Unclear on the Concept

[kevin_standlee]

Illinois' probably-about-to-be-ex-governor, if I understand it correctly, is complaining about the lack of due process for his impeachment trial and is calling it a "political trial" as if that made it illegitimate. Hello? Impeachments are political trials, by definition! They aren't criminal or civil court proceedings. The only penalty they impose is removal from office. So of course the trial isn't subject to the same procedural rules as judicial procedings!

I heard on the radio that there was some form of appeal from the verdict the state senate reaches. That seems odd to me. Because impeachment is a political trial, it seems to me that there really should be no appeal possible for someone impeached and removed from office by the legislature. After that, the only "appeal," such as it is, would be to run for office again and let the people override the legislature.

Comments

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

Apparently there is also a second punishment in Illinois... they can also vote to ban him for life from running for *any* public office within the state.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to
conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence
of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of
the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial
officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When
sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or
affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor
is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not
extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to
hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to
prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)


I'm guessing from his comments, that since
The U.S. attorney has asked senators to bar testimony from anyone federal prosecutors say would jeopardize the criminal corruption trial against the governor he will claim that the impeachment trial cannot be fair as he can't call witnesses to affirm he neither said nor did anything wrong. And since he could claim that prevented him presenting a fair defence that the trial is not "justice under the law" and so the impeachment trial result should be struck down.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

The entire point of all of this nonsense is that (a) he knows he's toast in an impeachment, and it's the only stall he has left in his bag, and (b) he wants to look like a victim to a potential jury pool and anyone else that will listen.

[howeird]

There is always a possible appeal to the US Supreme Court. This is the first impeachment of a Governor in the state's history, and looking at the Illinois Constitution's description, I would not at all be surprised if the Supes threw it out for violations of due process. Though it's politically motiviated, the IL constitution clearly makes it a criminal trial, and since it can deprive the man of any possible livelihood in IL for life, it should be subject to the same rules as any other criminal trial, the only differences being the jury is the State Senate, and they only need a 2/3 vote to convict.

It's going to be an interesting circus.