|
ComEd 4 trial coverage roundup
Wednesday, Apr 19, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller * John Hooker’s testimony continues today… * Tribune | Apparent slip-up during ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore cross-examination leads to revelation about interview with feds: The cross-examination of former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore took a dramatic turn Tuesday when she inadvertently opened the door to questions about a 2019 interview with prosecutors where she denied knowing about the utility paying subcontractors connected to Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan. The apparent slip-up occurred while Pramaggiore was being asked about a recorded call with then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez, who told her that the subcontractors, including former 13th Ward Ald. Frank Olivo, were being funneled through a contract with lobbyist Jay Doherty and that they didn’t do any work. * Sun-Times | Former ComEd CEO testifies that secretly recorded call central to bribery case against her actually ‘proves my innocence’: Jurors also heard Tuesday that the September 2019 interview ended after the feds played the recorded phone call for Pramaggiore and her attorneys. Meanwhile, Pramaggiore insisted to Streicker that, if she had remembered the call, “I would have shared it with you because it proves my innocence.” At one point in the February 2019 call with Marquez, Pramaggiore can be heard saying “oh my God.” She testified this week that it was because she was “taken aback” by some of Marquez’s comment * ABC Chicago | Former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore defends actions in bribery case; Hooker testifies: One such conversation-which led to her ending her talks with the U.S. attorney’s office- included a phone call between herself and ComEd lobbyist-turned-government informant Fidel Marquez early that same year. During the call, they discussed how to go about explaining Doherty’s contract to the new CEO and maybe suggesting he put an end to it. “Let’s not do it until after the session’s over. Let’s look at this in terms of going forward to next year because we do not want to get caught up in a, you know, disruptive battle where, you know, somebody gets their nose out of joint and we’re trying to move somebody off and then we get forced to give ‘em a five-year contract because we’re in the middle of needing to get something done in Springfield,” Pramaggiore said in the call on February 18, 2019. * Hannah Meisel | Former ComEd CEO testifies she was unaware of Madigan allies’ monthly checks for no work: “We didn’t view him as a friend or an ally,” Pramaggiore said of Madigan’s relationship to ComEd, outlining the speaker’s “classic Democrat, very pro-consumer” stance on utilities. She also said ComEd officials were never quite sure what to make of the influencing effect of Madigan’s daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who “was always in opposition to us.” * CBS Chicago | Prosecutors question ex-ComEd CEO on her knowledge about do-nothing subcontractors: Prosecutors doubled down, asking Pramaggiore to confirm she was testifying that she forgot the entire recorded phone conversation before that interview. She replied simply: “I am.” Fellow defendant Hooker also took the stand on Tuesday afternoon to testify in his own defense, focusing on the ComEd legislation he was involved with. * NBC Chicago | Second ComEd 4 Defendant Takes The Stand as Trial Continues: Hooker laid out how the office worked but denied any wrongdoing. He also denied being part of then-Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan’s “inner circle.” When asked if he was an agent for Madigan, Hooker proudly said “no, he was ComEd all the way.” * Crain’s | A key meeting with the feds takes center stage in Pramaggiore cross-examination: Hooker also spoke extensively about his role in helping pass the various bills on which the trial has focused. But he didn’t get to the key questions pertaining to him, which is a recording of him talking about his role in helping create the Doherty subcontracts. He will be on the stand beginning Wednesday morning, when no doubt that issue will come up.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 9:08 am:
To an overall,
So much of this trial, as documented so brilliantly by Chicago’s finest reporters… I’ve been silently aghast at both the prosecution and the defense making their arguments and the facts to these arguments.
Taking the stand in your own defense, in a federal criminal trial is not only high drama but highly risky, and that lil “hiccup” yesterday, let’s see if the jury picks up on that.
You also can be endearing and likable and the jury can find you guilty, it’s not always about the persona but the blunt facts. That will be a huge watch for me too.
It also reads in reporting like this idea of appeasement and the actual monetary measure of such appeasement to curry favor… versus the stock and trade of actual lobbying and being connected, and knowledgeable… that’s the fault line, no pun intended but I liked it… convincing jurors that no-show jobs is a bribery and not a crime to merely ComEd, there’s your fault line.
It’s beyond “ripping off” ComEd, but it’s also criminality in an industry where “action or inaction” is… what was said… yes… “Magic”.
The ethics here are so out of bounds, any discussion to that is useless.
Can a story of reasonable doubt be… “Magic” to legislative success hinges on paying for “inaction” by actors to keep Himself happy…or is it past that fault line to criminality with even, and we’ll beyond, “industry standards”?
Defendants taking the stand want the talk of “we didn’t know *exactly*, no matter what you hear”
And, be “likable”
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 9:23 am:
=== And, be “likable” ===
I think Hooker is definitely coming off as likeable and his testimony is compelling. I think he made the right decision taking the stand…. so far.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 9:50 am:
wonder if the jury will find Anne the Actor believable?
- fore - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 9:58 am:
OW: Sometimes I feel you are as cryptic as McClain. It is so hard to follow what the heck you are talking about. It is very disjointed. Just like magic, some days I want your comments to disappear. I would ask if you could get to the point. No disrespect.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:03 am:
===Just like magic, some days I want your comments to disappear. I would ask if you could get to the point. No disrespect.===
“Thanks for reading?”
A critique is as it is. Happy Wednesday to you
- low level - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:36 am:
Im sorry Im just not very knowledgable on trial procedure, etc but I dont undertand why what AP said yesterday about the interview in Sept 19 was a “slip up”. Why should she have not said that or what exactly is the issue? Many thanks.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:46 am:
One of the reasons Rod got such a long sentence is because he lied on the stand. I think Prammagiore is facing a similar problem after yesterday. Given the tapes and testimony, her claim that she didn’t know about Doherty’s subcontractors strains credulity, to put it mildly.
Also, the defense keeps making the point about ComEd not thinking Madigan “owed” them anything as a result of these various favors. But the evidence suggests, if you turn that question around, that ComEd feared Madigan would turn against them if they said no to his requests. Isn’t that the heart of the case, that ComEd provided all of this stuff so he wouldn’t kill their bills?
So they can say they weren’t attempting to bribe him for his support, but there is a lot of evidence that they were working hard and spending a lot of money to avoid making him an opponent.
Prammagiore didn’t do herself any favors by taking the stand. Hooker, on the other hand, probably helped himself. Doubt Doherty will testify and we already know McClain won’t.
This is a fascinating trial.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:48 am:
===Isn’t that the heart of the case, that ComEd provided all of this stuff so he wouldn’t kill their bills? ===
Yep.
- low level - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:50 am:
==Prammagiore didn’t do herself any favors by taking the stand.==
Can you elaborate? Why exactly is this the case?
==This is a fascinating trial.==. 100% agreed
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 10:57 am:
===Can you elaborate===
She denied knowing about the subcontractors hired by Doherty that were paid out of her budget. The tapes and testimony contradict that. That’s a problem.
Then she volunteered the fact that she and her attorneys met with the FBI for a proffer session. The prosecution was barred from mentioning that fact until she raised it. Then they pointed out after she told them she didn’t know anything that they had her on tape saying otherwise. She then terminated the interview (although the defense objection was sustained). The judge told the jury to disregard the point about terminating the proffer interview but damage was done. You can’t unring a bell.
So it’s clear, she wasn’t being completely candid with the FBI, and she stopped talking when confronted by her own voice on tape.
I jokingly said it made me wonder if Lassar was still working for the feds. She did not have a good day on cross examination.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 11:01 am:
=== She denied knowing about the subcontractors hired by Doherty that were paid out of her budget. The tapes and testimony contradict that. That’s a problem. ===
I don’t know why she said that, especially after hearing the tapes which contradict her statements. I would have thought that a better way to respond is by saying that Marquez (as head of Government relations) and Doherty (as the main contractor for the subs) were responsible for making sure they were doing the work. The Sgt. Schultz defense usually doesn’t work.
- James the Intolerant - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 11:21 am:
ComEd was the middle-man, the buffer.
The taxpayers got ripped off because bills were passed that wouldn’t have been passed without intervention. And you would have to think that additional cost (jobs) was passed along to us.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 11:23 am:
===bills were passed that wouldn’t have been passed without intervention===
Explain that, because all major bills are lobbied extensively.
- James the Intolerant - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 11:31 am:
My view is that Madigan wouldn’t have passed the bills without everything additional that was received from ComEd. It seems to be more than extensive lobbying. I may be incorrect, but that is my view.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 11:45 am:
=== My view is that Madigan wouldn’t have passed the bills without everything additional that was received from ComEd. ===
There is no evidence that is the case. I think that is the whole point.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 12:52 pm:
I remember a proposed power line project to bring in cheap wind power from Iowa, “Rock Island Clean Line. Comed does not like competition. Comed spent a lot of money to get an Illinois Commerce Commission decision tossed out by the Illinois Supreme Court over wording of a sentence in the regulation. The intent of the wording was clear, but a typo error on the original regulation left room to require clarification. The G.A. was requested to pass a minor bill clarifying the regulation to allow the power line to proceed. It never was allowed out for a vote. Hmmm. Does not prove anything, but it makes me suspicious. Comed got their way.
- Jed Bartlett - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 12:59 pm:
Accidentally posted anonymous earlier. Reading the coverage, which has been excellent, I actually thought AP did a nice job threading the needle that she knew that the contract and subcontractors existed, but that she didn’t know that they were tied to Madigan or doing no work. For the CEO of a large organization, that’s plausible. It also seemed like the prosecution err’d by giving her the chance to clarify that point during their questioning. That puts a pretty big hole in the case against her, but it doesn’t seem like many readers here picked up on that distinction. She’d better hope that the jury did.
- Team America - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
I’m not sure why the judge sustained that objection to the question about terminating the interview. Asking why her lawyer terminated the interview would invade attorney-client privilege. But asking if she (and her lawyer) terminated the interview is just a fact. Perhaps a prejudicial fact (particularly with respect to the timing after the reveal of the phone calls), but a non-privileged fact nonetheless. And she opened the door to the whole line of questioning herself.
- Marine Life - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 1:39 pm:
I’m genuinely confused. If Anna Pramaggiore and her government relations team (staff and contract lobbyists) had to work hard to get EIMA and other legislation passed, why didn’t they marshal all their resources, including well-connected subcontractors that ComEd had been paying for years?
Didn’t she say one thing — that passing legislation was a heavy lift, a constant worry — and admit something else — that the subcontractors didn’t have to produce, that she didn’t keep track of or even think about these in-hand assets? How can both things be true?
- Just Saying - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 3:08 pm:
-fore- Thanks for writing that. I thought I was the only one that felt OW is often disjointed in his writing. Knowledgeable? Yes he is extremely knowledgeable but often times he needs to be more clear and succinct. I enjoy his commentary but sometimes have to read it several times to get his points.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 23 @ 3:20 pm:
- Just Saying -
You can always skip what I write.
You’re not missing anything. Rich and Isabel are the stars.
Just saying.