ComEd case defendants argue for dismissal
Wednesday, Jun 2, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Sun-Times…
Members of former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s inner circle argued Tuesday that their indictment in the ComEd bribery scandal suffers from a series of “fatal” gaps — including the lack of a clear quid pro quo.
Lawyers for Madigan confidant Michael McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, onetime ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and ex-City Club President Jay Doherty made their argument in a lengthy court memo, hoping to convince U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber to toss certain counts in the indictment.
The four are accused of arranging for Madigan’s associates and allies to get jobs, contracts and money in order to influence him as lawmakers considered legislation that would affect ComEd. Their indictment in November prompted fiery statements from their defense attorneys, a sign that several legal challenges would be forthcoming.
Doherty filed a separate motion to dismiss last month.
* Tribune…
The filing argued that the U.S. attorney’s office has improperly used the federal bribery statute to criminalize recommendations forwarded by Madigan to ComEd officials — what the defense lawyers called a routine practice that falls well within the bounds of legal political horse-trading.
“The government does not allege any connection between the jobs and any actions by (Madigan),” the filing stated. “Adopting the government’s view would put huge numbers of American citizens at risk of prosecution for their ordinary participation in the political process.”
* CBS 2…
“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.”
“Such unfettered discretion is an open invitation for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. It surely cannot be the case that public officials commit a crime each time they make a job recommendation, nor can it be a crime each time a company accepts such a recommendation,” defense attorneys added.
Click here to read the memo supporting the motion to dismiss.
- PublicServant - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 9:31 am:
I’m thinking the Blago defense isn’t that good of an idea…just sayin.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 9:53 am:
I think they may be thinking of the McDonnell case out of Virginia, in which the Supreme Court unanimously overturned former governor’s public-corruption conviction.
The court imposed higher standards for federal prosecutors who charge public officials with wrongdoing, saying that prosecutors have to tie gifts to a specific “official act”.
- Pizza Man - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:01 am:
With tons of evidence with reams of paper trail, tapped phones, email communications from the ‘Fantastic 4,’ I don’t they will be able to use the (former VA gov.) McDonnell case as ruled by the U.S. Supremes. Especially in light of Tim Mapes indictment in which he was not a party to the ‘Fab 4.’
I am pretty sure the Feds, under this US Attorney, have a solid case and are aware of these previous court cases. Their goal and only goal is to get an ‘air-tight’ case against MJM so that he too can not use these cases as an excuse.
Again, should (or when) MJM be indicted, it will probably be during session.
- Terminator - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:07 am:
@PizzaMan - or, and just hear me out here, they have a ton of tape and paper but yet can’t quite nail MJM on anything that would stick and decided to reverse engineer a federal crime, and the case law doesn’t support it.
I guess we’ll see.
- Suburbanon - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:18 am:
Terminator explanation sounds more likely. They may have a mountain of something but no smoking gun.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:25 am:
Meh. When was the last case where there wasn’t a motion for dismissal?
- Anon III - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:29 am:
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”
- Huh? - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:38 am:
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck …”
Could be a coot. From the google button … “The American coot is in the family Rallidae which also includes gallinules and the highly secretive rails. They are more closely related to sandhill cranes than they are to ducks …”
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 10:43 am:
“Could be a coot.” Do coots quack like a duck?
- Moe Berg - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 11:00 am:
A political prosecution led by the most corrupt US Justice Department and US Attorney General in our lifetime.
If Senator Durbin didn’t hate Madigan so much he might be able to recognize that. Instead, we had him blowing tons of political capital on behalf of a Trumpist US Attorney hell bent on taking down one of the most powerful Democrats in the United States.
- ;) - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 11:38 am:
The Ds are absolutely correct in their arguments. Unfortunately, I lack any confidence in the courage and strength of will in our judiciary; politicians and those who work in politics are just too easy of targets given the publics hatred and distrust of government today. Still, however, this is yet again another ridiculous attempt at an overexpansion of the law by the feds, and an overcriminalization of more than 245+ years of completely legitimate and fundamental political practices; practices that not only date back to the beginning of every democratic government, but to almost every social institution in the world, as well. Let’s keep in mind that without similar practices, not only would there be no nation itself, but many of the most cherished modern laws would not exist either, most glaringly however are the 13th and 14th Amendments. The feds have operated like some legitimized cartel forever and it should stop; if people want a government that does not work, keep allowing the deep state-like folks at the feds to continue to operate beyond the bounds of our democratically established laws and their authority. What’s even more ironic and hilarious, the federal judges reviewing these types of cases all got their own job recommendations from some “boss” - be it a politician, political party, or bar association or something else - at some point in order to get their appointments; the same goes for all of the US Attorneys handling these cases. It’s a complete joke and a farce…no different than Michael Shakman bilking taxpayers for over 50 years and lining his own pockets.
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 12:02 pm:
FWIW, it appears that even if the Defendants prevailed on all aspects of their Motion, there would still be Counts 3, 4, 7, and 9 for them to contend with regarding charges they falsified certain records… unless I missed those getting dismissed at an earlier stage of this case.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 12:14 pm:
Impressive to see the ComEd corruption chorus on this thread defending the indefensible. Short version of their brief: We thought we made all our corrupt acts legal so leave us alone.
Here’s a tip. If there was nothing wrong with the payments laundered through Jay Doherty, they wouldn’t have been laundered through Jay Doherty.
- Yeesh - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 12:46 pm:
@Cynic - you use the word “laundering” and yet they didn’t charge him with, *checks notes here* the actual money laundering statute. Funny, that. Again, almost like they had a bunch of bad facts and felt like they had to do something with it.
Though to your and @hisgir’s point, lying about what the payments were for certainly made the fruit hang low.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 1:42 pm:
== there would still be Counts 3, 4, 7, and 9 for them to contend with regarding charges they falsified certain records ==
Step 1 - get as much dismissed as possible
Step 2 - whatever is left, if you can’t explain it away as just sloppiness or incompetence, then try to bargain down to a minimal fine and probation or court supervision
- Back to the Future - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
Got a chuckle out of the reference McClain and Doherty lawyer’s made to Abraham Lincoln.
I really never made the connection between McClain/ Doherty and our nation’s greatest President. Thinking the Judge in this case may have the same problem.
As to the post, this motion is going nowhere. The number of counts are serious. Of course, Doherty et al. are certainly entitled to file a motion on something they think is serious.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 7:24 pm:
Kinda waited on this, digest it.
To the post,
Is the argument about the process of actually lobbying, and no quid pro quo or is even the act of doing a favor in politics abd governing already a corrupt proposition?
If one were to pay strong lobbyists to not get involved one way or another in a bill, is that a bribe, as the reason for hiring is to stand down and do nothing?
Jobs? If you recommend someone for a job, is a legislator not obligated to now abstain from all legislation pertaining that employer?
When a company hires a lobbyist, are they not trying to gain better access and better knowledge of process… and legislators… and is that hiring corrupt in of itself?
I ask these things, and seeing the request for dismissal, is it an argument of what exactly constitutes lobbying and how a jury might interpret it… instead of a garden variety “bribery, quid pro quo” kind of case?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 2, 21 @ 7:25 pm:
Also, my questions… that doesn’t mean I think one way or another on the innocence of these four.