|
Should the feds have used this mole?
Wednesday, Jul 18, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller * We’ll get to the Rickey Hendon stuff soon, but one of the least covered aspects of yesterday’s mass arrest of seven people for federal bribery conspiracy was the mole the feds used to set everybody up. From the federal criminal complaint…
The feds are using a Chicago police officer who they busted four years ago during a probe of “public corruption and gun trafficking,” and who admits that he tried to bribe his way into a promotion. Moles are often shady characters. I get it. That’s just the way things have to be done. And any change in his status as a police officer might have really hurt the feds’ investigation. But that cop has been on the job for four years even though he admits to being pretty darned crooked. Don’t get me wrong here. I want the US Attorney’s office to go after corruption hard. Very hard. As hard as they can. I’m just a bit uncomfortable, however, knowing that the cop is apparently still on active duty. Your thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 9:53 am:
It sounds like the corrupt cop must have made some good tapes. Without them: he’s useless in front of a jury. Anyway, this corrupt cop makes a good argument for carrying a handgun in Chicago: pretty much everywhere. Handgun ownership really is a deterrent against the “bad apples” on the force.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 9:56 am:
Steve, shooting a cop, even a corrupt one, would likely send you to prison for a very, very long time. Let’s stick to the topic here, OK? Thanks.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:01 am:
The mole was apparently involved — four years ago — in actual public corruption and drug trafficking.
Why not just prosecute him? What’s the point of allowing him to work and draw his salary as a police officer to help the feds concoct phony crimes? Isn’t he, by any definition, a threat to public safety?
Did the feds tell the Chicago police they have a corrupt gun trafficker on the force?
It’s like the bad old days of Michael Raymond, a lifetime conman the feds used in the 80s to sting some nitwit Chicago aldermen for chump change.
Raymond went free for his crimes for his work in bagging the aldermen. Years later, he committed murder in another crime.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-11-03/news/9611030200_1_mr-raymond-overdue-parking-tickets-informer
- Leroy - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:01 am:
“CW is not currently facing any criminal charges”
I’m cool with it.
- amalia - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:01 am:
wonder what kind of work he’s done in the meantime? did he make arrests? what happens when he testifies in other cases?
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:06 am:
Rich:
You are the one who brought up shooting someone. It’s too bad you don’t understand the difference between deterrence and violence. Here’s some empirical evidence , just to confuse you with the facts before your mind is made up.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342623934&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:06 am:
===“CW is not currently facing any criminal charges”
I’m cool with it. ===
Umm…
===will likely be charged in the future with attempted extortion and firearms-related offenses===
Still cool with it?
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:10 am:
The alternatve being fewer corrupt acts are discovered and prosecuted. The most effective tool is not always free from defect.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:16 am:
I’m more uncomfortable with the fact that the people charged weren’t actively seeking to commit a crime until the whole scheme was pitched to them by the one guy (the crooked CW) who wasn’t charged. We are going through a very difficult economy, you could probably “get” a disappointingly large percentage of the country if you pitched them a scheme like this.
One guy is connected to Hendon and it seems like the feds have been trying to get Hendon without any success, but the rest are just low level nobodies who couldn’t say no to an offer too good to pass up. There’s something about this case that just feels really ugly and cheap.
- Leroy - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:17 am:
==Still cool with it? ==
Yup.
If the charges were serious, would they really be pending for half a decade?
Besides, who know what exactly is going on in these sting operations…”likely” might just be a smear.
Let’s wait and see what happens. If the cop actually gets busted for something super serious, then I’ll be outraged and voice my complaint against the system…Just like I’m doing when it comes to JJJ and purchasing a senate seat from Blago.
- The Doc - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:24 am:
Rich, I agree with your concerns about the mole for all the reasons stated above. However, I’m willing to reserve judgment and give Fitzgerald and co. the benefit of the doubt that a) he was adequately monitored since the time of his arrest and b) there were no other reasonable options available to apprehend those indicted yesterday.
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:30 am:
CW is a rather sleazy individual who understands the utilitarian game the U.S. Attorney’s Office plays to get convictions. CW will not be the first CW to testify on a crime he might have created.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:33 am:
“CW is not currently facing any criminal charges”
We believe that could be said of many citizens. Perhaps all the newsies could ask… ta da… what has CW been doin’ and does any of it look like it could be a criminal charge if someone who runs criminal chargeometer decided to flip it on with CW’s real name in it?
Just Askin.
BtW Where is Gags Brady to blame all this on Madigan for letting the CW operate for four years?
and BTW-2 How is Jason Romney-Plummer doin’ on those tax returns?
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:37 am:
I am continually distressed by prosecutors who use those who are willing to cooperate getting deals when their conduct is “worse” than who they are testifying against. Numerous cases of the actual shooter pleading out and testifying against a non-shooter and getting a shorter sentence because the non-shooter goes to trial. Asserting one’s innocence and right to trial should not be punished, yet prosecutors regularly do so.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 10:45 am:
Leroy, what he gets charged with will be decided upon after they measure how successful he was in pulling off this sting. According to the complaint, it was attempted extortion and gun trafficking. Serious enough.
From the complaint:
–CW has been cooperating with the government since July 2008 in the hopes of a recommendation
for a reduced sentence in connection with these potential charges.–
- Jimbo - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:22 am:
First,what are his charges that are being guessed? Second,He probably couldn’t use a restroom by himself.Feds aren’t going to risk a primary witness screwing up. Third,there might be more indictments resulting from his cooperation.Feds usually use a CW until they no longer have any use left.
- Skirmisher - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:28 am:
How come as long as I can remember, the terms “Chicago cop” and “corrupt” seem to be indivisible?? I was just reading elsewhere a few days ago about flagrant abuses to disability pay rampant in the Chicago police, for example. The stories never go away. Instead of foaming at the mouth at everyone he perceives as a political foe, Mayor Rahm might do well to excercise some widespread housecleaning in his own shop. Anyway, there is wonderful irony that the feds used a corrupt Chicago cop as a mole. Like Sean Connery said in “The Untouchables”, “It’s the Chicago way.”
- Jeff Trigg - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
War on (some) Drugs, meet Illinois Political Corruption. Illinois Political Corruption, meet the War on (some) Drugs.
This is how it is done every single day in America, but typically against poor minorities instead of connected political operatives, and using people much more questionable than a rogue cop.
I think the entire legal system of offering people deals and lesser sentences and favors in exchange for information on higher ups is patently unjust and ripe for abuses. Alexandra Natapoff details this very issue thoroughly in her book “Snitching:…”
This practice is used way too much for far too many things. First-time offender grandmas get life in prison without ever having touched a controlled substance while violent gang-bangers get let off with probation based solely on who or what they know. It rewards high-level criminals for lying about other people, and more harshly punishes the small fries who don’t know anything or anyone.
Is it justice when the results are that arbitrary? This seems like yet another example showing the need to reform the widespread practices of prosecutor granted privileges to known criminals. If they start using these practices against the lawmakers, maybe the lawmakers will be motivated to open their eyes and make the reforms necessary to clean up this system of arbitrary justice.
- just asking - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:00 pm:
Isn’t the current standard that the prosecutors have no reason to believe that the testimony is not true?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:23 pm:
=== The alternatve being fewer corrupt acts are discovered and prosecuted. ===
Um, on the flip side, wouldn’t prosecuting this fella years ago have sent a pretty strong message?
There is an argument to be made that allowing “low level” corruption to fester unpunished (if you want to call the accusations against CW low-level) simply encourages more corruption on all levels.
There’s also an argument to be made that the US Attorney made the decision not to prosecute a police officer because 1) prosecutors need the cooperation of police and 2) prosecuting a police officer doesn’t get you the sexy headlines that an alderman, judge, state senator or governor do.
I think Rich raises a fair topic for discussion.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 2:27 pm:
@YDD,
Rich does raise a very good argument. My point is the only way to the bottom-feeders is often through another bottom-feeder. I hope the officer will be held responsible for his illegal actions.
There’s also another lesson here. You’ll never know who the Feds might be using in their investigations. Don’t do the crime.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:07 pm:
===wouldn’t prosecuting this fella years ago have sent a pretty strong message?===
Yes, except the stronger message would be sent to the higher ups, the connected guys, that the feds were on to the scam.
If you bust every street corner dealer, you’ll never get the cartels. If you bust every illegal poker game, you’ll never get to the Outfit.
The family had a lot of buffers Senator.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 5:37 pm:
@the Captain, I’m with you. There seems to be so many instances where things are instigated by the moles lately. This is definetely bad stuff and these guys probably were doing wrong for a while. On the other hand the cop who was the mole was involved in behavior that leads to innocent people and children possibly dying and that’s even worse. Why give someone involved in arms trafficking a second chance.
- Leave a Light on George - Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 8:09 pm:
” We are going through a very difficult economy..”
Oh like that makes it all ok!