Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New ads in Rodney Davis district
Next Post: Syverson appears to claim state is “adjusting” positivity rate
Posted in:
* Tribune…
The Democratic chairman of the Illinois House special committee investigating Speaker Michael Madigan’s conduct in connection with an alleged Commonwealth Edison bribery scheme blocked an effort by Republicans to legally compel the powerful Democrat and others to testify.
State Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch of Hillside ruled Tuesday that a motion by Republicans to subpoena witnesses was out of order, and didn’t allow a vote. The move comes after Madigan and several other potential witnesses declined invitations to appear voluntarily.
* The Question: Should Madigan and other witnesses be subpoenaed by the committee? Make sure to explain yourself. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New ads in Rodney Davis district
Next Post: Syverson appears to claim state is “adjusting” positivity rate
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Only if it’s politically necessary. We can’t have two sets of rules or requirements, where the president can ignore subpoenas and his party defends and protects him to the hilt.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:35 pm
Not only should they issue subpoenas, but a vote to block subpoenas is about as clear a message as you can send that you don’t want to find out any answers.
Comment by ILPundit Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:42 pm
No - it is a waste of time and money for a political circus. They should wait for the feds do their job.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:46 pm
Not so much whether they should subpoena, as whether they are allowed to. If the House Rules allows for it, then they should be able to subpoena. And legal counsel on both sides should be able to answer that question.
Comment by Spfld Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:48 pm
Chairman’s prerogative, GOP is in minority, they have no power or ability to force a subpoena.
Comment by Incandenza Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:50 pm
Sure. Yes.
If you’re going to full circus, go full circus.
“Explain”
Make those not seeking to be there be the ones to own up to it, takes the pressure off everyone.
That’s my explanation, but I can’t see how that will ease the legal counsel of any of those subpoenaed who will fight them due to an “ongoing criminal investigation”
We’re 34 days out from the day of the election, early voting is going on as I type, absentee ballots are in transit both ways via mail.
The time for the circus, that window is closing, so yep, sure, yes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:57 pm
In a functioning state of course it would be a no brainer.
In Illinois that would defeat the purpose of appointing Madigan loyalists to a committee investigating Speaker Madigan.
Absolute power absolutely corrupts but no one seems to care.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:58 pm
No. This committee needs to let the federal investigation run it’s course.
Comment by waste of time Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 2:58 pm
“didn’t allow a vote” what is the Trib talking about? They’ve just fabricated a total procedural lie. You can’t be not allowing a vote when there is nothing in rules outlying a vote process on what is solely the chairman’s prerogative.
Comment by Incandenza Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:04 pm
Yes, first up, Rauner and Durkin. They tirelessly worked to shepherd FEJA.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:22 pm
What is there to subpoena? Welch and the committee have bupkis…other than the whiff of a crime based on ComEd getting caught by the Feds.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:28 pm
No. All of it is a waste of time and will not produce any results. Pleading the 5th witness after witness is going to get boring in a big hurry. JB needs to focus on how to most effectively remove MJM from the Speakers chair come January. I promise you he is not going enjoy running for re-election with Madigan still lurking around Springfield.
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:42 pm
Yes, of course they should. The6 are conducting an investigation and sometimes you must compel individuals to appear and testify. Guess some people are afraid of telling their story…wonder why?
Comment by Elliott Ness Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:47 pm
Speaker Welch probably still has some cards in his hand to play.
Comment by Ok Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:48 pm
the speaker should control when he speaks.It is law and politics that are mixed and not separate and the Speaker should answer alone. So should and why did many elected officials vote for COM ED rates and what was their received favors and money. Put it ALL on the table. Companies pay for services and should display returns.
P
Comment by Bear3 Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:50 pm
=== Guess some people are afraid of telling their story…wonder why?===
(Sigh)
Not *one* attorney would think testifying is smart with an ongoing criminal investigation watching and looking.
You’re really not as smart about this as you think.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:50 pm
Do you need to if I’ve already voted against Wehrli? I have…
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:53 pm
not going to happen.
if it did, he would just take the Fifth, which would be mucho embarrassing.
Comment by jim Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:55 pm
===Do you need to if I’ve already voted against…===
I do Grant you, that might change things.
This process is *suppose* to help Wehrli.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:56 pm
It would seem to me that if one side on a committee that is evenly split really wanted to issue subpoenas, they would have had some discussion prior to the meeting. Springing them on the other party at the time you are asking for a vote sounds more like theatrics to me. Especially when the one doing the springing is in the midst of a hotly contested race for re-election.
Comment by Take a closer look Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 3:57 pm
Even if subpoenas are issued by the Committee, what lawyer is going to allow their client to come in to testify? Seems like a big waste of time in light of the USA investigation.
Comment by Wondering Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 4:02 pm
I don’t think EN was suggesting that an attorney representing a witness who may have been involved in or have knowledge of wrongdoing would think it was a good idea, OW, so what that counsel thinks is a “good idea” really isn’t relevant.
The question is should witnesses be compelled to testify. Of course they should. That’s how you get information from people who know things you want to know. And of course the majority had the ability to stop it, but they risk being portrayed as those protecting wrongdoers from public scrutiny.
GOM - really? So if there’s wrong-doing on one level of government by someone in one party, that means nobody in that party can pursue an investigate procedure allowed allowed for in the legislative body in which he or she serves? That’s silly.
Sometimes in order to intelligently comment on something in Springfield, you need to set Washington and your feelings about the President aside for a few minutes.
The Tribune did not inaccurately report what Chairman Welch did. A proper motion is traditionally followed by a vote. Welch didn’t want the vote, so he blocked it. He and the Democrats don’t want to compel testimony, and it’s obvious why.
Comment by Quenton Cassidy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 4:19 pm
===so what that counsel thinks is a “good idea” really isn’t relevant.===
lol, it’s relevant to the client. So, there’s that.
=== The question is should witnesses be compelled to testify. Of course they should. That’s how you get information from people who know things you want to know. And of course the majority had the ability to stop it, but they risk being portrayed as those protecting wrongdoers from public scrutiny.===
So, in other words, a circus, or a circus.
=== it’s obvious why.===
What so obvious?
It’s not like anyone is going to go all Col. Jessup and admit to everything under the sun.
I’m still waiting to hear…
“I talked to Madigan, he told me give me this, you get that, we did that.”
Even yesterday, it was McClain as the alleged buffer, so what is so obvious that even ComEd couldn’t say the actual direct link yesterday? What would be so compelling to be grilled by Demmer that someone will… “crack”… if something is so obvious.
Of course, I think they should do subpoenas, go full circus, as Demmer and Durkin‘s caucus loses more seats, that’ll show everyone.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 4:28 pm
I am still catching up, but didn’t the Fed’s star, cooperating witness tell the committee yesterday that they had no direct knowledge of any wrongdoing by Madigan?
I think perhaps the House Committee ought to let the Feds do their jobs. This isn’t Open Mike Nite, it’s a job for professionals.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 5:12 pm
Quenton Cassidy time and time again proving to be one of most rational commenters.
I think he should be subpoenaed. These are credible accusations that need to be answered for if he is to continue to be a legislative leader. While some reasonably argue that the proximity to an election will make this theatre, I think that there is absolutely a public interest in this being fleshed out before they cast a vote. Many are already casting them every day…
Comment by TaxTheMemes Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 5:54 pm
=== While some reasonably argue that the proximity to an election will make this theatre, I think that there is absolutely a public interest in this being fleshed out before they cast a vote.===
Narrator: Mike Madigan is running unopposed
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 30, 20 @ 6:13 pm