A case untested in state history

Even in a state steeped in corruption, this is new.

The Illinois Attorney General is asking the state Supreme Court to remove Governor Rod Blogojevich from office so the state’s business can get done.

(Attorney General Lisa) Madigan said she is asking the court to intervene because it would be quicker than impeachment. She said papers related to the motion were being delivered to the governor immediately.

In the motion, Madigan argues that, given the nature and severity of the federal corruption allegations against Blagojevich, the Supreme Court should stop the governor from performing his duties.

She wants the Court to hand over duties of the governor’s office to Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, and if they don’t…

Blagojevich should be blocked from appointing a senator to fill the Obama seat.

That’s about the clearest step the Court needs to take at the moment, by nearly everyone’s count.

She also sought to prevent Blagojevich from acting on legislation sent to him by the Illinois House or Senate, directing state agencies in the negotiation and execution of contracts or directing activities of the Illinois tollway.

Some of this involves the state’s ability to cover Medicaid payments as well, tying up financing that in turn impacts patients needing service and/or doctors needing compensation, if the state does not receive loan money from skittish financial institutions waiting for the current criminally charged governor to leave.

Madigan also said she wanted the court to prevent Blagojevich from directing the activities of the Illinois Finance Authority, an agency caught up in a funding controversy with Tribune Co. Blagojevich allegedly threatened to withhold state financing to Tribune Co. for assistance with Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs, unless the Chicago Tribune newspaper fired critical editorial board writers. The writers are still on duty.

Trouble is, so is the Governor.

And people are looking into whether Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is in any way tied into this dealmaking scandal.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps…Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said.

What would that mean if Emanuel were caught on tape discussing these acceptable candidates?

Any recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama’s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel’s resignation. Mr Obama has promised to release details of any contacts between his staff and the Governor’s office but told a news conference on Thursday that he was “absolutely certain” that none of his aides was involved in any deal-making.

Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama’s press conference, which he typically attends.

He chose to attend a concert at his children’s school, instead.

0 Comment

  • It is strange that the big push in the media today is for everyone involved in the Illinois scandal to declare the governor mentally incapacitated. The implication is that the governor made up the deals with Mr. Jackson and other potential candidates. If this idea is “bought”, everyone currently tainted by the scandal will be cleared.

    This is not an original idea. The people of Illinois have ripped a page from the playbook of another historically scandlized government – the State of Louisiana. In order to block some of Gov. Earl K. Long’s decisions, he was declared mentally incompitent and sent to a mental hospital. The difference, however, is that Gov. Long was felt to clearly have mental health issues long before that ordeal, unlike the current case.

  • I am concerned about two things:

    1) No presumption of innocence (the governor is likely guilty, but we do live in America!)
    2) Vigilante-ism (the legistlature can impeach and remove the governor, why does the AG want to trump the constitutional process?)

    It sounds to me as though ethical conduct is not considered to be a requirement of elected officials in the minds of the voters of Illinois. Another example of “you shall reap what you sow”. Could this be a fore-shadowing of the 2008 presidential election consequences?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *