GOV. BLAGOJEVICH'S TV TOUR

Yesterday, Gov. Blagojevich appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and "The View." He also appeared on Larry King.  I watched all three of these interviews and here are my thoughts. Larry King interviewed Blagojevich on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009. (AP/CNN)

1) Blagojevich is his best salesman.  He speaks well, appears calm and genuine.  I think he created some questions in the minds of the viewers more than gaining sympathy.

2) Blagojevich gave the same answers on national TV as he did on local radio shows last Friday: the impeachment trial is fundamentally unfair, he can't call witnesses, etc.  He refuses to answer whether he said the Senate seat was "[bleeping] golden"; the evasiveness is obvious.

3) Blagojevich needs to stop his media blitz.  We did well enough yesterday and Friday but enough already.  It's overkill.  He allegedly has TWENTY interviews scheduled for today. Now, it's beginning to look more like a circus than an plea for sympathy.  I mean, everyone in the country saw the interviews yesterday.  There's nothing more he can accomplish today.

4) Any sympathy he gained during the TV & radio interviews does not outweigh the other damage he's caused himself: his lead attorney, Ed Genson, withdrew because he advised Blagojevich against speaking to the media. Also, his failure to appear at his impeachment trial is a blatant sign of disrespect for the process.  Granted, the impeachment proceeding would just be a bashing, (and who wants to sit though that?!?), but his failure to appear is a big "F-YOU" that doesn't make him look so good.

5) I'm still confused about why this impeachment proceeding is just now taking place?!? State Rep. Jack Franks is on TV now talking about how he knew the Governor was engaging in impeachable behavior BEFORE the last election.  He's talking about the flu vaccine from Canada and other alleged schemes.  How could the legislature allow the Governor to engaged in this continued behavior at the expense of Illinois residents for all this time?  The Governor's impeachment now seems very late; it's appalling that nothing was done before his federal arrest on Dec. 9, 2008.  Our elected officials have a duty to protect us and they waited for him to be arrested before moving forward on the impeachment.  Disappointing.  All this time.  All this damage.  Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves for dragging their feet for so long.

An article about the TV tour here.

I was interviewed this morning on Fox Chicago about these issues.  

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IL GOV. BLAGOJEVICH'S MEDIA BLITZ ALREADY CAUSING PROBLEMS

llinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich listens to a caller while on the air with radio talk show host Cliff Kelley at WVON radio station Friday. (AP) On Friday, Gov. Blagojevich made two radio appearances in Chicago. One at WLS in the morning, the other at WVON with Cliff Kelley in the evening. I happened to be at both interviews and spoke to the Governor at both as well. His spirits were surprisingly up and I definitely got the feeling he's set to fight this long battle. The Governor is not, however, in denial about his impeachment; he even joked about how he'll soon have extra time on his hands.

But is the Governor's media campaign a good idea? At first, I thought "yes" because he is his strongest salesman. Aside from his terrible analogies (he compared himself to some old movie that's beyond my time), he makes a strong argument that this impeachment is unfair. He was very well-spoken on both radio shows and calls came pouring into the radio station showing their support of the Governor.

As things started to look better than they have for the Governor's image, two problems arose late Friday: 1) Blagojevich's lead attorney, Ed Genson, withdrew from the case; and 2) Blagojevich's camp hired Drew Peterson's PR firm.

Genson's withdrawal: I don't know anything about Sam Adam Sr. and Jr.'s work to comment; however, I can say that Ed Genson is probably one of the best defense attorneys in the country. I watched his arguments before the House impeachment panel; he's brilliant, convincing, well-prepared. Genson was nowhere to be found on Friday during the radio appearances. Instead, it was Sam Adam, Jr. who was at WLS's interview and then NO attorney was with Blagojevich at the WVON interview. I suspect Genson went through the roof when he found out Blagojevich was speaking to the press. I'm sure Genson wanted Blagojevich to keep his mouth shut. But, Adam's appearance at Blagojevich's side implies that Adam supported the interviews. Possibly the split because of this? Genson was quoted saying, "His action, what he's doing, isn't controlled by me," Genson said. "I'm not privy to it. I should be, but I'm not." Article here.

Drew Peterson's PR firm retained: Drew Peterson on NBC's Today Show

I wrote about Drew Peterson's image back in November 2008. Blog here. Image is everything, especially when you are potentially talking to a jury pool. Drew Peterson has the worst possible image of any person in the country - and it's not really because of the crimes he's suspected of committing but because of the way he's put himself in the media's light. There are many men who have managed to stay out of the press as they stand suspected of a crime, for example, Craig Stebic, husband of missing Lisa Stebic. I mean, Drew's PR firm had the audacity to send a press release that Drew got engaged last month. How disgusting. As if the guy is a celebrity?!? And this PR firm's antics are already playing out in Blagojevich's camp: on Friday morning, Blagojevich committed to an exclusive live interview with ABC's Good Morning America on Monday morning. Blagojevich agreed not to do any interviews in the interim, before Monday morning. Quite the contrary occurred. Instead, the PR firm set up an interview with NBC's Today Show, behind ABC's back, that aired today!

Blagojevich better be careful. It appears as if the camp is in disarray with Genson quitting and the worst PR firm being retained. He needs to focus on his image and his criminal case. Leave the rest alone.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BLAGO SCHEDULED TO DO 2 RADIO INTERVIEWS TODAY

Friday, Jan. 23, 2009: IL Gov. Blagojevich is scheduled to do two radio interviews today.  The first will be on WLS at 8:30 am EST and the second will be on Cliff Kelley's show on 670 WVON at 5:00 pm EST. (Cliff is so well-respected; hence, why Blago chose to speak to him over everyone else.  Cliff is one of my closest friends and mentors. He's really the best!)  This will be a great interview. If you can't get 670 am on your radio, go to www.wvon.com and you can listen to the live stream.  You don't want to miss it!Just felt like posting a pic of Cliff and me from last year. So why not here?! He's the best.

I don't know if his attorneys advised him against speaking to the press but I'm certain he is very prepared.  On one hand, I don't think he should speak because whatever he says can be used against him in the Senate trial or in the federal criminal trial.  But, on the other hand, he knows he's going to lose the impeachment trial so what does it matter if he speaks to the press? I mean, at this point, he's probably used to being recorded!

I'm hoping he has some memorized poetry, like he has provided at recent press conferences, so that we can walk away from these interviews feeling more educated! My favorite is THE CAT IN THE HAT! Nothing too intellectual...Maybe Blago will read The Cat in the Hat to us during his interviews?

Unfortunately, Blagojevich is welcoming the attention.  He speaks to the press in the mornings before his daily jog.  Now these interviews.  He's starting to remind me of Drew Peterson: always looking for an opportunity to hop on camera.  This is not good for his image; his attorneys should advise him to stop talking to the press!

Here is my interview from Thursday, Jan. 22, 2009 on Fox Chicago discussing the issue in my previous blog: Blagojevich is will not be given an opportunity for fair trial and Due Process.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BLAGO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION #1 - DEFENSE UNABLE TO CALL EMANUEL

DUE PROCESS VIOLATION #1: MR. EMANUEL, IT'S OK TO TALK ABOUT BLAGOJEVICH & YOUR CONTACT WITH HIM REGARDING THE SENATE SEAT ON NATIONAL TV BUT YOU ARE PROTECTED FROM TESTIFYING! Aude Guerrucci-Pool / Getty Image

As we know, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the Senate not to call certain witnesses (including Obama's top aides) at Blagojevich's impeachment trial because it would "significantly compromise" an ongoing criminal investigation. Article here. And since Senate rules not not automatically grant subpoena power to the defense, Blagojevich's lawyers won't be able to call witnesses in his defense either.

Remember, the main reason the Governor's arrest and subsequent impeachment was initiated at the time that it was was because Blagojevich was allegedly trying to sell President-elect Obama's Senate seat.

Interestingly, however, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's chief of staff, said yesterday (1/18/09) in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that Gov. Blagojevich "did not ask for anything improper in their discussions about Obama's Senate successor." He further stated that "he talked with Blagojevich and the governor's ex-chief of staff about the type of person who should replace Obama. But Emanuel said he never got the impression that Blagojevich wanted anything improper in return for naming a replacement. Article here.

So my question is this: How can Mr. Emanuel go on national TV and speak about the Governor and his alleged sale of the Senate seat but he's protected from testifying, under oath, about the very same issue?  How is this fair?  Clearly, the people who are being protected by Fitzgerald and the Senate are willingly going on television to speak about the "ongoing" criminal investigation! You would think if their testimony were such a potentially damaging interference, these people (like Emanuel) would not speak to the press!

Essentially, Mr. Gregory can question Emanuel on camera but Attorney Genson cannot question Emanuel under oath.  This is patently unfair. Maybe Genson can submit the transcript from the interview into evidence? 

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BLAGO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: EXPECT OBVIOUS DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

Illinois Senate room

On Friday, January 16, 2009, Gov. Blagojevich's lawyers stated they are withdrawing from representing Gov. Blagojevich in his impeachment trial before the Senate. (The House voted to impeach, next a trial is held before the Senate.) Instead, the attorneys will boycott the trial; in essence, they presume Blagojevich will be impeached without being afforded due process of law - they expect the trial to be totally one-sided and unfair. Article here. They are, however, still representing him at his federal criminal trial.

Per the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the Senate will not call any witnesses that are listed in the federal criminal complaint against the Governor because doing so may allegedly interfere with the criminal case against Blagojevich.  Instead, the complaint itself will be admitted into evidence but it's essentially impossible for that complaint or the witnesses listed in that complaint to be challenged.

I agree with Blagojevich's lawyers: there are patently obvious Due Process violations. I am not saying that Blagojevich should not be impeached; I am saying, however, that he should be given a fair trial!

1) No objections allowed
2) Hearsay is admissible
3) Unsworn statements allowed
4) Key witnesses in named federal complaint will not be subpoenaed
5) There is no standard of impeachment
6) There is no burden of proof (i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.)

Ed Genson's argument before the House panel is compelling and fascinating.  Even though he is defending the Governor, Genson is powerful and convincing.  He explains that the separation of powers is a "fundamental principle & the power of impeachment does not fit within the separation of powers."

Quoting Genson says we are talking about non-criminal matters against Blagojevich.  IL does not give standard for impeachment so look to other law in other states. The standard is functional equivalent of "high crimes and misdemeanors." 

Genson says the standard should be no less than standard of impeachment for a judge of a Supreme Court. His counsel was allowed subpoena power (24 witnesses), was allowed to cross-examine. In this case, he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine.

I agree with Mr. Genson.  The Governor will not be afforded Due Process at the trial so it's pointless to even attend.  Instead, let the Supreme Court decide the executive power, the proper standard of impeachment, the burden of proof and whether Genson has subpoena power; and most importantly, whether Blagojevich's Constitutional right to Due Process was violated.

Watch Ed Genson's argument to the panel here.

* MUST I SAY IT AGAIN?  I'M NOT DEFENDING THE GOVERNOR! I'M DEFENDING OUR CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHTS & JUDICIAL/EXECUTIVE PROCESS!

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IMPEACHED BUT NOT REMOVED - BLAGO STILL HOLDS STRONG

Today, the IL House voted 114-1 to impeach Governor Blagojevich after the full panel unanimously voted to impeach him.  But, that doesn't mean he is no longer the Governor.  Instead, the vote to impeach but that just means that there is enough evidence to move forward on a trial before the Senate. 

Remember the impeachment of President Bill Clinton?  Remember how he ended up staying in office despite the impeachment?  Well, that's because the Senate acquitted him of all charges despite the vote to impeach. 

Failure to conduct independent investigation: The House Judiciary Committee did not conduct their own, independent investigation into Pres. Clinton's alleged violations.  Similarly, the IL House did not conduct their own independent investigation. Instead, they moved into evidence the U.S. Attorney's complaint, an affidavit of an FBI agent who did the wiretaps and named certain allegations against the Governor for that he has not even been indicted.

The point it this: the impeachment is like a preliminary hearing in a criminal case.  The House looked at the totality of the evidence and determined there was enough to move forward for a trial.  The Governor has maintained his innocence all along.  He has not resigned.  Instead, he has continued to act as Governor, including appointing Roland Burris to the Senate. 

The House's vote to impeach is not the end-all-be-all.  Governor Blagojevich is still entitled to a trial before the Senate and until then, he remains acting Governor.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

SENATE MUST SEAT BURRIS - IT'S THE LAW!

Should the Senate seat Roland Burris? Yes - it's the law. Despite the fact that Burris' appointment came from IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich (who has been arrested and who will allegedly be facing numerous indictments for pay-to-play schemes and for an attempt to sell President-elect Barack Obama's now-vacant Senate seat), the law requires the Senate must seat him.

Photo Courtesy of Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Lawyers are trained to look at the elements of a law, to look at procedure.  Like it or not, there are 3 requirements that must be met in order for Roland Burris to be seated by the Senate.  And like it or not, he meets all of those requirements.  Therefore, this dog-and-pony show must come to an end and the Senate shall seat him!

Requirements:
1) Appointment by Governor or Special-Election
2) Certification by Secretary of State
3) Seating by Senate

1) The Governor Has the Sole Power to Make the Appointment - Special-Election Exception

Gov. Rod Blagojevich was (and still is) the acting Governor of the state of Illinois. Thus, he has the sole power to make the Senate appointment. Period. He has the power until it is taken from him. Whether or not you think he should have made the appointment for ethical reasons is simply a dinner-table discussion, not a legal debate.

Special-Election: Gov. Blagojevich stated he would sign special-election legislation for the Senate seat if the IL legistlature presented it to him. But they did not! Blago waited THREE WEEKS after his arrest before making the appointment. In fact, there was just ONE WEEK on the day of the appointment before the Senate convened.

A certain state legislator said on local news on Monday, 1/7/09, that the reason why the legislature did not put the present the special-election bill to Blago is because of their "past history" with him...basically, since they figured he would not do what he said he'd do, they did not present the bill. What kind of terrible excuse is that? So basically the legislature took away the power of the people to vote for a Senator because they assumed Blago was bluffing. That's disappointing and a poor excuse for not doing their job.

Impeachment of the Governor

Again, Blago is still the acting Governor of Illinois. Should he have been impeached before? Well, it's an interesting issue because the IL House seems to think so; and, they've thought so for quite some time. Just like the special election, they failed to initiate the proceedings. You see, the idea of impeaching the Governor is not a new issue. In fact, in June 2008, nearly 6 months before Blago's arrest, IL Speaker of the House Michael Madigan issued a 14-PAGE memo entitled, "Talking Points on Beginning Impeachment Proceedings Against Governor Blagojevich." Madigan says the memo isn't calling for Blago's immediate impeachment--it's asking the House to determine if there's grounds for impeachment. The memo says there are "three bases" the House needs to investigate:

• Blago's ongoing ties to criminals. "Criminal activity in the Blagoievich administration is no longer theoretical - it is proven." That part is underlined in the memo.
• Blago's "violation of his oath of office," trying to operate "outside of the Illinois Constitution and state law."
• Blago's not doing anything. "Aside from an occasional meeting or event appearance, he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office."

So my question is this: why did the House not inititate impeachment proceedings in the past? Why did they wait for the Governor's arrest? Clearly, there are many allegations that are totally unrelated to the alleged attempt to sell the Senate seat that could have been used in impeachment proceedings. Those who think Blago should be impeached should also be disappointed that the proceedings did not commence months, if not years, ago.

2. Certification by IL Secretary of State Jesse White

An appointed Senator must present to the Senate a certificate of appointment that is signed by both the Secretary of State and the Governor. Yesterday, the Senate refused to allow Burris onto the Senate floor because Jesse White refused to sign the certificate. Jesse White initially stated he would not sign any certificate of appointment because it's "tainted" by the Governor's alleged misconduct. Now, he says that his signature is not required but instead that "My signature is mostly ceremonial, rather than a point of law." Article here. Then why doesn't he just sign the certificate? If it's a "point of law" and the law requires an appointed Senator have a certifcate signed by the Secretary of State, then Mr. White shall follow the law and sign the certificate. This is not about Mr. White's "feelings" about whether Burris is the right guy for the job. Follow the law, Mr. White, and sign the certificate instead of blaming the Senate for allegedly making YOU the "fall guy" when you make a unilateral decision to NOT sign any appointment by Blago. This is not a popularity contest and this is not about ethics.

3. Senate Must Seat the Appointee - Burris' Testimony at Impeachment IRRELEVANT

The Senate has a legal duty to seat Blago's appointee, Roland Burris. The Senate can determine if he's qualified but the Supreme Court says qualifications are limited to "age, residency and citizenship." Period.  If he meets those qualifications, the Senate must seat the Governor's appointee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is going to look at Burris' testimony that he will give during Blago's impeachment proceeding on Thursday.  "He's going to go answer any other questions they might have. He's not trying to avoid any responsibility and trying to hide anything," said Reid (D-Nev.) "Once that's done, we'll be in a different position and see what we are going to do."

Senator Reid should not be using Burris' testimony to determine whether he should be seated.  It is totally irrelevant!  Again, the law does not allow the Senate to inquire into collateral issues and make its own, separate determination as to whether to seat Burris.  The Senate must seat him and should not have refused his entrance, but for the signed certificate by Jesse White.

In conclusion, I am not defending the Governor nor am I necessarily saying I think Roland Burris should have been apppointed.  I'm saying that because Blago was not impeached, because the legislature did not hold a special-election, and because Blago was governor at the time of appointment, the Senate shall seat him.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com