Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Glass houses, stones, etc.
Next Post: Governor announces creation of $40 million fund to incentivize development-ready megasites
Posted in:
* The trial is set to being March 3, so expect a lot of these. Tribune…
In a flurry of pretrial filings, lawyers for the so-called “ComEd Four” are seeking to keep large swaths of evidence away from the jury next month, including the utility’s admissions of a scheme to influence then-House Speaker Michael Madigan, the millions of dollars in campaign contributions ComEd showered on lawmakers, and a prosecution expert who would testify about machine politics and corruption. […]
In his filing Monday, Pramaggiore’s attorney, Scott Lassar, argued that ComEd’s deal with prosecutors was “irrelevant” when it comes to the defendants on trial, and that allowing the jury to hear evidence about it would be improper.
“Allowing the jury to learn of ComEd’s agreement to pay $200 million would severely prejudice defendants because jurors may conclude that ComEd thought that its officers committed a very serious crime if they paid a $200 million fine,” Lassar wrote. […]
Lassar said [former ComEd Vice President Fidel Marquez] was acting as a government agent when he made the recordings and therefore his statements should be considered hearsay. The fact Marquez was cooperating also “calls into question the truth and accuracy” of his statements, Lassar wrote, “because the language he used may have been suggested by the government or tailored by Mr. Marquez to conform to what he believed the government wanted to hear.”
* More from the author on Twitter…
McClain's attorney reveals the feds want to put on evidence that two alleged subcontractors under Jay Doherty were "separately appointed" to paid public board positions.
McClain argues the evidence is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with benefits to ComEd— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) February 6, 2023
"The government’s case against Doherty is at best circumstantial—but more accurately it is speculative," his lawyers write. His statements suggest only "as a lobbyist would, that keeping Madigan happy helps ensure access to Madigan so ComEd can lobby Madigan on its behalf."
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) February 7, 2023
And now a motion to bar the expert testimony of Professor Dick Simpson, which the defense describes as “unreliable, irrelevant, cumulative, and prejudicial” and a “transparent attempt to paint the four Defendants with the broad brush of Chicago political corruption.”
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) February 7, 2023
Getting back to these ComEd Four court filings. Sometimes it’s the footnotes that say it all, like:
“The jury needs no special expertise to understand that there has historically been political corruption in Chicago.” pic.twitter.com/uxdqnGduTJ— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) February 7, 2023
Hooker's attorney also wants to bar evidence about Kevin Quinn, the Madigan lieutenant who received monthly payments from the speaker's loyalists after he was ousted in a sexual harassment scandal. @RayLong and I broke that story here https://t.co/RgURYPIgxB
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) February 6, 2023
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Glass houses, stones, etc.
Next Post: Governor announces creation of $40 million fund to incentivize development-ready megasites
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
= “The jury needs no special expertise to understand that there has historically been political corruption in Chicago.” =
Quote of the year, if not the decade.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:54 am
I would add that Mr. Simpson’s testimony would be idiotic. Unless, of course, he is an expert in political corruption based on his own experiences supporting political corruption.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:57 am
To JoanP at 11:54 am:
“A crook is a crook, and there’s something healthy about his frankness in the matter. But any guy who pretends he is enforcing the law and steals on his authority is a swell snake. The worst type of these punks is the big politician. You can only get a little of his time because he spends so much time covering up that no one will know that he is a thief. A hard-working crook will-and can-get those birds by the dozen, but right down in his heart he won’t depend on them-hates the sight of them.” - Al Capone
Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:03 pm
The Crain’s story contains this little juicy nugget:
“The filings contain some morsels of new information not before disclosed in the voluminous materials already made public.
Among them, there were “at least” three lobbyists other than Doherty who served as ComEd’s intermediaries in paying associates of Madigan, whom Pramaggiore and the others are charged with illegally trying to influence, for little or no work, according to a filing by prosecutors.”
Wouldn’t it be great to know who the other two lobbyists are and who they and Jay Doherty paid under the table. Seems like the Feds simply let the corruption flourish by not going harder at the corrupt system.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/utilities/comed-trial-defendants-push-keep-information-future-jury
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:53 pm
===Wouldn’t it be great to know who the other two lobbyists are and who they and Jay Doherty paid under the table. Seems like the Feds simply let the corruption flourish by not going harder at the corrupt system.===
I would guess the government could not prove that the lobbyists for those two other “intermediaries” did no work.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:59 pm
“Wouldn’t it be great to know who the other two lobbyists are and who they and Jay Doherty paid under the table. Seems like the Feds simply let the corruption flourish by not going harder at the corrupt system.”
1) Anyone that’s paid even an ounce of attention t the filings and reporting in the case could make an educated guess as to the other pass throughs.
2) The feds make charging decisions based on what they can prove in front of a jury. Drive by comments like this are brutal on the eyes.
Comment by Say it! Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:03 pm
while I don’t agree with the fight on the evidence and the expert witness I do think the prosecution could do better on the expert witness. I think Simpson could negatively affect their case. he’s known politically so it could infer a certain kind of bias they do not want in a jury. there are literally professors who work on the issue of corruption professionally, and who are not known as people who endorse candidates, etc. The Feds can do better.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:04 pm
“1) Anyone that’s paid even an ounce of attention t the filings and reporting in the case could make an educated guess as to the other pass throughs.
2) The feds make charging decisions based on what they can prove in front of a jury. Drive by comments like this are brutal on the eyes.”
I want to know who these lobbyists are that were pass throughs for under-the-table ComEd payments. And I also want to know who received these payments from Doherty and the other two. As I understand it there are literally hundreds who received these payments. Anyone looking to stop corruption in Springfield would want to know who received these payments and what were they for.
That’s not a drive by from an uninterested party. ComEd was doing this crap for years and years and everyone turned a blind eye. Getting to the heart of this would have helped remove some of the corruption. But the Feds just wanted Mike Madigan’s scalp. They didn’t actually care about cleaning up the system.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:26 pm
“Getting to the heart of this would have helped remove some of the corruption. But the Feds just wanted Mike Madigan’s scalp. They didn’t actually care about cleaning up the system.”
You seem to have a misguided view of the roles here. The feds aren’t supposed to be swamp drainers per se. It certainly is an effect of what they cause, but they spent an inordinate amount of time (it looks to be about 6 years or so) getting “to the heart” of things via investigation and prosecution, and the indictment you see before you is in large part the fruit of those efforts.
You seem to want names named, and I think you’ll your wish in March. But I simply don’t buy the argument pounding every single person involved here would have delivered a better result than what actually occurred: taking down Madigan.
Comment by Say it! Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:49 pm
===Getting to the heart of this would have helped remove some of the corruption. But the Feds just wanted Mike Madigan’s scalp. They didn’t actually care about cleaning up the system.===
You can’t just attack someone because they’re associated with Mike Madigan. There are criminal standards and laws to protect against this kind of guilt by association paranoia.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:55 pm
The “where’s mine” mentality operated freely in the state of Illinois for decades.
The cast of characters include governors, City Council members, and the Operation Greylord scandal in the 1980s. The Dirksen Federal Building is the centerpiece for much of this action.
Even Betty Loren Maltese from Cicero enjoyed her time in the spotlight.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:05 pm
==…then “gave directions and advice to Madigan’s staff and to the bill’s sponsor,” state Rep. Bob Rita. ==
That’s the crux of the case and is what the feds have to prove: that Madigan made it known to legislators that McClain spoke for him and they should take instruction from McClain. To establish that, the feds need to have a legislator hit the stand and say so under oath. That’s what I’ll be watching for.
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:29 pm
“You can’t just attack someone because they’re associated with Mike Madigan. There are criminal standards and laws to protect against this kind of guilt by association paranoia.”
You and some others here seem very focused on protecting those associated with the Speaker. But that’s not what I asked at all. I want to know who took those hundreds of under the table payments and for what purpose. Whose palms were greased, who did the greasing and for what purpose. Seems like reasonable questions if you want to change Springfield.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:33 pm
“You seem to have a misguided view of the roles here. The feds aren’t supposed to be swamp drainers per se.”
And yet that’s exactly what a succession of regional FBI Directors and Northern District US Attorneys have repeatedly said they have been trying to accomplish. This was a perfect opportunity to do so but they whiffed. Change of leadership helps but it’s a double at best. They also whiffed with Exelon. Anyone who believes that Ann concocted the entire corrupt scheme with Madigan and that the orders weren’t coming from above wasn’t paying attention. Don’t know why they pulled up short on that one as well.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:37 pm
===Don’t know why they pulled up short on that one===
Several higher-ups may have boarded the bus before being thrown under it? Just a guess. They did agree to a major penalty.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:53 pm
=== that Madigan made it known to legislators that McClain spoke for him and they should take instruction from McClain===
Pretty sure McClain made that known to members and others.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:55 pm
===You and some others here seem very focused on protecting those associated with the Speaker.===
I’ve known a few people over the years that were on Madigan’s staff, and they are good and honest people. They don’t deserve slander because of something Madigan and some of the dumbest people on the earth did.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 3:00 pm
“I’ve known a few people over the years that were on Madigan’s staff, and they are good and honest people.”
Me too. I’m not talking about that.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 3:10 pm
===Professor Dick Simpson, which the defense describes as “unreliable, irrelevant, cumulative, and prejudicial”===
I’ve described him that way for decades now. Dick Simpson? Really prosecutors? Is that really necessary and is Simpson the best person to testify to that?
Also, it’s funnier if you read that excerpted line with Jackie Chiles’ voice in your head: It’s lewd, salacious, pernicious and outrageous.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 3:25 pm
“And yet that’s exactly what a succession of regional FBI Directors and Northern District US Attorneys have repeatedly said they have been trying to accomplish.”
No, they’ve said when they spot corruption, they’ll prosecute it. You’re assigning responsibilities to the Justice Department that don’t exist.
“This was a perfect opportunity to do so but they whiffed.”
If this is a whiff, I’d hate to see your definition of a home run.
Comment by Say it! Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 4:09 pm