A Just Cause by Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki

needed from them, but as it was preparing to question the previous witnesses, Sam Adam Jr., an attorney assisting Genson, asked to be recognized. He asked Maram, after Blagojevich disregarded JCAR’s decision, “how many brother and sister, Illinois citizens’ lives were saved as a result from that moment on? How many lives were saved because of his policy to go forward and give healthcare?” This diverged from the track of questioning by lead attorney Genson, whose questions and comments addressed points of law and established courtroom procedures. Adam’s questions, posed in street vernacular, represented an abstract attempt to solicit irrelevant emotion from a specific audience and present a different characteristic to Blagojevich’s defense. Genson argued points of law, while Adam was a showman. His style was confrontational, and he relied on sensationalism and intimidation (364). 22
    Lou Lang immediately objected to the question. Currie agreed and had the committee move on to follow-up questions for the University of Illinois professors. Lang and other committee members questioned Andrew Morriss and Robert Rich for the record. The questions and answers reaffirmed the authority of JCAR and the separation of power among the legislative and executive branches.
    Genson attempted to challenge the qualifications of the professors who claimed that Blagojevich should be impeached for ignoring JCAR’s ruling. Durkin objected and stated that Genson’s questions, as prescribed in the committee rules, should be of a clarification nature only. What Genson was doing, Durkin claimed, was cross-examination. The discussion betweenGenson and the committee grew heated, with members making objections to several of his questions and statements, but the lawyer endeavored to make his point: the JCAR case was not settled, the professors were merely speculating and giving their opinions, and thus there was no legal basis to justify Blagojevich being impeached. In a court of law his point would have relevance, but here it did not matter.
    The investigative committee next turned to the most powerful evidence supporting the charge of maladministration: the results of the audits of the flu vaccine, the I-SaveRx program, and the activities of the Department of Central Management Services (CMS). These audits had provided indisputable evidence of mismanagement and malfeasance, gleaned meticulously by independent professionals and substantiated by hard data. Auditor General Bill Holland summarized the audit findings. Holland was well known to the committee and well respected. A former member of both the house and senate staff, he was one of them.
    Holland addressed the two audits separately, beginning with the CMS audit, which focused on the administration of the efficiency initiatives program created by the legislature to seek efficient operations throughout state government. He quickly reviewed the legislative intent of the initiatives and the program’s structure as defined by statute. In sonorous tones, he related what the audit had uncovered: CMS was not complying with the efficiency initiatives statute. The audit found that CMS had overbilled the state agencies, and the money was then used to pay outside vendors and consultants picked by the governor’s office (418–21). As run by the Blagojevich administration, the efficiency initiatives had resulted in circumventing the legislature’s appropriation process.
    Holland took note of one particular company, Illinois Property Asset Management (IPAM), which received a $30 million, no-bid contract award before the company even existed. In another case, McKinsey and Company was awarded a $14.7 million contract to review the state’s procurement process after McKinsey donated $52,000 to the Friends of Blagojevich, and the contract was awarded by a CMS employee who was a former employee of the company (458–59).
    Jack Franks had anticipated