Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Were the payments to Kevin Quinn designed to “curry favor” with Speaker Madigan?

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* This Tribune story by Ray Long and Jason Meisner is fascinating because it includes emails from Mike McClain to his inner circle of friends and allies…

For months, federal authorities have been looking into payments made to a former political operative for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan as part of a sweeping investigation into ComEd’s lobbying practices.

Now, newly obtained emails show that Michael McClain, a close confidant of Madigan, orchestrated the contracts that saw money flow from current and former ComEd lobbyists to the ex-aide.

All told, more than $30,000 went to Kevin Quinn, who had been ousted by Madigan in early 2018 after being accused of sexually harassing a female campaign worker. At the time, Madigan called the campaign worker “courageous” for making him aware of the unwanted advances and inappropriate text messages.

Go read it all.

* But the story is also interesting because it explains something I’ve been wondering about: Why do federal prosecutors even care about these payments?…

The Tribune has reported that federal authorities are zeroing in on payments made through ComEd’s vast network of consultants to some individuals who seemed to have done little actual work. The payments were aimed at currying favor with certain lawmakers while circumventing lobbying disclosure rules, the source added. Authorities believe the payments to Quinn, which the Tribune first disclosed in July, are an example of this, a source has said.

So, apparently, the G believes the payments to Quinn, the brother of Madigan’s alderman Marty Quinn, were designed to curry favor with a lawmaker. Would that lawmaker be Speaker Madigan? His spokesman had this to say…

“If a group of people were attempting to help Kevin Quinn, the speaker was not a part of it.”

…Adding… Rep. Margo McDermed (R-Mokena)…

This confirms that the Speaker’s response to the harassment of his employees was nothing more than window dressing while he continued to put political victories and fundraising ahead of his staff and the people of Illinois. As a female legislator, I find this insulting and hope my Democrat colleagues start to confront this disgraceful behavior in their caucus.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:21 am

Comments

“Not a part of it” is a far cry from not aware of it or upset it was happening.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:30 am
Comedy’s lobbying sounds like the racket element of a RICO case.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:38 am
*ComEd, silly autocorrect.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:40 am
== “Not a part of it” is a far cry from not aware of it or upset it was happening. ==

True, but one would think you’d have to be “part of it” in order to be charged criminally.

Great scoop for Long and Meisner at the Trib. Are the feds leaking or has Kevin Quinn’s ex-wife’s divorce attorney accessed McClain’s email through discovery?

Comment by Roman Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:43 am
Absolutely not. Those payments were just part of the philanthropic initiatives that ConEd quietly do everyday to help the down and out across the state.

Comment by SSL Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:43 am
===divorce attorney accessed McClain’s email through discovery===

That would be my bet, but I have no direct or indirect knowledge.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:46 am
So a few guys who were already very close decided to hire someone they all knew and were close to in order to curry favor with someone they were all already close to?

Reaching much, people.

Comment by Another Regular Dem Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:46 am
The divorce outside might have brought us all inside to things?

Wow.

To the post,

This (these) new revelation(s) really, for me go back to what I was wondering back in July;

=== - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 11:34 am

…

While the questioning of Quinn, individually, to all this is relevant, looking outside-in, without knowing significant pieces, the payments, the checks, the amounts, and the connection to one company, a large utility, for someone doing… nothing…

“who benefits?”

If the speculation is ComEd/Exelon is owed… or if the case that is another side to be made, MJM is owed…

… who benefits from what we already know… cause all that we don’t know is pretty darn significant to the question

“who benefits?”===

Are these emails the connectors? Are these emails the link?

We’re gonna see how deep and how strong these emails are to a legislator.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:50 am
Yeah right why would anyone want to curry favor with the Madigan organization that has total control over any legislation being introduced to regulate your business?

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:51 am
Rich, please tell me you weren’t seriously wondering why these payments were being made to the Speaker’s former staffer who sexually harassed women. It was obvious to me the day it made the news.

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:52 am
=== So, apparently, the G believes the payments to Quinn, the brother of Madigan’s alderman Marty Quinn, were designed to curry favor with a lawmaker. Would that lawmaker be Speaker Madigan? ===

So McClain, Cousineau, etc. were trying to curry favor with the Speaker? Really? These people are already Madigan’s closest confidants. I highly doubt that they were doing this to curry favor with the Speaker.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:54 am
-True, but one would think you’d have to be “part of it” in order to be charged criminally.-

Criminally, yes. But if he knew these guys were paying a fired harasser and/or condoned it, while at the same time claiming to reform goings on in Springfield to prevent that type of behavior, that’s political dynamite going off inside his own caucus.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 8:54 am
Also I would like to add that in all of the detailed stories put out there, there is nothing that shows that ComEd actually had any involvement or knowledge of these payments. Those that gave money were generally people close to the Speaker who happened to also lobby for ComEd.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:00 am
===you weren’t seriously wondering why these payments were being made===

Um, as I explained, I was wondering why the feds were interested in the payments. While quite distasteful and even outrageous, I was wondering why the payments would be considered illegal.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:01 am
=== that’s political dynamite going off inside his own caucus. ===

Bingo. This isn’t criminal activity, but it sure is politically damaging and damaging in the press.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:01 am
There are two separate areas of concern for the Speaker. First, he has to deal with his caucus in regard to payments by key confidants going to a person fired for harassment. Second, and more troubling, is why are the Feds looking at these payments? Is this a one off from something else they are looking into? The biggest common denominator is Madigan loyalists. The next common denominator is ComEd. But my question is, what does ComEd get by helping this guy. I don’t see it as of today at least. More to come I suppose

Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:02 am
Head of House

Comment by HIMSELF Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:02 am
And the Sgt. Schultz defense never works. Never.

Comment by 19th Ward Guy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:14 am
Is it possible that Alderman Marty Quinn spearheaded the effort to help his brother Kevin in his hour of need?

Comment by Curious Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:24 am
Rich- Corporate money being used for purposes other then disclosed or for legitimate reasons that are sent in the mail or electronically are called mail fraud under the honest services statute

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:24 am
Based on this article, I’m not connecting the dots as to how this would cause the Feds to investigate ComEd? Yes, the lobbyists that made payments were ComEd lobbyists, but if the payments were made for actual bill tracking and monitoring committees, was the person only tracking only ComEd related issues or issues that those lobbying firms monitor? If the person doing the tracking & monitoring committee hearings is not lobbying/asking for a vote on a specific issue, then that person would not have to register as a lobbyist.

In regards to little or no work- in this situation, if person actually monitored committees and tracked bills, and the committees didn’t meet or only last 15 minutes, how it is a consultant’s fault that there was little work that occurred? Now, if a person is being paid and there is no work being done and he/she isn’t watching committees then that’s another issue. But think about companies that hire contract lobbyist for 1 issue bc they don’t want that person working against them- is this now a federal crime?

Remove ComEd & “Himself” from the equation and this article could possibly be about anyone on this blog. If we had a friend that became unemployed or had financial problems, we would help by offering small jobs and compensate well.

Comment by {Sigh} Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:30 am
=== Corporate money being used for purposes other then disclosed or for legitimate reasons that are sent in the mail or electronically are called mail fraud under the honest services statute ===

Federal law “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

Who was deprived of honest services in this case? Who was defrauded?

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:33 am
== Sue - Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:24 am:

Rich- Corporate money being used for purposes other then disclosed or for legitimate reasons that are sent in the mail or electronically are called mail fraud under the honest services statute ==

That’s not correct. That’s not how honest services statute works. Even presuming Madigan was aware of the payments, he has no control over who private corporations hire and what services they require their employees to perform. As far as we know, no state or government services were involved or invoked.

If you read this story and the prior stories, you’d know that the people paid Quinn hired him to do work. According to the prior article, he did work for them. They paid him with their corporate funds.

Quinn should not have sent those texts to Hampton. He was punished and fired for that conduct. I presume the man will never find work because he appears in news stories every other day. He’s been demonized worse than sex offenders and murders.

Comment by longtimed Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:36 am
Doesn’t seem illegal, but it does look terrible. Especially given the timeline and what the Speaker was saying while this was going on about advancing into a new era of allowed behaviors by his underlings.

Comment by Ben Gazzara Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:39 am
“Himself” was also the title of a book by Eugene Kennedy about Richard J Daley, Madigan’s mentor.

Full title: “Himself! The Life and Times of Mayor Richard J. Daley”

All of this is not looking good for the lobbyists who apparently were asked a favor nor Madigan or Mary M. Im also surprised McClain put any of this in writing. Careless and very unusual and uncharacteristic for the “Most Trusted”.

Comment by noted Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:45 am
It does not on its face appear that Com Ed or Kevin committed a crime but that does not mean the feds can not haul Kevin and everyone else around this in and put pressure on them to flip. It will be interesting to see if the feds can connect all of the threads of possible corruption swirling around Illinois.

Comment by Quid Joe Schmoe Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:51 am
===While quite distasteful and even outrageous, I was wondering why the payments would be considered illegal.===

As Lester Freeman would say, all the pieces matter. Something that by itself may not be criminal can become evidence of conspiracy or racketeering when combined with other evidence.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:52 am
I tend to agree here, reading above and my own comment in July, we need to see how the Feds would move forward with criminal activity, and while it appears to look bad on an ethical choice of these individuals, I’d like to know “who benefited” and how that benefit goes to the criminality.

I’m already saying I don’t know. Said it in July too. I can read what is reported, and it’s great reporting to what they are disclosing, but I need clarity to not only the dots, even in these emails, but the Fed’s thoughts to their criminality, which I’m not reading even in the reporting. I’m reading an email linking. Ok, walk me through the Feds next thoughts to them.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:52 am
This has been out there for awhile. We don’t know who is talking or what they are saying. The Fed knows how to wield a hammer too, but it may not be velvet. I think I’ll stay tuned.

Comment by SSL Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:54 am
=== Something that by itself may not be criminal can become evidence of conspiracy or racketeering ===

That is legally incorrect. If it is not illegal than it is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy or racketeering. Racketeering by its very nature involves specific types of criminal activity.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:04 am
Powered wig- com Ed’s Shareholders were defrauded

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:10 am
proving that the parties intended to avoid the disclosure laws is really the hard part for the feds. it sounds like they are putting that together.

the easy part comes next. if these people did this, that would be a predicate crime to charging them with money laundering.

Comment by dying HDO Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:11 am
=== Powered wig- com Ed’s Shareholders were defrauded ===

Theres no evidence that ComEd made any payments or even knew about the payments. If that evidence existed I am sure we would have seen it in the Tribune by now.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:16 am
Seems odd that so many controversies and scandals surrounding the Speaker have their origin with his trusted Alderman Marty Quinn. I just wonder if he could be the new Danny Solis in waiting.

Comment by Just me Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:18 am
This thing is going to blow and it is going to blow big.

Comment by Boom Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:18 am
=== proving that the parties intended to avoid the disclosure laws is really the hard part for the feds. ===

The article said that Kevin Quinn was watching committee hearings and watching bills. By definition, this activity does not require lobbyist disclosure/registration.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:19 am
=== Shareholders were defrauded===

By whom, and for what purpose, and is that purpose legislatively connected?

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:21 am
I’m really struck by the recklessness of McClain’s email. Really? He literally uses Himself as a synonym for Madigan. Was that intended to be some kind of code only these guys understood? Looks like McClain got sloppy…and the feds have all his emails.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:25 am
The association does not necessarily have to be criminal. Corporations, union, and probably political organizations can meet the association in fact element of a RICO case. No one really knows all the evidence except the Feds. However, paying a lobbyist for doing nothing certainly can be fraud. If a union was engaging in such activity, I don’t think there would be any question that it could constitute fraud and a RICO predicate.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:33 am
=== However, paying a lobbyist for doing nothing certainly can be fraud. If a union was engaging in such activity, I don’t think there would be any question that it could constitute fraud and a RICO predicate.===

How could it be squared then when lobsters are hired in a basic sense to “stand down” or unavailable to an opposing side?

I do think not know, with the pieces here, even with emails, there’s a great deal missing, which also doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I know I don’t know.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:36 am
==“I find this insulting and hope my Democrat colleagues start to confront this disgraceful behavior in their caucus==

Try “Democratic colleagues”, Rep McDermed. You might get better response

Comment by noted Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:40 am
===How could it be squared then when lobsters are hired in a basic sense to “stand down” or unavailable to an opposing side?===

It depends on all the evidence. You don’t know all the evidence. No one really knows all the evidence. ComEd may say “oh we hired that person to “stand down” when in fact they hired the person to further a criminal enterprise.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:43 am
=== Democrat colleagues===

Good job, making it all partisan, congratulations.

No wonder Raunerite phonies can’t grasp why moderates and those on the other side of the aisle see them… as silly.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:44 am
I said it before, I’ll say it again. get ready for the biggest RICO case you’ve ever seen.

Comment by Retired 126 Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:46 am
=== You don’t know all the evidence. No one really knows all the evidence. ComEd may say “oh we hired that person to “stand down” when in fact they hired the person to further a criminal enterprise.===

… which I openly admitted, and my premise, which you also ran with, we’re back to where more evidence to be seen.

With respect.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:47 am
Re: Rep. McDermed’s comment that this “confirms” anything about Madigan’s sincerity in addressing sexual harassment.

It really doesn’t. No evidence that he knew about the payments to Quinn was presented.

According to her bio, she was a corporate lawyer for 30 years. Sad to see someone who knows better misrepresent the known facts. But, partisans gonna partisan.

Comment by Moe Berg Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:49 am
=== However, paying a lobbyist for doing nothing certainly can be fraud. ===

Kevin Quinn was not a lobbyist and he was tasked with following committee hearings and following bills.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 10:54 am
To those who question why the “Most Trusted of the Trusted” would need to curry favor, why wouldn’t they? They are all lobbyists who earn a great deal of money, in no small part, because of their relationship with the Speaker. Of course they will want to stay in his good graces. What have you done for me lately?

Comment by Nova Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:03 am
@longtimed 9:36 =he has no control over who private corporations hire and what services they require their employees to perform=

I think this is the crux of the burgeoning case. I think the term I’ve heard lately is “implied extortion”.

Himself doesn’t have to have control over who’s hired and what services they perform. But if support for a legislative agenda is implied if a corporation indeed hires an individual, then Himself may have a problem.

Comment by Anon-ka-donk Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:24 am
Look Kevin Quinn legitimately earned his ‘paycheck,’ he monitored committee hearings and tracked bills like any staffer would. Now, did his check equate for the amount of work put in? (We will find out). Therefore, for his work he got paid. Like with any gang operation, ComEd knowing via McClain that a Madigan underling is unemployed, well, they’re going to go out of their way to ‘handle the issue.’ Additionally, they don’t need to have this in writing or have ‘HIMSELF’s’ approval. McClain knew what he had to do to take care ‘one their own.’

Comment by Billy Sunday Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:29 am
Also, not stated here, is the question “why are the feds leaking this to the Tribune and why now? I expect we’ll see more of these leaks in the near future.

Next up? I suspect the feds will leak more to the Sun Times and/or WBEZ.

Comment by Anon-ka-donk Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:33 am
The payments to Quinn were made to keep him comfortable and quiet as his marriage and work prospects crumbled around him. That guy knows a lot and if he is cooperating with the feds, Himself should be nervous.
Whatever the feds believe about these payments forming the basis of a crime, it was enough to convince a federal judge to let them put a tap on McClain’s phone. That is a pretty high evidentiary hurdle and the feds cleared it.

Comment by V Babs Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:41 am
=Now, did his check equate for the amount of work put in? (We will find out). Therefore, for his work he got paid.=

If we are going to question compensation packages for private sector employees, then what about the CEO in the other blog post making $25m?

If I want to pay someone $1,000 for 4 hours of work or for 20 hours of work, how is that different than a CEO making $25m?

Comment by {Sigh} Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:46 am
=== ComEd knowing via McClain that a Madigan underling is unemployed, well, they’re going to go out of their way to ‘handle the issue.’ ===

I have not read anything indicating that those at ComEd were involved at all with the checks that went to Quinn.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:49 am
How the word “himself” is used in some of those emails doesn’t even make grammatical sense. Why even bother trying to hide who it is at that point?

Comment by Herself? Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:51 am
===Why even bother trying to hide who it is at that point?===

I seriously doubt this was an attempt to hide an identity. It’s just a figure of speech.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 11:58 am
Lobbyists were asked to hire someone for six months.
The work tasked was not lobbying.
Connection to ComEd and Speaker Madigan is coincidental at best.

Putting aside that people may not like the guy being hired, or that the lobbyists are all Madigan loyalists— Where is the crime? Other than being an interesting behind-the-scenes look at McClain, Is this even worth debating compared to the other corruption scandals being investigated?

Comment by Boomerang Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 12:03 pm
=No wonder Raunerite phonies can’t grasp why moderates and those on the other side of the aisle see them… as silly.=

Good job, making it all partisan, congratulations.

Comment by Flat Bed Ford Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 12:38 pm
=== Good job, making it all partisan, congratulations.===

Aw, - Flat Bed Ford -, lol… you caught the joke, and you bit, thanks… was afraid no one would say something.

(Chef kiss)

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 12:42 pm
Obtaining a title 3 wiretap is no walk in the park. The feds has to demonstrate substantial evidence of criminal conduct to tap the phone. You folks are totally uninformed to believe that the feds don’t have a massive pile of evidence concerning these “lobbying” fees

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 1:56 pm
=== You folks are totally uninformed to believe that the feds don’t have a massive pile of evidence concerning these “lobbying” fees ===

Not Lobbying fees. Quinn wasn’t lobbying.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 2:15 pm
It may not be illegal but it stinks to high heaven nevertheless. Madigan’s most recognized confidante goes to his co-lobbyists at Com Ed (who just got huge legislation passed) and says we need to help this guy. Implied or direct, the others all think Madigan wants this to happen based on who is asking. The guy being helped is a valued worker of Madigan’s campaign arm who is charged with bad behavior. Madigan has to dump him but doesn’t really want to. So the guy gets dumped but gets a little help (from the Com ed cronies) as he is walked out the door. Hush money or grocery money it doesn’t matter. He was being taken care of while Madigan gets the benefit of being seen as taking the high road. Up to the lawyers to determine legality, but the question is was it right and what’s wrong with the atmosphere in Spfld that this can go on? Am I the only one that thinks this stinks?

Comment by Concerned Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 2:27 pm
===Alderman Marty Quinn. I just wonder if he could be the new Danny Solis in waiting.=== If Marty Quinn is or has been wearing a wire then a lot of politicians should be looking for good lawyers.

Comment by Oboy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 3:00 pm
Unlike everyone on the blog -the feds have access to the 1099’s which the people giving money to Quinn would have filed so as to be able to deduct the payments from their own revenue amounts reported to the IRS. It is likely the payors of these payments filed the appropriate forms so they themselves didn’t pay taxes on the amounts they “gifted” to Quinn. Undoubtedly the records will reflect lobbying or consulting payments to Quinn. These sham contracts are always at the heart of the feds scheme and/or artifice fact statements in mail fraud indictments. Quinn and individuals who made the payments along with individuals directing the payments are certainly going to be subject to federal prosecutions. Trying to argue otherwise is rediculous

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 3:09 pm
===Trying to argue otherwise is rediculous ===

You are ridiculous. Assuming that the contracts were sham contracts when all that has been reported is that Quinn was responsible for monitoring committee hearings. Do you have any evidence that didn’t happen? You sound so certain that this will end up in federal prosecutions and that somehow you know what the feds know. In the end, we only know what has been reported and based on what has been reported here, there is no crime.

Comment by Powdered Whig Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 4:28 pm
Powdered Wig- time will tell but I think 6 months from now you will be kind of embarrassed. The feds aren’t known to waste time and expense on investigations like this unless they intend on landing a number of fish

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 5:07 pm
=== I think 6 months from now you will be kind of embarrassed===

What are the lottery numbers for tomorrow while you’re given up future things.

Same thing(s) were said about Dorothy Brown…

We’ll know when we know, how about that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 5:10 pm
OW- I have a couple of friends representing several of the individuals caught up in this morass. This investigation has as we say real legs

Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 5:18 pm
=== couple of friends representing several of the individuals caught up===

Dunno if they should be talking about things… ethics and all.

We’ll know … when we know.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 5:21 pm
Yikes…

Sue, not sure your friends should be talking about clients they are representing.

However, it doesn’t seem to me that Quinn is connected to Com Ed. More so he was hired by lobbyists who had connections with Com Ed. Time will tell.

Comment by Not sure Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 6:21 pm
===OW- I have a couple of friends representing several of the individuals caught up in this morass. This investigation has as we say real legs===

Sure you do. And please, you aren’t a lawyer, CMB. But you sure like to play one on the internets.

Comment by GirlNamedLawSueT Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:12 pm
If you think Marty wore a wire then you don’t know Marty.

Comment by Quid Joe Schmoe Thursday, Nov 21, 19 @ 9:30 pm