Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Apparently, it’s time for another workers’ comp reform bill
Next Post: Koch brothers group: Ban AFSCME from contributing to Quinn
Posted in:
* The House committee charged with looking into the allegations against indicted Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago) is meeting today at 10:30. Here’s the live video feed…
* Related…
* Committee may take action against Rep. Derrick Smith
* Illinois House panel to consider case against Rep. Derrick Smith this week
*** UPDATE 1 *** US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote a letter to the committee telling them that he would not release any information about Smith beyond what has already been released. Fitzgerald also said that basically any investigatory action beyond subpoenaing Smith’s testimony would be considered interference with the federal investigation.
The committee has voted 6-0 to send a letter to Smith asking him to testify. If he refuses to appear, then the committee might consider issuing a subpoena.
“It’s my feeling that the committee can’t wait forever,” said committee chair Rep. Elaine Nekritz. But it looks like there will be more delays as they wait for events to unfold, including Smith’s Monday arraignment. The committee is recessed to the call of the chair.
Smith was not at today’s hearing and neither was his attorney. Smith did, however, show up at the House vs. Senate softball game last night.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Fitzgerald’s letter to the committee has now been posted on the GA’s website. From the letter…
We appreciate the Committee’s recognition of the sensitivity of our ongoing criminal investigation, and its forebearance in not engaging in any active investigation that would interfere with the federal criminal process. We also appreciate the Committee’s constitutional obligation to conduct its inquiry of the allegations against Representative Smith in a timely manner.
However, it is our view that, at present, the requirements of the federal criminal process cannot be reconciled with a public disclosure of the government’s evidence to the Committee or with a separate, but necessarily parallel, investigation by the Committee. […]
(I)t is our strongly held believe that any disclosure of the government’s evidence or active inquiry conducted by the Committee into the allegations of the federal indictment will likely interfere with our pending case and ongoing investigation. […]
We do not, however, believe that an interview of Representative Smith by the Committee will create any issues with the pending indictment or continuing federal investigation.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 10:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Apparently, it’s time for another workers’ comp reform bill
Next Post: Koch brothers group: Ban AFSCME from contributing to Quinn
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
lol
US Atty has no objection to Rep. Smith testifying!
Hilarious.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 10:42 am
===Smith did, however, show up at the House vs. Senate softball game last night. ===
Where he promptly stole home.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 10:53 am
I’m sure Fitz wouldn’t mind Smith talking to the committee all day. And I bet he’d have a court reporter there.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 10:55 am
===Where he promptly stole home. ===
Well done, sir.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:01 am
===Where he promptly stole home. ===
After swipping second.
Comment by Amused One Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:11 am
===Where he promptly stole home.===
Nah. He bribed the ump and fixed the game.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:17 am
“…with our pending case and ongoing investigation.”
That ought to unnerve anybody connected to Smith.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:17 am
==Smith did, however, show up at the House vs. Senate softball game last night.==
The Republicans tried to put in a pinch hitter for him, but the Democrats wouldn’t let them.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:19 am
Actually Rich, judging by his intelligence I’d say the the feds had the ump offer him a bribe to not crowd the plate, and he accepted it.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:22 am
the mere fact that there is a footnote, which makes the intent blatantly apparent, is hilarious!
Comment by amalia Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:32 am
Not surprising.
The trouble for the House is that even if the committee moves forward with an indictment, they have no evidence other than the federal indictment by which Smith can be tried.
And, as a simple matter of due process, just as the feds don’t want to jeopardize their case by entering evidence into the House record, Smith cannot be reasonably expected to enter evidence into the House record without jeopardizing his federal defense and ultimately, his freedom.
It’ll be a sad day for democracy if we set the precedent of removing elected officials based solely on an unsubstantiated federal indictment.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:39 am
Smith was at the softball game where he took his coaching from Jessie White and when he was caught stealing, White pretended he didn’t know him.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:58 am
YD, when is the last time one of these indictments was flawed-they wouldn’t charge him if he wasn’t guilty-he can defend himself and count on the jury to correct any remotely unlikely error by the prosecutors. Wensic, no one else need worry, if they were guilty they would also be charged. Each scoundrel stands on his or her own.
Comment by just asking Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:02 pm
===based solely on an unsubstantiated federal indictment. ===
Yeah, OK. Nice to see how you avoid talking about what’s actually in the thing. From the transcript…
===Cooperating witness: “One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Damn, stuck together. Six. Seven. Talk to you later.”
Smith: “You don’t want me to give you yours now? … I’m gonna get you your two, man!”===
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Next are we going to hear he was entrapped? Gimmie a break.
Comment by just asking Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:13 pm
YDD:
Elected bodies decide what conduct is allowable by their members. It’s not a court of law. If an elected body, as a whole, determines that a member has acted inappropriately and that the member deserves punishment, even expulsion, then that is their right.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:14 pm
Did the us attorney release any information with regards to Blagojevich before he had been impeached and removed from office? If they didn’t then it seems reasonable as the GA still went ahead with their business close to 4 years ago
Comment by Levois Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:48 pm
=== ===Where he promptly stole home.===
Nah. He bribed the ump and fixed the game. ===
He wrote a letter to bribe the game, but it wasn’t THIS game, it was a faux basketball game.
Cross wrote a press release saying Smith should be removed from ALL games for trying to fix a HOCKEY game.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:01 pm
@Levois-
If memory serves, the Blagojevich impeachment included either wiretap transcripts or the witetaps themselves.
I cant find conviction rates for public corruption specifically, but the conviction rate for white collar crimes generally is around 58% according to one source.
That means alot of folks are indicted who were not “guilty” as far as the law is concerned.
By no means am I arguing Smith is innocent, but I think he should be presumed innocent until actual facts are presented.
And the way the fact are presented in the indictment, there clearly is not enough evidence to convict.
I’d feel much, much better if the feds could explain why, as the indictment notes, they chose not to record the two key conversations of their case: when the alleged “bribe” was offered and when it was accepted. For that, the indictment relies solely upon the testimony of their paid informant.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:15 pm
IF Fitz had taken the same attitude toward the Blago impeachment, I wonder if there would’ve been one?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:29 pm
Hey YD, Don’t bet too much of the IRA on there not being a conviction here. There isn’t even a Clay Davis defense available here.
Comment by just asking Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:35 pm
===I cant find conviction rates for public corruption specifically===
I think I remember one public official in Illinois being acquitted of federal charges in 23 years.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:39 pm
===IF Fitz had taken the same attitude toward the Blago impeachment===
He did at first.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:40 pm
As Vince Lombardi said: “What the hell’s going on out there”?
Comment by Fries is Extra Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 5:26 pm
==they wouldn’t charge him if he wasn’t guilty==
Yikes!!! Why have courts?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 9:59 pm