A Quick Note on Blagojevich

I don't pretend to know whether Blagojevich is actually guilty of anything other than having a foul mouth, but the representation by the body of legislators in Illinois that Blagojevich was free to rebut the evidence against him is flat out false. It is clear from the rules that anyone who would be a part of the criminal proceedings against Blagojevich could not be called. It is clear that anyone who Blagojevich had contact with was likely to be a part of that criminal proceeding and therefore was unavailable to Blagojevich. That is patently unfair. You cannot claim to give someone the freedom to defend himself, but then bar him from calling the very people whom he would want to use.

It was a sham proceeding and it was a political show intended for the next election since not a single member wanted to be the vote against impeachment that was used against them in the next election. That makes the members anything but impartial. In fact that puts them under duress.

The whole thing was a sham to begin with. Doesn't mean Blagojevich isn't guilty of anything, but the process was tainted and any honest person knows it.

Edit:

I wanted to put this in a perspective that everyday people can relate to:

Imagine for a moment that you're a man who has had "private" conversations about a female co-worker that was very crude. Suppose that someone had overheard or had access to these private conversations and turned them over to a lawyer who later went to the company HR to announce that you were being sued for sexual harassment.

Imagine then that being called to HR you were barred from calling the female co-worker in question for questioning in regards to sexual harassment because she is part of the litigation that is going to proceed because the HR department was collaborating with the lawyer who is suing you. Say you were also barred from having the person with whom you were having the conversation with also testify or submit statements on your behalf. Now suppose that the HR department decides to terminate you based on the "conversation" and claims made by the lawyer. No one would say such a thing was fair and it is highly likely that should the harassment lawsuit fail to deliver a guilty verdict, that he company in question would be sued for wrongful termination.

Tell me anyone who if they were in the above situation would think it was fair.

Now clearly in the above scenario a private company can decide to terminate someone on the grounds of private speech since largely private firms can regulate speech on their premises. However, the government cannot make such a discretionary decision because the government is bound by the Constitution which expressly states that speech cannot be abridged by the government.

Furthermore, Blagojevich is correct when he calls the "court" in the senate a Kangaroo court. They made up rules what, 2 weeks ago? And made those rules in collaboration with a prosecutor with a vested interest in a particular outcome.That is not impartial.