* House Republican press release…
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District has responded to both letters from Rep. Demmer and Rep. Welch about the parameters of the Special Investigating Committee. Ron Safer, special counsel for the petitioner Leader Jim Durkin, released the following statement:
“The US Attorney’s Office has given the Special Investigating Committee the green light to pursue all avenues of the investigation, including testimony and documents, that were articulated in the petition. We are grateful that US Attorney John Lausch told the Committee that his office recognizes the SIC’s ‘separate and independent obligation to conduct its inquiry.’ We look forward to the Committee convening promptly to do this important work.”
Ron Safer is managing partner at Riley, Safer, Holmes and Cancila specializing in complex, high-stakes cases with a focus in white collar and civil litigation. In 1989, Ron joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago and rose to Chief of Criminal Division, successfully prosecuting more than one hundreds defendants during his tenure.
Rep. Demmer’s letter, as well as the USAO’s response, are attached to this email.
* OK, here’s the Lausch reply letter…
Click the pic or the link for a larger image.
* And here’s what the HGOPs want to do…
To be clear, we intend to seek information – testimony and documents – from the following witnesses either through voluntary requests or subpoenas:
1. The testimony of Rep. Michael Madigan, about, among other things, the events described in the DPA
2. The testimony of Michael McClain before the SIC regarding, among other things, the events described in the DPA.
3. The testimony of Anne Prammagiore before the SIC regarding the events described in the DPA.
4. The testimony of Fidel Marquez before the SIC regarding the events described in the DPA.
5. The testimony of John Hooker before the SIC regarding the events described in the DPA.
6. The testimony of Jay D. Doherty before the SIC regarding, among other things, the events described in the DPA.
7. The testimony of Michael R. Zalewski before the SIC regarding, among other things, the events described in the DPA.
8. Testimony of current or former employees of ComEd or Exelon before the SIC regarding the events described in the DPA.
9. Document production of relevant materials by the individuals and entities listed in items #1-8 above regarding the admissions of ComEd contained in the DPA.
10. The issuance of document preservation letters to the individuals listed in items #1-8 above, or any other relevant individuals or entities.
Standing by for Rep. Welch’s statement, but this is how he characterized Lausch’s intent yesterday…
* Your office has no objection to requesting certain identified witnesses voluntarily testify or produce documents. However, it was stipulated there would be an objection to any witness disclosing material information or documents related to the federal investigation or grand jury deliberations. Thus, your office would object to the Committee requesting testimony or documents provided to your office in connection with your investigation.
* Your office would object to requests for documents, information, or testimony from your office, as well as other federal agencies, regarding the facts and circumstances underlying the DPA. This includes confirmation of the names of individuals or entities who are identified only by descriptive titles in the DPA and its attachments.
* Your office requested that the Committee consult with your office prior to seeking testimony or documents from any individuals, other than those that have been identified.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Chairman Welch…
State Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch released the following statement Thursday:
“The charge of the Special Investigating Committee is to investigate a petition brought by leader Durkin, which is based entirely in the federal government’s deferred prosecution agreement with Commonwealth Edison. U.S. Attorney Lausch’s letter today confirms our understanding that while this committee can call individuals to voluntarily appear, they would be limited in what they can discuss. In particular, information underlying the deferred prosecution agreement beyond what is already public could be met with objection by federal investigators, and any further information collected by the federal government that informed that agreement is explicitly off limits.
“We also see clearly that Republican members of this committee attempted to go beyond what has originally been discussed with the U.S. attorney. Once again, I will not allow this committee to inappropriately interfere with the work of the U.S. attorney, and I will not allow it to be used as a stage for political theater.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rep. Welch says he’s “looking at September 28, 2020 at 9am for the next meeting in Springfield.”
…Adding… More from Welch…
Working on invites now to all the witnesses on the list.
All i wanted was written guidance as has been done in the past. I got it. I think it’s clear. We will proceed.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:38 pm:
The vote is arguably 3-3
So… I’d try to get 60 votes to force the issue with the 3 Dems sitting on it.
Otherwise… what exactly will force these folks to comply?
- Legalese - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:41 pm:
Uh, that letter DOES NOT bode well for the GOP. Lots of legal terms of art that essentially lead to you can’t do much. I question if the GOP has counsel explaining this.
Welch was right.
- fs - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:46 pm:
== Uh, that letter DOES NOT bode well for the GOP. Lots of legal terms of art that essentially lead to you can’t do much. I question if the GOP has counsel explaining this.==
It basically says they can talk about anything, they just can’t say whether they spoke with the Feds about that information. Not sure how you think that’s bad for the committee being able to hold hearings.
- Perrid - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:47 pm:
Uh, Legalese, to me this sounds closer to what Demmer was saying.
- Flat Bed Ford - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:54 pm:
Legalese, Is that you Rep Welch?
This absolutely did NOT go Welch’s way.
- Southern Skeptic - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:58 pm:
Seems like the GOP can ask for anything other than communications with the Feds. Demmer was much closer to being correct.
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:03 pm:
My take of all of this is you can conduct your own investigation just don’t interfere with ours. I wouldn’t characterize that as greenlighting all avenues of investigation as there are clearly guard rails. It might be a little broader than Welch’s characterization but not much.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:05 pm:
Demmer didn’t lose, it coulda gone south.
Demmer won the activity, like a dog catching the bumper of a speeding car.
Ok, what was achieved?
- fs - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:07 pm:
== any further information collected by the federal government that informed that agreement is explicitly off limits.==
That is not what the letter said. It expressly said a person could discuss the substance of the information that was given to the Feds, they just can’t discuss whether that information was shared with the Feds.
The “we might object”’ is almost boilerplate reservation of an ability to object, which of course they “might” object to anything. It doesn’t mean they will.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:12 pm:
===It expressly said a person could discuss the substance of the information that was given to the Feds, they just can’t discuss whether that information was shared with the Feds.===
Who exactly are these “they” willing, voluntarily, testifying?
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:27 pm:
At the end of the day the work of the committee is dependent on people willingly coming forward and testifying. Lausch is saying that they can. The real question is will they? I think the answer to that is clear. As OW said, the dog caught the car. Now what?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:28 pm:
I can’t wait for all of these people to voluntarily appear and testify. I wonder if Rep. Demmer will simply object, or will he strenuously object, if they do not.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:35 pm:
“It expressly said a person could discuss the substance of the information that was given to the Feds, they just can’t discuss whether that information was shared with the Feds.”
WHAT is the difference between “given to the Feds” and “shared with the Feds” ?? That is gobbledygook.
- fs - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:43 pm:
If I give the Feds a letter detailing how we spent our day together yesterday, the difference is that I can discuss with the committee how we spent our day together, as I described in the letter, but I can’t discuss whether or not I gave that same information to the Feds. That is a big difference.
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:45 pm:
errid - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 3:47 pm:
Try reading for comprehension
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:46 pm:
=== If I give the Feds a letter detailing how we spent our day together yesterday, the difference is that I can discuss with the committee how we spent our day together, as I described in the letter, but I can’t discuss whether or not I gave that same information to the Feds. That is a big difference.===
It’s also the difference of arguing what the letter means, and no one showing up or testifying on.. anything.
This is an activity. Demmer is great at this.
There’s no achievement.
===…Demmer will simply object, or will he strenuously object, if they do not.===
My hope is a strenuously object, and Wehrli going full Owl (never go full Owl) asking “who, who, who is suppose to be here?”
You’d think Wehrli would wanna spend more time in the district at this time, but…
- Phenomynous - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:50 pm:
The committee has subpoena power if people don’t want to show up. If they don’t want to answer or plead the 5th, then they can do that. Might not look great, but it’s their option.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:53 pm:
=== The committee has subpoena power if people don’t want to show up.===
Where’s your 4th vote.
There’s that problem too.
- Phenomynous - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:56 pm:
“Where’s your 4th vote?”
If it fails then I’m sure each member can explain why they voted for or against it.
- Anon y mouse - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:58 pm:
Lots of stretched spinning here. Demmer and the GOP got what they wanted. Witnesses & docs for a mini perp walk or three.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 4:59 pm:
=== for a mini perp walk or three.==
Who is going to show up?
=== If it fails then I’m sure each member can explain why they voted for or against it.===
That won’t help Wehrli.
- Payback - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 5:00 pm:
“…I will not allow this committee to inappropriately interfere with the work of the U.S. attorney, and I will not allow it to be used as a stage for political theater.” I don’t know if some semblance of an opposition party to look into political corruption in Illinois, and the influence of Speaker Mike Madigan is “theater.” I thought that was more like checks and balances?
Why are the people of Illinois expected to wait around for 20-30 year intervals for the federal government to conduct any sort of credible investigation of public corruption, like Greylord, Jon Burge, Blago, etc.?
One of the uncensored audience questions asked of AG Kwame Raoul at the City Club luncheon on October 21, 2019, was how his office could regulate ComEd (when he took money from them). The special committee can question Raoul as to why the AG office does nothing whatsoever to investigate public corruption.
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 5:14 pm:
=Why are the people of Illinois expected to wait around for 20-30 year intervals for the federal government to conduct any sort of credible investigation of public corruption, like Greylord, Jon Burge, Blago, etc.?=
So you don’t like the pace that the feds move at and you want to hand over the responsibility to the likes of Demmer and Wehrli?
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 5:17 pm:
“The special committee can question Raoul as to why the AG office does nothing whatsoever to investigate public corruption.”
Pay attention.
https://capitolfax.com/2020/09/10/house-special-investigative-committee-on-hold-while-us-attorney-is-consulted/
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 5:20 pm:
According to the Illinois Constitution;
“The Attorney General shall be the legal officer of the
State, and shall have the duties and powers that may be
prescribed by law.”
Is there a law citing FBI investigative powers you’d want us to pay attention to as well?
- WC Fields - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 5:57 pm:
It is in Welch’s (& MJM’s) interest to go forward with the SIC, if they both believe there will be an eventual indictment of MJM. It was only in the best interest of MJM to lean on Welch to kill the SIC (using an artful interpretation of the US Atty’s position no less), if MJM believes he can survive this w/o indictment, Welch apparently agrees. I would hammer for the vote referenced by OW
- Yucko - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 6:10 pm:
Looks like Private Citizen D- is defending the Speaker on this site….must be a participant in the spoils.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 6:42 pm:
Payback ==20 to 30 year intervals…Greylord, Burge and Blago==
The investigations of Blago and Greylord took 20-30 years? Really? Could have fooled me. Burge’s was longer but not even close to 20 years much less 30
==if it fails each member can explain why they voted for or against==
OK. The Dem members vote no. What will explaining or not explaining accomplish? They are in competitive races? Uh, no.
- ILPundit - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 6:47 pm:
Say what you want, but the Lausch letter matches Demmer’s earlier statement almost exactly.
This letter was not what Welsh or Madigan wanted. Not. Even. Close.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 6:49 pm:
=== What will explaining or not explaining accomplish? They are in competitive races? Uh, no===
Wehrli needs this. Wehrli needs anything at this point, but he needs this a lot.
If it was about trying to remove Madigan or force a governing, Demmer would be trying, publicly, with the Dems already on the record calling for MJM to step down.
That would be an achievement
- Take A Closer Look - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 7:17 pm:
I’m not sure how anyone is claiming this is a victory for Demmer. Will these witnesses voluntarily appear before this committee? If so, will they say anything more than their name? With all those parameters in place, it sounds like witnesses would be stepping on a lot of land mines and violating any deals that may have been cut already. Good luck conducting a thorough investigation ILGOP. This is nothing but Durkin keeping people busy. I would suggest his members would be better off raising money and knocking on doors. I’m seeing a lot of TV commercials from Dem candidates.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 7:28 pm:
OW - Yes, that’s why I said the Dem members of the SIC. Grant needs this so badly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the other GOP members yielded him their time. He needs to say “Madigan” and “corruption” as many times as he can.
And yep I am wondering for ILPundit who exactly you think will voluntarily testify?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 7:34 pm:
All good - low level -
When a dog catches the bumper of the car, what’s next for the dog?
Be well
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 17, 20 @ 8:11 pm:
===When a dog catches the bumper of the car, what’s next for the dog?===
Just hang on and enjoy the ride.