Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
i am with lee on this

i dont think he should have been removed without any actual proove of doing anything wrong

he was taken out of office because of an allegation and nothing else and i think that is wrong
Each and every one of the 59 Illinois State Senators agreed that the evidence presented _proved_ that the governor had abused his office.

A lot of evidence was presented. A huge jury-- 59 people -- all agreed that the accusations had been proven. It was more than just an accusation -- 114 elected representatives in the Illinois House agreed that there was sufficient evidence to subject the governor to the impeachment process.
The Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court presided over the process, evidence was presented and sent to the jury of all 59 Senators. If the evidence had not been sufficient to support the impeachment, you would think that at least _one_ of those Senators would have not voted for impeachment. The evidence was so overwhelming that the Senate voted unanimously to remove him from office.
The only member of the House of Representatives that voted NOT to subject the governor to impeachment was his sister in law.

Blago was not railroaded or treated unfairly. He was not impeached on the basis of the accusations of trying to sell Obama's seat alone-- the evidence presented showed a pattern of abuse of the office throughout the governor's time in office. Impeachment of this man had already been considered long before November's election and his December arrest.

There was no travesty of justice. Accusations of abuse of office were made, those accusations WERE proven to the satisfaction of every member of the Illinois Senate.