Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar


Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives


Previous Post: *** ComEd 4 trial live coverage ***
Next Post: Open thread

Morning briefing

Posted in:

* Here you go!

posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 7:36 am

Comments

  1. ===Prosecutors object to proposed defense expert on lobbying in ComEd bribery case: “The focus of Drutman’s proposed testimony – the basics of lobbying – resembles the principles taught in a high school civics class,” prosecutors argued in a motion that seeks to exclude or limit the testimony===

    After “Storytime with Simpson” was nixed, this makes total sense.

    The defense doesn’t necessarily need this “storytelling”, the crux of the issue is… the prosecution must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an actual crime and criminal intent exist, and which law (or laws) are broken.

    This idea that “culture” is part and parcel, the law is the law…

    *Disclaimer*

    “I’m not arguing the ethics, I’m not arguing for exoneration or acquittal… but you say so yourself, it’s about this art that these 4 are engaged in, all alleged, and the legality.”

    It’s gonna be fascinating, this trial.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 7:55 am

  2. I can see an argument that there was no “quid pro quo” there was just deal making and “being friends”, etc. etc., but I really hope the jury doesn’t but it. Politicians and their cronies try to make it murky, try to give themselves plausible deniability, but again I hope the jury sees through that.

    Also, the pearl clutching over TikTok continues to amaze me. Imagine China demanding Google sell YoutTube, what would our reaction be? I mean, Americans usually mock “The Great Firewall”, we mock the fact that China blocks most “western” websites out of paranoia and a desire to control their populace, and yet we want to institute something similar? Come on.

    Comment by Perrid Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 8:11 am

  3. ===Google sell YouTube===

    Is Google/YouTube owned or controlled in its ownership by the United States government?

    I’m not wholly disagreeing with you, I am of the belief that a measured subsidiary of any foreign power (even an ally) controlling or having access to windows of mineable information, that’s an issue that should be looked at, minimum.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 8:39 am

  4. Cooperating witnesses, deal makers something for something

    Comment by Rabid Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 8:58 am

  5. I think I’m on the same page as OW. It’s a bad look for the prosecution to try to ban a defense witness. It gives the impression that the prosecution is trying to hide something.

    Again, no comment on guilt or innocence here. Just saying that this smells fishy.

    Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 9:04 am

  6. = It’s a bad look for the prosecution to try to ban a defense witness. It gives the impression that the prosecution is trying to hide something. =

    It is, but the jury won’t know about it. (Unless, of course, they ignore the judge’s instruction and read/listen to the news.)

    Comment by JoanP Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 9:28 am

  7. Not all “quid pro quo”s are overt. That’s what this case will come down to … assumptions and expectations.

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 16, 23 @ 10:08 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: *** ComEd 4 trial live coverage ***
Next Post: Open thread


Last 10 posts:

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.