Free A Just Cause by Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki Page A

privilege to those who would or could pay. To the veteran politicians and political practitioners in the hearing-room audience, who had read the frequent newspaper articles and were aware of the methods of the governor’s office, Canary’s testimony shone a spotlight on the obscene conduct of the last six years. Now they showed little outward reaction as they sat in wordless contemplation. It was up to the silent onlookers in the hearing room to reconcile the reality of politics and the ideal of their values.
    The testimonies of Brown, Bedore, and Canary publicly confirmed what many legislators had suspected for years: the Blagojevich administration had systematically engineered state government into an enterprise to benefit Rod Blagojevich and his close advisors. Everything was for sale: state contracts, appointments, jobs. The recent trial of Tony Rezko had laid bare the interworking of those close to the governor, and with the PPB witnesses’ descriptions of questionable circumstances regarding state contracts, it was clear that the Blagojevich fund-raising octopus extended deep into state operations. But the day’s testimonies had reported only suspicious behavior and circumstantial evidence. The examples presented by Brown and Bedore would require a prolonged investigation by branches of government outsideof the legislature to uncover tangible evidence and possible charges. Cindi Canary’s testimony and the recent newspaper reports revealed patterns of pay to play, but there was no hard evidence that any contract awarded or job given had been based on quid pro quo. The hearing adjourned until after Christmas.
    The house staff continued working over the holiday, but the investigative committee received a welcome break. The interlude was interrupted for Jim Durkin, however. On Christmas Eve he received two frantic messages on his cell phone from a lobbyist who had arrived in Springfield with the Blagojevich administration and was close to the governor, asking Durkin to meet him in a hotel lobby in Oak Brook, a western suburb of Chicago. The former prosecutor thought the messages seemed “curious” and a bit suspicious. Durkin did not return the calls. 26
    The Defense
    On Monday, December 29, two days before New Year’s Eve, the committee reconvened to hear Ed Genson, the governor’s defense attorney, answer the charges. The week between Christmas and New Year’s is normally a time when the pace of Illinois government slows, and posts in the state capitol are manned by skeleton crews. But this was not a normal day. The entire day would be devoted to hearing and debating Genson’s contradictory arguments. The governor’s counsel would present the argument for the defense, and the committee would hear questions or rebuttal from its members. Genson was not allowed to cross-examine previous prosecution witnesses or call witnesses to offer testimony for the defense, nor would the prosecution call any witnesses or present further evidence. In legal circles Genson had a reputation as a persuasive defense attorney, and the anticipation in the hearing room was palpable.
    During the past two weeks Ellis and his legal team had constructed a case for impeachment based on the allegations in the criminal complaint and administrative transgressions, which were substantiated by tangible evidence of malfeasance and misfeasance that had occurred during Blagojevich’s terms in office. The governor should be impeached, they maintained, because he had improperly executed lawful acts, committed wrongful conduct, and failed to perform his official duties.
    Genson began his remarks by renewing his request to subpoena four witnesses: Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago executive and close friend of president-electObama; Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois congressman and the designated chief of staff for Obama; Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.; and Nils Larsen, an employee of the Tribune Company. 27 He told the