DISQUS

John Bambenek · 11 months ago

Does governor have subpoena power? Theoretically the trial is an opportunity for a right of rebuttal... one would think that means his ability to compel testimony also is significant.

wordslinger · 11 months ago

The camera outside the campaign office is appropriate in keeping with our Wiseguy governor's way (shakedowns, kickbacks, jogging suits, etc.).

It's like the photos the feds take outside the Mob guy's "social clubs."

Leave a light on George · 11 months ago

Note to FBI agents: The guy grinning like a oppossum eating **** and making wild, over the top optimistic remarks is our man Bill.

Please don't arrest him.

Scooby · 11 months ago

What, no Herc and Carver on the rooftops?

Bill · 11 months ago

==The camera, which likely was remote-controlled, was trained on the Friends of Blagojevich offices, 4147 N. Ravenswood,==

UH_OH!

Railfan · 11 months ago

Yep, Eisendrath ran when it mattered, and I was happy to vote for him in the '06 primary. If he had ran a more-than-half-assed campaign, and the Democratic party establishment hadn't lined up behind Blagojevich, and if voters hadn't been asleep at the pen/punch/screen, he might have gotten somewhere.

Amy · 11 months ago

Eisendrath....how's that Ald. Singer based campaign for alderman in '87 looking for ya? Singer, oh so ethical with his buddy fast Eddie. Edwin is one to talk about connected people and raising lots of money. he just didn't do it for the gov run. but look at him as alderman and you will find a very wealthy, connected guy who moved into the ward to run, raised a boat load of money, and became alderman. Blago is a stain but Edwin is no reformer.

PPHS · 11 months ago

And we may find out why our governor is so "jumpy."

chiatty · 11 months ago

Eisendrath and Claypool and Suffredin: a bunch of feckless ciphers.

Amy · 11 months ago

Suffredin and Claypool may be criticized, but they are WAY more productive than Eisendrath.

p · 11 months ago

Is it more than we knew?

My guess would be harris, monk, and wyma.

I thought we knew those already, plus the campaign office ones.

Or am I missing something?

Arthur Andersen · 11 months ago

Bill, there are a whole bunch of folks here who can vouch for your insanity defense should the worst imaginable come to pass.

Blago Sphere · 11 months ago

{Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, a Chicago Democrat, presides over the trial. Senators can overrule his procedural decisions with a majority vote, which is 30 votes in the 59-member Senate.}

This seems to be at odds with Rule 8. Rules of Evidence Governing the Trial.

(a)Evidence may be admitted if it is relevant, material, and not redundant. Formal rules of evidence used in Illinois and federal courts do not apply to trials of impeachment before
the Senate.

(b)The House Prosecutor or the Governor or his counsel may object to the admission or exclusion of evidence. Any objection must be addressed to the Chief Justice. No objection, however, may be made against all or any part of the House impeachment record filed by the House Prosecutor with the Secretary.

Specifically 8. (c) says:


(c)The Chief Justice may rule on an objection and his ruling shall stand, unless a Senator asks that the Senate override the ruling of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, at his option, may submit the objection to the Senate, which shall rule on the objection in the first instance by a record vote.}

An objection to the admisssion; or the permisssability of admission of evidence into the record appears to be the sole perogative of the Chief Judge, unless he elects to invite the Senate to weigh in on his decision.

(d) The vote of the Senate under this Rule shall be by record vote and taken in accordance with the Senate Rules.

(e)If a Senator has asked that the Senate override the ruling of the Chief Justice, then the Chief Justice shall submit the question to the Senate without debate and state the question as follows: "Shall the ruling of the Chief Justice be sustained?"

The ruling of the Chief Justice shall be sustained if a majority of those elected to the Senate vote to sustain the ruling of the Chief Justice by record vote.

(f) If the Chief Justice submits the objection to the Senate for a ruling in the first instance, then the Chief Justice shall submit the question to the Senate without debate and state the question as follows: "Shall the objection be sustained?" The objection shall be sustained if a majority of those elected to the Senate sustain the objection by a record vote.

Six Degrees of Separation · 11 months ago

Bill,

Your UH_OH! regarding the surveillance camera is almost as classic as your Whoops! when Rod was arrested.

this voter will remember · 11 months ago

By chance is Rep Hoffman of tape - he has gone undercover and has turned against his ‘good buddy’- Gov B. In the past Rep Hoffman was in on the Ali Alta pay-to-play party and has been a big defender of

this voter will remember · 11 months ago

Sorry -
By chance is Rep Hoffman of tape - he has gone undercover and has turned against his ‘good buddy’- Gov B. In the past Rep Hoffman was in on the Ali Alta pay-to-play party and has been a big defender of Governor B’s inventive schemes. If he was caught on tape this would explain his sudden back peddling.

B · 11 months ago

{Senators can overrule his procedural decisions with a majority vote, which is 30 votes in the 59-member Senate.}

No sense letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Is posting and inquiring about Rule 8 (c); and how it applies and is interpreted, an excessively rabid comment, a gratuitous insult, or a "rumors" that has been deleted or is being held for moderation? Or is this rule of evidence considered unacceptable profanity?

How does this differ from the first comment in this thread?