Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“Hardball”

Posted in:

Illinois

* Let’s revisit the Sun-Times story from below about a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that Bruce Rauner had threatened a CEO of one of his companies to prevent her from filing a suit…

Kirk alleged in the lawsuit that Rauner threatened her personally and through a LeapSource board member — a claim she made in a sworn deposition. That former LeapSource board member confirmed in a deposition that “threatening things…were said to her” and that he had been involved in some of those conversations. Rauner denied the allegations through a spokesman.

The lawsuit alleged that Rauner told Kirk in February 2001: “If you go legal on us, we’ll hurt you and your family.”

Kirk also alleged that Rauner, wary of a her possibly suing, relayed a similar threat to her a few days earlier through another board member, Thomas Gilman, a consultant and ex-top executive at Chrysler Financial.

“I will bury her,” Rauner is alleged to have told Gilman.

“I will make her radioactive,” Rauner allegedly told Gilman, according to the complaint. “She will never get another job anywhere, ever. I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does, she better think twice about this.”

* This is from Carol Marin’s NBC 5 version of the story...

In her sworn deposition Kirk alleged she was also warned by a colleague saying, “Bruce had threatened” her and would make her “radioactive.”

That colleague was Thomas Gilman, another plaintiff along with Kirk in the lawsuit, who sat on the Board of LeapSource and is a former CEO of DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas.

Gilman said Kirk was concerned about the behavior of GTCR and the threatening things that were said to her.

“Were you involved in any conversation where threatening things were said to Ms. Kirk?” Gilman was asked in his deposition. His answer was “yes.”

The Rauner campaign responding to questions posed by NBC 5 and the Chicago Sun-Times strenuously denied ever threatening Kirk, her family or her livelihood.

Federal District Judge Robert Broomfield later dismissed almost all of the counts of Kirk’s lawsuit saying there was no breach of fiduciary responsibility by GTCR, but the judge’s ruling did not address the alleged threats.

Judge Broomfield wrote Rauner’s GTCR: “chose to ‘play hard ball,’ adding “undoubtedly it would have been preferable to plaintiffs if defendants (GTCR) had comported themselves with an [a]spirational ideal of good corporate governance practices … that go beyond the minimal legal requirements of corporate law.”

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 7:51 am

Comments

Rauner for governor. Shake up Springfield or….he will destroy you and your family.

Comment by William j Kelly Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 7:55 am
A real people person, he is. Trouble getting along with others?

Comment by Geronimo Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 7:57 am
It’s a good thing we have Pat Quinn. As someone no one in their right mind would invite to a meeting where tough things need to be said he is supremely qualified to be Illinois’s governor.

Comment by Confused Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 7:59 am
“The judge’s ruling did not address the alleged threats.”

Aaaaaaaand… scene.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:05 am
Perhaps we are beginning to understand that Rauner/Rahm friendship? Both men are willing to shove and fight to get something.

Quinn is passive aggressive instead.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:06 am
One of the things that angered me about this story is that court records are sealed.

It seems like courts in this country are willing to allow the rich and powerful to sue each other and to shield their misdeeds from public scrutiny.

These are public corporations. They exist because they have a charter granted by the people.

Corporations aren’t supposed to be cloaks to engage in unethical & illegal conduct.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:18 am
I agree with Carl for maybe the first time ever.

Comment by Confused Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:20 am
Meh, we have nothing to worry about since I’m pretty sure we can’t sue a governor.

Unless, that is, he gets upset about people who don’t implement his priorities, or people who might sue the state to overturn a law, or ask him tough questions, or …

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:21 am
So, we’ve got this, we’ve got the Michelle Obama rally, we’ve got Hillary Clinton coming next week, Rauner’s message has inexplicably turned to “Pat Quinn: Baby Killer!!!1!”…

…and the testimony of some Quinn loyalists in front of the Legislative Audit Commission is supposed to penetrate the public consciousness enough to be a game changer? That strikes me as more than a little bit of wishful thinking.

Comment by Adlai Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:23 am
Adlai… …and the testimony of some Quinn loyalists in front of the Legislative Audit Commission is supposed to penetrate the public consciousness enough to be a game changer? That strikes me as more than a little bit of wishful thinking.

Uh, I thought the Feds are looking? The one “loyalist” … Is the same one PQ threw under the bus about NRI… Then backed up the bus. Her attorney told her to speak. I think you are the one doing the wishful thinking…

Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:27 am
That he plays hardball in the business arena doesn’t surprise me. He was playing semi-pro politics during the primary. If he wins he will be playing in the big government league with seasoned pros who have made a specialty of chewing up rookies.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:30 am
Welcome to the Big Leagues Bruce. If you are Pat Quinn you hold a press conference with prominent female business leaders denouncing these actions.

In regards to the Rauner campaign, the past three months shows no sign that they are able to spin this story in their favor. This can be attributed to Rauner not running a single positive ad about his business success. If Quinn has had this in his back pocket the whole time, the Quinn campaign staff doesn’t just deserve a raise, but a paid vacation to Cancun. For months Quinn had labeled Rauner as ruthless, anything to make a profit. Now he plays the ace up his sleeves. A successful female in a corporate profession dominated by white males, who is threatened by Rauner. I can hear the Quinn narrator on commercials now…

Comment by Almost the Weekend Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:32 am
- william j kelly -, the only person who can get me to vote for Rauner. You stay classy.

To the Post,

The way Marin shot the piece, her in one side, the words on the other, the imagery for an Ad, it’s just sitting out there, like low hanging fruit.

===Judge Broomfield wrote Rauner’s GTCR: “chose to ‘play hard ball,’ adding “undoubtedly it would have been preferable to plaintiffs if defendants (GTCR) had comported themselves with an [a]spirational ideal of good corporate governance practices … that go beyond the minimal legal requirements of corporate law.”===

…”chose to play hardball”…

This is the Quinn Crew…playing “Hardball”.

This ain’t beanbag.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:34 am
the silkwood moment

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:36 am
I don’t know the particulars of the case, but, if it is true that the plaintiff suffered consequences because she was a poor performer, then I have zero problem with this.

All too often, in government and elsewhere, people who don’t deserve it get golden parachutes and perks and raises and new positions when they are utterly and totally incompetent. If Rauner held this woman accountable, good for him. If he played hardball or issued threats when she sued him, then so what? I’d be po’d, too, if an incompetent ex-employee sued me, and I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the exact same thing.

Lastly, don’t think for a second that this kind of hardball doesn’t go on in politics. Do you think Mike Madigan et al are all warm and fuzzy when they get behind closed doors to decide who to punish and who to reward for legislative deeds they either like or don’t like? Give me a break.

And Nyberg is right. Any court records in this case should be open.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:46 am
The judge’s ruling was about meeting “fiduciary responsibility” not about the truth of her charge of Rauner’s personal threat.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:54 am
===I don’t know the particulars of the case, but, if it is true that the plaintiff suffered consequences because she was a poor performer, then I have zero problem with this.===

“bury you”, “your family”

…and you have zero problem with that. What, if you don’t make a quota, they break one of your fingers?

===If Rauner held this woman accountable, good for him. If he played hardball or issued threats when she sued him, then so what? I’d be po’d, too, if an incompetent ex-employee sued me, and I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the exact same thing.===

===“I will make her radioactive,” Rauner allegedly told Gilman, according to the complaint. “She will never get another job anywhere, ever. I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does, she better think twice about this.”===

“I can’t say I wouldn’t do the exact same thing”

Speaks volumes to you too.

Changing this to MJM is pretty pathetic. How about you just embrace bulling a woman executive and leave it there…

“- Anonymous -”

===I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same exact thing.===

Dope.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:59 am
Wasn’t it just a couple of days ago Rauner was talking about breaking arms if he had to? ‘Radioactive’, ‘bury you’, ‘bankrupt you’ just terms of Jekyll/Hyde endearment

Scene 2: MJM in Nucky mode with a slight smile while peeling his apple.

Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:01 am
Great insight into what happens when the patsy refuses to play along with the bust out scheme.

Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:04 am
Rauner’s ego might have run away with him in tow.

And no, Anonymous, you don’t get that break you requested. There’s certainly hardball played behind closed doors in Springfield, but no “I will ruin you, make sure you never get another job, harm your family.” or the like. It’s more “We won’t give you that committee assignment, or support you or move your bill.”

This “tough guy” crap might play well when you hold all the cards and money in business, but in Springfield the counter parties have their own source of power — the people they represent. That is always respected, at least in my experience behind those doors.

I sincerely hope Rauner does know how to negotiate well when the other parties hold equivalent or even stronger cards.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:08 am
PublicServant “I’m pretty sure we can’t sue a governor.”

If Rauner targets someone or their family, he’ll be sued and we will have to pay the legal bills. People in government won’t tolerate this kind of abusive behavior because they have better rights - via collective bargaining - than workers in the private sector.

Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:08 am
so rauner went “beyond the minimal legal requirements of corporate law”
now THATS a commendation.

Comment by goose/gander Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:08 am
This story sort of explains why Rauner was extremely slow in asking the Steelers and the NFL to make a statement on domestic violence.

Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:16 am
OW,

Yeah, I’ll stick by it, again on the assumption that she wasn’t good at her job, then turned around and sued him when she got the ax. People like that should be radioactive. It’s called consequences.

==How about you just embrace bulling a woman executive and leave it there==

And how paternalistic is that? Should she have received special treatment because she’s a woman? If she bullied him with a lawsuit, then she should be able to stand the heat in the kitchen.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:17 am
Walker,

It is my understanding that ramifications in state government for folks who buck the bosses can include financial support for political opponents so that you don’t get re-elected. If so, that sounds like hardball.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:21 am
===And how paternalistic is that? Should she have received special treatment because she’s a woman? If she bullied him with a lawsuit, then she should be able to stand the heat in the kitchen.===

It’s the optics.

So according to you, a woman deserves to get…bullied… if she puts herself in that position?

Careful, careful…blaming a victim…ain’t winning.

===Yeah, I’ll stick by it, again on the assumption that she wasn’t good at her job, then turned around and sued him when she got the ax. People like that should be radioactive. It’s called consequences.===

I bet your employees love you.

===“I can’t say I wouldn’t do the exact same thing”===

“So you would bully a woman?”

At least you admit it. It speaks volumes to your character, as it speaks to Rauner and his character too.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:21 am
@Anonymous @ 8:46 am
Then why not just fire her and move on? Why make her radioactive? Why bury her?

Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 9:58 am
It’s important to recognize/remember that the standard on a motion for summary judgment is that the moving party “show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In other words, the defense — Rauner’s people — would have had to say, in moving for summary judgment, “Okay sure, all of that happened. So what? It doesn’t make us liable.” A GRANT of a motion for summary judgment doesn’t mean that the plaintiff’s allegations are false; it means that the defense does not dispute those FACTUAL allegations, but that those facts do not entitle the plaintiff to relief as a LEGAL matter.

In other words, I’d think that Rauner’s defense team would have had to admit the truth of the plaintiff’s charges even to file a motion for summary judgment in the first place. So — confusingly — the claims that the court DID NOT DISMISS are still in dispute, with the parties disagreeing what the facts are; in the claims the court DID DISMISS, the parties AGREE on the facts.

Comment by Levi Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:01 am
Anonymous: With respect.

Yes. There is that kind of political hardball, though it is often more assumed and implied than openly threatened. (Maybe that makes it even more powerful.)It’s always “just business.”

Hardly the personal kinds of attacks that Rauner seemed to favor in this instance. To me it speaks to his ego, and lack of real strength.

I am speculating and stretching out a brief impression, of course. But voters do that too.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:02 am
Didn’t BR want to get to know GA members, their families, their fears, etc. during the primary?

Comment by countryboy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:22 am
Can someone in the media ask if Rauner is willing to unseal these records so the public can make an evaluation of his performance and character?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:22 am
Summary judgment on the “threatening” charges against the plaintiff and in favor of Rauner? In order to obtain summary judgment, the court needs to be shown that there is no genuine or material dispute as to the facts concerning that certain issue.

So the judge tossed those charges? Then what is the big fuss about? That Rauner is a “hard ball” negotiator?

No genuine facts to support the unfounded allegation, and the Sun-Times still runs with this story? So what is left? Hardball negotiations and rumor mongering?

This is the same newspaper that ran with the “Republicans Threatened Petition Signers And Circulators At Gun Point Frightening Them All Half To Death” stories. Yet the Decisions of the State Board of Elections and the Circuit Court didn’t even mention that nonsense in any findings of fact.

The return of Yellow Journalism! That will save the failing newspaper industry. Not.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:24 am
I rarely agree with Carl Nyberg, but I do today. Sealing records in court is a practice that needs to come to an end.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:25 am
==if she bullied him with a lawsuit==

I believe that is the legal way of challenging one in a dispute. Threatening harm to the person or their family doesn’t pass legal muster in this society. Where are you from, Anonymous?

Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 10:35 am
Anonymousone,

Rauner obviously didn’t threaten physical harm to her or her family–if he’d done that, the police would have gotten involved. He threatened to destroy her reputation so that she couldn’t get another job if she sued him. It sounds to me like he was all in favor of firing her and moving on, as Dale To HP at 9:58 suggests. Then she sued.

Are OW and others who are painting her as a victim here suggesting that people with deep pockets should just lie down for lawsuits? That you should just roll over when an ex-employee who couldn’t get the job done costs you even more money in legal fees after you’ve already paid for sub-par performance?

This would be different, perhaps, if Rauner had started this game of hardball, but he did not. He didn’t file a lawsuit, she did. The lawsuit was tossed, so the merits of her legal action are debatable at best. Granted, some defendants aren’t going to react the way that Rauner did, but some are, and I don’t blame them for it. If someone starts a game of hardball, you are under no obligation to bring a plastic Wiffle bat to the game, regardless of whether they are male or female.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:00 am
Christine Kirk and another executive testified under oath about the threats in a deposition under the same penalty of perjury as in open court. The judge made no ruling whatsoever on that alleged threat. I believe it. Perfectly consistent with how this guy and his crew operate, use of armed men during Libertarian petition challenge etc.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:02 am
===This would be different, perhaps, if Rauner had started this game of hardball, but he did not.===

Do you …own…a TV?

Before even facing Quinn in the Primary, Rauner was hammering and shaking Quinn.

===Are OW and others who are painting her as a victim here suggesting that people with deep pockets should just lie down for lawsuits? That you should just roll over when an ex-employee who couldn’t get the job done costs you even more money in legal fees after you’ve already paid for sub-par performance?===

“do you threaten women with burning them and ruining them?”

“Only if they deserve it”

It’s the optics, you are utterly clueless, and blind to the damage.

Dope.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:05 am
Rauner seems to threaten to win a lawsuit by outspending the other party until they are bankrupt from lawyers bills, and have to drop the lawsuit. A way to win, not on the merits of the case, but on how much money he has available.
This probably is not the first or only time he has done this. Just the first time someone found out about it. How many other “sealed” cases is he involved in? Is this how he would deal with public employees and their unions?

Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:28 am
Meh. This is hardball business. Does it really surprise anyone that Rauner plays hardball in business?

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:41 am
Add Plutocrat — negative.

Comment by vole Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 11:48 am
I get the feeling that it’s been a long time since someone confronted Rauner the way Pat Quinn has over the last several weeks. Sure, his spokesman can issue press releases, but when Bruce Rauner himself is questioned directly about his past statements and behaviors he is very uncomfortable. In business, all that mattered was making money. Now, he needs to explain himself and justify his actions. He’s not OK with that, and it shows.

Will be very entertaining to see it play out in the upcoming debates.

Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 12:23 pm
OW at 11:05:

Not talking hardball on the campaign trail. We’re talking hardball in business. Let’s review:

Rauner hires a person and is not pleased with the person’s performance, and so he fires her. She, apparently, threatens to sue him. He says go ahead, if you do, I’ll ruin you.

He’s not the one who started this game of hardball by threatening to sue and going to court, she did. Near as I can tell, we’ve got an employee who got fired, didn’t like it and then goes whining to a judge about how the defendant threatened to say bad things about her if she sued. If someone threatened to sue you and you hadn’t done anything wrong, would you write out a glowing letter of recommendation or would you say bad things about the person who threatened to haul you into court? I think you’d probably say bad things about the person who threatened you. I think you’d probably, if you could, warn off prospective employers who called seeking a reference. Most people would.

We can whine and moan all we like, but the lawsuit was tossed, so we’ve got to presume that it had no merit (with the big caveat that the records should not have been sealed).

You can actually make a case that Rauner stood up for some principles here. Instead of giving this woman go-away money, which might well have been cheaper than lawyering up, he defended the lawsuit. Instead of giving into threats, he defended the way he conducted business, and he prevailed.

You might not appreciate Rauner’s apparent passion or the words he used, but if the woman didn’t want to play hardball, she should not have sued.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 1:23 pm
===Not talking hardball on the campaign trail. We’re talking hardball in business. Let’s review:===

I stopped reading your utter Dopiness right after that;

The prism is a candidate for Governor that wanted to bury a woman he was in business with, and if it destroys her family than it does.

Your ignorance of the political prism is defined by 5 Dopey paragraphs trying to explain away what a woman said about Rauner in a deposition.

Pretty pathetic.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 1:34 pm
Chicago Cynic “Meh. This is hardball business. Does it really surprise anyone that Rauner plays hardball in business?”

The scorched earth tactics Rauner employed here do seem to support the theory that Rauner was behind the ruthless hatchet job on Dan Rutherford in the primary.

Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 1:46 pm
===The scorched earth tactics Rauner employed here do seem to support the theory that Rauner was behind the ruthless hatchet job on Dan Rutherford in the primary.===

I would be Schocked if it stopped at Rutherford…if Rauner was burying political opponents. I just can’t think of another at the moment….

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 1:48 pm
OW at 1:34,

Methinks you don’t want to discuss it because, well, you don’t happen to agree. And so you result to insults. Nice.

You don’t want to discuss the fact that the woman was the one to file suit, and that the lawsuit was tossed out of court, because, well, that doesn’t jibe with your world view.

I think it’s appropriate to discuss management styles. But I think it’s a stretch when you and others are so quick to paint Rauner as the bully without acknowledging that the woman had no case yet sued anyway and is now somehow a victim.

It is good to remember than no one is as bad as how they appear when they are at their worst. That’s worth remembering when it comes to evaluating a guy who’s being dragged into court by an ex-employee who was fired because she didn’t deliver. Same goes for you. You are a better commenter, and likely person, than what your last entries reflect, I think.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 2:42 pm
(Sigh)

===Methinks===

Unless you’re Sneed and you’re going to tell me about Justice Burke having a fabulous lunch with her husband and Jay Doherty, keep that holstered.

===You don’t want to discuss the fact that the woman was the one to file suit, and that the lawsuit was tossed out of court, because, well, that doesn’t jibe with your world view.===

The political Ad will be;

“Bruce Rauner bullied a woman, threatened to bury her, and destroy her family (show quote)”

Your are utterly ignorant to politics.

===I think it’s appropriate to discuss management styles. But I think it’s a stretch when you and others are so quick to paint Rauner as the bully without acknowledging that the woman had no case yet sued anyway and is now somehow a victim.===

An Ad doesn’t care. The deposition is damaging as a :30 second spot.

Please. Learn.

===It is good to remember than no one is as bad as how they appear when they are at their worst. That’s worth remembering when it comes to evaluating a guy who’s being dragged into court by an ex-employee who was fired because she didn’t deliver. Same goes for you. You are a better commenter, and likely person, than what your last entries reflect, I think.===

“Methinks” making it about me and my comment is reflective that you do know this is damaging, and trying to project your ignorance to the political, to make it personal, makes the case better than I could.

“Right? Exactly right.”

Do not feed trolls.

You’re fed.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 2:53 pm
Why do you get so bent about using “methinks?” You’re reading way, way, way more into it than is there, which is nothing. Really. Promise. Cross my heart.

And I’m not so sure that there will be an ad. This seems a tough issue to frame, even Cliff Notes version. Quinn runs the risk of appearing desperate, I think, if he runs an ad that invites Rauner to respond by saying ‘Her lawsuit had no merit, and I won’t apologize for holding people accountable if they file frivolous lawsuits.” Allows him to appear tough in a Reagan-versus-PATCO way. You can agree with that or not, but you should, at least, consider it.

Lastly, I wasn’t aware that this was supposed to be a discussion on ads. I thought we were supposed to discuss the ST story. I thought that’s what I was doing. I also think that there is more to life than ads, and yes, I recognize that they are important.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:09 pm
===Post your comment… And please take a half second to come up with a nickname. It makes following the posts easier for everyone… Thanks===

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:12 pm
OK, I’ve got a nickname now.

Comment by Not OW Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:19 pm
===Allows him to appear tough in a Reagan-versus-PATCO way. You can agree with that or not, but you should, at least, consider it.===

So, Rauner would bury Union workers, and Union workers should worry about their families?

Got it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:22 pm
These are allegations from a losing party to the lawsuit. Her credibility is damaged - her lawsuit was false. Litigants have creative memories when trying to get leverage. Nonetheless, many soft-headed people will assume it must be true if it’s on TV. Most voters are soft-headed people, however!

Comment by Formerpol Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:30 pm
While I am not downplaying the political significance of the main thrust of this story, I do find the opening of the article interesting:

“Christine Kirk. The accomplished CEO he recruited from a high-flying national accounting firm couldn’t make their business-outsourcing firm. . .”

Doesn’t Rauner claim that the strength of GTCR was its ability to find, purse, and hire talent to be CEO’s of his companies AND that GTCR purposely matches talent with companies? What happened this time?

Comment by G'Kar Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:31 pm
===And I’m not so sure that there will be an ad. This seems a tough issue to frame, even Cliff Notes version.===

Fade from black to B&W picture of Bruce Rauner.

“Bruce Rauner wants to shake up Springfield, but when Bruce faces adversity, he will bury you

(Carol Marin freeze screen shot, B&W with Quote)

In a sworn deposition a CEO of Bruce Rauner tells us.

“I will bury her,” Rauner is alleged to have told Gilman.

“I will make her radioactive,” Rauner allegedly told Gilman, according to the complaint. “She will never get another job anywhere, ever. I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does, she better think twice about this.”

“Bury her?” Threaten her family.

Illinois deserves better”

Under :30 seconds, and I just threw up what was reported, no layout, but it can work to turn off women.

I’m a Dope and I can make this work.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:32 pm
===Under :30 seconds, and I just threw up what was reported,===

Just use the polling question. That’s their angle.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:33 pm
===Just use the polling question. That’s their angle.===

See, what a Dope I am, reinventing the wheel.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:35 pm
OW — after this election is finally over, let’s start a campaign to rid the world of “methinks.” Drives me nuts.

Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:40 pm
===OW — after this election is finally over, let’s start a campaign to rid the world of “methinks.” Drives me nuts.===

“I believe” that is a great idea.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:42 pm
Here’s the response ad.

Open with a picture of PQ looking goofy in a short sleeve shirt (I’ve seen a few of those).

Narrator: Pat Quinn wants you to think that Bruce Rauner would bury people, threaten their families and make folks radioactive.

Fact: Bruce Rauner stood up to the threat of a lawsuit by a former employee and was vindicated in court (show some sort of pull quote from the ST story showing the lawsuit was dismissed). Bruce Rauner won’t turn anyone radioactive, but he will bury the insiders and career politicians who have turned this state into a disaster. That’s not a threat, that’s a promise from someone who knows how to hold people accountable.

Then a shot of Rauner (glowing, even, with the help of computer animation–a little humor never hurts): I’m Bruce Rauner, and I’m going to shake up Springfield.”

That’s off the top of my head and imperfect, but you get the idea. Basing an ad on a litigant who got her you-know-what handed to her in court is tricky business.

Comment by Not OW Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:54 pm
Soccermom,

Fine by me. Honestly didn’t realize it was a loaded word. Sorry.

Comment by Not OW Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 3:56 pm
=== Bruce Rauner stood up to the threat of a lawsuit by a former employee and was vindicated in court (show some sort of pull quote from the ST story showing the lawsuit was dismissed). Bruce Rauner won’t turn anyone radioactive, but he will bury the insiders and career politicians who have turned this state into a disaster. That’s not a threat, that’s a promise from someone who knows how to hold people accountable.===

So he does bury people?

That’s your response?

Your response is Rauner DOESN’T do it, but WILL do it, while owning a part of the Steelers, and spousal abuse?

You WANT violent imagery?

Yikes. That rebuttal helps.

Further, let’s visit “Jack!” Ryan for a moment and depositions.

They’re sworn statements. “Jack!”s wife knew that refuting it was perjury. You want to go down the road, “Did she lie under oath?”

I saw that movie, it didn’t end well.

You’re response plays into the narrative.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 4:05 pm
“Quinn runs the risk of appearing desperate, I think, if he runs an ad that invites Rauner to respond by saying ‘Her lawsuit had no merit, and I won’t apologize for holding people accountable if they file frivolous lawsuits.”

Rauner: Holding people accountable with $500,000 checks. Sign me up!

Comment by dumdum Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 4:43 pm
Not OW - Rauner didn’t win the case, he paid out a large cash settlement to stop it from going to trial, where, I suspect most of the allegations would have been proven true or he wouldn’t have settled (especially since apparently he has the money and will to bankrupt people through legal actions).

My Ad:

Little boy: Grandpa, how did you make your money?

Grandpa: Around the turn of the century my partners and I became bust out specialists.

Little boy: What’s a bust out?

Grandpa: It could be a lot of things such as outsourcing good paying American jobs overseas, paying off elected officials and even cooking the books. You just need a patsy CEO willing to risk a small bit of time at club fed in order to make lots and lots of cash. The beauty of it is that if you don’t send emails, no one knows that you - not the patsy - orchestrated the whole scheme and you will be able to make more money than you could ever spend.

Little boy: What if the patsy won’t play ball?

Grandpa: Simple, you go after their family.

Comment by Jimmy Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 4:58 pm
Bruce Rauner is a Democratic plant whose sole purpose is to stick us with four more years of Pat Quinn. Only thing that makes sense to me.

Comment by 22skidoo Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 5:42 pm
“With part of the case still intact, Kirk and GTCR agreed to settle in 2008, with GTCR and a law firm associated with the deal agreeing to pay $511,000 to Kirk, Gilman and six other plaintiffs, all of who were LeapSource employees.”
from the Sun Times Story….Parts of the law suit were intact and settled 3 years later. Not a huge settlement, but a financial settlement was reached.

Comment by DuPage Grandma Tuesday, Oct 7, 14 @ 8:23 pm
“Uh, I thought the Feds are looking?”

Well, that’s kind of my point: if the Feds indict, that’s a game changer. But the LAC hearings are NOT the Feds indicting, and one ought not to conflate the two.

As for Shaw, all her speaking means is she doesn’t have anything to say that would put her in personal legal trouble (or maybe she just has a bad lawyer, who knows). That doesn’t mean she has something to implicate someone else (and as implicating someone else carries its own legal risks, it might even auger against that). Now, maybe she will say such a thing. But none of us actually know, so it’s silly to assume she will. And even if she does- well, it’s going to have to be damned good to penetrate right now, given the big rallies with Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, the attacks on Rauner, Rauner’s muddled messaging, and the general narcolepsy that settles over the public whenever you talk about proceedings in front of a legislative commission.

Maybe she’s got it, we’ll know today. But you can’t take it for granted right now.

Comment by Adlai Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 7:57 am