Blagojevich Guilty Til Proven Innocent

Let’s face it, the Democrats don’t like Governor Rod Blagojevich.  Especially those Democrats loyal (if such a thing as political loyalty indeed exists) to President-elect Barack Obama, the Obacrats, which is all the suck-ups in the party.  Which is the overwhelming majority.

Supposedly, Blagojevich is hated because he’s accused of being a crook.  He is accused of attempting to sell the Senate seat he was obligated to fill once Barack Obama vacated it to people who don’t seem to exist.  Everyone in a position to have bought said seat claims not to have ever even spoken to the Governor about the matter. The U.S. Attorney who arrested Governor Blagojevich before he could find a taker, did so to prevent him from doing just that, according to him.

Yet, Blagojevich was not arrested for trying to sell a Senate seat.  He was not indicted for anything, he was arrested on a complaint charging him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and solicitation of bribery.  From the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, Dec. 12, 2008:

If you believe everything you read in the papers, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted this week.

But that wasn’t true. The governor has not been indicted. Reporting that he had been was an error made by many journalists.

The press made the mistake even after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had this to say at his press conference:

“First of all, there’s not an indictment, realize. It’s a complaint. So I don’t want people to understand it’s an indictment. We filed a criminal complaint.”

So what exactly is a criminal complaint and why did so many members of the press get it wrong?

“The criminal complaint is a charging document that is supported by the affidavit of a law enforcement agent that is intended to set forth and establish probable cause and that probable cause can be tested in a preliminary hearing,” said Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Fitzgerald’s office.

edit
In this case, an FBI agent outlined the evidence against Blagojevich in a 76-page document. So far, no one outside the U.S. attorney’s office has seen or heard this evidence, which means that until they bring it to a grand jury there can be no indictment and no trial. (Emphasis mine)

In his recent petition to the court for a 90 day extension to bring charges against Blagojevich, Fitzgerald stated in the opening line that the investigation began in 2003 and includes multiple potential defendants:

This investigation was initiated in approximately 2003, and involves multiple
potential defendants. Two individuals, defendants Rod R. Blagojevich and John Harris, were
charged by way of a criminal complaint on December 9, 2008, with: (a) conspiring to defraud
the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, as well as conspiring to obtain
money and property by fraud, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§
1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; and (b) corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago
Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the
awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C.
§ 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2.

In other words, Rod Blagojevich has been convicted in the court of public opinion for crimes he has not been formally charged with, or formally accused of.  Yet, it is because of this conviction that the Obacrats have deemed him unsuitable to fulfill his duties.  Or might it be the specter of those “multiple potential defendants” motivating the Senate actions?  Nothing Blagojevich is accused of is as heinous, in my opinion, as the actions of a group made up primarily of lawyers thumbing their noses at one of the basic tenets of American law, “innocent, until proven guilty.”  No taint on the very likely guilty Blagojevich stinks quite as much as that.

For the Senate Democrats to engage in such public grade school level maneuvers, refusing to sign and certify the paperwork of Blagojevich’s perfectly legal  appointment of Roland Burris in order to be able to reject said credentials at the door, as they did, is more shameful than anything Blagojevich has been seen on tape doing.  From CNN:

Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, rejected Burris’ appointment on Monday because Burris’ certificate of appointment was missing the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, an aide to the secretary said.

Rule 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate states that the secretary of state must sign the certificate of election along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Senate Democrats have said they would not seat Burris because he was appointed by Blagojevich, who is accused of scheming to sell the Senate seat.

Why is CNN erroneously reporting Blagojevich’s charges?  Why was he so publicly arrested without indictment when he was?  And, why are so many Americans, especially Senators, so adamant about convicting this embattled governor with the poofy hair without benefit of a trial?

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.   The Free Dictionary