is what an honorable man (innocent or guilty) would do - as Bill Rihardson just DID, in standing down from his Cabinet appointment.  THAT shows a real concern for the public, over his own political ambitions, and I hail him for it.  I'd have been far more sympathetic to Blago if he'd done likewise.  I fully appreciate fighting for one's rights and reputation, but I also appreciate a politician willing to put the public first.

As for Burris, I think he is very likely a very fine choice, although having BLAGO appoint him taints everything for him, probably unfairly to him, but reasonable, since we can't be 100% sure he didn't pay for it.  He probably didn't, though.   More likely, Blago appointed him for the simple reason that the appointment WAS a responsble one, and in doing so, was a slap in the face to his detractors.

Unfortunately, Burris has had to live with the after-effects of it.  And probably will do so, as long as he remains in the Senate as an appointee of Blago.  If he runs later, and gets elected, that would be much better for him, and for the public's confidence in him.

From all I can see, Burris seems to be a good choice, and I think the Congress thinks so, too.  It's only the fact that they still can't be SURE.  What I'd have liked to see was Blago stepping temporarily aside, and letting Quinn appoint Mr. Burris.  This whole circus over seating him would have been avoided - and BLAGO knew it.  He wanted the circus, it seems, and that doesn't speak well for him at ALL.

Keep in mind, that those voting for impeachment DID consider a lot of evidence, and DID give Blago a chance to present any evidence he wanted to offer in his own defense.  He refused, which was his right.  It doesn't reflect well on him, though.  The vote was against him, and it was not based on wisps of rumor or hearsay; there was some hard evidence that convinced them.

Proof, at a criminal trial may acquit him; that doesn't make him innocent, though.  It only means that, under the VERY strict rules of evidence, designed to protect the innocent, even if it may mean freeing a guilty person at times, wasn't quite enough to get past the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule.  He could be acquitted and still be guilty as hell.  That happens often in the criminal justice system.  Many acquitted people emerge, happily claiming they were "proven innocent."  THAT is entirely incorrect.  As an example, we only need to remember the OJ trial.

Innocence can NEVER be proven, any more than the non-existence of God can.  You can't "prove" negatives like that.  Guilt, however, CAN be proven.  Acquittal means there wasn't enough evidence - that is ALL it means.  See the difference?

However, at trial, ALL evidence known will be presented.  If we're allowed, after the trial, to know what that evidence was, we're in the best position available to us to form our personal opinions.  Until then, though, our opinions can only be based on a partial knowledge of the evidence.  Usually that is only what the media CHOOSES to dispense to us, and more and more, that is beginning to take on a pretty sour taste on many issues.

So...until we can acquire a news media source or two that has chosen to abide by their own canons of ethics, which rejects sensationalism and feeding frenzies, we've got a long wait ahead of us if we hope to get BALANCED information from them.

And the main reason we even HAVE this problem is because it is this very sensationalist and biased reporting which the people themselves REALLY want most.  So the problem with them is...us.

I don't approve of Blagojevich being impeached.  This is not because I believe in his innocence or for that matter his guilt.  I believe that there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  If we impeach just on accusations alone, what stops us from going after any politician we don't like? What if he is found to be innocent?  Then his life was ruined for no reason.  When dealing with politics we must remember that each politician has his or her own agenda.  Maybe we should question the true motives of those pressing so hard to get him out of office.  What do they stand to gain?

Anyone who believes he will be convicted by the senate is delusional.  He won't even go on trial for putative criminal charges - the 90 day delay is obvious confirmation of this.