Steve Brown’s points about the problems of a quick impeachment as conveyed to Rich:
* From today’s Daily Herald, we get this comment about impeachment…
“It can’t be a slapdash kind of thing. That’s not how (House Speaker) Mike Madigan operates,” said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown. “It would take some time. I don’t know how much more quickly we’d get a resolution than a federal case.” [Emphasis added]
Really? As slow as a federal case? That means years and years of waiting.
* I asked Brown about this comment today. His response was threefold…
1) The impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice James Heiple took six weeks, and there’s every reason to believe this would take longer.
2) There are worries that Senate President Emil Jones may not convene a trial even if the House does impeach.
3) The evidence contained in the federal complaint against Blagojevich might not be held up by Chief Justice Fitzgerald, who would preside over the trial.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Have they read the Illinois Constitution? It’s not that hard.
1) There is NO reason to believe this would take longer. In the case of Heiple a more deliberative process was used because there was no significant problem day to day. In this case, we have evidence of a Governor selling off state resources/benefits. The degree of deliberation is a function of the will of the Chamber. The only reason it would take six weeks is because Speaker Madigan made it take six weeks.
2) Jones has no choice at this point. Oh, he could try and not have it, but he’s not that stupid and everyone understands the problem at this point.
3) Chief Justice Fitzgerald is there to preside. He does not set the rules or anything else. He’s there to enforce Senate rules and processes.ave it, but he’s not that stupid and everyone understands the problem at this point. If I’m wrong, put him on the spot.
This is not a legal process–it is a political process and the Speaker’s office should understand that. Everyday they delay, people get angry at him and that backfires on Lisa.
I was on House staff during the Heiple investigation — not directly involved in the impeachment, but everyone knew what was going on. There are a lot of differences between the two, not the least of which is the urgency Larry describes.
The bigger issue with Heiple was that his alleged misconduct was only tangentially related to his job. Essentially, he got pulled over for drunk driving and said that he was a Supreme Court judge. An abuse of power, certainly; but not an abuse that related directly to his duties.
Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the Heiple hearing required a lengthier process in order to maintain public trust. The Heiple case was essentially driven by a few columnists, very unlike the very public airing of the Blagojevich allegations.
Last, the stomach for impeachment was simply not there in the Heiple case. It is there in the case of Blagojevich, both by the public and the members of the GA. And ultimately, that is the biggest difference.