<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/more_bugs_than_we_knew_and_impeachment_rules_released/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:53:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201119</link><description>&lt;p&gt;{Senators can overrule his procedural decisions with a majority vote, which is 30 votes in the 59-member Senate.}&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No sense letting the facts get in the way of a good story.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;How does this differ from the first comment in this thread?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">B</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:53:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201118</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Sorry - &lt;br&gt;By chance is Rep Hoffman of tape - he has gone undercover and has turned against his â€˜good buddyâ€™- 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 Bâ€™s inventive schemes.  If he was caught on tape this would explain his sudden back peddling.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">this voter will remember</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:53:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201117</link><description>&lt;p&gt;By chance is Rep Hoffman of tape - he has gone undercover and has turned against his â€˜good buddyâ€™- Gov B.  In the past Rep Hoffman was in on the Ali Alta pay-to-play party and has been a big defender of&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">this voter will remember</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:52:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201116</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Bill,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your &lt;b&gt;UH_OH! regarding the surveillance camera is almost as classic as your &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Whoops!&lt;/b&gt; when Rod was arrested.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Six Degrees of Separation</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:13:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201115</link><description>&lt;p&gt;{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.}&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be at odds with Rule 8. Rules of Evidence Governing the Trial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(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&lt;br&gt;the Senate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Specifically 8. (c) says:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(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.}&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(d) The vote of the Senate under this Rule shall be by record vote and taken in accordance with the Senate Rules.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(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?"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Blago Sphere</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:05:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201114</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Bill, there are a whole bunch of folks here who can vouch for your insanity defense should the worst imaginable come to pass.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Arthur Andersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:46:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201113</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Is it more than we knew?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My guess would be harris, monk, and wyma.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I thought we knew those already, plus the campaign office ones.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">p</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:46:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201112</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Suffredin and Claypool may be criticized, but they are WAY more productive than Eisendrath.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Amy</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:39:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201111</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Eisendrath and Claypool and Suffredin: a bunch of feckless ciphers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chiatty</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:27:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201110</link><description>&lt;p&gt;And we may find out why our governor is so "jumpy."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">PPHS</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:38:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201109</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Amy</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:24:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201108</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Railfan</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:12:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201107</link><description>&lt;p&gt;==The camera, which likely was remote-controlled, was trained on the Friends of Blagojevich offices, 4147 N. Ravenswood,==&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;UH_OH!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Bill</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:03:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201106</link><description>&lt;p&gt;What, no Herc and Carver on the rooftops?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Scooby</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:57:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201105</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Note to FBI agents: The guy grinning like a oppossum eating **** and making wild, over the top optimistic remarks is our man Bill.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please don't arrest him.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Leave a light on George</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:54:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201104</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The camera outside the campaign office is appropriate in keeping with our Wiseguy governor's way (shakedowns, kickbacks, jogging suits, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's like the photos the feds take outside the Mob guy's "social clubs."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">wordslinger</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:50:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More bugs than we knew, and impeachment rules released</title><link>http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/14/more-bugs-than-we-knew-and-impeachment-rules-released/#comment-18201103</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Bambenek</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:43:41 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>