Dec
31

Blagojevich: A Bold Appointment

Will Roland W. Burris be sworn is as a Senator for the State of Illinois? He should be. The governor of his state has appointed him to fill the seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama. The law gives to the governor the right to make this appointment.

Of course, Mr. Burris, a career Illinois politician of unblemished reputation, was appointed by none other thant Governor Rod Blagojevich, a man just about every righteous American seems these days to hate. Why the man tried to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, didn't he?

Those are the allegations of the United States Attorney's Office, which has presented the evidence against the governor to a secret grand jury and secured his indictment. What's more, the same U.S. Attorney's Office has taken its case against Blagojevich to the press. Secret recordings have been made public, and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is egging on efforts of Illinois lawmakers to impeach the governor. It is a powerful lynch mob.

I do not know whether the governor did anything wrong. I do know that he is presumed innocent of the charges against him. He has yet to confront his accusers and tell his side of the story. Perhaps his defense will be an indictment of the status quo: "Money talks in electoral politics; what I did differs in degree but not in kind from what is done in each and every race for elective office." Or perhaps he will claim entrapment. Whatever the defense, he has a right to make it before he is strung up from a lamp post and left to swing in the wind.

Senate Democrats and President Obama have already denounced the appointment of Burris, yet no one can speak a foul word of him other than he was appointed by Blagojevich. Burris is qualified by age, citizenship and residency for the position. Attempts to bar him from sitting should fail as a matter of law, a lesson we already learned when Congress tried to bar Adam Clayton Powell from sitting in the 1960s.

What terrifies about the reaction to this appointment is the ease with which we abandon the rule of law for something akin to mob passion. Sure, Blagojevich governs under a cloud. His effectiveness as governor is compromised. He cannot lead. Whether these are grounds for impeachment is a political question best left to the Illinois legislature. A more gracious man might have stepped aside while he addressed the allegations. But grace is not required.

The German sociologist Max Weber taught a century ago that there are different ways in which societies transform raw power into legitimate authority. Rational political systems have transparent rules and norms for doing so. By contrast, charismatic systems rely upon the passion inspired by powerful leaders, and, perhaps, events. The problem with charisma is that is can lead just about anywhere. Hence, in a political system such as ours, we erect checks and balances to channel passions; we enact rights to place limits on what can be done to even those accused of the worst crimes imaginable. In the Blogojevich case, we appear willing to ignore the requirements of law merely to serve a furious sense of self-righteousness.

The question no one seems to be asking just now is whether Blagojevich will ever be able to get a fair trial. Hasn't the government now so fouled the pool of potential jurors with its unnecessary and unjustifiable pre-trial publicity that a fair trial is impossible? Will these charges be dismissed?

Such a result is unthinkable in the heat of the moment. We all hate the corrupt pol who has somehow managed to throw manure onto Obama's rose-petal covered procession to the White House. But I would be far more comforted by a dismissal of the charges as a sanction against abuse of prosecutorial authority than I would be by summary execution of Blagojevich.

Blogojevich is presumed innocent. If he cannot govern, he should be impeached. But until there is either a finding of guilt or a vote to remove him from office he is, like or not, governor of Illinois. As a matter of law, he has the right to appoint Obama's replacement.
Comments (3)
Posted on January 12, 2009 at 9:18 am by Anonymous
Norm, you are wrong about the Governor of ILL, Rod...
Norm, you are wrong about the Governor of ILL, Rod Blago..that he was indicted in your Dec 2008blog postings. A FBI affidavit complaint isnot an official criminal DOJ indictment.U S attorney in Chicago, P F, filed a motion for more time, until April 2009, to fileany indictment. So, all this press blabberis before any indictment.The FBI affadivit took selective tap excerpts, and expounded on those, then thepress was inflamed.But, Norm there is no indictment yet, so far,and you should know that since yourepresent rouge cops.

Posted on January 8, 2009 at 7:39 am by Norm Pattis
Hey, Windy. Good to hear from you.
Hey, Windy. Good to hear from you.

Posted on January 8, 2009 at 7:10 am by Windypundit
Hey Norm, You want a bad word about Roland Burris?...
Hey Norm, You want a bad word about Roland Burris? Check out the prosecution of Rolando Cruz for the murder of Jeanine Nicario. It was the case that lead to the death penalty moratorium here in Illinois.I can't remember all the details (and the Wikipedia entry is incoherent), but the history of the case goes something like this:1. Prosecution proposes a theory of how the crime happened.2. A jailhouse snitch comes forward to say Cruz confessed to him, and it happened exactly the way the prosecution says it did.3. Defense pokes a hole in the case.4. Prosecution proposes a modified theory of how the crime happened, patching the hole.5. A new jailhouse snitch comes forward to say Cruz confessed to him, and it happened exactly the way the prosecution now says it did.Repeat steps 3 to 5 again and again...Meanwhile, a known serial killer confessed to the murder. The prosecution said Cruz must have been his accomplice. A jailhouse snitch came forward...DNA evidence eventually exonerated Cruz.Burris was Attorney General during the latter part of the case, and refused to drop it.
For Display:
What is 2 + 2?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video