@rubylights Said 
I hate to be the devil's advocate here, but i think the decision was totally unfair.
he deserved a trial in which he could defend himself, at least. unless he's not being prosecutred, idk.
whatever the case, it seemed to me like everyone ganged up on him with insufficient proof. i mean, it sure sounded like he was guilty but that could have been a matter of opinion.
"The senate seat is f*cking golden. I'm not going to just give it away for nothing."
Of course, to most of us it is obvious that he's trying to sell it, but he could argue that he meant it was a valuable thing because the illinoisian peoples' voices are an important thing to represent in the senate and he wouldn't give it to just anyone who wasn't qualified enough for it. That, of course, is most probably untrue, but my point is that he deserved a chance to at least say it.
You don't need to be convicted of a crime and have a trial to be removed from office. Similarly, you don't have to do something illegal and don't get a trial when you're fired from McDonalds for doing a crappy job.
Jan 30, 2009 @ 20:18:39
