The proud tradition of Illinois

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:59 pm

hepcat wrote:
And yeah, I have no proof that the son is like the father. But I have my doubts...although they're based solely on my intense dislike of daddy jackson and therefore completely unfair and biased.

Yeah, Yusef and Jonathan worked really really hard to be handed an Anheuser-Bush distributorship in Chicago's monopoly market. I think they helped brainstorm boycott slogans.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:10 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
hepcat wrote:
And yeah, I have no proof that the son is like the father. But I have my doubts...although they're based solely on my intense dislike of daddy jackson and therefore completely unfair and biased.
Yeah, Yusef and Jonathan worked really really hard to be handed an Anheuser-Bush distributorship in Chicago's monopoly market. I think they helped brainstorm boycott slogans.

rage mode once again enabled. target acquired.

Trappin · Post by **Trappin** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:07 pm

WATI up-sells the real estate deal.

Real estate specialist, Kenneth J. Conner, said bank officials replaced an appraisal review he prepared on the Rezko-Obama property and FBI agents were investigating in late 2007 whether the deal was proper.

“Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,” Mr. Conner told The Washington Times Monday.

“Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion,” he said. “This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.”

WAPO downplays the real estate deal

A few years later, Obama entered politics. Records list three checks arriving on his first day of fundraising for the Illinois Senate. Two of them, totaling $2,000, came from companies associated with Rezko. Over time, the businessman and Obama began meeting regularly for lunch and dinner, occasionally with their wives.

After he joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama took Rezko on a tour of a six-bedroom house in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. Rezko recommended that Obama buy the home and, on the day Obama closed the deal, Rezko's wife closed on an adjoining lot. The Rezkos resold a portion of their lot to Obama to expand his yard.

Corruption in politics is not limited to Chicago and Obama - both sides of the isle are neck deep in bribery, kickbacks and "employment" patronages. Rep. Cunningham {R} was sent up for contractor bribes, Barbara Boxer used her clout to seize a wildlife preserve for an Indian casino in Marin County, Ca. and both parties have enriched themselves via war profiteering.

Obama is far from squeaky clean but its the nature of the beast (folktale of the scorpion and turtle comes to mind.)

EDIT: Court complaint notes Mutual Bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations, and state banking regulations.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:16 pm

Trappin wrote: Corruption in politics is not limited to Chicago and Obama - both sides of the isle are neck deep in bribery, kickbacks and "employment" patronages.

Agreed. But Chicago has a reputation for taking it to another level.

And sometimes I think we'd be better off if it truly was an isle. In the South Pacific. With no communications or food.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:00 pm

I just saw a picture of your governor. Is he Sean Astin

Rudi
Rudi
Rudi

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:10 pm

Legojevich

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:13 pm

This is a funny and twisted way to mess with everyone.

A defiant Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday named a black political trailblazer to Barack Obama's Senate seat, a surprise move that put the governor's opponents in the uncomfortable position of trying to block his choice from becoming the Senate's only black member. Blagojevich's appointment of former state Attorney General Roland Burris injected race into the drama surrounding the embattled governor, who repeatedly sought to distance his selection from charges that he tried to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

"Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man," the governor said, turning to the smiling 71-year-old standing by his side.

Of course the Illinois Secretary of State is saying he won't certify the selection so its just another example of the system trying to keep the black man down. Oh, wait...

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:44 pm

Moliere wrote: Of course the Illinois Secretary of State is saying he won't certify the selection so its just another example of the system trying to keep the black man down. Oh, wait...

The only problem is that the Sec of State can't really do that legally. Nor can congress refuse to seat him. It is just a lot of hot air.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:10 pm

Wait a sec, if the people of Illinois wanted Burris as a senator, it seems to me we would have voted for him and not someone else when he actually ran for the seat. I believe he also lost a bid for governor. Why would we want someone with such a losing tradition to occupy that seat? Who do I have to pay to get them to nominate me? Oh right...

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:31 pm

farley2k wrote:Nor can congress refuse to seat him.

Some people who think about these things for a living seem to think they can. Here, here, and here.

I imagine it would end up in court. As a complete layman, it seems right to me that the Senate could deny any election or appointment that they deem to be corrupt... though I would say, that since the appointment probably wasn't corrupt (since Blago was caught before he could sell it and probably did this to look better) maybe they can't without the 2/3rds.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:56 pm

I'm getting really annoyed at how much the race card is being played on this right now too.

If Burris was selectedfor a reason other than the color of his skin (I'd like to think he was), you wouldn't know it by listening to anything in the news.

The thought of a man being put into the senate under some quasi form of affirmative action (or being "allowed in" despite the corrupt hand that placed him there, due to some quasi form of affirmative action) all via the election of our first black president... It's just annoying me.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:20 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
farley2k wrote:Nor can congress refuse to seat him.
Some people who think about these things for a living seem to think they can. Here, here, and here.

I imagine it would end up in court. As a complete layman, it seems right to me that the Senate could deny any election or appointment that they deem to be corrupt... though I would say, that since the appointment probably wasn't corrupt (since Blago was caught before he could sell it and probably did this to look better) maybe they can't without the 2/3rds.

It's an open question but what we do know is that the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the House could not refuse someone who was duly elected even though he was under investigation for corruption (Powell of NY). In that ruling the SC apparently stated "The House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership." And those requirements were just the citizenship and age requirements set forth in the Constitution. CNN has an article on it.

I should probably dig around Volokh for their take on this but, frankly, I'm too lazy.

edit: I'm worse than lazy. I'm a liar. Here's a post at Volokh that points to a couple of additional blogs that counter your Slate article. T

To me (a complete and utter layman with no legal training other than 1000 episodes of various Law & Order series), the most challenging part of the Slate piece is when does the "taint" of the investigation wear off and allow Blogo to appoint a Senator? So let's say that it goes a year without a finding, can he make an appointment Christmas week 2009? What if he is acquitted? Is he then able to appoint someone or is the suspicion enough? And if suspicion is not enough, why should he not be able to appoint someone now? What do the people of Illinois do until that spot is filled?

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:37 pm

I also don't see any real reason for the Senate to refuse to seat him. Aside from the moral grandstanding that is. He is a D. He would probably vote with the majority, and if he is a twit he will only be in for 2 years. Why make a battle? Now if Blago had picked say Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reily then it might be worth being upset about but really what more could the Senate Ds want than a D who seems qualified?

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:39 pm

Jeff V wrote:Wait a sec, if the people of Illinois wanted Burris as a senator, it seems to me we would have voted for him and not someone else when he actually ran for the seat. I believe he also lost a bid for governor. Why would we want someone with such a losing tradition to occupy that seat? Who do I have to pay to get them to nominate me? Oh right...

I didn't realize this guy made a career out of losing Illinois elections. Seems like Blogo is getting even. "Oh, you didn't want him before? Tough shit, here's your new Senator."

There's just so much good drama here.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:39 pm

The Preacher wrote:To me (a complete and utter layman with no legal training other than 1000 episodes of various Law & Order series), the most challenging part of the Slate piece is when does the "taint" of the investigation wear off and allow Blogo to appoint a Senator? So let's say that it goes a year without a finding, can he make an appointment Christmas week 2009? What if he is acquitted? Is he then able to appoint someone or is the suspicion enough? And if suspicion is not enough, why should he not be able to appoint someone now? What do the people of Illinois do until that spot is filled?

The problem I have with the converse... that the Senate can only judge whether a Senator is actually of age, a US citizen, etc... is that it implies that if someone publicly bribed Blago for the seat, the Senate would have to no choice but to seat them. The Stevens debacle taught us that felons aren't barred from serving in the Senate, so even getting sent to jail for the bribery wouldn't be an obstacle. Couldn't the Senate just expel the briber after? I don't know... but I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate would need for the badness to happen while the offender was in the Senate for them to have authority... I'm pretty sure that's the case with the House at least. AFAIK there is no option for impeaching or recalling a Senator either... so that means a corrupt appointment is basically untouchable for up to 6 years, with no recourse.

That may indeed be what the Constitution says, but I certainly hope not.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:54 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
The Preacher wrote:To me (a complete and utter layman with no legal training other than 1000 episodes of various Law & Order series), the most challenging part of the Slate piece is when does the "taint" of the investigation wear off and allow Blogo to appoint a Senator? So let's say that it goes a year without a finding, can he make an appointment Christmas week 2009? What if he is acquitted? Is he then able to appoint someone or is the suspicion enough? And if suspicion is not enough, why should he not be able to appoint someone now? What do the people of Illinois do until that spot is filled?
The problem I have with the converse... that the Senate can only judge whether a Senator is actually of age, a US citizen, etc... is that it implies that if someone publicly bribed Blago for the seat, the Senate would have to no choice but to seat them. The Stevens debacle taught us that felons aren't barred from serving in the Senate, so even getting sent to jail for the bribery wouldn't be an obstacle. Couldn't the Senate just expel the briber after? I don't know... but I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate would need for the badness to happen while the offender was in the Senate for them to have authority... I'm pretty sure that's the case with the House at least. AFAIK there is no option for impeaching or recalling a Senator either... so that means a corrupt appointment is basically untouchable for up to 6 years, with no recourse.

That may indeed be what the Constitution says, but I certainly hope not.

While I agree with your concern, I don't think it's particularly relevant here. I don't think anyone believes that Burris is here due to a bribe. If he's here on good merits, on what grounds can anyone reasonably object? Because Blogo wanted to get a bribe but was unable to?

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:22 pm

The Preacher wrote:While I agree with your concern, I don't think it's particularly relevant here. I don't think anyone believes that Burris is here due to a bribe. If he's here on good merits, on what grounds can anyone reasonably object? Because Blogo wanted to get a bribe but was unable to?

No, in this particular case I don't think the Senate should be able to kick out Burris... since there appears to be no taint. I am however troubled by some arguments that seem to suggest that the Senate couldn't kick him out even if there was (not evidenced here, but in the comments thread to the Volokh post you linked).

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:37 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
The Preacher wrote:While I agree with your concern, I don't think it's particularly relevant here. I don't think anyone believes that Burris is here due to a bribe. If he's here on good merits, on what grounds can anyone reasonably object? Because Blogo wanted to get a bribe but was unable to?
No, in this particular case I don't think the Senate should be able to kick out Burris... since there appears to be no taint. I am however troubled by some arguments that seem to suggest that the Senate couldn't kick him out even if there was (not evidenced here, but in the comments thread to the Volokh post you linked).

Ah. Completely fair and I'm in complete agreement with you then.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:43 pm

Burris was met at the Capitol entrance by Terry Gainer, the Senate sergeant at arms, who escorted him through the regular visitors' entrance and up to the third floor of the Capitol to Erickson's office -- in a regular elevator bank, not the one reserved for senators only.

"Ahem, no sir that elevator is not for you. And please don't steal the silverware on your way through."

Senate Rejects Burris in Spectacle at Capitol

hentzau · Post by **hentzau** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:52 pm

Illinois Politician or Sopranos Character?

Score: 92% (11 out of 12)

http://mentalfloss.com/quiz/quiz.php?q=517

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:48 pm

WTF.

At a dinner party, he stood up and started screaming the names of his boss’s enemies, stabbing the table with his steak knife and shouting “Dead” after each name.
Your answer:
Sopranos Character
Correct answer:
Illinois Politician (This is Rahm Emmanuel, who was working for Bill Clinton at the time.)

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:51 pm

9 of 12. Of course, I've never watched The Sopranos.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:05 pm

10 of 12. Never watched the Sopranos either.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:25 pm

Blago is now officially impeached.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:50 pm

And the Illinois Supreme Court has validated Burris's appointment without White's signature. And the current news is that he still won't be seated.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:53 pm

Rep. Elga Jefferies, another Chicago Democrat, voted "present."

Hopefully Rod doesn't hear about that, he'll think it's his birthday.

And the one guy who voted "no."

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:57 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:And the Illinois Supreme Court has validated Burris's appointment without White's signature. And the current news is that he still won't be seated.

Steve Rhodes wrote:As I've already noted, some commentators - including Eric Zorn - have advised seating Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate in order to make this mess go away, based in part on the belief that "he'll be a reliable Democratic vote" and will have no chance at winning re-election in 2010 anyway.

I beg to differ.

First, the idea that Burris is acceptable because he'll be a reliable Democratic vote is setting the bar awfully low. Why not just elect a robot?

Illinois has already gone without a second senator ever since Barack Obama was elected to that august body in 2004 and - according to his own advisers - crafted his agenda entirely around his future presidential campaign...

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:11 pm

If anything, Blagojevich is governor of the photo opportunity. Most of what he's done has involved political grandstanding for a good sound bite or photo op.

Something tells me that citing the "Golden Rule" isn't the best strategy to defend against allegations of using the ability to make the rules a way to get the gold. He's pushed and prodded, and the Illinois Legislature has become fed up with the Illinois Governor's antics.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:04 am

His press conference was fantastic. He's impeached for all sorts of nasty stuff (selling a Senate seat, trying to bribe the Tribune Co. into firing members of the editorial board, other crap), plus there's a mention that he illegally used state funds to buy avian bird flu vaccine from Canada (or something crazy like that). His big press conference to respond to this basically boils down to, "I'm a good governor who supports health care for all." I watched it on CNN this afternoon, and the commentators afterward were flabbergasted.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:47 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:His press conference was fantastic. He's impeached for all sorts of nasty stuff (selling a Senate seat, trying to bribe the Tribune Co. into firing members of the editorial board, other crap), plus there's a mention that he illegally used state funds to buy avian bird flu vaccine from Canada (or something crazy like that). His big press conference to respond to this basically boils down to, "I'm a good governor who supports health care for all." I watched it on CNN this afternoon, and the commentators afterward were flabbergasted.

Its frightening how often this kind of misdirection works on people. As if listing all the "good" things he's done is in any way relevant to the impeachment proceedings. I almost feel sorry for all those people he had standing up there with him. We already know he has no shame, but why would they want to be associated with him?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:57 pm

Moliere wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:His press conference was fantastic. He's impeached for all sorts of nasty stuff (selling a Senate seat, trying to bribe the Tribune Co. into firing members of the editorial board, other crap), plus there's a mention that he illegally used state funds to buy avian bird flu vaccine from Canada (or something crazy like that). His big press conference to respond to this basically boils down to, "I'm a good governor who supports health care for all." I watched it on CNN this afternoon, and the commentators afterward were flabbergasted.
Its frightening how often this kind of misdirection works on people. As if listing all the "good" things he's done is in any way relevant to the impeachment proceedings. I almost feel sorry for all those people he had standing up there with him. We already know he has no shame, but why would they want to be associated with him?

I'm not sure what effect it might have on him nationally, but he was so reviled in Illinois even prior to the criminal complaint (the Chicago Tribune had a poll showing a 13% approval rating - maybe that's why he wanted change there?) that this amounts to shouting into a hurricane wind. Barring a revelation that Fitzgerald fabricated all of the wiretap recordings, vindicating his "they're all out to get me" paranoia, there's nothing Blago can do at this point to save his political career in Illinois.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:58 am

ImLawBoy wrote:
Moliere wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:His press conference was fantastic. He's impeached for all sorts of nasty stuff (selling a Senate seat, trying to bribe the Tribune Co. into firing members of the editorial board, other crap), plus there's a mention that he illegally used state funds to buy avian bird flu vaccine from Canada (or something crazy like that). His big press conference to respond to this basically boils down to, "I'm a good governor who supports health care for all." I watched it on CNN this afternoon, and the commentators afterward were flabbergasted.
Its frightening how often this kind of misdirection works on people. As if listing all the "good" things he's done is in any way relevant to the impeachment proceedings. I almost feel sorry for all those people he had standing up there with him. We already know he has no shame, but why would they want to be associated with him?
I'm not sure what effect it might have on him nationally, but he was so reviled in Illinois even prior to the criminal complaint (the Chicago Tribune had a poll showing a 13% approval rating - maybe that's why he wanted change there?) that this amounts to shouting into a hurricane wind. Barring a revelation that Fitzgerald fabricated all of the wiretap recordings, vindicating his "they're all out to get me" paranoia, there's nothing Blago can do at this point to save his political career in Illinois.

He's clearly setting himself up for a diagnosis of a psychological disorder. The paranoia and total delusion he's demonstrating is astounding. Once it's determined that he has completely flipped his lid, he can disappear quietly and try for some anonymity.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:24 pm

Hypothetical question time. Blago is pulled over on Lakeshore Drive at 2am on a Friday morning with a dead prostitute in his trunk.

Does he:

a) Call a news conference to announce that he truly believes his stellar work during his 8th grade candy sale clearly demonstrate that he's a good leader.

b) Gesture wildly towards his hair until the arresting officer looks up, then yells "MEEP MEEP" and bolts from his car.

c) Scream that he's being framed by former Governor Ryan, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Pope John Paul II, "that guy from Threes Company who played the original landlord...not the one played by Don Knotts", imaginary space vampires and a malfunctioning Teddy Ruxpin.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:51 pm

a)

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:59 pm

d) Say it was all the passenger's fault, shrug, and point to a disoriented Jeff V riding shotgun.

Although judging by recent actions, I'd say his first instinct would be to put on a track suit.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:29 pm

Burris gets a walk

A breakthrough was reached for Burris when Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who had pledged not to sign the document by which Blagojevich officially appointed Burris, signed a separate sheet, acknowledging Burris. While unconventional, Blagojevich's appointment and White's separate certification of that appointment satisfied the Senate parliamentarian when Burris' attorney and Blagojevich's chief of staff presented the credentials today.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:51 am

I wonder if I can get some kind of a tax break for being under-represented for another 2 years. Do I need to dump some tea in Lake Michigan or something?

hentzau · Post by **hentzau** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:57 pm

"We have to seize this moment and enact meaningful ethics reform. After all we've been through, we cannot expect the people just instinctively to trust their government. We can't just pay lip service to the need for ethics reform and expect them to go along."

- Rod Blagojevich, June 2003

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:38 pm

Impeached Ill. gov. gets cold reception in Senate

On Wednesday, the Illinois House conducted another impeachment vote, reaffirming a decision reached last week. The only dissent came from the governor's sister-in-law, newly sworn in as a state representative.

It was a bizarre day, even for Illinois politics.

The two-term Democratic governor presided over the first meeting of a Senate whose most urgent task is putting him on trial. The senators reacted with stony silence to most of what Blagojevich said and did.

Before he left, the governor alluded to his troubles and the upcoming Senate trial.

"These are challenging times, hard economic times facing the people of Illinois," he said. "I hope we can find a way, as we deal with other issues, to find the truth and sort things out, to put the business of the people first."

He also called on state senators to act "with malice toward none, with charity for all," referring to Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, delivered near the end of the Civil War, when he implored his countrymen to "bind up the nation's wounds" and work toward peace.

Blagojevich then ducked out a back door to the Senate chamber. The Senate did not provide a group of escorts that would walk a governor out the front door to allow plenty of time for handshakes and backslaps.

It's surreal.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:25 pm

Lawbeefaroni for Governor!