Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is Voted Out of Office

Illinois governor thrown out of office
Associated Press, Published January 29, 2009 at 11:12 a.m.
Updated January 29, 2009 at 8:25 p.m.
LINK

Blagojevich: 'I have done nothing wrong'

CHICAGO — Gov. Rod Blagojevich was thrown out of office Thursday without a single lawmaker coming to his defense, brought down by a government-for-sale scandal that stretched from Chicago to Capitol Hill and turned the foul-mouthed politician into a national punchline.

Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. In a second, identical vote, lawmakers further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in the state again.

"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor," said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago.

President Obama says the removal of Blagojevich has ended a “painful episode for Illinois.”

Blagojevich's troubles are not over. Federal prosecutors are drawing up an indictment against him on corruption charges.

Outside his Chicago home Thursday night, Blagojevich vowed to "keep fighting to clear my name," and added: "Give me a chance to show you that I haven't let you down."

"I love the people of Illinois today more than I ever have before," he said. And in a joking reference to Chicago's history of crooked politics, he reached down to a boy in the crowd of well-wishers and said: "I love you, man. You know, this is Chicago. You can vote for me. You're old enough."

Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of Blagojevich's critics, was promptly sworn in as governor and said he would work to "restore the faith of the people of Illinois in the integrity of their government."

Blagojevich, 52, had boycotted the first three days of the impeachment trial, calling the proceedings a kangaroo court. But on Thursday, he went before the Senate to beg for his job, delivering a 47-minute plea that was, by turns, defiant, humble and sentimental.

He argued, again, that he did nothing wrong, and warned that his impeachment would set a "dangerous and chilling precedent."

"You haven't proved a crime, and you can't because it didn't happen," Blagojevich (pronounced blah-GOY-uh-vich) told the lawmakers. "How can you throw a governor out of office with insufficient and incomplete evidence?"

The verdict brought to an end what one lawmaker branded "the freak show" in Illinois. Over the past few weeks, Blagojevich found himself isolated, with almost the entire political establishment lined up against him. The crisis paralyzed state government and made Blagojevich and his helmet of lush, dark hair a punchline from coast to coast.

Many ordinary Illinoisans were glad to see him go.

"It's very embarrassing. I think it's a shame that with our city and Illinois, everybody thinks we're all corrupt," Gene Ciepierski, 54, said after watching the trial's conclusion on a TV at Chicago's beloved Billy Goat Tavern. "To think he would do something like that, it hurts more than anything."

In a solemn scene, more than 30 lawmakers rose one by one on the Senate floor to accuse Blagojevich of abusing his office and embarrassing the state. They denounced him as a hypocrite, saying he cynically tried to enrich himself and then posed as the brave protector of the poor and "wrapped himself in the constitution."

They sprinkled their remarks with historical references, including Pearl Harbor's "day of infamy" and "The whole world is watching" chant from the riots that broke out during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. They cited Abraham Lincoln, the Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus as they called for the governor's removal.

"We have this thing called impeachment and it's bleeping golden and we've used it the right way," Democratic Sen. James Meeks of Chicago said during the debate, mocking Blagojevich's expletive-laden words as captured by the FBI on a wiretap.

Blagojevich did not stick around to hear the vote. He took a state plane back to Chicago.

The verdict capped a head-spinning string of developments that began with his arrest by the FBI on Dec. 9. Federal prosecutors had been investigating Blagojevich's administration for years, and some of his closest cronies have already been convicted.

The most spectacular allegation was that Blagojevich had been caught on wiretaps scheming to sell an appointment to Obama's Senate seat for campaign cash or a plum job for himself or his wife.

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it," he was quoted as saying on a government wiretap.

Prosecutors also said he illegally pressured people to make campaign contributions and tried to get editorial writers fired from the Chicago Tribune for badmouthing him in print.

Obama himself, fresh from his historic election victory, was forced to look into the matter and issued a report concluding that no one in his inner circle had done anything wrong.

In the brash and often theatrical style that has infuriated fellow politicians for years, Blagojevich repeatedly refused to resign, reciting the poetry of Kipling and Tennyson and declaring at one point last month: "I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong."

Even as lawmakers were deciding whether to launch an impeachment, Blagojevich defied the political establishment and stunned everyone by appointing a former Illinois attorney general, Roland Burris, to the very Senate seat he had been accused of trying to sell. Top Democrats on Capitol Hill eventually backed down and seated Burris.

As his trial got under way, Blagojevich launched a media blitz, rushing from one TV studio to another in New York to proclaim his innocence. He likened himself to the hero of a Frank Capra movie and to a cowboy in the hands of a Wild West lynch mob.

The impeachment case included not only the criminal charges against Blagojevich, but allegations he broke the law when it came to hiring state workers, expanded a health care program without legislative approval and spent $2.6 million on flu vaccine that went to waste. The 118-member House twice voted to impeach him, both times with only one "no" vote.

Seven other U.S. governors have been removed by impeachment, the most recent being Arizona's Evan Mecham, who was driven from office in 1988 for trying to thwart an investigation into a death threat allegedly made by an aide. Illinois never before impeached a governor, despite its long and rich history of graft.

Blagojevich grew up in a working-class Chicago neighborhood, the son of a Serbian immigrant steelworker. He married the daughter of a powerful city alderman and was schooled in the bare-knuckle, backroom politics of the infamous Chicago Machine, winning election to the Illinois House in 1992 and Congress in 1996.

In 2002, he was elected governor on a promise to clean up state government after former GOP Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft. But he battled openly with lawmakers from his party, and scandal soon touched his administration.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a former top fundraiser for Blagojevich, was convicted of shaking down businesses seeking state contracts for campaign contributions. Witnesses testified that Blagojevich was aware of some of the strong-arm tactics. Rezko is said to be cooperating with prosecutors.

Quinn, the new governor, is a 60-year-old former state treasurer who has a reputation as a political gadfly and once led a successful effort to cut the size of the Illinois House.

"I want to say to the people of Illinois, the ordeal is over," Quinn said.

Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Has Been Removed From Office
Thursday 29 January 2009
by: Ray Long and Rick Pearson, The Chicago Tribune
LINK

Springfield - The Illinois Senate voted to remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office today, marking the first time in the state's long history of political corruption that a chief executive has been impeached and convicted.

The 59-0 vote followed several hours of public deliberation in which senator after senator stood up to blast Blagojevich, whose tenure lasted six years. And it came after a four-day impeachment trial on allegations that Blagojevich abused his power and sold his office for personal and political benefit.

The conviction on a sweeping article of impeachment means the governor is immediately removed from office. Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, Blagojevich's two-time running mate, becomes the state's 41st governor. He is scheduled to take the oath of office in the Illinois House, surrounded by his 91-year-old mother and two sons holding the Bible.

The Senate later unanimously voted to impose the "political death penalty" on Blagojevich, banning him from ever again holding office in Illinois.

The whirlwind of change capped a dramatic day in state politics that promises to have repercussions for years to come. Quinn and lawmakers must bail out a state in the red by as much as $5 billion, and the campaign for statewide offices including governor formally kicks off late this year when candidates file to run in the February 2010 primary.

Highlighting the day's serious nature, Blagojevich offered his own sprawling, passionate closing argument after ignoring a Senate impeachment trial all week to take his case to the nation on the talk-show circuit.

Alternately praising and upbraiding those who will decide his political fate, Blagojevich urged the senators not to remove him from office, saying he has "done absolutely nothing wrong" and "never, ever intended to violate the law."

"There hasn't been a single piece of information that proves any wrongdoing," Blagojevich said to senators who were mostly stoic. "How can you throw a governor out of office with insufficient and incomplete evidence?"

Blagojevich warned senators against setting a "dangerous precedent" that would overturn an electorate that twice elected him.

"Imagine what future governors will face if I'm thrown out of office for this," Blagojevich said.

Senators dismissed the governor's plea, saying Blagojevich violated the public trust and paralyzed state government.

"He reminded us today in real detail that he is an unusually good liar," said state Sen. Matt Murphy said. "We bent over backwards to make sure that this process was fair."

Others took issue with Blagojevich's criticism of the impeachment trial rules, saying the governor could have asked for a vote on witnesses he wanted to call or evidence he wanted to present.

"At its core, it is dishonest, and it must be rejected by the members of this Senate," Sen. Bill Haine (D-Alton) said. "We must find him unfit for this great office."

Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) said Blagojevich is "inept, he's corrupt, he's cost the state millions of dollars."

Dillard, who worked for two previous Republican governors, also referenced the now-infamous colorful language Blagojevich is alleged to have used on secret federal recordings. "Former Gov. Jim Edgar's strongest language was "Golly, or Jimminy Christmas.'"

House prosecutor David Ellis attacked Blagojevich's speech in his short rebuttal argument.

"When the camera's on, the governor is for the little guy, the little people. When the camera's off, what are his priorities?" Ellis asked, pointing behind him to a poster board with transcripts of intercepted phone conversations. "'Legal, personal, political,'" Ellis said, paraphrasing words attributed to Blagojevich by federal authorities. "Nothing in that statement about the people of Illinois."

Earlier, the governor blasted the rules that he claimed don't allow him to call witnesses or challenge evidence.

"I was hopeful I would have that opportunity. I was hopeful I would have the chance to call every single witness in the criminal complaint. It would have been nice to have them here and tell you, under oath, what they know," Blagojevich said. "Unfortunately, these rules have prevented me from being able to do that."

Blagojevich decried a "rush to judgment."

"I'm here to talk to you, to appeal to you, to your sense of fairness," Blagojevich told senators. "I'm asking you as I speak to you today to imagine yourself walking in my shoes."

Blagojevich also defended his decision to try to import lower cost prescription drugs from Canada as an attempt to help people.

"If you're impeaching me, then we need to impeach the governors of Wisconsin, of Kansas, of Vermont," because all of them also were interested in his Canadian drug plan.

While we're at it, Blagojevich said, they should "reach into the United States Senate and remove John McCain and Ted Kennedy" because they supported the idea at the time.

Blagojevich also said the Senate should demand that President Obama fire his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, because Emanuel "gave me the idea" when he was a congressman from Illinois' 5th District.

"If you're going to get rid of me, why do they get to stay in office?" Blagojevich said.

The governor also defended a decision to buy $2.6 million of flu vaccine in 2005 that was never used. He said if the Senate wanted to impeach him on that, it should have done so during his first term when the medicine was bought.

"This didn't just happen yesterday. This happened in the first term," Blagojevich said.

The governor also rambled at points, dropping names during unrelated tangents. He recalled being a rookie congressman and meeting Virginia Sen. John Warner, whom he noted was married to actress Elizabeth Taylor. Warner mistook Blagojevich for a staff member and asked him to fetch a coffee, the governor recalled.

Blagojevich seemed at times to be trying to patch up a bad personal relationship. He noted that he has struggled more with lawmakers in the House, while he has traditionally found more support in the Senate.

"I know we've had some ups and downs," Blagojevich said to senators. "But we've also had some chances to work together."

"The ends were moral," Blagojevich said, and the means were legal.

"I know my style sometimes - I know," Blagojevich said. "But I want you to know where I come from. I have been blessed to live the American Dream."

The governor's speech came after prosecutor Ellis urged Illinois senators to convict Blagojevich, saying the evidence shows the governor throughout his tenure abused his power to benefit himself.

"The people of this state deserve so much better," Ellis said in a quiet voice, concluding the first part of his closing argument. "Governor Blagojevich should be removed from office."

The House prosecutor spent 45 minutes outlining evidence he said is more than enough to convict the governor. He often quoted from federal criminal charges released Dec. 9, the day Blagojevich was arrested at his North Side home.

"Every decision this governor made was based on one of three criteria," Ellis said. "The governor's legal situation, his personal situation and his political situation."

Ellis started by highlighting federal allegations that Blagojevich conspired to sell the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama to benefit himself and his family.

"It's an effing valuable thing. You just don't give it away for nothing,'" Ellis said, quoting from federal court filings. "The governor wanted to make a trade."

Ellis then discussed federal allegations that Blagojevich tried to pressure Tribune Co. to fire Chicago Tribune editorial writers in exchange for state money to help with the sale of the Cubs.

Blagojevich had 15 conversations with former chief of staff John Harris in a month, repeatedly directing Harris to talk to high-ranking Tribune Company executives, Ellis said.

There would be no money from the state to help with the sale of the Chicago Cubs "unless those editorial board members are fired," Ellis said.

"The governor knew what he was doing was harmful," Ellis said.

Ellis then detailed three alleged schemes in which Blagojevich tried to raise campaign cash in return for official state action as he tried to stockpile $2.5 million in his campaign fund before a new ethics law took effect Jan. 1.

One involved an $8 million grant to Children's Memorial Hospital that authorities have said Blagojevich wanted to result in a $50,000 campaign contribution.

"He even contemplated breaking his commitment, holding back the money," Ellis said.

Another scheme involved a $1.8 billion tollway project that Blagojevich allegedly wanted to fetch a $500,000 campaign contribution.

"If they don't perform, eff 'em," Ellis quoted Blagojevich as saying.

The third scheme was a plan to trade his signature on horse racing impact fee bill for a campaign contribution from a horse track owner. During this portion, Ellis played a series of FBI recordings of Blagojevich and lobbyist Lon Monk, his former chief of staff.

The last tape Ellis played was between Monk and Blagojevich in which Ellis said Monk told the governor he could apply some pressure to secure a political donation from the racetrack owner before the governor signed a bill that would benefit him.

"Give John Johnston a call," Monk urged. "It's a two-minute conversation."

"I'd be happy to do it," the governor responded.

"I think it's better if you do it - just from a pressure point of view," Monk said.

"Yeah. Good." Blagojevich said.

"I'm telling you he's gonna be good for it," Monk said later in the conversation. "I got in his face."

"Good," the governor said, lamenting that it would be "a whole year" before he got all of the contribution.

Tribune reporter James Janega contributed to this report.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich Delivers Remarks at Impeachment Trial

CQ Transcripts Wire
Thursday, January 29, 2009; 3:12 PM
SPEAKER: GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, D-ILL.
LINK

BLAGOJEVICH: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, thank you very much. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today and present my closing argument, my chance to be able to talk to you, talk to the people of Illinois, and talk to anybody else who is listening. I had the last couple of days -- I've had a chance to be able to go out and talk to as many people as I possibly could about my desire to be able to appear here before the Senate, the Senate trial, and have a chance to be able to tell the whole story, have every single witness I could possibly bring be able to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, present as much evidence that's available to be able to have the whole story told, and have a chance to be able to show you, here in the Senate, show the people of Illinois, and show anybody else who's listening that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. That I followed every law, that I never, ever intended to violate any law, and that when the whole truth is heard, and the whole story is told, that's ultimately is what will be shown.

I was hopeful that I'd have a chance to be able to do that in a Senate hearing in this trial, a chance to be able to bring witnesses in, a whole list of witnesses. Every single witness in the criminal complaint. It would have been nice to have them here so they could tell the truth and tell you, under oath, what they know.

I wanted to be able to bring in witnesses from Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff, to Senator Dick Durbin, to Senator Harry Reid and Bob Menendez, to every single person connected with any conversation I may have had in relation to picking the United States senator. Unfortunately, these rules have prevented me from being able to do that.

And in spite of efforts to try to get you to give me that chance to do it, it didn't work. So I went to the people, talked to as many people as I possibly could. And I was over and over repeating to them, "Just give me a chance to be able to let the truth come out, so sooner, rather than later, I can show you I've done nothing wrong, so sooner, rather than later, I can clear my name, and we can put this behind us and get on with working to do things for people." Get on with the business of the people.

Now, when I did that, and met a lot of different people, and made that case to them, they were mostly sympathetic. They understood my position. They said, of course you're entitled to a fair trial. Every American citizen is. Of course you're entitled to bring witnesses in so you can disprove things that are being said about you and show that they're not true. Of course you're entitled to confront your accusers.

This is the United States of America. It's guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a fundamental civil liberty that every American enjoys. And imagine what it would be like to live in a country like this if you weren't allowed to be able to defend yourself.

And of course an impeachment trial is not a court of law. It's different. But whether it's a court of law, or an administrative hearing, whether it's schoolyard justice when one kid hits another, but the kid that hit him wasn't the one who did it and he's got other boys he'd like to have tell the teacher he didn't do it, whether it's that or it's an impeachment process where you are seeking to remove a governor who was twice elected by the people, I think fundamental fairness, fundamental justice, natural law and constitutional rights suggest I should be able to bring witnesses in to say I didn't do the things they said I did.

Now, when I made that case to people, they listened to me and were supportive. But they also said to me, "If you feel so strongly about it, Governor, then why don't you go to the Senate and tell them yourself? Why don't you go there and tell them instead of you just telling us?"

And so that's why I'm here. I'm here to talk to you and appeal to you, to your sense of fairness, your sense of responsibility, your commitment to the Constitution, your commitment to basic fairness. And I'm asking you, as I speak to you today, to imagine yourself walking in my shoes.

Think about you if someone said the things they said about me and you know you didn't do it, but there's been a rush to judgment and an evisceration of the presumption of innocence. Imagine how you would approach this and what you would do.

Think about if you knew you were right and you were innocent, and you didn't do anything wrong, whether you should be rushed out of office, disgrace your family, disgrace your children, and imply that you might have actually done the things they said you did. Think about your responsibilities when the people choose you and you know you've kept your faith with them, but everybody else is saying you didn't, but if you quit and give up and leave without having a chance to prove your innocence, how you've abandoned them and you've quit on them and you've violated your commitment to them.

I'm here to give every possible explanation to every one of these allegations, and I'm grateful that you've at least given me that. But I would hope that maybe when you consider what I have to say, who knows? Maybe you'll reconsider and give me a chance to call those witnesses I'd like to call.

And who knows? Maybe you'll reconsider and give me a chance to see if there's some possible way where every one of those conversations that were taped can be right here before you so you can hear all of them, words and all, the truth, unadulterated truth. Maybe not flattering in some cases, but it's the truth, and there was never a conversation where I intended to break any law.

So I'm here to do what I can to explain to you my side of the story.

Now, the articles of impeachment, as they're configured, are broken up basically in two portions. One is a portion that alleges that I abused the executive discretion that the governor's given. And then the other is the allegations in the criminal complaint.

Articles 1 through 8 in the -- deal with the allegations in the criminal complaint. But here at this trial, only Article 3 -- only Article 3 -- was there any evidence presented to suggest that something may have been done. In all the other articles, no evidence was presented to prove up criminal allegations. And let's look at the one article where they actually brought evidence.

The evidence is the four tapes. You heard those four tapes. I don't have to tell you what they say. You guys are in politics, you know what we have to do to go out and run and run elections.

There was no criminal activity on those four tapes. You can express things in a free country, but those four tapes speak for themselves. Take those four tapes as they are and you will, I believe, in fairness, recognize and acknowledge, those are conversations relating to the things all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and try to win elections.

Now, I understand that the federal prosecutor and the U.S. attorney has made it clear, and I respect and understand his position, that he doesn't want witnesses called and that he doesn't want evidence called, and that's why on all the other seven articles, with the exception of those four tapes that you heard, there hasn't been any evidence to show or prove any criminal conduct. I understand that. That's why I am appealing to you that unless they allow us to bring that evidence in, then that case ought to be heard in the appropriate place, in a court of law, and respect the U.S. attorney and his needs to be able to bring those witnesses.

But how can you throw a governor out of office on a criminal complaint, and you haven't been able to show or prove any criminal activity? How can you throw a governor, elected twice by the people, out of office when the rules don't even require that you prove up elements of criminal allegations?

And more than that, how can you throw a governor out of office who is clamoring and begging and pleading with you to give him a chance to bring witnesses in to prove his innocence, to do more than just ask for a presumption of innocence? Don't even give me that. Let me make my case, let me bring my witnesses in, let me show you that I'm innocent and I didn't do anything wrong.

So Articles 1 to 8 do not show or prove any criminal case. And if that's the case, how can you throw me out of office without proving something like that and set a dangerous precedent that could have an impact on people and governors in Illinois and governors in other states?

Now, the four tapes that you heard speak for themselves. You also had a chance to listen to the FBI agent who was here. But what did he do? He just read allegations.

He didn't allow you to challenge the allegations. He didn't allow you to cross-examine any of the people involved in those allegations. He simply read a criminal complaint.

That's not proving criminal allegations. And again, I would respectfully suggest to you, how can you throw somebody out of office, whether it's me, or maybe one day it happens to you, without even expecting someone to try to prove something that they're saying that you did?

So I'm appealing to you and your sense of fairness. And because Articles 1 through 8 don't allow -- don't allow -- for having proven any criminal activity, I can't imagine how you can possibly throw me out of office for something that wasn't shown that I did.

As for the other -- as for the other allegations, the allegations that I allegedly abused the executive discretion, I'd like to take each one of those one by one. Let's begin with the first one. The first one I'd like to talk about, and I want to talk about each one of these and what I did in each one of those cases. And I'm glad for having finally been given a chance to explain each of these issues, because I've been dying to do this for years.

The first issue is the issue of my giving health care -- my giving health care to parents in low-income families, to parents who have children who are getting health care through the All Kids Program, to parents who come from low-income families who used to have health care, but then in late 2007, President Bush and the Bush administration changed its policies and those 35,000 people who used to have health care didn't have it.

Let me talk about what I did here.

What did I do in this case but provide health care for low-income families? Now, I understand the importance of the JCAR Committee, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. I understand that six of you here in the Senate are members of that. The fact that you'd be picked to be on JCAR means you're in good standing with your legislative leaders.

I remember when I was a legislator. I remember when I was a freshman in Congress and I got a chance to be on a conference committee, when you get to sit with the leaders of the different committees in the House and in the Senate, and what a thrill it was for me to be able to, as a freshman congressman, be in a room with legendary U.S. senators like John Glenn and Ted Kennedy and John McCain and John Warner, the senator from Virginia who, incidentally, had once been married to Elizabeth Taylor. That's all I could think about when I saw him in that room.

And then he asked me for a cup of coffee because he thought I was a staffer. And I didn't tell him I was a congressman. Instead, I went and asked him, "How do you take it?" And he said, "Black." And I went and got him the coffee.

I saw him the following week and he asked me for another cup of coffee. He obviously forgot I was a congressman.

I remember what it was like to be in that committee, and I know how important it is for those of you who are appointed to a committee like that. But let me respectfully suggest a couple of things.

The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules is a committee that other states have, too. And in nine other states, there have been challenges. When the executive branch seeks to do something, and then that committee, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, has another idea.

Now, ever since I've been governor for the entire six years I've been governor, I've respected that committee. And as far as I know, our agencies have always approached the JCAR committee and sought requests for the rules so you guys can decide on that committee whether those rules should be issued or not.

But I've been given legal advice by lawyers and I believe they're right, and other courts have agreed that those lawyers were right, that JCAR is an advisory committee, that it cannot dictate to the executive branch. That if the executive branch seeks to do something, that committee can advise you and suggest whether it's right or wrong, or they agree with you or not, but they can't stop you.

If you want to stop the executive branch under our Constitution and the ideas of separation of powers, then you all know how it works. The House passes a bill, you in the Senate pass a bill. I may not like it. You send it to me, I veto that bill, it goes back to you, and then you override my veto.

That's how you stop the executive branch and a governor. But 12 la