A Just Cause (15 page)

Currie briefly summarized the committee report. The sixty-one-page
Final Report of the Special Investigative Committee
was carefully constructed
to build a case for impeachment based on multiple incidents of possible criminal conduct, taken from the criminal complaint, and of maladministration uncovered by investigations and audits. The totality of evidence provided cause. The litany of charges began with the most resonating ones: that the governor had attempted to trade the appointment to the US Senate for personal gain, had conspired to grant financial assistance from the Illinois Finance Authority to the Tribune Company in return for firing members of the
Tribune
editorial board, and had attempted to exchange the signing of a bill favorable to the horse-racing industry for a campaign contribution. Additionally, the governor had announced a $1.8 billion tollway project and then pressed someone identified as Highway Contractor 1 for a $500,000 contribution. He had made a commitment of $8 million in pediatric care reimbursement and demanded in return a $50,000 contribution from an executive with Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Ali Ata had given campaign contributions for an appointment to the Illinois Finance Authority. Using Joe Cari's testimony from the Rezko trial, the report detailed how Tony Rezko, Chris Kelly, and Stuart Levine plotted to pick contractors and then solicit for campaign contributions. Turning to administrative cause, incompetency, and maladministration, Currie noted that the report also contained the ongoing JCAR incident, flu vaccine procurement, the I-SaveRx program, the so-called efficiency initiatives, and the inspector general's report finding that the governor had violated state and federal laws regarding hiring and firing of state employees.

There was no discussion. Everyone knew what was in the report and everyone supported it. Durkin remarked that the investigation had been fair and that the governor had been allowed due process. Genson and Adam had left the hearing room; they knew there was no point in being present. Durkin, speaking for the minority Republicans, moved that the committee adopt the report. The partisan sparring that had taken place moments before was replaced by a unified determination to remove Blagojevich. Led by Barbara Currie, each member of the committee gave a short explanation and voted aye. All twenty-one members voted aye to adopt the committee report. The house investigation, the first step of removing Blagojevich from office, was over. It was time to present the resolution to impeach the governor to the full house.

O
n January 9, as house members began to take their seats and prepared to consider House Resolution 1671—the resolution to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich—the gallery was crowded but strangely quiet. The elderly men who served as part-time gallery attendants seemed unsettled. Democratic chief of staff Tim Mapes had instructed them to keep order and restrain any outbursts from the galleries, but there was little reason to worry; the audience was not of a boisterous bent. In fact, spectators were greeted by an unfamiliar silence as they looked to find an open seat. Those in the house gallery that afternoon were not the familiar faces of regular visitors, the Springfield lobbyists who often watched the floor action from discreet vantage points or sat on the sofas and chairs along the sides of the house chambers waiting for a particular bill, bargaining with legislators and other lobbyists or just killing time. The large chandeliers that have graced the house chamber since the late nineteenth century seemed slightly dimmed, adding a somber vagueness to the scene below. Noticeably
absent were the normally ubiquitous house staff and pages whose activity ordinarily caused constant distraction up and down the chamber's aisles. A few members talked on their cell phones, and some spoke to each other in hushed tones, but most did not speak at all. Those in attendance, the curious and interested, were ordinary folks, the general public—the people.

The house was meeting not to debate the impeachment resolution but to present it, hear restrained comments, and pass it. The Republican and Democratic caucuses had discussed the resolution and the conduct and decorum expected from the members; everyone knew what was about to take place. The resolution had been filed with the house clerk the day before, the same day the
Final Report of the Special Investigative Committee
was released. Speaker Michael Madigan, Chairwoman Barbara Currie, minority leader Tom Cross, and Jim Durkin, the Republican spokesman on the Special Investigative Committee, were the resolution's chief sponsors. Impeachment had received overwhelming support in the house. When the resolution was filed with the clerk, 107 members immediately requested to be added as co-sponsors. In the words of a senior Democratic staff member, “It was a done deal.”

The five-page resolution synthesized the sixty-one-page report and justified the findings of the investigative committee that Rod Blagojevich should be impeached. The resolution reiterated the purpose of the Special Investigative Committee: to investigate alleged evidence of “misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance and other misconduct of Governor Rod Blagojevich.” It spelled out the findings detailed in the committee's report and presented thirteen reasons—cause—for impeachment. The first eight findings covered the criminal acts discussed in conversations recorded by the FBI in the months leading up to the arrest. The other five findings dealt with incidences of mismanagement and the abuse of power, maladministration, and violations of federal and state law and Illinois' Constitution. The resolution stated that the governor had displayed an “utter disregard of the doctrine of separation of powers” and refused to recognize the authority of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR). The committee found that the governor had exceeded his constitutional authority, violated the law, and obstructed legislative oversight by bypassing the ruling of JCAR and implementing a program that expanded health care benefits without legislative authority or funding appropriation. The resolution expressed a pattern of criminal allegations, violations of state and federal law, and willful mismanagement.
¹

When the session was called to order, the Reverend Milton Bost, pastor of the Chatham Baptist Church and the brother of Republican state representative Mike Bost, set the tone for the day. His invocation called on “Almighty and sovereign God” to “grant Speaker Madigan and each Member of this House a mindset and a resolve to initiate correction and healing within the government of our state” (1).
²
Speaker Madigan chaired the proceedings and recognized Barbara Currie to present HR 1671.

With a calm and measured voice, Currie justified and summarized the actions of the Special Investigative Committee. Her selection of words revealed her emotions. It was the “perfidy of one man, Rod Blagojevich,” that brought the house to this day. After his arrest the house had given the governor a week to “do the right thing,” to resign. Instead, the governor had chosen to “fight, fight, fight.” Currie cautioned that what the house was doing was the beginning step in overturning an election and was “not something that should be undertaken lightly.” She noted the vagueness of the Illinois Constitution and insisted that the committee had taken action because of “allegations of serious infractions, serious betrayals.” Currie offered evidence of maladministration within the Blagojevich administration and blamed the governor for disregarding the prerogatives of the legislature, and she briefly reviewed the offenses (3–4).

But the mainspring for the impeachment resolution was not maladministration; it was the criminal allegations. In the minds of many citizens, expanding health care was a good thing and could be defended no matter what administrative avenue was taken to achieve it. The flu vaccine fiasco could have been excused as a mistake, a lack of oversight, or just politics as usual. The trigger for impeachment was the arrest of the governor and the evidence of taped conversations between Blagojevich and his cohorts, planning various schemes to enrich themselves and the governor. After years of confrontation with Blagojevich, at last the legislature had justification to remove him. Referring to portions of the taped conversations contained in the criminal complaint, she gave an account of the alleged criminal offenses and pronounced, “They show a public servant who has chosen not to serve the public but only his own interests. . . . They show a public servant . . . who is prepared to turn public service into an avenue for private benefit” (5).

Currie's presentation was short, to the point, and presented with certitude. Her remarks were carefully designed to establish the seriousness of Blagojevich's misconduct and the criteria needed to follow the Constitution's
requirements to show and justify cause for impeachment. Intently, Currie concluded that the governor had chosen not to answer the allegations against him. “His silence in this grave matter is deafening,” she said (5).

Following protocol, Tom Cross was recognized next. The remarks from the Republican minority leader were obligatory. He thanked everyone—committee chair Currie, Republican spokesman Jim Durkin, staff, and Republican counsel Tom Durkin, Jim Durkin's brother—for working together. Cross said that the emotion he felt was anger; the governor had violated the trust invested in him when he took the oath of office. He urged all members to read the committee's report and said, “Unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, we have no choice today but to vote yes on this Resolution” (12). The remarks served to diminish any doubts that the resolution would pass with unanimous Republican support.

The house leaders and the lawyers who had provided counsel, conducted the investigative committee proceedings, and written the committee's report were well aware of the potential for future court challenges from the governor, and they presented and managed the proceedings with careful attention. They wanted to explicitly express, for the legislative record, that the reasons and methods used to bring about the impeachment action complied with the terms set forth in the Constitution.

Republican Jim Durkin followed Cross, and like Currie, he reinforced the legitimacy of the resolution and the methods of the investigative committee. As the minority spokesman on the investigative committee and an assistant minority leader, he expressed the unity of the house. The committee had performed its duty “in a truly bipartisan manner,” he said. Durkin focused on the committee's methods and stated that its purpose had been to determine “whether there is an existence of cause to impeach the governor.” Addressing criticism from the governor's attorney that Blagojevich had not been afforded due process, he argued that the Constitution did not state that the governor's attorney for was permitted “to participate in the hearings,” “to question witnesses, “to rebut or mitigate the evidence” presented by the committee, or “to call witnesses,” but that the committee had afforded those privileges in its quest to ensure “that we were going to be fair.” Like Currie, Durkin remarked that “the Governor failed to participate in those proceedings; we invited him.” He also pointed out that “the Governor's attorney failed to rebut any of the evidence which was presented before this committee.” The former Cook County prosecutor told the house that “the evidence was overwhelming.” Durkin recounted
the allegations in the resolution and concluded that the action of the house would ensure “that a system of checks and balances works and is also the best form of government” (13–14).

Deputy Majority Leader Lou Lang now took the floor in the role of prosecutor, speaking as a well-informed lawyer and continuing to establish the legislative record. He reminded the house that the Illinois Constitution requires that the governor be responsible for the “faithful execution of the laws” and that the governor had violated his constitutional oath. Reiterating Durkin's remarks, he reported that during committee hearings, the governor's attorney had argued that the governor was being denied the right of due process. Lang again emphasized that although the Illinois Constitution does not specify any provisions for due process in the impeachment process, the governor was given an “extraordinary, unprecedented level of due process.” The committee, he said, allowed the governor to have lawyers attend and participate in the committee hearings, and he contrasted their level of participation with the procedures followed in the Clinton impeachment trial. “We afforded them the opportunity to ask questions and afforded the opportunity to challenge exhibits, to challenge witnesses,” he noted (17–18).

Lang cautioned that the investigative committee was not a “criminal tribunal” but that the governor's failure to refute the allegations could “be used against him” in the impeachment proceedings. The governor's attorney had tried to impose the standards of proof for criminal proceedings, “beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, even a preponderance of the evidence, but,” he pointed out, “the fact is that the Constitution of the State of Illinois says none of those things.” He reminded the house that the Constitution states “one word as a standard” for impeachment, and “that word is cause.” And “cause means whatever the 118 members of the house individually think it might be.” Emphasizing the administrative indictments of the resolution, Lang cautioned that the governor's administrative conduct was just as important as any criminal allegations. The governor had violated his “gubernatorial oath,” and he emphasized, “a violation of the Constitution is the same level whether it was an abuse of power because he committed a crime or an abuse of power because he violated the separation of powers or an abuse of power because he fraudulently . . . purchased flu vaccine for the State of Illinois knowing he would never take possession of it” (18–19).

The governor was charged by the federal government with allegations concerning criminal activity, but Lang wanted to establish that the charges of maladministration determined by the investigative committee were as
important to the impeachment process as were the pending federal allegations. “The criminal is more emotional, the criminal is sexier, the criminal is something people want to talk about, but as it relates to this chamber and this Governor and this decision we must make, the fact is that what he has done within government separate and apart from any crimes is just as important as the criminal allegations,” he concluded (20).

Next to speak was Susana Mendoza, a five-term state representative from Chicago's Near Northwest Side and a designated alternate member of the investigative committee. She had attended every committee meeting, sitting in the area designated for legislators, intently focused on the proceedings. At times Mendoza sat with the committee and asked questions of the witnesses. She took a particular interest in the proceedings. When Blagojevich took office, the bright, young, and idealistic Mendoza had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic governor. She supported his legislative initiatives and attended press conferences with him. Over the years, as she came to learn of his misdeeds and manipulations, her support turned to disappointment and then to anger. When the investigative committee was formed, she went to the Speaker and asked that he appoint her as a member.
³

Her remarks on the house floor seemed to synthesize the feelings of the entire house, reflecting a sense of sadness, anger, and shame. “Today we're one day closer to healing the gaping wound inflicted upon the State of Illinois by Governor Rod Blagojevich,” she said. Her poignant delivery riveted the attention of the house chamber. Her choice of words also expressed her emotions: “Our state's reputation has been sullied and, worse yet, people in our state have been seriously hurt by the unmeasured rapaciousness of this Governor.” She expressed outrage at Blagojevich's “greed and arrogance” and his “brazenness and recklessness,” and she declared that it was “amazingly fitting” that Blagojevich should be impeached on the birthday of his “self-admitted hero Richard Nixon” (21–22).

Mendoza said that as an alternate committee member, she had listened to all the testimony and studied all the evidence with care and consideration, and she concluded that the only course was immediate impeachment to end the “continuing threat to the health of our state.” She was particularly incensed by the governor's alleged extortion of Children's Memorial Hospital and called the deed “repugnant.” Mendoza had sponsored HB 5331, the bill that provided the grant to the hospital. “Governor Blagojevich promised those physicians that money so that
they could care for our sickest children,” she said. “Those sick children, Governor, they're still waiting.” With measured anger, she amended her earlier statement: “Repugnant is too kind a word to describe [the governor's] action.” She then spoke directly to the governor: “Rod Blagojevich, you should be ashamed of yourself, but I won't pretend to think that you feel any [shame]. You've already shown us that you have none.” With that, Mendoza asked the house to “all vote” for the resolution and impeachment of the governor (22–24).