Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: City’s OIG study shows ShotSpotter alerts “rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Posted in:
* June 1st story about federal defendants Michael McClain, Anne Pramaggiore, John Hooker and Jay Doherty…
Defense attorneys for four former ComEd executives and consultants with close ties to former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan are seeking to dismiss some of the federal charges filed against them last year, arguing the bribery indictment against them “fails to allege any quid pro quo.” […]
“The indictment loosely strings together an assortment of events over a ten-year period of time—largely hiring decisions made by ComEd made at the recommendation of Public Official A—and alleges that, because such recommendations were made in the same decade that legislation affecting ComEd was passed, a crime must have been committed. But the indictment fails to allege any connection between these hiring decisions and any agreement or understanding with Public Official A that he would take (or refrain from) any action on ComEd’s behalf in exchange for the things of value Defendants allegedly provided,” attorneys wrote.
Further, the defense team argued that accepting federal prosecutors’ stance that an explicit quid pro quo is not necessary to uphold the bribery charges “would put huge numbers of American citizens at risk of prosecution for their ordinary participation in the political process.”
“These gaps are fatal to the indictment because giving things of value to public officials can be perfectly legal. The Supreme Court has unanimously held that it is not a crime to give something to a public official ‘to build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the future,’” defense attorneys wrote.
The attorneys argued that allowing the bribery charges to stand without an explicit quid pro quo “would provide the government essentially unlimited discretion to prosecute anyone who has provided a benefit to a public official, and convict them on evidence that the public official took some official act that the defendant favored, without ever proving that the official’s actions were taken in exchange for the benefit provided, or even that the defendant understood or expected that the benefit would influence the official’s actions.”
* Last night’s Sun-Times article by Jon Seidel…
Federal prosecutors argued Monday that a bid from four members of ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan’s inner circle to convince a judge to toss part of the indictment filed against them ignores the alleged corruption at the heart of the case.
“The illegal conduct alleged in the indictment did not consist merely of lobbying, and it did not include campaign contributions made by ComEd,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu wrote in a new 74-page court filing.
Instead, Bhachu wrote, the four allegedly delivered benefits to Madigan’s associates with the hope Madigan “would give favorable treatment to ComEd legislation” — an arrangement that could be understood as a quid pro quo. […]
Bhachu countered Monday that the four sought “to influence and reward Public Official A in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives with significant power over legislation affecting ComEd’s interests.
“These were not bona fide arrangements made in the usual course of business,” Bhachu wrote, “and there is no legal basis to dismiss these charges from the indictment.”
Thoughts?
…Adding… Tribune…
But in a 74-page response filed late Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu wrote the federal bribery law does not require a quid pro quo, and even if it did, the allegations in the indictment make clear that Madigan — identified only as Public Official A — was in on the scheme. […]
“Here, the charges are not based on political logrolling, but rather, on private benefits in the form of jobs, contracts, and payments offered to be paid by a private company in order to influence and reward a legislator in carrying out his official duties,” the motion stated.
Bhachu also blasted arguments by the defendants that some of the bribery charges should be dismissed because they could not be tied to a specific “official act,” citing former Republican Gov. George Ryan’s corruption conviction.
Bhachu said the 7th Circuit ruled in the Ryan case that a “stream of benefits” was provided to the governor over time, “more like a meal plan in which you don’t pay for each item on the menu.” The indictment in the ComEd case alleges a similar scenario, he said.
* Related…
* Ed Burke’s lawyers say feds spent four years investigating him before tapping phones: Additionally, Burke’s lawyers responded to a revelation by the feds last spring that Burke allegedly made a “distasteful” comment about Jewish people. His attorneys insisted Friday the comment is too prejudicial, and any relevance to the racketeering case is outweighed by “the risk that the jury will infer from the statement that Ald. Burke is anti-Semitic.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: City’s OIG study shows ShotSpotter alerts “rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There is a gray area, where friends recommend friends for jobs or whatever. People work together and have favorable impressions of each other, things like that. But they are reeeeeeally stretching credulity here. I don’t know if the activity was explicit and direct enough to be illegal, but it sure as heck stinks, and I think it probably should be illegal.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:39 am
A million pages, wiretaps, and still no indictment of MJM.
This is really an indictment of how lobbying might be and might work, if anything.
So the “system” in of itself is corrupt?
Welp, prove that(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:49 am
===I think it probably should be illegal===
OK, but future laws aren’t enforceable. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:49 am
=== Thoughts ===
Under this argument from prosecutors, everyone from Amazon to Foxconn to Uber is guilty of bribery.
There is not a major company in America who has not hired specific people or people from a specific community in hopes of influencing legislation.
The US Attorney seems to object to the fact that it’s not pinstriped attorneys benefiting from corporate government relations, but regular Joe’s without college degrees whom it does not deem worth the money paid to them.
The market determines the value of their skills and relationships, not the US Attorney’s office.
If, as the federal government alleges, the relatively small sum even if it was millions, paid in hopes of building a reservoir of goodwill to influence Madigan led to passage of legislation that meant billions to the company, it was a pretty good bargain.
Comment by Barn Swallow Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:49 am
It won’t be hard to prove the system is corrupt to 12 people who don’t work in the “system” and won’t appreciate “its just politics” argument.
Comment by Numbers matter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:56 am
“Ed Burke’s lawyers say feds spent four years investigating him before tapping phones”
Not surprising that the investigation took years Burke has been in office since May 14, 1969.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 9:58 am
===It won’t be hard to prove the system is corrupt to 12 people who don’t work in the “system” and won’t appreciate “its just politics” argument.===
Members of juries have specific instructions on to what can constitute a guilty verdict. There is an extremely high burden of proof on the prosecution.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:00 am
=== It won’t be hard to prove the system is corrupt to 12 people who don’t work in the “system” and won’t appreciate “its just politics” argument.===
If it’s not hard, explain the case like you would to a high schooler… with the specific laws broken.
I would t want to be the 4 indicted, the odds are squarely against them, but this easily could be made into a case…
“It’s who you know to get things done”
Ok. Well, isn’t that part of the reason companies hire well-known or connected lobbyists… bring in-house well known and proven lobbyist that are well-liked, can getvtheyr calls returned?
Companies are now going to hire ineffective and unliked lobbyists to offset a fear of indictment?
“We’ll see”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:05 am
I’ve heard that people give money to their church then ask priests and saints to intercede on their behalf. Sounds like lobbying activity to me. /s
Comment by Chito Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:05 am
While Illinois corruption needs to be eliminated, a conviction probably wouldn’t survive appeals. Going back at least to Otto Kerner, the federal Supremes have a notion of corruption limited to the likes of Edwin Edwards.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:07 am
Just don’t think this case is that complex.
ComEd has already admitted to participating in criminal behavior and agreed to pay a $200,000,000 fine to the United States government.
I suspect the last line in this story will read, “Several old entitled arrogant insiders that committed crimes are now spending their old age in prison where some of them will die.”
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:13 am
“the risk that the jury will infer from the statement that Ald. Burke is anti-Semitic.”
Just checking, is this malignant goon still married to the Chief Justice of the state supreme court? Whose career he made? God that would be embarrassing, if any of these people were capable of shame.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:15 am
Is the Government now arguing that the lobbyist are guilty of bribing Madigan? If so, why did Com.Ed.pay all that money to the Government.
The US Attorneys are on a hunting expedition.
Comment by MOON Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:16 am
===already admitted to participating in criminal behavior===
ComEd entered a not guilty plea.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:20 am
Until someone rolls with evidence that enticements effected legislation I don’t see these four let alone Speaker Madigan getting convicted. I am probably wrong but I shouldn’t be.
Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:20 am
Back - I think the Deferred Pros agreement signed by ComEd admitted to doing the acts as alleged but did not admit that those acts were criminal.
Comment by Paddyrollingstone Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:20 am
=== I suspect the last line in this story will read, “Several old entitled arrogant insiders that committed crimes are now spending their old age in prison where some of them will die.”===
Maybe.
It’s like ComEd payed nearly a quarter of a billion (with a b) to move on from getting what they wanted, and as of yet, publicly, been no help securing an indictment on Madigan.
Cost of doing business? “Maybe”
Tough to see to a specific act or action, going to be a lot of work ahead for prosecutors.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:21 am
==an arrangement that could be understood as a quid pro quo==
Last I checked, ‘kinda’, ’sorta’, ‘mighta’ isn’t a crime.
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:21 am
219’s case against the Gang of 4 relies on showing that laws were broken dealing with personal gain. 219 has a good case because they have put in a lot of time and money. As far as MJM goes: he hasn’t been indicted which suggests that they might not have the evidence on MJM concerning the Gang of 4. But, MJM isn’t out of the woods. Danny Solis caught MJM on a wire. We don’t know the extent of what Solis got but 219 seems to be pretty happy with Solis considering he is looking to do no jail time. Is 219 waiting for Danny Solis to do his first trial before indicting MJM?
Comment by Springfield Sceptic Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:25 am
=== 219 has a good case because they have put in a lot of time and money.===
“Members of the jury… you know how much time and money we put into this… vote to convict.”
Hmm.
===Is 219 waiting for Danny Solis to do his first trial before indicting MJM?===
Maybe. But if they had the case in hand… why slap ComEd with nearly a quarter of a (with a b) billion in fines… and ask for more help…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:31 am
=== 219 has a good case because they have put in a lot of time and money.===
“Never mistake activity for achievement”
- Coach Wooden
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:50 am
Four prominent individuals were indicted on some serious stuff. Anne was a big CEO and Chair of the Chicago Federal Reserve. Odds would suggest that to indict people of this level , one has to gather much evidence which would pass muster not only on the 5th floor of 219. Just a reminder, the feds with 85% of their cases.
Comment by Happy Man of Cook County Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:52 am
==Four prominent individuals were indicted on some serious stuff.==
As Clara Peller used to say, “Where’s the beef?”
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:57 am
End of the day this whole ComEd thing is great news for the Republican Party. Illinios plays a critical role in the Democrats goal to retain control of the US House of Representatives. The criminal trial in September 2022 could impact the November 2022 midterm elections.
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:57 am
=== Odds would suggest that to indict people of this level , one has to gather much evidence which would pass muster not only on the 5th floor of 219===
Hmm.
What is it they says… about indictments and ham sandwiches?
Also…
“An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:58 am
===The criminal trial in September 2022 could impact the November 2022 midterm elections.===
Really. Huh.
Which US House seats are gonna flip Red because of… “ComEd”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 10:59 am
With regards to all these schmucks, “The cash register has not yet rung.”
Comment by Leave a Light On George Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:04 am
The trial won’t have any impact on flipping any seat. What could impact those seats is the fact that Madigan’s strong and disciplined organization will not be at the ready to walk suburban cul-de-sacs convincing voters that (fill in blank Democrat) “believes in the things you believe. Can we count on your vote?”
Comment by SuburbanR Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:07 am
== Instead, Bhachu wrote, the four allegedly delivered benefits to Madigan’s associates with the hope Madigan “would give favorable treatment to ComEd legislation” — an arrangement that could be understood as a quid pro quo. […]==
This theory of the crime would seem to cover making campaign contributions to legislators who subsequently vote for bills the contributors favor. With no explicit quip pro quo.
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:16 am
===This theory of the crime would seem to cover making campaign contributions to legislators who subsequently vote for bills the contributors favor.===
Gonna have to show roll calls and that specific end result.
As I recall, some former legislators were contacted or “something”…
There’s also a Senate, and a signature from a governor. How did that all transpire?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:20 am
Does that kind of thing actually work anymore? Are people home and willing to actually answer their doors? Wouldn’t facebook or next door be better avenues?
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:24 am
The “system” is on trial starting in September 2022. More specifically how Madigan and the folks around him ran Springfield. It won’t be pretty and it will have an impact on the elections. Since we don’t know have the map who knows specifically, but the trial revelations won’t play well in 6,, 13, 14 and maybe 11 and 3.
Comment by Numbers matter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:27 am
And criminal defense attorneys make the ham sandwiches comment. Fed Prosecutors have about a 95% plus conviction rate.
Comment by Numbers matter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:31 am
=== The “system” is on trial starting in September 2022.===
What laws? I saw the indictment, if you say it’s about the system then it’s predicated on an idea… not laws?
===And criminal defense attorneys make the ham sandwiches comment. Fed Prosecutors have about a 95% plus conviction rate.===
Aaron Schock agrees?
=== Since we don’t know have the map who knows specifically, but the trial revelations won’t play well in 6,, 13, 14 and maybe 11 and 3.===
(Sigh)
Which Dem will be beaten. Try that one.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:33 am
=== What could impact those seats is the fact that Madigan’s strong and disciplined organization will not be at the ready to walk suburban cul-de-sacs convincing voters that (fill in blank Democrat) “believes in the things you believe. Can we count on your vote?”
Right. And I don’t think that has to do as much with the ComEd situation as it does with the fact that Madigan is no longer the Speaker.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:34 am
1) If you don’t know what Dems are in those districts I can’t help you.t
2) The prosecutor in Springfield was incompetent. When it got to Chicago and they evaluated the Springfield prosecutors bad conduct they punted. Read the indictment and see the factual basis for citizen Schock and you’ll be less willing come to his defense. And either way, they still have a 95% conviction rate.
3(sigh). If you don’t have a fundamental understanding of criminal law I can’t rationally your first comment other than to say facts are applied to law and when the facts equate with violation of laws its a conviction. Read the indictments. It might help you out
Comment by Numbers matter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:40 am
=== If you don’t know what Dems are in those districts I can’t help you.===
So you can’t name one. Got it, lol
===And either way===
So, prosecutors can get it wrong, oh. Ok.
=== If you don’t have a fundamental understanding of criminal law I can’t rationally your first comment other than to say facts are applied to law and when the facts equate with violation of laws its a conviction. Read the indictments. It might help you out===
LOL, says the person who wrote this;
=== The “system” is on trial starting in September 2022.===
Are you even trying?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:45 am
==There is a gray area, where friends recommend friends for jobs or whatever. People work together and have favorable impressions of each other, things like that…and I think it probably should be illegal.==
Does that include letters of recommendation for colleges, law school and government jobs?
Comment by Harriett Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:45 am
If this gets to a jury, which I believe is likely, I also think there would be a high likely hood of the jury finding them guilty. Not to say jurors can’t comprehend the law but there is no doubt emotions and their personal feelings about the “system” would come into play. On appeal I would think the feds arguments might be more tenuous. But by then even the defendants are looking at their odds and might start cutting deals.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 11:47 am
=== The “system” is on trial starting in September 2022.===
“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether ethically this is or isn’t lobbying, or got a few close allies together and tried to lobby for things - we did.
But you can’t hold a whole lobbying strategy responsible for the behavior of four individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole lobbying idea? And if the whole lobbying idea is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our governmental institutions in general? I put it to you, isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to these four, but I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.”
- “Otter”, Faber College, ‘63, attributed
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:01 pm
Madigans reward was satisfaction for the crew, no cash payment?
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:17 pm
I am struggling with the concepts underlying this case.
In most bribery cases we have seen, it is usually an elected official getting a check or an envelope of money or what have you. Lots of those cases have popped up over the years (See Derrick Smith, The Luis Arroyo sweepstakes case, The red light camera cases involving Tobolski and several others in Worth Township). Those cases are clear cut and if the facts can be proven, the Prosecution will win.
Here, there is no bag of money. There is no check in the mail. Based on what is being reported, Madigan did not personally receive anything other than the opportunity to recommend people for jobs and for those recommendations to be given significant weight by a publicly traded company. Bribery? I think its a stretch.
Then there is the whole concept of the alleged quid pro quo. What did ComEd get in return for the alleged bribe? From all reports, the government is looking at favorable legislation in Springfield being passed as a result of Madigan’s strong arming (which is alleged to be due to the benefits bestowed upon him by ComEd). But from what I have also heard, this was bipartisan roll call, including a number of legislators with whom Madigan has little to no influence.
Also, it is not clear from the documents who allegedly put the arm on legislators to vote for the legislation in question. Was it MJM? Was it McClain? If it was McClain, was he acting on behalf of MJM or was he operating on behalf of ComEd (his client).
These questions show how gray and murky the situation really can be… and all a good defense attorney has to do it plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the head of one juror. I think the government bit off more than they can chew without fully understanding the complexities of the situation. I look forward to seeing how this case develops over the coming months.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:19 pm
@Hannibal: Madigan is no longer Speaker in large part because of the ComEd scandal. So it is completely connected.
Comment by SuburbanR Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:28 pm
Is the US Attorney arguing that everything they did was legal but when combined all together it was illegal?
Comment by Harriett Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:39 pm
Sceptic - your problem with the Solis theory is Lausch turns into a pumpkin soon.
Also “investing the time and money “ doesn’t equal crime. Burke’s arguments foreshadow it, but there’s a case to be made Lausch someone’s guilty and *then* goes about investigating. In Madigan’s case, ComEd’s payrolling was the best they could do.
Comment by Cannonball Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 12:55 pm
The FED’s problem is clear. Madigan ran the Illinois House. Speaker Madigan lacked the ability to move legislation through the Illinois Senate or past Governor Pat Quinn. If the Feds think Madigan ran all three branches of government they are misinformed or politically delusional. The reason the Feds don’t have MADIGAN is because the Speaker didn’t do anything other than support the smart grid legislation like hundreds of other legislators chose to do.
Comment by Button pusher esq. Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 1:22 pm
I’m no lawyer, but the prosecution seems to say they will offer evidence (testimony) that ComEd and others sought to influence Public Official A via a quid pro quo.
Seems like they are daring the defense to call MJM as a witness.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 2:02 pm
=== Does that kind of thing actually work anymore? Are people home and willing to actually answer their doors? Wouldn’t facebook or next door be better avenues? ===
Yes, it works. The problem is that most campaigns don’t have the resources to do it correctly. Its part of the reason why the House Dems were so successful for so long.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 2:16 pm
“Several old entitled arrogant insiders that committed crimes are now spending their old age in prison where some of them will die.” Great comment. Lots of not-so-great comments here from people who have never been arrested, except by campus police for TPing sororities in college.
Mike Madigan is the last living dinosaur of the old Mayor Daley southside Irish democratic machine that ran Chicago for over one hundred years. His time has been over for forty years at least.
Rather than bashing the U.S. Attorney’s office, how about looking at why Kwame Raoul and the IL Attorney General’s office can’t/won’t investigate political corruption? The New York state AG investigated Governor Cuomo, so what’s the hold up here, if Illinois is so great?
Comment by Payback Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 3:35 pm
===…how about looking at why Kwame Raoul and the IL Attorney General’s office can’t/won’t investigate political corruption?===
The Illinois Constitution doesn’t give the AG much latitude to prosecute crimes. That’s what States Attorneys do. Also, the AG doesn’t have anything similar to the FBI or IRS that he can use to conduct investigations. Only recently have we amended the statutes to allow a statewide grand jury to meet under the AG’s supervision.
For these and other reasons, that’s why the IL AG can’t investigate political corruption.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=193&ChapterID=4
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 3:53 pm
If Michael Avenatti got a mistrial today, then surely all of the above shouldn’t be subjected to this utterly ridiculous fishing expedition. The fact that the feds conducted surveillance for 4 years while withholding information from the chief judges is so outrageous and such an abuse of power, that not only does it warrant a case being tossed, but also official sanctions against the US Attys that are involved.
Comment by ;) Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 4:04 pm
Looks like the Trump DOJ is running out of gas with their rebuttal…still no explainer on how the contributions. jobs, bond biz and who knows what else to other leaders are okee dokey? Maybe that will be the next Tribbie exclusive
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Aug 24, 21 @ 4:46 pm