markm;
That's either an hilarious bit of sarcasm or your naive optimistic slip is showing![lol] We're talking about ILLINOIS here!!

PD..I did not know that...but it seems easier politcally to me to seat the geezer and let him get defeated in the next election.

and I get a gold star for wrangling in the word taint :)

You don't get a gold star for common words like "taint".

Pragmatically, grounds for impeachment are whatever the Illinois House says they are.

REALLY???????...if that's the case, why isn't impeachment used more as a political tool?. If you can impeach whoever whenever and for whatever reason you'd think, the majority party would be impeaching the minority every chance they had.

Ya know, Bill Clinton was impeached, found guilty on Federal charges, not removed but went on to make appointments....were those tainted too??

I'm not a dem and I do hope this continues to drag on (and throw a bit of Harry Reid in for giggles) but you would think (or...I would think) that impeachment would require some semblance of guilt....and I get a gold star for wrangling in the word taint :)

Which is another reason the legislature didn't remove the Governor's appointment powers. It can impeach the Governor quicker than pass a law regarding that singular issue.

I think it's important to remember that a trial of impeachment is neither a criminal trial nor a civil trial. It is a political act.

Particularly, there is no requirement for a presumption of innocence.

Without the evidence behind the Fed indictment can an impeachment happen and if so on what grounds??. Having zero law background I would assume that he cannot be impeached unless there is real evidence of wrong doing and at this point all we know is he was recorded speaking about the seat (possibly looking to sell it), some recordings released and since Fitz needs an extension i'm guessing there is no smoking gun...I mean, if you have evidence for the indictment, if more evidence comes to light you bring it to the forefront at that time...why wait??.

Dunno, Blago is the gift that keeps giving but it isn't apparent to me that he's done wrong (at this point).

Particularly, there is no requirement for a presumption of innocence.

The procedures and rules of evidence for a trial of Gov. Blagojevich by the Illinois Senate would be whatever the Illinois Senate says they are, presumably consistent with due process.

In a strictly criminal law context, neither an indictment nor a complaint constitute proof of the underlying conduct. Some of the evidence like the wiretaps may not be admissible in a criminal court. But the Senate is not a criminal court. I think the affidavit of a law enforcement officer, given under threat of perjury, constitutes evidence of wrongdoing sufficient for non-criminal matters.

While it may be galling for Rod Blagojevich to get to appoint someone to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat while he’s under federal indictment

I may be wrong....but I don't think he's been indicted yet. I think Fitz asked for more time a week or so ago. So, as big of an a-hole as Blago appears to be and his apparent open and appalling attempt of abuse of his powers....is it really that that big of a deal?. He is the governor who I believe has not been charged for a crime appointing someone that is able and also not charged with a crime. What's the legal rub?

As a matter of reasonablenesss, however, absent evidence that the Roland Burris appointment itself was tainted, he should be seated. Like it or not, Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois. And the state deserves representation in the Senate.

As an Illinoisan, I think we are more than adequately represented in Washington, by the Minority Whip, the upcoming POTUS, his staff and his cabinet.

The Blago problem is that according to Durbin at least a dozen Senate candidates were being discussed, not the five or so caught on wiretaps. We don't know that any one candidate was buying, just that the Governor was selling.