Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Illinois Credit Unions: A Fair Financial Alternative
Posted in:
* Jon Seidel…
Former City Club President Jay Doherty asked a judge Thursday to toss parts of a bombshell indictment filed last fall charging him and members of former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s inner circle with bribery, calling the federal prosecution “shaky at best.”
The indictment alleged that Doherty, Madigan confidant Michael McClain, ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and onetime ComEd lobbyist John Hooker arranged for Madigan’s associates and allies to get jobs, contracts and money in order to influence Madigan. […]
Attorney Gabrielle Sansonetti wrote that one of the federal laws Doherty is accused of violating “prohibits any prosecution where the object of the bribe is a bona fide job in the usual course of business” and added that, “the indictment fails to evidence the grand jury’s consideration of this essential element.”
Without requiring such evidence, the attorney wrote, prosecutors are “free to indict any legislator who recommends any person for a job to any entity that will benefit or may have previously benefited from that legislator’s official action.”
Prosecutors “can easily secure evidence regarding the legitimacy of the job at issue,” Sansonetti wrote. Meanwhile, she added that Doherty “must wait until a jury trial to prove the legitimacy of the jobs.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 21, 21 @ 8:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Illinois Credit Unions: A Fair Financial Alternative
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This ruling could have consequences through out the Political Patronage that still continues at every level of government in Illinois. County, City other municipal jobs handed out to the “connected” could now be considered bribery. Going through the motions to avoid Shakman hiring rules could prove to be a problem for a lot of current elected officials.
Comment by qualified someone nobody sent Friday, May 21, 21 @ 8:48 am
“…the object of the bribe is a bona fide job in the usual course of business”
The prosecution will have to prove that such a job was created or offered for the sole purpose of a quid pro quo. It’s tough to prove this intent unless the job wasn’t open to the general public or multiple applicants weren’t equally considered.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Friday, May 21, 21 @ 8:50 am
“The prosecution will have to prove that such a job was created or offered for the sole purpose of a quid pro quo.”
Exactly. But also the prosecution would have to prove that Doherty knew the jobs were not legit. If he recommends people for jobs that aren’t legit, but he thinks they are legit, he is not liable. That is on ComEd.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, May 21, 21 @ 8:57 am
Guessin’ the guys from the Trump Dept. of Justice might have met their match
Comment by Annonin' Friday, May 21, 21 @ 8:58 am
It’s nice that Doherty’s lawyer is filing a motion. He’s doing something. But, it’s also likely that the federal judge will allow Doherty to defend himself in court. The charges are based on several sources.
Comment by Fat Fingers Friday, May 21, 21 @ 9:18 am
Defense lawyers always file motions to dismiss. They usually lose. So don’t take this too seriously.
Prosecutors can’t respond to the motion in the press. They can only respond through their court filings.
Sometimes reporters ask former prosecutors or other lawyers for comments, so the motion’s legal and factual failings are discussed in the initial story.
Seidel’s story explores some of the factual failings in Doherty’s argument. The response to the motion to dismiss will likely present the legal arguments later.
Comment by Keyrock Friday, May 21, 21 @ 9:23 am
=Guessin’ the guys from the Trump Dept. of Justice might have met their match=
Most of the actual legal work/investigation/research is done by career DOJ lawyers not appointees .
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, May 21, 21 @ 9:50 am
===“free to indict any legislator who recommends any person for a job to any entity that will benefit or may have previously benefited from that legislator’s official action.”===
This really begs the question of why are they doing this in the first place?
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:55 am
I suspect this motion is going nowhere.
Of course, I would feel very concerned for Mr. Doherty if he not guilty of the charges that have been alleged in the indictment.
If he is guilty and wasting taxpayers money in having to pay federal investigators, federal attorneys and taking up the time of a federal judge rather than just pleading guilty to his crimes and showing some remorse then I would think any punishment would reflect his failure to acknowledge his wrong doing.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:50 pm
BACK/FUTURE
You have it a– backward. Its the Feds who are forever filing motions, etc. to run up the legal fees of the defendant. The Feds want to financially break the defendant so he will cooperate and cop a plea.
Comment by MOON Friday, May 21, 21 @ 1:22 pm
Moon,
Of course, you may find a Department of Justice person who loses their way, but those folks are probably less than 1/10 of 1% (if that) of the investigators and attorneys. Of that tiny percentage the Justice Department and the Federal bench are not tolerant of that kind of behavior.
The percentage of convictions used to run around 96%. Not sure what it is now, but I strongly suspect it still is around that number. That is quite a batting average.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:08 pm
=== Thoughts? ===
My first thought is that the Feds are really blowing the lid off of the Consulting Industry. Has no one at the US Attorney’s Office read “The Dilbert Ptinciple”?
My second thought was “When are they going to prosecute Ferro?”
Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, May 21, 21 @ 10:03 pm