Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Harmon rejects stand-alone migrant appropriations bill
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
Perhaps the weakest federal criminal charge against former Ald. Edward Burke (14th) was about his plot to extort the Chicago Field Museum because a friend’s daughter never heard back about an internship after Burke sent over her resume.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Kendall seemed “unimpressed” by federal prosecutors’ reasoning in mid-December after Burke’s legal team moved to dismiss the charge ahead of closing arguments, according to Chicago Tribune reporter Jason Meisner.
Kendall ultimately decided not to dismiss the charge but said, “It certainly is an extremely odd attempted extortion count. I’m going to allow it to go to the jury, but I’m taking it under advisement,” Meisner reported at the time.
Burke’s lawyers had argued that to be convicted of extortion, the government must prove the defendant knowingly took a substantial step toward extortion with the intent to commit extortion.
Burke had already hired his old friend’s daughter by the time of his conversations with the folks at the Field Museum, his attorneys pointed out. “In fact, he specifically repudiated the Field Museum’s overtures” about working something out, they maintained.
Burke did snap at a governmental relations staffer who’d called to see if he was opposed to the Field Museum’s admission price increase proposal because Burke had earlier come out hard against another museum’s entry fee request with the Chicago Park District. Burke said he was angry the museum had dropped the ball on the internship application and asked, “So now, you’re going to make a request of me?”
“I’m sure I know what you want to do,” Burke said. “Because if the chairman of the Committee on Finance [Burke] calls the president of the park board, your proposal is going to go nowhere.”
The employee testified she perceived that as a “threat.”
But Burke didn’t try to stop the park district from ultimately approving the fee hike, and while the museum offered to find another spot for the young woman, she never acted on that. And Burke’s lawyers claimed the governmental relations person wasn’t a “decision maker” at the museum, pointed out that Burke had no direct control over the park district and that the museum’s CEO testified he didn’t believe he’d been shaken down.
“The requirement of proving a substantial step serves to distinguish people who pose real threats from those who are all hot air,” Burke’s lawyers quoted from an appellate court case, U.S. v. Gladish. Judge Richard Posner continued in that 2008 opinion: “You are not punished just for saying that you want or even intend to kill someone, because most such talk doesn’t lead to action. You have to do something that makes it reasonably clear that had you not been interrupted or made a mistake … you would have completed the crime.”
To be abundantly clear, this is in no way a defense of Burke. He bullied people for decades and, hey, what goes around comes around. And he was not only convicted on the Field Museum charges but on a whole lot of other, more concrete and straightforward charges, which might possibly have helped buttress the case that Burke did indeed make a “real threat” against the museum.
Instead, this is a warning to everyone else in the political business.
The federal government has now convicted a former elected government official for making an oblique threat that he never followed through on (the museum’s fee hike was approved soon after) over his personal embarrassment that an internship application of the daughter of an old and dear friend that he’d forwarded had been lost in a bureaucratic shuffle.
I’ve been around long enough to know this sort of thing is not a rare event in government at just about every level.
A lawmaker, for instance, feels insulted. So, in anger, the legislator makes a likely empty threat to retaliate on a bill, or an appropriation or whatever. And maybe the threat isn’t even all that empty.
Don’t do it.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:14 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Harmon rejects stand-alone migrant appropriations bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Instead, this is a warning to everyone else in the political business”
Those leaders from entrenched political parties/machines where there is virtually no opposition are particularly susceptible.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:30 am
Good column Rich. This might be Burke’s most appealable issue . But, Burke faces long odds on the 27th floor. The jury weighed all the evidence in this case. They came to the conclusion that Pete Andrews was not guilty on Pete’s counts. The jury played the tapes over and over again. Burke’s words on tape convicted him with this jury. Maybe, this judge will allow him to stay out of jail during the appeal.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:32 am
I’ve never worked in the political side, but I’ve worked at multiple state agencies now, and I’ve seen way too many times someone gets emotional about something and does or says something that has actual legal consequences for the agency.
Too many adults in positions of power haven’t developed any additional emotional maturity since they were a teenager. They end up letting personal animus get the better of themselves, especially if they have been in positions of relatively unchecked power for some time.
Then they stumble into doing something stupid because of it.
Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:50 am
Good column. I agree. Will SCOTUS?
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:56 am
What is it with pols attempting to extort hospitals and museums?
Blago tried to get cash from Children’s Memorial. Burk tried with the Field Museum.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 10:59 am
“So now, you’re going to make a request of me?”
Incredible how brazen this all was, while his wife is sitting there at the top of the state’s legal system. I guess we’re all telling ourselves she didn’t have mens rea, otherwise it would be kind of embarrassing.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 11:11 am
I get why this seems “lesser” from a reasonable, objective pov, but based on my experience I really believe that issues that affect kids and privilge resonate more with parents (and, perhaps as the US Attorney was thinking, jurors) more than others. Every Asian-American parent I know, most of whom are firmly liberal on most issues, were elated by the Supreme Court ruling striking down admission preferencs in an “Asian Tax” case. The U of I admissions scandal, a prized internship that nobody but a pol’s kid or friend has a chance to get - it’s felt more deeply.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 11:15 am
Juries are ready to convict I guess, not sure the judge should let the charge get to a jury, or let the conviction stand. The intern charge doesn’t seem valid to me, as anything more than evidence of his bullying and personality. The rest is enough, this charge wasn’t needed…
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 11:15 am
lake county democrat,
I think it’s more immediate when you are as a citizen faced directly with it. For instance, in some countries it’s not unusual to face an “expedition fee” from a clerk for a document or an id. Sometimes that’s valid, like where an office prints it in their schedule of fees, but oftentimes it’s just graft from the clerk. And when people complain about corruption it’s usually things like that. The consequences of pinstripe corruption is just more diffuse.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 12:12 pm
Or people in elected positions could remember that they are there because the people they serve put them there. Unfortunately, as Lord Acton noted quite correctly, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Comment by Just a guy Tuesday, Jan 16, 24 @ 4:26 pm