Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Thursday, Jun 5, 2008

* I’ve been saying for some time that nobody should believe a word that the drug-addled admitted criminal Stu Levine said, and the Tony Rezko jurors were apparently of the same mind…

Jurors weighing the fate of political insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko listened to the government’s star witness, Stuart Levine, for more than three weeks, but it didn’t take long for them to decide in deliberations they could not send Rezko to prison based solely on his account.

* But there was more to it than just that. Levine physically repelled some jurors…

“He was an amazing person,” juror Loida Acevedo said of Levine, whom she described as the main character if the trial were a book. “I have never met a person like that, and I hope I never do in my lifetime.” […]

Jurors said they had enough problems with Levine to essentially set his testimony aside.

“We gave it no weight,” juror Andrea Coleman said. “He played with us in the courtroom also.”

* They mostly convicted Rezko of stuff where there was clear evidence besides Stu Levine’s word…

“On those counts where Levine was involved, we put it in consideration with everything else,” juror Mona Lisa Mauricette said. “We weren’t going only on Levine’s testimony . . . We found consistency in the testimony and credibility when we looked at it all together.”.

On some things he was believed because there was other evidence - evidence that Levine surely knew of in advance. Otherwise, nope.

* And Levine’s word was pretty much all they had on the alleged $1.5 million shakedown scheme of Tom Rosenberg. Levine claimed that Rosenberg was pressued to contribute that money to Gov. Blagojevich’s campaign fund. The defense claimed that Levine had lied to people on all sides and there was no shakedown plan other than in Levine’s head.

I told you yesterday that the acquittal on the extortion and aiding and abetting bribery was good news for Gov. Blagojevich. But this scheme was also the only big thing that brought Bill Cellini into play, and as I told subscribers this morning, Rezko’s acquittal on those two counts takes a big load off Cellini’s back, whatever else you might read today.

* Related…

* Audio of Jurors reactions

* Patrick Fitzgerald press conference

* Rezko jury talks

- Posted by Rich Miller

26 Comments

- Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 9:41 am:
==Duffy, who pledged an appeal and added Illinois currently is a “difficult environment in which to get a fair trial on corruption charges.”==
Especially difficult if you present no defense. I think Rezko surrendered because he is tired of fighting it, looking to cut a deal and stay away from Vegas. I’m guessing the gambling debt charges would be swept away if he cooperates…

- Ghost - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 9:43 am:
More importantly, thanks to Levine every time I shop for cereal I shall be reminded of him and this trial, and not in a good way.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 10:06 am:
I think the Nevada charges are the least of his problems.

Stuart Levine — what a life. And what a political culture that puts him at the center of power.

- Will Clark - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 11:14 am:
Lot of horn tooting lately.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 11:19 am:
lol

- r.u.kidding - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 1:04 pm:
You have got to be kidding in your defense of Bill Cellini. He’s caught on TAPE, for god’s sake! He’s caught talking with Levine, admits to Levine that he’s lying to Rosenberg and acting “innocent” like he’s a bystander to all this, when in reality he keeps pushing Rosenberg to Levine, “the rabbi,” so Levine can extract his bribe.
He tells Levine he told Rosenberg that Rosenberg is attracting unwanted attention to both himself and Cellini (a lie designed, again, to make himself look innocent to Rosenberg), that by doing all of this, the administration has realized how much business they’re doing with the state and that they’re now in jeopardy (why else would someone doing a lot of business in the state be in jeopardy unless they’re not paying the quid-pro-quo?) and last of all, when Rosenberg goes nuclear and threatens to go to the feds, Cellini proposes the Machiavellian way of dealing with the situation. Don’t cut Rosenberg off cold turkey, denying him his $220 million investment — that’s too obvious. Give him an insignificant amount, $25 million, so that he can’t say he’s been shafted, but in reality, he has been.

Yeah, Cellini’s “in the clear” alright.

All this verdict means is the jury couldn’t tie this shakedown to REZKO, not that they can’t tie it to Cellini. This is no load off his back. “The Pope” still needs to say his prayers.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 1:06 pm:
You’re reading way too much into those recordings, if you ask me. But you didn’t, so whatever.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
I couldn’t remember the date, so I went back to the tapes and pulled 5/8/04 convo btwn cellini and levine.

It seems pretty clear to me in that conversation that Levine lied to Cellini about the shakedown.

Levine: There’s nothing for us to handle.

Cellini: Hope so.

Levine: …Tony told me that.. he said… this guy (Rosenberg) had approached him (about contributing) but who knows.

Levine hated Rosenberg because of some old personal stuff between them. He was trying to brick the guy’s deal with TRS. No doubt. Cellini and Levine were pals and Cellini was helping. No doubt. But I don’t think from reading all the transcripts (and I did read them, and they’re not pretty) that Cellini was involved with some extortion scheme. Was Levine? I dunno. He was certainly telling Rosenberg that one existed, but it seems clear he was just trying to brick a guy he clearly hated.

Also, you answered your own question…

===why else would someone doing a lot of business in the state be in jeopardy unless they’re not paying the quid-pro-quo?===

If they weren’t paying, then where’s the scheme?

Also, I wrote this morning…

===This is not a blanket defense of Bill Cellini. He is who he is. There’s no telling what else the feds might have on him or anyone else. ===

They are probably chasing the guy, but I don’t think from my read that he was part of an extortion plot because I don’t think the plot ever really existed. And, apparently, neither did the jury.

- Garp - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
“I’ve been saying for some time that nobody should believe a word that the drug-addled admitted criminal Stu Levine said, and the Tony Rezko jurors were apparently of the same mind…”

It appears the only people who put their trust in Levine was Rezco and Blogo et al. And they did so with hundreds of millions of dollars.

So why would anyone allow such an unsavory character to manage millions? The answer, of course, is that you don’t hire a boy scout when you want to pilfer the treasury, you need an accomplished thief. That alone demonstates the need to remove this current governor.

- Trophy Husband - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:43 pm:
Gosh, you were so hoping this jury agreed with you. They did not. They saw that he was a criminal, but not lying about his crimes. The jury rightfully insisted on corraberating evidence to convict in a case this high profile with implications for a candidate for President and the end of a career for a sitting Governor. They concluded that Levine’s version of events rang true.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:48 pm:
===They concluded that Levine’s version of events rang true.===

Only in areas where his testimony was corroborated by other evidence (that he likely knew about). No corroboration, no convictions.

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:56 pm:
Rich- With all do respect, the idea is to have evidence corroberate parole testimony is it not?

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 2:58 pm:
Did you not read the juror’s comments?

But, yeah, you’ve got a point. And I say that Levine lied about this Rosenberg shakedown and have been saying so for months.

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:01 pm:
Levine was a bad guy up to bad things but does that exonerate those that were doing business with him and aiding him? What I’m trying to say is that he was a bad guy but he couldn’t do it on his own. He had Beck and others to help him did he not? For example, int he Hospital deal, with the CEO he “bumped into” he had people help him set that up right? Do you mean that becasue he was a drug user and a bad guy that the people that helped him pull off these schemes at TRS and The Hospital Board did not work with him and, in fact, help him execute his nefarious activities?

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:03 pm:
What I said was, on this particular item, he was lying.

He lied all the time, apparently, but my point was about this particular item that got so much play in the media for months.

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:05 pm:
Rich you said, “I say that Levine lied about this Rosenberg shakedown and have been saying so for months.” I know you’ve been saying that but…

But didn’t Rosenberg make it clear in his testimony that Cellini was in on it and doesn’t the wire tap also make that clear where Cellini is conspiring with Levine?

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:06 pm:
I agree with you that there is Rezko wasn’t mentioned (no proof) but the shakedown with Cellini and Levine is clear is it not?

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:11 pm:
No, it’s not clear at all, which is my point. Where is it clear that Cellini shook Rosenberg down for $1.5 million?

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:15 pm:
Ok. But the wire tap does have Cellini, rather exposed, doesn’t it. I mean he’s basically telling Levine how to play it. Levine is trying to shake Rosenberg down. Rosenberg calls Cellini right? Cellini then calls Levine and tell’s him how to play it? Is that not a correct sum of the parts? Cellini as middleman broker in the deal between Rosenberg and the TRS board (Levine, Beck (who was doing Rezko and Kelly’s bidding))? Where am I off track here?

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:17 pm:
No. Cellini tells his friend Levine how he’s trying to settle Rosenberg down and cool him out and, in the end, brick him. Not how he’s trying to extort a kickback.

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:22 pm:
By “brick him” do you mean don’t give him the investment money because he won’t pay the extortion dough?

I just don’t see how Cellini is clean here…and i don’t think Levine was working alone. Was Beck working with him and, as Levine says, doing what Rezko wanted?

I’m not sure but I think you’re splitting hairs here Rich. It’s like this analogy: there’s a drive bye shooting but the driver, because he didn’t pull the trigger is not guilty of anything, becasue the passanger was the one with the gun.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:26 pm:
===By “brick him” do you mean don’t give him the investment money because he won’t pay the extortion dough?===

No. For being a pain in the rear and an enemy and making threats. That’s how those people are dealt with by people like Cellini. Is it right? No. Is it legal? I dunno. But did Cellini shake the guy down? Not that has been proved so far.

- GofGlenview - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:28 pm:
Isn’t “bricking him” the same as asking for extortion money but in reverse? That’s why we don’t know if it’s legal right?

I say “guilty” off with their heads! ;)

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 3:31 pm:
lol. what can i say to that?

- nino - Thursday, Jun 5, 08 @ 9:08 pm:
levine and mr c have been so tight for so long that it would be hard to imagine stu not having alot more to say.

- For record - Friday, Jun 6, 08 @ 6:53 am:
But Rod Blagojevich is the biggest liar…..

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.