Soxbadger

I have no idea. If he was allowed to call his own witnesses, why didnt he just give them a list of thousands of witnesses and stall the entire thing?

So does anyone have a clue if Blago can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Illinois? I read Article 4, Section 14 but it has no process for appeals. There is also no discussion of due process or the procedural aspects of the impeachment. Could there be an appeal based on the fact that Blago was denied due process when he could not bring in his own witnesses? His argument would rely primarily on the Illinois Constitution, specifically: Would an impeachment conviction be depriving him of life, liberty or property? Here is what the annotated Article 4, section 14 says: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution.pdf So perhaps the 1997 rules are what they followed.

Here are some of my theories, none are exactly spoilers just its only 1 day since the last episode and some people DVR:

My biggest problem is that the man was a WWII veteran. He served for the United States when the United States was in need, when he was in need where was the US to protect him? He deserved better from his county.

When I read the criminal complaint I thought this was going to be a tough conviction. The main reason is because they need the person on the other end to come forward and testify that they were actually going to buy the seat. If you only have tapes where Blago is saying "this seat is valuable", "I want something for this seat", it does not prove anything. Even if you have Blago on tape saying "I am going to sell this seat to the highest bidder", there is no way to prove that he was seriously considering it, as opposed to just "joking around." The prosecution needs one of the people who were contacted about "buying" the seat to come forward and confirm that the seat actually was being auctioned. Without some one coming forward it will almost be impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Blago actually was going to sell the seat. Fitzgerald in some respects did start the criminal process to early. The normal way it would have been done was after Blago did the misdeed, so that they could catch him red handed with money trails etc. The way that it is now, it is just a complete clusterf*** for the Prosecution. Blago didnt sell the seat. Blago's appointment was approved. So now all they have is "attempt" which is weak. Itd be like listening in on a drug deal, arresting the dealer before the sale goes down and when you arrest the dealer he has no drugs. How can you prove that he was going to attempt to sell it, when you have no one who is saying they were willing to buy it? If it really was more than just idle chatter, wouldnt there be some one who wanted to buy it and was going through the process of actually getting ready to buy it? That question will haunt the prosecution, unless they can get some one to testify against Blago. The question is, who will ruin their career just to convict Blago, because they will have to say that they were attempting to negotiate to buy the seat from Blago. There are no flipper witnesses for the Fed to rely on in this case, most people I talk to think that its at worst 50-50 Blago gets convicted, with many believing that its a much better chance for acquittal. The impeachment is not a trial, its a proceeding where the result has already been dictated (guilty) they just need to go through the motions to make it look fair. Madigans, Mells, does it really matter? They are all in it for themselves.

The theory I have with the polar bears is that they were kept on the Island by the Dharma initiative and they used those "food games" to teach them how to turn the wheel in case they needed to move the island. Which is why a polar bear was found in Tunisia.

Thats just the Wisconsin offense to wait until under 10 to even attempt a shot. The problem is lately nothing has been falling, regardless of it being rushed or wide open. Illinois made plenty of rushed and highly contested shots, you just expect that college players are going to shoot better than 1-6 or 1-7. Illinois played good defense, but more of it was Wisconsin's erratic and horrible shooting.

Wisconsin had 59 shot attempts to Illinois 42 shot attempts. Leur 1-6, Bohannon 1-7, Wisconsin has no chance with those shooting splits. I think from this loss they may have found something to at least stay competitive with Purdue next game. But it all comes down to shooting, if they cant hit 45% of their attempts from the field they just arent going to win many games. I was surprised how reliant Illinois was on McCamey, prior to this game he hadnt seemed to be the focus, but this game he just wouldnt miss.

Wisconsin is shooting 9-27. If thats "as well as they can", I doubt they will win any other games this season. Leur is 1-5 and has missed some easy looks, Landry has missed some in close as well as Krabbenhoft. If they cant shoot above 50% they have no chance to win. From what I have seen they arent even going to come close to that, they are just completely off and no one seems to be able to score.

Well Wisconsin/Illinois, Wisconsin has not lost 4 straight Big 10 games in 11 years, but this just seems like that one year where nothing seems to go their way. As a Wisconsin fan its some what frustrating, but at the same time when you look at how far the team has come since the mid 90's (hadnt gone to NCAA tournament in something like 50 years) to now going something like 13 straight years, you just have to hope that its just the law of averages and this is the down year. Weber has had Wisconsin's number, so this game is probably not going to go well. But who knows, maybe this game will make up for the Iowa/Minnesota choke jobs. They just need to get their act together, because they are far to talented to be dropping games like this.

Who is going to come forward and say that they were working with Blago to buy the seat? They might get him in the Senate, but Im not sure the feds will be able to convict him.

Its better to report and be wrong, than wait and report outside of the time period allowed and be stuck with the charge. Usually it works out, but its always better to be safe and say "I see some strange charges, Im just not sure."

Unless Wisconsin gets its act together itll be playing in the NIT for the first time in a decade (I believe). You hate to start saying "must win" but I think if Wisconsin has any real aspirations they need to go into Champaign and win. The worst part for the Badgers is that Weber is the coach who has given Wisconsin the most trouble.

True, but I feel there was no incentive for Ben to lie about the consequences of moving the island.

I agree. Ben said that whoever moves the island can not return. But perhaps there is some sort of caveat where if he does what the Island wants then he can return.

Wisconsin has been terrible lately.

Yeah and then one time youll accidentally put your credit card in the atm and youll get money, but itll be at a huge interest rate. Good luck, just make sure to stay on top of it. Persistence usually pays off.

Call the bank who issued your debit card and call the pizzeria. In the future if you want to be safe, use a credit card. With a credit card you can call your credit card company and they almost always immediately reverse the charges and begin to deal with the dispute for you. Debit card is slightly different and often times it can be much harder to get the money back as the money is already gone from the account. You need to notify your bank asap so that all future charges may be stopped.

Has NU now beaten MSU and Minnesota back to back?

And Minnesota lost to Wisconsin, who lost to Michigan. Which makes them the absolute worst team as Michigan/Wisconsin were fighting for the bottom two.

Fair enough, I disagree with this assessment but at this point outside of a nuclear war happening, how can you really prove how bad it would be.

Oh and Im sorry if I hit a nerve, but that was the point. Anyone can talk down to some one else over the internet. Just stick to the argument.

Im sorry I retract my statement that you were a freshman. I really am not sure where youre going with the argument either. So now are you saying major powers did war post WWII, which would defeat your premise that wars are to costly so reasonable powers dont fight? Or are you saying the escalation between China/USSR/USA was prevented by the UN? Im just not sure where that line of argument is going, because I still think MAD between USSR and USA was more important in preventing war post WWII than the UN, which was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the more powerful players.

You really need to check your ego at the door. I understand that youre a freshman in college and you think you know everything, but you have to realize that there are people on this board who already have graduate degrees. China's first nuclear test was 1964 and did not develop H-Bomb until 1967. Korean war (as Im sure you will learn in a very expensive graduate school) ended prior to 1960. How could China threaten MAD without nuclear weapons? No the they are not identical. In the scenario of MAD you are talking about entire countries being destroyed in hours. The death tolls would have been in the hundreds of millions instantly. Do you not see the difference of USSR and USA having thousands of nuclear war heads, compared to China not having any? (Edit) Oh the movie comment was more about your ego than the fact you should learn from a movie. You think people are impressed that youre going to get a degree in international relations and are going to grad school. Its cool and all but you really dont need to say it in every other post, or insinuate people need to read books. There are plenty of people on here with impressive resumes.

I like your tenacity, but that is not what MAD was. MAD was the idea that if either the USA or USSR attacked, that because they had such large nuclear arsenals they could ensure the destruction of all of the people in the attacking country. WWI and WWII are irrelevant as prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the atomic weapon had never been used. No because after World War I countries went to defense systems like the Maginot Line, they did not start a nuclear arms race where 2 countries could single handedly annihilate the world. If you want to see more on this subject I suggest the movie: "War Games" with Matthew Broderick. Historically speaking there is no comparison to MAD as no country outside of the USSR or USA have ever been capable of completely wiping another country off the face of the map in hours. "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds." Nuclear weapons have entirely changed world warfare, that is why post WWII is devoid of major wars. Its not because some league of extraordinary gentlemen sit around a table and act like they care about the world (if they did that there wouldnt be permanent security council members who can effectively veto everything, ie USA/USSR were above the law). Its because the USA and USSR could basically destroy the world. Look at the Cuban missile crisis, was it the UN that stopped USSR from setting up nukes in Cuba? http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962-cuba-un1.html Best line right here: Why would USSR put nukes in Cuba, USSR already has enough nukes to kill you all if you attack first! What a great argument from the Soviets.