Joel Brodsky Thinks Blagojevich Is Getting Railroaded

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