Maybe he is guilty. maybe not. But to have a trial, even a political trial, and to accept the prosecuters word as 100% true and not allow the defendant to call witnesses in his defence...
well I guess its legal because the people who designed the trial and voted to oust blago said it was legal, but when 59 out of 59 vote one way, I can't imagine that they are all right and altruistic and honest. Does anyone believe that lisa madigan would be where she is with out daddy madigan?thats like when jeb and dunderhead both claim that being the son of a prez was a disadvantage.
I love america, I just wish it hadn't become russia. Or maybe it always was and I just noticed.
2 comments:
I don't know about the U.S. becoming Russia. We have our own fine history of lynchmobs.
There is no question, the senate smelled blood and went in for the kill. And of course they all knew more sooner than they'd ever say. But their hands shouldn't have to be clean to act in the public interest in cases like this. They may be filthy but they're all we have.
It does seem like the procedings weren't very rigorous, considering the penalty - the man is barred for life from holding public office.
In an impeachment trial, the accused is NOT 'innocent until proven guilty'. There isn't a burden of proof. B wasn't sworn in. B didn't even have to be there. Basically a public circus.
I guess the assumption is that the power of the office will protect you from being impeached unless you seriously overstep your bounds.
Of course I think he's guilty, but I am troubled that proceedings were carried on as if he was guilty untill proven innocent. And of course there's the grand hypocrisy that a good number of Illinois politicians, on the city, county and state level behave no better than him. A friend of mine speculated that he lost his protections when he fell on the bad sad of Daley and even of his own father-in-law, Mell.
Post a Comment