Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Blagojevich: Crazy or Crazy Like a Fox?

Only time will tell and I, personally, think that he is still mostly crazy. Yet, if he is crazy like a fox, then here is what he is attempting to do. First, on every level politically and legally, his choice of Roland Burris is one that the folks in both Springfield and in Washington D.C. will have to accept. The Huffington Post has a good break down of his solid legal footing.

Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint Roland Burris to Illinois' vacant Senate seat, even as the governor faces intense criminal scrutiny, is being treated as a crazy political power grab. It also seems very likely to be permanent.

A legal scholar writes in to say that precedent surrounding the Senate's right to not seat certain members seems very likely to fall in Burris' favor.

"My reading of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, is that the Senate probably can NOT constitutionally block Burris from being seated," writes the constitutional law professor. "Art. I, sec. 5 gives each House the power to judge the qualifications of its own members. Powell holds (inter alia) that the qualifications to be judged are those stated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 3 and the 17th Amendment)."

"Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."

If either someone in Springfield or in D.C. tries to stop Burris from being appointed, it will be challenged and likely heard by the Supreme Court. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court would have to side with Blagojevich. Blagojevich is Constitutionally mandated to choose the next Senator. That's what he's done. There is no evidence that the choice of Burris was untoward and so, there appears to be no legal reason to block Burris. Such a showdown would play right into the Governor's hands and hand him much needed political capital. He's already endeared himself to some elements within the Illinois African American community just by picking Burris.

Now, imagine if his choice was rejected either by the Secretary of State or by the U.S. Senate and then it was litigated in the Supreme Court which decided in his favor. Which side would look as though they are doing their Constitutional mandated duty and which side would look as though they are stepping outside of the Constitution?

Furthermore, how far is the Democratic Party willing to take this given how insulting it would be to the African American community. The reality is that the Governor needs nothing more than a political showdown he can win, and he just found it. The farther his opponents take this the bigger a victory it will be once he wins. Frankly, he has nothing to lose anyway.

We've all heard that his potential impeachment hearing is a political not criminal process. What does this mean? On one level, it means that the Illinois House and Senate merely need to find a reason that everyone will accept to remove him. They need not find any act of criminality. The most obvious reason is that the scandal has made him unfit to Govern. Yet, he has just chosen a U.S. Senate pick and that person accepted. What a political gift Burris handed to Blagojevich. Is there any better proof that he is fit to govern than doing his Constitutionally mandated duty of choosing a replacement for Barack Obama? In fact, by having every other political force near him try and take this duty away, it is they, not him, that look as though they are unfit.

Just think about it. He will make this pick. The entire political world will attempt to stop it and likely the U.S. Supreme Court will side with him. Then, Illinois legislators will say he is unfit to govern. Nothing will sound more absurd if this episode plays out as I just described.

Then, impeachment will hinge on something relating to the idea that what he is alleged to have done is so extraordinary that he can't be allowed to continue. Here, again, if Blagojevich is crazy like a fox, he will still have an angle. I have said over and over that Blagojevich knows where all the proverbial bodies are buried. In such a case, all he needs to do is turn the impeachment into a kangaroo court. What Blagojevich did maybe the most brazen act of corruption, but it certainly is not out of the ordinary. Most of the folks about to accuse him of corruption are no less corrupt, just less brazen. If he turns the tables on everyone and throws accusations back at his accusers, what we'll have is a bunch of crooks proclaiming the Governor is not fit to lead because he's a crook.

As John Kerry once said that's like having Tony Soprano lecturing us on violence. Blagojevich can argue that if he isn't fit to lead, then most of the legislature will need to go with him. If he plays it right, he could even be portrayed as the crusader finally exposing the reality of the system in Illinois. If he did some sort of a vague mea culpa in which he acknowledged "mistakes", he could say that he is ready to use this opportunity to overhaul the system, but that he will not be "lectured on honesty and integrity by the likes of Emil Jones and Michael Madigan". In fact, he will have a point. The audacious irony is that the Illinois legislature is in no position to lecture him on corruption. They are no better. An impeachment in which his alleged crimes are on display would be nothing more than that. If it came down to trying to remove him from office for his alleged crimes, you can bet that every piece of dirty laundry would be aired before he was removed. If he's crazy like a fox, that's exactly what he should do.


Anonymous said...

Blagovich is the sideshow to distract us from Israel's attacks. How much longer will these needless wars led by Israel continue? Will it 'change' under Obama? Highly doubtful, after his 'no comment' about Palestine. Israel already owns Obama after he picked Rahm Emanuel, the son of a terrorist, as Chief of Staff. Obama will probably let Mossad slide on their 9/11 involvement and Obama will continue Middle East wars. So who won the US election? Israel did, as always.

Anonymous said...

Will the American people ever wake up and get a clue and reclaim their country from the zionist jew israeli terrorists that have hijacked it while they were too busy eating pizzas and watching football games before the murdering terrorist reptiles do to us what the vermin did to Germany in the 1930`s, Russia in 1917, Palestine since 1948 and every other land and culture the rodents have penetrated and murdered from the inside out?

There`s an old saying that goes "those who don`t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it".

Harrowing words indeed.

Anonymous said...

Blagovich is simply hanging around the gang , still spitting blood, hoping he will be accepted back into the flock.

He has been taking a beating, of sorts. There are those standing, still just out of reach, that shared with Blagovich the tightest of social cirlces, that probably all now wish they had never met him.

But to others of the lessor political rankings, he's gonna have to grin and bear it some more, if he wants prove himself worthy to the masters above.

Only sometimes the anger can overcome fear that Blagovich is no doubt feeling.

Is it anger that he alone had gotten hung out to dry for what they are all doing. The same scheme everyday, year after year, and simply having made the mistake of over doing it, (as the other pompous and corrupt officials have done). Why only him? Not when he was surely advised to do so by political veterans.
But who?

Just his presence is a threat to hiding the scam from public view.

He's gonna take them with him.

mike volpe said...

The first two comments are not only bigoted and anti Semitic but frankly totally out of place.

Anonymous said...

The comments may be anti-Khazar, but they are not anti-Semetic. 90%+ of the worlds "Jews" are descendants of the Khazar empire (Caucus region), and have no lineage to Abraham. You can't be anti-Semetic to people who aren't Semetic at all.

mike volpe said...

Well, anti Semetic is a generic term of being bigoted to Jewish people. Frankly, I don't much care about the history of the Jewish people. You are a nut who goes to any story and tries attack Jewish people and Israeli policy everywhere no matter how unrelated to the piece your attack is. I don't care about your conspiracy theories.