Friday, August 29, 2008 Last Update: 2:27 p.m.
A Few Clouds: Currently 78° F
Dow: 11543.96 -171.22

Should you be able to impeach someone just because he is a blockhead?

You should if he’s Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

And surprisingly, under the Illinois Constitution, you can.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which requires “high crimes and misdemeanors” as justification for impeachment and removal from office, the state Constitution is purposely vague on the subject. So being the blockhead he is, the General Assembly can grant his most cherished desire: to become a permanent resident of Ravenswood who never, ever needs to go to Springfield again.

To that I’d say hurrah and alleluia. And three cheers for the Democratic staff, which works under the direction of Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, for getting the ball rolling for laying out one of the best indictments I’ve seen yet for kicking In-Rod-We-Trust out of office. Yes, it is ironic for one top state Democratic office holder to go after the state’s highest Democratic state officer, for, of all things, corruption, when the Democratic Party is the very incubator of Corruption in Illinois. What a state, what fun.

The memo—look for the complete version in Illinois Review—lays out ample evidence of blockheadness:

Dangerous levels of incompetence, abuse of power, dereliction of duties or financial malfeasance. Even if someone has not done anything legally wrong, the General Assembly should be able to remove someone who is so incompetent that he doesn’t have the ability to run his office. Politicians are accountable to a higher degree than mere legal standards. It shouldn’t take a criminal investigation to use impeachment. Impeachment shouldn’t be seen as a mini-criminal trial. Although criminal activities may be a reason for impeachment, impeachment is a political trial based on a governor’s repeated recklessness and inability to perform the job

Hey, this is just the start. For the really good stuff, you have to look at the memo’s Addendum I, where you get a 30-point list of failures, incompetence and unconstitutional actions. Among the latter, as detailed elsewhere in the memo, is Blagojevich’s usurpation of legislative powers by, among other things, “expanding FamilyCare beyond the limit authorized by the General Assembly, spending money absent express statutory authority, failing to comply with [an Attorney General] ruling that federal subpoenas are subject to FOIA [the Freedom of Information Act], and a gross abuse of the constitution’s special session power—using special session as a blunt force instrument for dealing with the General Assembly and attempting to force it to submit to his will—rather than for deal with emergency situations.”

These items deal with issues of governance, which might not get much traction with the public, but, in my mind, they’re a sound enough basis for impeachment. But allegations of criminality? The public can, or at least should, understand that. No, as is repeatedly said, Blagojevich hasn’t been charged with any crime, but his dirt is being sifted by federal prosecutors. As the memo succinctly put it:

The ongoing federal criminal investigations of his administration, including his role as Public Official A, have significantly impaired his ability to do his job as governor. With Ali Atta’s guilty plea, the governor has been directly implicated in a bribes-for-jobs scheme—the latest revelation of malfeasance in the governor’s office. The conviction of Tony Rezko on 16 or 24 federal corruption counts related to Blagojevich administration activities also suggests something is seriously amiss. Using common sense, and the totality of what has been learned so far about these investigations, prudence demands that lawmakers act. Already, six individuals associated with his administration have pled or been found guilty of federal criminal charges in connection with their roles in corrupt activities.

Although the memo goes too far when it says that its list of particulars shows that Blagojevich is “proven” guilty—again, he hasn’t been charged—it lists a number of Blagojevich associates who have pled guilty to corruption charges, including Atta, former head of the Illinois Finance Authority and Stu Levine, a Blagojevich appointment to two state boards who pressured state contractors for campaign contributions.

There is no question in my mind that the House has grounds to investigate what the memo says are “Serious crimes, including those that are abuses of office, including obstruction of justice.” It is tempting to go along with another memo grounds for investigation: “Incapacity—due to mental or health problems the individual is not able to do his job.” At least it’s worth a laugh. (Also worth a laugh is the memo’s talking point that “this has nothing to do with Mike Madigan.”)

As impressive a case as the memo makes for an impeachment investigation, it doesn’t answer the question, at least to my satisfaction: Is it wise? The memo notes the federal investigation, but argues that political leadership requires that the House investigation move forward. But two words should caution the House against such action: Ollie North.

You may remember that the former Reagan administration official was convicted for his role in the Iran-contra affair, but not before he had been dragged before a politically motivated, Democratic-controlled Congress investigating the scandal. The hearings were televised, his photo taking the oath was featured on the covers of Time and Newsweek magazines and he freely admitted his role, describing it as his patriotic duty. A U.S. appeals court overturned the conviction because North’s immunized testimony may have biased witnesses in his trial.

If the House impeaches Blagojevich and the Senate convicts, the only consequence—albeit a large one—is that he would be removed from office. But whatever prosecution he might face could be jeopardized. I guess the question for the public is: Would you rather have him out of office, or in prison—that is, if he were guilty. Perhaps the best, or even the only way to get both is conviction by a court first and removal by the General Assembly second. For some folks, that’s much too long.

**
Dennis Byrne is a member of the Chicago Daily Observer Editorial Board.

Commentary:

1

JohnR says:

How ridiculous -

Impeach him because he expanded healthcare? And because he made legislators show up for work?

I half expected that Madigan would list that Blagojevich should be impeached because he DIDN'T raise the income tax like Madigan wants.

You may dislike the governor, but he is the only thing between Illinois and a tax increase right now.

June 12, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.
2

Commonsense says:

Ridiculous? It's ridiculous to keep this idiot in office. This State is so far in debt we have no other choice but to raise taxes to pay for all the past mistakes of both parties. He is so disliked by his own party that he's unable to get anything he wants. We can't afford to keep him in office for another two years.

June 12, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

Comments are closed for this entry