The Jury Talks Back

1/26/2009

Hurry it up, Illinois Senate

Filed under: Uncategorized — Scott Jacobs @ 5:32 pm

The man isn’t even there.  Then again, I wouldn’t be there either if I knew my ass was going to be kicked to the curb, but his not being there just makes it easier.  Give the evidence (that should take a few days), and vote his sorry ass out.

I’m sick of his whiny, weaselly ass bitching about how “it isn’t fair!!”

Life isn’t fair, cupcake.  Life sucks, get a helmet.

Cowboy the eff up.

Downstate Illinois has put up with your rampant favoritism of all things Chicago.  I’ve had my mom’s pension fund (she’s a teacher) raided twice because you needed the cash.  I’ve seen you hold back state education dollars for down-state schools (my per-credit hour costs have gone up twice in as many years), and I have seen road projects neglected.  I’ve seen state money poured into a Chicago stadium…  THING…  just so you can get the Olympics.

We don’t want the Olympics.  We want roads that don’t ruin tires with their chuck holes.

So go.  Stay the hell away from IL.  You just make it a short wait to boot your ass out.

I hope Quinn has your stuff dumped on the curb.

16 Comments

  1. Scott:

    Now tell us how you really feel.

    Probably just like I did with the hypocritical, whore-renter Eliott “do as I say not as I do” Spitzer.

    Just another in a proud tradition of Democrat politicians.

    Comment by Dr. K — 1/26/2009 @ 6:56 pm

  2. Scott, your Cowboy the eff up reminded me of this rambling, perhaps psychotic statement Blago made suggesting his impeachment trial be moved to a 19th century cowboy saloon. And no, it made no sense to me….

    There was an old saying in the Old West: There was a cowboy who was charged with stealing a horse in town and some of the other cowboys, especially the guy whose horse was stolen, were very unhappy with that guy. One of the cowboys said “Let’s hang him.” And the other cowboys said, “Hold on. Before we hang him, let’s first give him a fair trial, then we’ll hang him.”…

    Under these rules, Rule 15F and Rule 8B, under that fact pattern I just gave you, if the cowboy who’s charged with stealing a horse was charged with doing that in town, but in fact on the date and time that he apparently stole the horse in town, he was on the ranch with six other cowboys herding cattle and roping steers.

    And then he expects that when his day comes to go to court he can bring those six cowboys to say it wasn’t him because he wasn’t in town, he was on the ranch herding cattle, even if he could bring those cowboys in to say that, under these rules, under 8B, it wouldn’t matter.

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/26/cowboy-rod-blagojevich-to-beat-his-dead-horse-all-over-tv/

    Comment by Dana — 1/26/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  3. Truly, he has a valid claim of insanity…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/26/2009 @ 8:22 pm

  4. What kind of defense could you mount, Scott, if restricted in the manner Blago is in/by the Senate?

    I think Blago is slime incarnate. But, he has a point. This is a kangaroo political court. Kind of a reverse Clinton impeachment trial. WJC wasn’t gonna be convicted and Blago ain’t gonna be cleared.

    Comment by Ed — 1/26/2009 @ 10:56 pm

  5. What kind of defense could you mount, Scott, if restricted in the manner Blago is in/by the Senate?

    He has the same restrictions the prosecutions does, and a LOT of the impeachment papers were based off things NOT in the federal indictment, and thus can be testified about by witnesses.

    You seem gleefully ignorant of what the ACTUAL charges were, and what the rules actually are.

    And I know Damn well I could mount a better defense than “Not showing up, and bitching and whining and crying about how nobody loves me”.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/26/2009 @ 11:05 pm

  6. Ed’s right, of course. When you say he can call “any witnesses” except those with knowledge of the charges, there’s little reason for him to attend. It’s a show trial and a sham.

    Is it a violation of the sixth amendment? Well, no, impeachment is a political act not a judicial one. But it is still pretty raw not to allow him to question his accusers.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/27/2009 @ 12:20 am

  7. except those with knowledge of the charges

    Considering the House’s impeachment didn’t touch on the criminal cases at all (since they couldn’t get the evidence from the Feds), I can’t help but wonder what the fuss is about.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/27/2009 @ 12:31 am

  8. Eight of the 13 articles/counts involve BHO’s former senate seat. The trial rules prohibit an appearance by anyone who may be a part of the criminal trial for the unindicted Blago. How the hell is he supposed to call, say, Rahm Emmanuel, to refute the supposition that he, Blago, was unlawfully attempting personal enrichment in exchange for a senatorial nod? RE is on the public record, as was the BHO campaign, that any and all contact they may have had with Blago was well within legal bounds. Yet nobody who had actual contact with Blago about the seat may be called by either Blago or the prosecuting officer(s) of the IL senate.

    If they have him cold on the misuse of public funds for vaccinations and/or abuse of power as regards a children’s hospital, let them stick to those articles.

    I don’t want this guy having any room to proclaim martyrdom.

    Comment by Ed — 1/27/2009 @ 12:34 am

  9. Ed’s right, of course. When you say he can call “any witnesses” except those with knowledge of the charges, there’s little reason for him to attend. It’s a show trial and a sham.

    Yup. And if he were allowed to present his case, the fallout would be both hilarious and a damned good thing for the people of Illinois. If the legislature weren’t just as slimy as Blago, that wouldn’t be the case. And that is why they just want to ram this thing through instead of actually hearing both sides out.

    Cowboy the eff up.

    It seems to me that he’s doing just that. There’s a fine line between balls and brains and Blago seems to be strolling right down it.

    Comment by Pablo — 1/27/2009 @ 5:44 am

  10. Ed’s right, of course. When you say he can call “any witnesses” except those with knowledge of the charges, there’s little reason for him to attend. It’s a show trial and a sham.

    Exactly. And if he were allowed to present his case, the fallout would be both hilarious and a damned good thing for the people of Illinois. If the legislature weren’t just as slimy as Blago, that wouldn’t be the case. And that is why they just want to ram this thing through instead of actually hearing both sides out.

    Cowboy the eff up.

    It seems to me that he’s doing just that. There’s a fine line between balls and brains and Blago seems to be strolling right down it.

    Comment by AKA Pablo — 1/27/2009 @ 5:45 am

  11. It seems to me that he’s doing just that.

    Whining on The View has never been, in my estimation, even in the same time zone as “cowboy up”.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/27/2009 @ 6:29 am

  12. He’s barnstorming, Scott. The SOB is everywhere. You can’t turn on a TV without finding his mug on it, and he’s out-politicking the Senate.

    Comment by AKA Pablo — 1/27/2009 @ 7:56 am

  13. The “Twinkie Defense” worked for Dan White; why not for Blago?

    Comment by Barsinister — 1/27/2009 @ 10:35 am

  14. Blago is doing exactly the right thing. Impeachment is a political process, and he’s playing it politically – using the press and attacking the procedure of impeachment rather than the facts which he can never ever win on.

    I’ll bet he’s having a lot of secret meetings with the Illinois legislature on the down-low reminding them all of the stuff he knows about them, too. (Although I doubt he’s doing that on the telephone…)

    Comment by luagha — 1/27/2009 @ 1:23 pm

  15. I’m with blago on this one. Almost seriously. Yeah, he’s guilty as hell; yup, impeachment is a political act, not a court trial, but it seems to me that even the most guilty guy deserves the opportunity to call witnesses and have his side — no matter how vapid — heard in full.

    Given that that wasn’t going to happen, his choice to go down swinging and show his contempt for the system that he rose to the top of is understandable.

    Comment by Joel Rosenberg — 1/28/2009 @ 4:47 am

  16. The vote: 59-0 to convict, then 59-0 to disqualify from future office.

    Comment by htom — 1/29/2009 @ 3:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.