Read Online A Just Cause by Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki - Free Book Online
Authors: Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki
Ads: Link
Currie announced that the committee would meet again on December 22 and cautioned members to prepare for two days of hearings. To everyoneâs relief, the committee adjourned.
Administrative Charges, Part II
Three days before Christmas, when the committee reconvened, the trappings of the holidays were on full display in the state capitol. The outside dome was festooned with colored lights, and a large Christmas tree adorned the center of the first floor of the rotunda. But the holiday atmosphere did not pervade the building. Inside room 114, it was business as usual. House staff was busy preparing for the meeting, doing the thingsthat had been done hundreds of times for committee meetings. Documents were passed out and microphones checked as committee members began to drift in. It had been thirteen days since the self-assured governor was last seen shaking hands in the federal court, and despite the national media focus and widespread speculation that he would resign and reach a compromise plea with federal prosecutors, he had not. Instead, the governor had engaged in a national media campaign, attacking leaders of the house and senate and proclaiming his innocence.
Over the previous four days, through the weekend, the committee staff had worked nonstop. The cause for the impeachment resolution was beginning to take shape. The resolution would include the allegations contained in the criminal complaint, but impeachment based solely on the criminal complaint, without an indictment, no matter what degree of probable cause could be demonstrated; would be difficult. The impeachment resolution had to include incidences of misconduct or the unlawful execution of lawful acts that had occurred during the governorâs administration. The previous hearing had provided what the committee neededâtangible evidence that there had been constitutional violations, the governor had usurped legislative prerogative, and he had possibly engaged in criminal activity. It was expected that the prosecution would continue to add to the growing administrative charges.
The governorâs defense attorney had questioned the legality of using the federal wiretaps in the impeachment hearings, and the house counsel felt that it was important to reinforce the use of the tapes as evidence of probable cause. To justify the federal governmentâs use of wiretaps, the committee invited retired assistant US attorney John Scully to testify. Scully was not involved with the Blagojevich case, but he was an ideal, credible witness for the prosecution. A US Naval Academy graduate, he had gone on to law school and served as a lawyer in the navy. After retiring from military service, he joined the Department of Justice. Scully was familiar with the procedures required to obtain court permission to install wiretaps, and his experience and integrity were beyond reproach.
The committee had chosen Republican Jim Durkin to be the lead interrogator to question Sully. Durkin was a seasoned trial prosecutor who was also familiar with the procedures necessary to install wiretaps. 23 His purpose was to ask questions and elicit answers that would serve to validate the necessity of, and establish a justifiable cause for, installing wiretaps. Scullyâs testimony would walk the committee through the process of reviewby the US Attorneyâs Office, court review, and authorization. To further legitimize Scullyâs testimony regarding wiretaps, Durkin started with basic questions: What were the types of intrusive devices, bugs, and wiretaps, and what did it mean to be a cooperating witness wearing a wire? Scully dutifully answered. Could he explain the process of obtaining permission to install a wiretap? Scully reviewed the steps necessary within the US Attorneyâs Office to prepare an affidavit and apply for court permission to install a wiretap (555â97). 24 âWhat you are trying to do . . . is establish probable cause, that there
Administrative Charges, Part II
Three days before Christmas, when the committee reconvened, the trappings of the holidays were on full display in the state capitol. The outside dome was festooned with colored lights, and a large Christmas tree adorned the center of the first floor of the rotunda. But the holiday atmosphere did not pervade the building. Inside room 114, it was business as usual. House staff was busy preparing for the meeting, doing the thingsthat had been done hundreds of times for committee meetings. Documents were passed out and microphones checked as committee members began to drift in. It had been thirteen days since the self-assured governor was last seen shaking hands in the federal court, and despite the national media focus and widespread speculation that he would resign and reach a compromise plea with federal prosecutors, he had not. Instead, the governor had engaged in a national media campaign, attacking leaders of the house and senate and proclaiming his innocence.
Over the previous four days, through the weekend, the committee staff had worked nonstop. The cause for the impeachment resolution was beginning to take shape. The resolution would include the allegations contained in the criminal complaint, but impeachment based solely on the criminal complaint, without an indictment, no matter what degree of probable cause could be demonstrated; would be difficult. The impeachment resolution had to include incidences of misconduct or the unlawful execution of lawful acts that had occurred during the governorâs administration. The previous hearing had provided what the committee neededâtangible evidence that there had been constitutional violations, the governor had usurped legislative prerogative, and he had possibly engaged in criminal activity. It was expected that the prosecution would continue to add to the growing administrative charges.
The governorâs defense attorney had questioned the legality of using the federal wiretaps in the impeachment hearings, and the house counsel felt that it was important to reinforce the use of the tapes as evidence of probable cause. To justify the federal governmentâs use of wiretaps, the committee invited retired assistant US attorney John Scully to testify. Scully was not involved with the Blagojevich case, but he was an ideal, credible witness for the prosecution. A US Naval Academy graduate, he had gone on to law school and served as a lawyer in the navy. After retiring from military service, he joined the Department of Justice. Scully was familiar with the procedures required to obtain court permission to install wiretaps, and his experience and integrity were beyond reproach.
The committee had chosen Republican Jim Durkin to be the lead interrogator to question Sully. Durkin was a seasoned trial prosecutor who was also familiar with the procedures necessary to install wiretaps. 23 His purpose was to ask questions and elicit answers that would serve to validate the necessity of, and establish a justifiable cause for, installing wiretaps. Scullyâs testimony would walk the committee through the process of reviewby the US Attorneyâs Office, court review, and authorization. To further legitimize Scullyâs testimony regarding wiretaps, Durkin started with basic questions: What were the types of intrusive devices, bugs, and wiretaps, and what did it mean to be a cooperating witness wearing a wire? Scully dutifully answered. Could he explain the process of obtaining permission to install a wiretap? Scully reviewed the steps necessary within the US Attorneyâs Office to prepare an affidavit and apply for court permission to install a wiretap (555â97). 24 âWhat you are trying to do . . . is establish probable cause, that there
Similar Books
It's Always Darkest Before the Fridge Door Opens: Enjoying the Fruits of Middle Age
Phil Callaway, Martha O. Bolton
