Had one rap from the previous trial (lying to an FBI agent), and the retrial on the twenty hung counts led to seventeen guilty verdicts, one not guilty verdict and two hangs.
He’s got enough convictions to keep him in Federal prison for the rest of his pathetic miserable life, in theory. In reality, I bet he’ll probably get around 10, and will have to do 83.3% of his actual sentence.
Just goes to show you — Illinois Governors have a two-term limit, the first as Governor than another term in Federal prison.
Pat Quinn, behold your future.
In a sane world, these things would happen in the aftermath:
(1) This would by itself bury Obama in 2012. Mainly for the “company he keeps” logic, notwithstanding any actual corruption on his part. During the reading of the verdicts, I heard the names Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel stated out loud. Just like we heard Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and Dean and weren’t supposed to think that Richard Nixon had anything to do with it?
(2) Major league fuel added to the fire of the Statehood for Southern Illinois movement. Such a new state’s Constitution wouldn’t have one single Governor, but a three-person Gubernatorial board whose members are elected on a rotating basis and whose responsibilities are one-third of that of a typical one-person Governor, those responsibilities could rotate among the three-person Gubernatorial board from time to time. While I think dislodging Chicagograd means getting rid of the corruption, a new state of South Illinois would be an ideal laboratory for divided multi-actor executive power. Note: That isn’t an original idea on my part, it came from someone who was real active in the existing Statehood movement.
(3) The Federal Constitution being changed such that Governors have no power over the U.S. Senate, meaning that vacancies are left vacant until a special election, usually the next November of an even-numbered year (if that particular time isn’t that seat’s normal election cycle), can be scheduled. Ideally, I’d like to return the election of Senators to state legislatures, but an ideal compromise would be alternating State Legislature/Public Vote every six years for each Senate seat — That would mean in Missouri’s case, Claire McCaskill wins a plebiscite in 2006, then six years later the voting body is the Missouri General Assembly in 2012, then in 2018, that seat is public vote again, then 2024, back to the GA. In Roy Blunt’s case, he wins a public vote in 2010, in 2016 it becomes a GA vote, then in 2022, a public vote, then in 2028, a GA vote. In the case of a vacancy, you could make filling any vacancy (if the special election isn’t that seat’s usual election time) exclusively a matter of public vote or exclusively a matter of state legislature votes, preferably the former. For instance, Blunt wins a public vote in 2010, and would face the General Assembly for re-election in 2016. If he would have to resign for some reason tomorrow, that means that the seat would stay vacant until November 2012, at which time there will be a public election to fill it. And it would be a public election in spite of that seat on track for state legislature election in 2016. Or let’s say Blunt wins public vote in 2010, wins re-election to the Senate by votes of the MO General Assembly in 2016, and is slated for a public re-election vote in 2022. But he has to resign in 2017. That means in November 2018 there’s a public special election to replace him, not counting the usual tick tock cycle of a public election for that seat that would come in November 2022.