Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Next Post: Hedge fund in bond lawsuit owns derivatives that will pay off if Illinois defaults on the debt
Posted in:
* Tribune…
A Cook County grand jury has subpoenaed city election records related to 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn’s challenge to a college student’s nominating signatures during the last City Hall campaign, the Tribune has learned.
Quinn, the hand-picked alderman of House Speaker Michael Madigan, the 13th Ward’s Democratic committeeman for decades, soundly defeated David Krupa, a DePaul University student, in the Feb. 26 City Council race.
Specifics of the ongoing inquiry were unclear Thursday, but Quinn had drawn criticism when he initially challenged Krupa’s petition signatures, saying they were invalid.
Only 473 valid signatures were needed to get on the ballot, and Krupa submitted 1,729. Krupa’s election attorney, Michael Dorf, previously told the Tribune that Quinn’s challenge against Krupa’s signatures included affidavits from 2,796 residents who said they were revoking their signatures for Krupa.
Only 187 of those matched signatures in Krupa’s paperwork, and there were more than 1,000 people seeking to revoke their signatures than Krupa’s paperwork even contained, Dorf said.
* Some explainers…
An affidavit to revoke a signature has to be filed before the candidate files petitions. Those submitting affidavits have no way of knowing if the candidate is filing petitions with their name on it. Candidates don’t always file every page.
— Heather WV (@HWV123) August 16, 2019
* In other news…
State Senator Tom Cullerton will be arraigned Friday on federal embezzlement charges.
Cullerton is accused of collecting nearly $275,000 from the teamsters union, while doing little or no work.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Next Post: Hedge fund in bond lawsuit owns derivatives that will pay off if Illinois defaults on the debt
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Any way you slice it this was definitely a smart use of time for the Quinn campaign.
Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 9:44 am
I don’t trust Kim Foxx’s office to properly investigate this.
Comment by Paleozoic Error Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 9:48 am
Ah, yes. the same Madigan loyalist lawyer that defended his sexual harassment and discrimination behavior is also defending his corrupt electoral behavior.
How did the Madigoons know who to approach for those affidavits if the petitions weren’t public?! Hmmmm?
Comment by Just Me Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:01 am
So only about 7% had actually signed submitted petitions. It’s a far stretch to think the other 93% signed Krupa petitions that were not submitted for whatever reason. Discounting that some of that number forgot or signed for someone else and we’re mistaken, many of the rest signed sworn statements that turned out not to be true. Assuming this was an organized effort, which seems likely, an investigation for possible mass subornation of perjury seems appropriate.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:02 am
====How did the Madigoons know who to approach for those affidavits===
They have ways. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:07 am
Amen; take em’ to church, HWV!!!
Comment by ;) Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:10 am
Revolving door for Democrats at the court house
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:10 am
This is the political corruption the State’s Attorney decides is worth a grand jury? No grand jury regarding Alderman Burke or Solis, but obvious harasser David Krupa can cry and whine his way into a criminal investigation? The precinct captains could have never known who signed Krupa’s petitions and who didn’t. If anyone committed a crime, it is the voters who signed an affidavit revoking their signature when they never signed Krupa’s petition to begin with.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:13 am
====How did the Madigoons know who to approach for those affidavits===
You go door to door in the district. I’ve gotten that knock on the door.
Comment by Because I Said So.... Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:18 am
If this ever makes a courtroom the argumnents are going to be very entertaining.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:20 am
=Cullerton is accused of collecting nearly $275,000 from the teamsters union, while doing little or no work.=
“Let’s promote him to the Veterans Committee!”
- John Cullerton
Comment by Not Under Investigation Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:23 am
Who should we trust? The dude from Dixon with zero accomplishments or one of the most brilliant and accomplished legal minds in the state? I’ll place my bets.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:23 am
===possible mass subornation of perjury===
How can some have the necessary mens rea to suborne perjury if they had no knowledge of whether someone did or did not sign Krupa’s petition in the first place?
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:32 am
===an investigation for possible mass subornation of perjury seems appropriate===
Good luck with that.
Comment by OutOfState Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:34 am
===Cullerton is accused of collecting nearly $275,000 from the teamsters union, while doing little or no work.====
What a great opportunity the Teamsters have to bring up some talented and dedicated new leaders.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:44 am
-mens tea to suborn perjury-
I didn’t say it was foolproof. Remains to be seen. Maybe if the scenario goes something like “Did you sign a Krupa petition? I dunno. Here, sign this [document in which they are swearing that they did]. We’ll take care of it for ya.”
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:53 am
===If anyone committed a crime, it is the voters who signed an affidavit revoking their signature when they never signed Krupa’s petition to begin with. ====
I would have to think their defense would be they couldn’t remember if they signed Krupa’s petitions or not so they decided to sign the affidavit just in case they did after they heard from the precinct captain about who he was.
Comment by Been There Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 10:54 am
I’m going to put my tinfoil hat on for a second:
From reading the story, all of the documents referred to were from December 2018. There is no new information relating to this investigation that is disclosed in the story.
Interesting that this story of a Grand Jury investigation - one that is managed by the State’s Attorney’s Office - comes out on the day for slating the party candidate for State’s Attorney. Hmm.
Comment by Powdered Whig Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:00 am
If this turns out to be illegal, who would be best to punish and make an example of? Joe average voter, or the people who organized the effort without which Joe average voter would not have signed anything? I’ll go with the latter.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:04 am
=== the scenario goes something like===
“A person commits subornation of perjury when he or she knowingly procures or induces another to make a statement in violation of Section 32-2 which the person knows to be false.” 720 ILCS 5/32-3.
In your scenario, the door knocker does not know that the voter is engaging in perjury, and thus cannot suborne perjury. I was being pretty tongue in cheek about prosecuting the voter. Again, it seem pretty obvious that there are going to be severe legal challenges to convicting the door knockers of suborning perjury.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:27 am
===You go door to door in the district. I’ve gotten that knock on the door.===
My point exactly. They didn’t know who had signed the original petition, so they just blanketed the district and convinced people to sign an affidavit claiming they had signed a petition. Every person who signed an affidavit but didn’t sign a petition could be in trouble.
Comment by Just Me Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:45 am
=== My point exactly. They didn’t know who had signed the original petition, so they just blanketed the district and convinced people to sign an affidavit claiming they had signed a petition. Every person who signed an affidavit but didn’t sign a petition could be in trouble. ===
I think there are plenty of other issues the State’s Attorney could be looking at that would constitute a better use of resources than investigating people who signed an affidavit relating to a withdrawn petition challenge.
Comment by Powdered Whig Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:48 am
===Every person who signed an affidavit but didn’t sign a petition could be in trouble===
Kass’ claim is highly, highly doubtful. You have to prove intent.
The circulators are the ones who could have problems, and the person(s) above them.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 11:53 am
The affidavit has the word revoke and revoking in caps and bold. I don’t see how anyone could not understand what they were signing.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 12:08 pm