Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Schakowsky again endorses Newman
Next Post: US appellate court upholds ruling against Janus back dues claim
Posted in:
* News-Gazette editorial…
Arroyo’s departure from the House is no great loss. But that does not detract from the fact that he’s being punished based on accusations, not convictions for criminal wrongdoing.
FBI tape-recorded conversations between Arroyo and a cooperating witness don’t appear to leave Arroyo solid ground on which to assert his innocence. Still, even though Arroyo was effectively thrown out of the Legislature and not into jail, it’s never a good day when accusation is tantamount to guilt.
That regrettable stance was enthusiastically embraced by Madigan, who said “the allegations contained in this criminal complaint go beyond anything that could be considered a lapse of judgment or minor indiscretion.”
* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with House members who said they would eject Luis Arroyo from the chamber if he didn’t leave on his own? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 3:57 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Schakowsky again endorses Newman
Next Post: US appellate court upholds ruling against Janus back dues claim
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I voted disagree. Why should Democrats whack one of their own when national Republicans are protecting Trump at all costs?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:03 pm
Generally disagree with dumping someone based on accusations without a hearing to allow the presentation of evidence and a defense.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:06 pm
I voted disagree. He has not been found guilty of anything. As said allegations are just allegations. However he should have to give up any chairmanships.
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:17 pm
House members are going to be asked and asked about this and they pretty much have to come up with an answer of some sort. It’s probably much safer (and in their own self interest in the long run) for them to take a hard line than a mushy line or neutral line against corruption.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:19 pm
I voted disagree he hasnt been convicted of any wrong doing Yet its innocent till proven guilty as i recall
Comment by independent Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:19 pm
===He has not been found guilty of anything===
Nixon wasn’t found guilty of anything and he quit.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:21 pm
I voted disagree. A person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Maybe there could be a committee created called ‘Committee of the Accused’, with the current legislator facing the worst accusations being chairman. Chairman could obviously change at a moments notice. We as Illinoisans could celebrate the days and have a daily count as to when the committee was ‘empty’. Like at a factory that counts the days since the last accident.
Comment by Nobodys Accountable Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:22 pm
I agreed. His only possible defense to keep his job was “I didn’t do anything wrong and this is a smear.” He didn’t have that available so he should go one way or the other.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:23 pm
===Why should Democrats whack one of their own when national Republicans are protecting Trump at all costs?===
We’re not like them.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:24 pm
i voted disagree. Rich, I counter your example with the example of LaShawn Ford. He was accused, yet found to have done no wrong. I would also add Aaron Schock, who ultimately had charges dropped.
Comment by 32nd warder Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:25 pm
Just because there could possibly be a legal defense doesn’t detract from the fact the feds have him on tape offering a bribe and delivering the check for the bribe. That’s in violation of ethics rules regardless if there is a legal defense that would get him out of a criminal charge. I voted “agree”.
Comment by Just Sayin' Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:25 pm
The residents of his district deserve effective representation. If his fellow legislators believe he is incapable of effectively representing his district then it is their best interest for him to be removed and replaced with a representative who can. Our government has three branches, this isn’t the judicial one.
Comment by Poster #37 Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:26 pm
Agree. There are lines. At the most extreme, if someone was found with a bloody knife over a dead body, it’s probably OK to pass judgment prior to conviction… Particularly when no extenuating circumstances seem to exist.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:27 pm
“LaShawn Ford. He was accused, yet found to have done no wrong”
Actually he plead guilty to a lesser misdemeanor tax charge.
https://abc7chicago.com/politics/lashawn-ford–pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor/239256/
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:29 pm
Agree. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard. Plus, these allegations have to do with his official actions as a legislator.
Comment by Notorious RBG Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:34 pm
There is process vs. politics.
The reason impeachment or expulsion is in the constitution as a punishment reasoned by legislative bodies is that policing those governing must include rational thoughts outside judicial restraints.
Voted Agree.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:39 pm
Voted agree. If that is what they want to do it is legal and well within their prerogative as a legislative body.
I suspect the news-gazette and other right wingers who said “no” are trying to set up their defense of Trump.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:39 pm
I voted agree, but only because the first Facebook-like comment referenced Trump.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:40 pm
Are you kidding me??????? Was the recoring from someone else. Of course I agree.
Comment by Steve B Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:41 pm
I would tend to disagree but I also had plenty of time to deal with Arroyo. Nothing surprises me.
Comment by Wiley Coyote Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:42 pm
Agree. If this relays the message that serious and clear allegations of venal corruption won’t be tolerated from public officials, that strikes me as the right approach.
For those who disagree, would you rather he continue to serve under these circumstances?
Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:43 pm
I voted yes. He was charged with serious crimes. If the Illinois House wants that standard : it’s up to them. Others may face the same standard also.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:45 pm
Standard required for losing your job is just preponderance of evidence;
this isn’t putting him in jail, which would require beyond reasonable doubt…
Comment by Agreed Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:46 pm
Voted Agree. Just Sayin’ @4:25pm said it best.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:46 pm
Voted agree. I don’t think the feds are lying about having him on tape bribing a State Senator. I would have to look at Sen Cullerton’s indictment more, but it seems likely the same considerations should apply to him too.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 4:52 pm
Voted agree. This wasn’t a criminal trial. That’s coming. This is simply telling the man he doesn’t work here anymore.
Comment by SSL Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:11 pm
“Standard required for losing your job is just preponderance of evidence”
Actually, no.
Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:12 pm
I agree with the Dems. They voted him out of a job. They are not the jury in his criminal trial. Two different standards all together.
Comment by Leave a light on George Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 5:14 pm
I agree. People usually do not own the jobs they hold.
Comment by Lurkin' MBA Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:05 pm
Agree. Impeachment, or ejection in this case, is a political decision that has nothing to do with the judicial process. He may or may not have committed a crime but he was injudicious enough to create a foul odor in the house. That is sufficient reason to see him gone. The State owes him nothing.
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:27 pm
Agree. He was caught on a wire. He didn’t object.
Comment by Habla English? Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:37 pm
There are only 177 legislators. They spend a lot of time together and have a good general sense of who they are, especially after a few terms. They’ve also seen a few prosecutions from seats with a pretty good view.
So when charges come public, they can usually discern how serious the charges are and how credible. And they can then decide if they trust the accused or not. It’s a political decision, and they’re well qualified to make it.
Comment by DIstant watcher Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:45 pm
Agree. When its overwhelmingly apparent that a legislator is a bad actor the body must take immediate action to protect the integrity and preserve whatever public trust is left.
This isn’t a phoned in anonymous complaint. This evidence is as good as admitted in any court in the country. Buh bye.
Comment by Winderweezle Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 6:57 pm
Cast the first Stone
Comment by Just Saying Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 7:29 pm
Voted disagree. But the whole lot of em are only worried about political standing. Not what is right or wrong.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 9:02 pm
Yes, the standards for public office are different than criminal proceedings. Blagojevich was impeached before he was convicted. The evidence against Arroyo is overly compelling.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 10:44 pm
Agree because this is not just an accusation, this is an indictment supported by probable cause.
Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Nov 5, 19 @ 11:50 pm
voted agreed.
if he did what is on those transcripts, and he fails to explain how this is all a huge misunderstanding, he is an awful public servant and needs to go.
i understand he has the right to remain silent, but that’s for his criminal case. as a public servant, he owes his constituents more.
Comment by dying HDO Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 7:53 am
Had Arroyo refused to resign, he would have faced a formal inquiry. At that point, evidence would have to be disclosed to the voting body so that they could render a sound decision. So, force him out on the basis of a probable cause search, or have a public expulsion inquiry that affirms the evidence. Either way, Arroyo loses.
Comment by NIref Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 8:19 am
Agree with the caveat that they should do the same for anyone accused of/arrested for wrongdoing if evidence shows it to be true. Regardless of whether a trial is held yet.
Comment by MadManMad Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 10:49 am
I agree with editorial. An American principle is “innocent until proven guilty.” Sadly, we have lost sight of that principle.
I voted disagree.
I voted disagree. While it might be within the rules/laws for the House to take such action, I think all Americans ought to be treated equally and we (at least in principle) are innocent
Comment by Nanker Phelge Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 11:07 am