Another month to go before we get a clue as to what will be Burke’s fate

I have to admit to anxiously waiting for next week Friday, the date that was a legal deadline for federal prosecutors to, as the crude euphemism goes, poop or get off the pot, with regards to Edward M. Burke.

BURKE: Feds get 35 more days to investigate

We learned back in January that a criminal complaint was filed against the long-time (seriously, a half-century) alderman – claiming that his conduct in dealing with the operators of a Burger King franchise in the Gage Park neighborhood bordered on criminal.

REMEMBER, THOSE OPERATORS were told about the types of campaign contributions they ought to make to certain political people if they wanted Burke, in his aldermanic role, to sign off on the permits required for the renovations the operators desired to make.

Admittedly, it should be noted that these operators were not from Chicago. They came from Texas, and it seems they’re used to being able to push political people around. Rather than having political people tell them what needs to be done.

But anyway, they turned to federal prosecutors, who then proceeded with the criminal complaint – all the while having their investigation continue. Theoretically, May 3 was the deadline by which prosecutors had to be ready to hand down an indictment – or else see their case get tossed out.

But on Thursday, federal prosecutor asked for more time. The request they made seeks 35 more days, which would make the new deadline June 7.

WHICH MEANS WE’LL have to wait another month to figure out what could become of Burke. Will the feds come up with a more significant case against Burke – one that could be much more significant in terms of legal consequences for the alderman?

Will they have to maintain the same legal case they’ve put forth thus far – that Burke was shaking down the operators of the Burger King franchise in his home neighborhood?

Or is it possible that all of this legal mess could wind up withering away into a big nothingness.

Couldn't beat Burke, so Toni taken down

Almost as though Burke would become the political equivalent of one-time Chicago mob boss Tony Accardo – who upon his death in 1992 had it noted prominently that despite the decades of allegations of criminal activity he was involved in, he himself never spent a day in prison.

BUT BACK TO Eddie Burke – who in some ways is the intriguing part of the most recent election cycle in Chicago.

Despite the people who want to think that “Reform!!!” has come to Chicago in the form of Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and those new aldermen who want to adopt the Democratic Socialist label to identify themselves, the reality that some things remain the same is evidenced by Burke.

Who managed to overcome an attempt by Latino political activists to dump Burke from his aldermanic seat. He managed to win re-election with relative ease – not having to endure a run-off election of any sort.

Seriously, 2019 was the election cycle in which people interested in change had to settle for costing the re-election of long-time good-government type Toni Preckwinkle. Meanwhile, Burke remains in his aldermanic post – albeit without the Finance chairmanship that gave him much of his political power.

WHICH MEANS THOSE people who want to see Eddie Burke dumped from office, but couldn’t beat him at the polling place, are now counting on federal investigators to come up with the goods that could create a politically-humiliating trial – along with the possibility of Burke being sent to prison while in his mid-to-late 70s.

But now, we’re going to have to wait another month or so to see what kind of goods the G-men have come up with on Burke – if anything at all.

Burke himself is playing the cocky role, in that his attorneys aren’t doing anything to resist the delay – which technically he’d have a right to do. What’s another month if it means the case comes to an end.

It almost makes me think that if they were to make an Ed Burke movie, actor Robert DiNiro would portray him – similar to that scene where he played Al Capone in the 1987 film “The Untouchables” telling the feds, “You got nothing, you punk!”

  -30-

Election Day is passed, yet mudslinging lingers on like an unflushed toilet

It was the issue of the November 2018 election cycle for governor – J.B. Pritzker had had toilets removed from a mansion he owned so that, technically, it was no longer a home anyone could legitimately reside in.

PRITZKER: Tax question won't wither away

That move enabled Pritzker to appeal his property taxes and get refunds of some of the money he paid for 2012, 2013 and 2014 – and also to make himself eligible for property tax breaks on what he had to pay in 2015 and 2016.

BUT AN INSPECTOR General’s report for Cook County contends those reductions were based on fraudulent affidavits filed on Pritzker’s behalf.

All of which came up during the election cycle, but to no avail. There weren’t enough voters inclined to take this charge seriously who were willing to vote for now-former Gov. Bruce Rauner. Pritzker won!

But it also seems that back around October of last year, the Republican members of Illinois’ congressional caucus (seven then, five now) wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s office for northern Illinois insisting that the whole thing was a “scheme to defraud” Cook County taxpayers.

They claimed in their letter that charges of fraud and perjury would be warranted. Which may well be their opinion.

BUT NOW, IT seems that attitude just won’t wither away. For WBEZ-FM reported Wednesday that the U.S. Attorney’s office is confirming that they’re doing an investigation of the matter.

Rauner unable to make issue stick, … 

Which is news because federal investigators hadn’t said anything until now about this issue, and they are admitting that their investigation is still active. Although it also seems this is an investigation that isn’t about to result in criminal charges any time soon.

Although I don’t doubt that the conservative ideologues who were eager to spew this story last year are more than satisfied. Because this legal action means they can keep the allegations alive!

Heck, Illinois Republican Chairman Timothy Schneider issued the statement claiming that Pritzker has set a record, of sorts. He’s only been governor for 101 days, and he’s already got a bullseye on his back – courtesy of the U.S. attorney’s office.

… can federal officials find something new?

OF COURSE, THEY also made sure to distribute photographs they have of Pritzker with then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich – trying to create the impression amongst the most politically-gullible that the current governor is just like the guy currently in the middle of serving a 14-year prison sentence out in Colorado.

Although these are allegations that I can’t help but think reek of partisanship.

For even in that letter from last autumn (which the Capitol Fax newsletter published again on Wednesday), the members of Congress admit they were reacting to newspaper accounts from last year.

The only people willing to say this is a “scheme to defraud” are the Republican partisans themselves. Almost as though they crafted the charge, and are now trying to claim that someone is upholding it – even though nothing as of yet has been proven,

MAYBE IF ONE is inclined to believe that not being a Republican amounts to an act of criminality in and of itself, then this has legitimacy. Otherwise, it’s going to take a lot more in the way of evidence to prove something illegal occurred here.

SCHNEIDER: 101 Days, he points out to us

Personally, I’m surprised to see these Republican-types trying to claim that Pritzker is doing something wrong for trying to take advantage of financial maneuvers to give themselves tax breaks. Isn’t that usually the Republican ideal – trying to reduce one’s tax debt by as much as they can?

Maybe the reason that President Donald Trump is fighting the idea of his own tax returns being disclosed is that we’d learn of so many measures on his behalf that anything Pritzker may or may not have done will turn out to be chump change, by comparison.

But the bottom line seems to be that the issue of Election ’18 about toilets is going to continue to linger on. Almost as though somebody deposited a load in the toilet bowl – and is refusing to flush. How rude!

  -30-

$1 million for a prosecutor? Cheaper to just ‘drop a dime,’ call U.S. attorney

Gov. Bruce Rauner’s effort to buy political supporters for his dream of a second term in office is costing him some money; particularly a $1 million contribution to the Illinois attorney general campaign of Erika Harold.

RAUNER: Trying to 'buy' political allies

Which Rauner says is essential because Harold is necessary to “prosecute” Michael Madigan, the Illinois House speaker whom the governor has based an entire campaign strategy upon calling crooked and corrupt and the reason Illinois has problems to begin with.

OUST MADIGAN, RAUNER would have us think, and Illinois goes back to being the paradise it ought to be.

There’s just one problem with that line of logic.

It really seems that Rauner doesn’t fully comprehend exactly what it is the various officials of Illinois state government do. There’s no way that Harold – if she were to get elected as state attorney general – would be going into any court to file an indictment against Madigan. Or anybody else, for that matter.

The attorney general is the legal counsel FOR state government. Many municipal governments are able to get by with an attorney hired part-time, or perhaps a few full-time attorneys to handle the legal issues they encounter.

ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT IS a big-enough scene that it takes the whole crew that works for the Illinois attorney general’s office to defend it every time a law suit is filed against the state, or any time government officials need legal advice on how to conduct themselves without violating the law. Essentially, Illinois has its own law firm.

MADIGAN: Partisan actions, not criminal

And yes, it may sound odd that the General Assembly (a body by-and-large filled with licensed attorneys) would need legal counsel. Although when you consider the legislators are politicians at heart – and NOT legal experts – it makes sense.

So if anything, if Madigan in the future were to find himself in a predicament with a prosecutor somewhere, it most likely would be that the attorney general would be a part of the team defending him from legal prosecution.

Too many people seem to think the attorney general is some sort of super-prosecutor who oversees all in the criminal justice world. Instead of being more of a civil law expert (and in reality an aspiring politico with a law school degree who wishes to run for an even higher office someday).

HAROLD: What could she do, if she wins?

IN REALITY, IT is the various state’s attorneys scattered around Illinois’ 102 counties who have the authority to go about prosecuting state officials if they think they can prove their actions are harmful to the interests of the people in a criminal manner. If the attorney general really tried to usurp that authority, they’d be the first to complain.

More likely, it is the U.S. attorney’s office (mostly in Chicago, although there also are federal prosecutors in Springfield and Marion) that would be inclined to review state government activity and determine that federal laws are being violated.

While federal prosecutors in the central and Southern Illinois districts traditionally don’t get involved in taking on state government, the activities of the offices of state government located in Chicago certainly aren’t alien turf to the prosecutors based out of the Dirksen Federal Building.

Otto Kerner learned what federal prosecutors could do

Just who do they think it was that challenged (and beat) those “four Illinois governors” who wound up serving time in prison for their activities – along with many other state, Cook County and Chicago municipal officials throughout the years.

I HAVE NO doubt that if Madigan were doing something truly corrupt (and not the Rauner definition of corrupt which mostly is Madigan’s refusal to go along with all the anti-organized labor acts the governor desires in the name of “reform”), there’d be a prosecutor more than willing to make his name off pursuing the case.

THOMPSON: Made his rep on Otto

Similar to the way then-prosecutor James R. Thompson turned his post into four terms as Illinois governor through overseeing the prosecution of then-Gov. Otto Kerner.

So if Bruce Rauner is really making a special donation of $1 million to support Erika Harold’s Republican campaign for attorney general because he expects her to prosecute Madigan (as he’s saying publicly when appearing on radio stations in Southern Illinois), I’d say he’s being foolish, and wasteful of his money.

If he really knows of specific illegal activity, it would be much cheaper for him to follow that old cliché and “drop a dime” to call the U.S. attorney’s office. Otherwise, we can only assume Rauner has got nothin’ on Madigan – which may be the real reason many people won’t vote for Rauner’s re-election come Nov. 6.

  -30-

Picking a federal prosecutor is a political process, no doubt about it

It seems the first steps have been taking toward picking a new U.S. attorney for Chicago; the Chicago Sun-Times reported that names of recommended appointees were sent recently to President Donald J. Trump for his consideration.
 

TRUMP: On verge of picking new U.S. attorney

The president gets to pick who he wants, but usually seeks the advice of the local members of Congress from the state in which the appointee will serve.

WHICH IS WHY Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., the senior-most member of the Republican portion of Illinois’ congressional delegation, took it upon himself to make recommendations – who now will be reviewed by the president’s advisors so as to make sure that Shimkus hasn’t picked a legal dud or two.

Of course, the process is complicated by partisan politics – the great headache-inducer that manages to interfere with the process of “the people’s business.”

Because the president usually defers to a state’s Senate delegation in seeking recommendations. But we in Illinois have chosen Democrats to serve as our senators.

And undermining any influence Democrats may have is kind of the whole point of this Age of Trump that we’re now in.

SHIMKUS, AN OTHERWISE obscure member of Congress from the Illinois-based suburbs of St. Louis, certainly wasn’t going to care what either Richard Durbin or Tammy Duckworth thought.

Although the realities of the political process are that Senate rules exist that would allow either Durbin or Duckworth, if not both combined, to thwart the appointment process. Not that they’ll get any say in who gets the position, but they will have the authority to totally gum up the works.

SHIMKUS: Sent names to president

Which is why, as the Sun-Times reports, the president’s staff has reached out to Durbin to indicate it understands the rules that would permit Durbin, as a Senate judiciary committee member, to have some say over an attorney serving in his home state.

Could it be that our president, who during his first four-or-so months in office has shown much contempt for the process of government, is finally catching on?

OR AT THE very least doesn’t want something as basic as appointing federal prosecutors to various districts across the nation – including northern Illinois – to become a convoluted mess?

DURBIN: Can make GOP life miserable

Because Trump is the one who made the big spectacle of terminating the employment of all the chief federal prosecutors who had been appointed by Barack Obama – thereby leaving the offices in the hands of interim staffers who aren’t expected to last for the long-term.

Even Trump realizes how incompetent he’d appear to be if he couldn’t come up with permanent replacements. The real question is how uncomfortable will Trumpites be in having to acknowledge Democratic Party control or influence of even this minor magnitude.

I’m sure that Shimkus considered it a significant advancement to his influence on Capitol Hill that HE would get to make the recommendations and would get to ignore the thoughts of senior-most officials because of politically partisan concerns.

WILL HE, AND other Republicans, consider it some sort of blow to their political partisanship that the president winds up having to contemplate what the other side, in the form of Durbin, thinks after all?

 

DUCKWORTH: Likely to have a say too

And what happens if it turns out that the recommendations picked by Shimkus wind up being found too incompetent, or unqualified, for whatever reason to warrant the president signing off and picking those individuals in his name?

I’ve always thought the only way that Trump could seriously face the threat of impeachment and removal from office (regardless of the new Morning Consult poll that shows 54 percent of people believing Trump is unfit for office and 43 percent thinking he already has committed an impeachable offense) is if he were to actually behave in a conciliatory manner toward more-progressive interests in our society. The concept of a buffoon who eagerly dumps all over non-ideologue Republicans is exactly what GOP officials who have the majority in Congress desire.

So could naming the replacement for Zachary Fardon and 45 other U.S. attorneys wind up being an act that causes Trump so much of a political headache he’ll be wondering just why he was foolish enough to ever want to be president in the first place.

  -30-

EXTRA: Is it actually a badge of honor that Fardon is out of an appointment?!?

Zachary Fardon, the man who has been U.S. attorney in Chicago for four years now, ought to be proud of himself that he soon will be out of a job.

FARDON: Likely to be better employed soon

Fardon was one of 46 U.S. attorneys located across the United States who were ordered Friday to resign their posts immediately, so that new President Donald J. Trump can have the privilege of giving their jobs to people of his own preference.

CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS reported that Fardon will be gone by Monday, and that the chief assistant, Joel Levin, will be acting U.S. attorney for the northern Illinois district until Trump, through the persona of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, can make appointments that then need the confirmation of the U.S. Senate.

It could well be autumn by the time we have a new U.S. attorney in place in Chicago, which pretty much puts everything in a holding pattern until then.

Not the most sensible course of action. But not at all surprising, considering that we now have a president capable of behaving like a raging loon and who doesn't seem the least bit concerned about the chaos he's causing for government operations.

Because, after all, he's the guy who thinks he's coming in to shake everything up! Besides, Trump will be consulting the Republican members of the Illinois congressional delegation for advice on who the new U.S. attorney shall be.

OF COURSE, TWO-thirds of the Illinois congressional delegation is Democrat -- including all the people actually from Chicago. They're all going to have their views ignored with Rep. John Shimkus of the area near St. Louis being the senior member -- unless Trump defers to Gov. Bruce Rauner, whose views certainly aren't appreciated around City Hall these days.

My guess is that Trump is interested in finding someone not at all interested in the law or criminal prosecution, but in stirring up legal nonsense. Particularly since Trump has expressed particularly interest in using Chicago as his politically partisan punching bag.

The new U.S. attorney for Chicago to be chosen by the members of the congressional delegation from outside the Chicago area will be the guy expected to carry out the political dirty work -- perhaps of prosecuting those people whom the president wants taken down a notch or two in order to bolster the presidential rhetoric.

All I know is that there'd be a whole lot of screaming and whining taking place if the situation was reversed and the Chicago-area congressmen were suddenly picking new U.S. attorneys to serve in Springfield and Marion.

BUT THIS KIND of political play ought not be surprising in this Age of Trump. Maybe the only real surprise is that it took Trump this long to get around to making such a move.

We can also hope that whomever winds up getting picked to be the head G-man in Chicago will be someone with such an intense respect for the concept of The Law that it overcomes partisan hang-ups.

In which case, that person will wind up finding themselves on Trump's list of enemies, because the new president most definitely is someone who expects to be regarded as above the law himself.

And in the end, Fardon -- whose record includes the involvement in prosecutions of former Gov. George Ryan and former 10th Ward Alderman Edward R. Vrdolyak may find himself relieved to be spared the nonsense of having to cope with the whims of such a chief executive.

  -30-

It’s about time we get a full-fledged U.S. attorney for Chicago!!!

I realize that government often works at its own pace, particularly in the partisan environment that we now exist. The worthiness of something doesn’t mean it’s going to be completed in an expedited manner.

FARDON: U.S. Atty sooner, than later

Yet there’s something about the way in which the U.S. attorney’s post for northern Illinois (as in the Chicago area and Rockford) has been handled that makes me wonder what the hang-up is.

BECAUSE THE APPOINTMENT of Zachary Fardon does seem to be dragging along. For people who want to think that Chicago is a cesspool of corruption and violent activity, it would seem odd that they wouldn’t consider having a permanent person in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office to be a high-priority.

For the record, it was back in May 2012 that former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald let it be known that he intended to leave the post – and as it turned out, he left the following month.

He has since moved on with his life – having taken a post with a local law firm and is currently serving as a member of a panel that is supposed to figure out how to reform the government agencies that oversee mass transit throughout the Chicago-area.

For Fitzgerald, the federal government post he held for 11 years is a past lifetime.

YET FOR THOSE people in Chicago who take an interest in the various levels of law enforcement, we’re still stuck on Fitzgerald as our idea of the ideal “G-man” because our federal officials can’t just get on with picking a replacement.

Fardon, a Kansas City native who worked in Nashville before coming to Chicago in 1997 for a stint in the U.S. attorney’s office before going into private practice, was made public many months ago – going through a process that saw him beat out a woman who could have been the first ever African-American U.S. attorney in Chicago.

Yet our political process that has become hung up on partisan ways of considering issues such as health care and immigration policy also is capable of letting things drag on way too long.

FITZGERALD: Some think he's still U.S. Atty

If anything, I wonder if the fact that the ideologues are too obsessed with those hot-button issues is to blame – they get so hung up on dominating the public perception on their pet issues that they can’t be bothered to do anything with the issues that relate to daily governance.

THEN AGAIN, CONSIDERING that some Republican officials are willing to see a federal government shut-down to emphasize their opposition to health care reforms desired by President Barack Obama, maybe they don’t really care that the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago has been “leaderless” for the past 15 months.

I write that sentence knowing full well that there have been people calling the shots for the federal prosecutors. The Dirksen Building hasn’t come grinding to a halt just because there’s an empty office where Fitzgerald used to work – and Fardon likely will someday.

The key to government agencies at all levels is the fact that there is a certain bureaucracy that lasts through several political administrations. They are the ones who keep things moving on a day-to-day basis.

They are the ones who kept things going on to the point where former alderman and Cook County Commissioner William Beavers could be found guilty and sentenced to six months in a federal prison – even though the prosecutor’s office was leaderless.

STILL, AN OFFICE gains some sense of direction from its leadership. The Beavers conviction was most likely just past momentum carrying it forward a little while longer -- just as a boat doesn't come to a halt when its motor is turned off.

It was a sense of direction provided by Fitzgerald that caused the U.S. attorney’s office in the past decade to be ambitious enough to go after now-former governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich.

I don’t know how Fardon’s direction, whenever it becomes reality, will compare – will he try to take a lead on the issue related to Chicago’s murder rate (not a record high, but still high enough to be depressing to the city’s image)?

Or is the fact that it took this long before a Senate committee to make a recommendation, and we’re not sure when a final vote will come about, a part of our overall problem?

  -30-

Is U.S. attorney post a reward for putting George Ryan in prison all those years?

It was intriguing to me to learn that both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday reported about the likely person to become the new U.S. attorney for the Chicago area.

RYAN: Name back in the news

It seems that one of the prosecutors who handled the case that got former Gov. George Ryan convicted, and incarcerated, is now the front-runner to replace Patrick Fitzgerald – the U.S. attorney whose name will always be associated with putting Ryan away for all those years.

A PART OF me is sarcastic enough to dream of calling up Ryan and see if he has a reaction – just to see how irate a comment he would spew before hanging up on me!

But it would seem that Ryan is the plum in the resume of Zachary Fardon that him ahead of the other people who were supposedly in the running to replace Fitzgerald – who resigned the post last year.

It makes me wonder if the people who actually handled the prosecution of Rod Blagojevich are now going to be entitled to something resembling a promotion for the work they did in turning Milorod from a governor into a de facto history teacher of prison inmates who didn’t have the benefit of the same education that Blagojevich obtained during his lifetime.

But back to Ryan – who has tried to maintain a low profile since the day back in January when he was released from the federal work camp in Terre Haute, Ind., and spent just a couple of hours at a half-way house in Chicago before being allowed to return to his house near Kankakee.

I’M SURE HE isn’t pleased this morning seeing his name crop back into the newspapers and on their websites in conjunction with Fardon – who most recently has been an attorney in private practice with the Latham & Watkins law firm.

But in his career, he also has worked in the U.S. attorney’s offices based in Chicago and Nashville – reaching the level of the second-in-command in the “Music City” office before coming to the Second City office and having to handle the ordeal of prosecuting Ryan back in 2006.

BLAGOJEVICH: What reward for him?

To read the newspaper accounts, Fardon beat out Lori Lightfoot – who was another of four people who were supposedly the finalists in the process that will still take a few months to complete before there’s a new person working at the Dirksen Building who can go about calling himself the “USA” (as in U.S. attorney).

Lightfoot -- who could have been the first African-American woman to get the top federal prosecutorial post -- used to be with the police department’s Office of Professional Standards – the entity that is supposed to investigate Chicago’s police department to ensure that its officers behave in accordance with the law, but often gets denigrated for allegedly turning their head to instances of police malfeasance.

WHILE I’M SURE they handle many of the cases that come before them in a completely legitimate way, they also get much public grief for those few cases where it turns out that a police officer misbehaved and they were not as aggressive as they should have been in terms of discipline.

In fact, I already have stumbled across some Internet comment (anonymous, of course) claiming that anyone affiliated with city government in any way ought to be disqualified from the federal prosecutorial post that has become an unofficial watchdog over Chicago’s municipal government.

There is, however, one element we should keep in mind. Nothing truly is official when it comes to the courts or justice system until it is signed off on.

DURBIN: Has yet to make final say

Who’s to say that the “vetting” process (that both newspapers report is still ongoing) will come up with something about Fardon that will be construed as a negative?

I’M NOT SAYING there is such a thing, or that if something does turn up it won’t be something completely trivial and stupid that doesn’t deserve to be a disqualifier.

Even then, there’s always the possibility that the process will be bogged down in partisan politics. The Senate has to confirm any appointment that President Barack Obama makes with the consultation of Illinois’ two senators (Richard Durbin and Mark Kirk).

Which means that presuming we know now for sure who will be the U.S. attorney might be a risky bet. You might be safer betting on the Chicago Cubs to not completely embarrass themselves this season!

  -30-

Outrage concerning the outrage that surrounds Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

It seems that many people got themselves more worked up during the past week concerning the status of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

JACKSON: More of the same revelations?



We got the front-page story in the Chicago Sun-Times (which really was a giant teaser to Mike Sneed’s gossip column) just after Election Day – the one that played itself off as though it were major revelations about the character of the son of the civil rights leader.

YET THE ONLY new thing I really got from that story was the fact that the newly-reelected member of Congress was willing to plead guilty to something – in return for the right deal.

Although technically, we already knew before the elections that Jackson’s people were talking with the U.S. attorney’s office concerning his fate. So even this wasn’t a major revelation!

But that isn’t stopping people from getting all worked up – particularly a group of female aldermen who are now claiming they feel deceived because they supported Jackson’s re-election even though he remained in seclusion during the entire general election campaign cycle. Although too much of this rhetoric (not just from the aldermen, but from many of those who are now complaining) sounds like it's coming from people who enjoy the sound of their own voices screaming and screeching at a loud decibel level -- rather than anything rational.

The bit that seems to get them all worked up is the revelation of the $40,000 from Jackson’s campaign fund that bought an expensive watch for a woman other than his wife. They're showing compassion for the spouse, they claim.

YET DIDN’T WE already know there had been instances of infidelity?

My basic attitude when it comes to political people being unfaithful to a spouse is to take my lead from the spouse. I always used to joke that if Hillary Clinton had wanted to take a Sammy Sosa-model baseball bat (she was, and remains, a Cubs fan) to her husband Bill, it was her business.

JACKSON: Following her lead



When she saw it in her heart to forgive him (for whatever reason), we should follow that lead. So I’m going to watch the actions of Sandy Jackson to try to figure out how to react. Other people are probably just playing off their own political biases, and aren’t worth paying attention to.

Of course, it seems that the charges the modern-day G-men are trying to pin on Jackson relate to how he spent the money in his campaign fund.

THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES under which money can be used for personal expenses, although they usually are limited and have strict reporting requirements. Which usually means somebody gets dinged for a technical violation.

There’s also the possibility that we’re dealing with prosecutors in this case who want to take an excessively narrow interpretation of the law and are playing it overly strict.

Which could be why we have negotiations. They’re playing hardball, and so is the Congressman. Perhaps we’ll reach a realistic interpretation of the law by the time it’s done.

That could mean a fine for the Congressman, although some reports are hinted at the possibility of jail time – which could turn out to be minimal months, but would still result in him stepping down. If he does wind up in a Bureau of Prisons-run facility, we’ll get to see how his treatment for a bipolar condition compares to that of the Mayo Clinic.

PERSONALLY, IT WOULDN’T shock me if after nearly two decades in Congress, Jackson is ready to move on. Yet all the “controversy” that has dinged his reputation means he’d probably have to put in another two decades of getting re-elected to the same Far South Side and surrounding suburbs Congressional seat before his reputation would be “rehabilitated” enough for him to seriously run for higher office.

Which was probably never the plan Jackson the younger had in mind when he got elected to Congress. He probably thought by now he’d have a chance at Chicago mayor and the possibility of holding that post for a couple of decades.

It’s not going to happen, it seems. Not anytime soon. If ever!

Which is why it’s really a shame that the opposition that screams so loudly now couldn’t put up credible opposition during the election cycle.

THE OPPOSITION THIS time around was so weak that Jackson still got more than 60 percent of the vote running against three other people (the most interesting of whom may well have been the Rev. Anthony Williams who was reduced to being a write-in candidate this time around). The other two just seemed to be counting on the fact that people would vote for Anybody But Jesse – which isn’t a good enough reason to vote for anybody.

Which is why I’m not all worked up over the fact that Jackson got re-elected (in part because I don’t live in his district – although I have relatives who do).

It was inevitable in that I suspect that the bulk of the voters of the Illinois Second congressional – if given the chance for an Election Day do-over – probably would still vote for Junior!

  -30-

A virtual life-sentence for Cellini?

It will be a miracle, of sorts, if William Cellini doesn’t wind up getting a prison sentence that keeps him incarcerated for the rest of his life.

CELLINI: Soon to learn his fate

Cellini is scheduled to appear before U.S. District Judge James Zagel for sentencing on July 23, and federal prosecutors this week issued the memorandum where they explain why they believe the judge should impose an eight-year sentence.

OR 96 MONTHS in federal-speak, since “the G” always seems to like to make things sound much more ominous than they really are when it comes to criminal prosecution.

The various reports that cropped up following the issuing of the sentencing memorandum all indicate that prosecutors are showing some sense of what they think is compassion.

They’re conceding that Cellini has health issues and that this might be a “relatively rare situation” where Zagel should impose a prison sentence less than the one they have requested/are demanding!

But when one considers that Cellini is 76 years old, has had a heart attack recently and then also has had a blood clot found in his system, you have to seriously wonder if the one-time political powerbroker from Springfield whose clout always came from his ability to get government officials to do his bidding – rather than in holding electoral office himself – is capable of doing any amount of prison time.

I’M NOT WISHING Cellini ill-will. But this could be a case where a one-year prison term could amount to a “life” prison term.

Somehow, that makes the federal prosecution concession that maybe he should get a lesser prison term seem less compassionate.

Because in their memo, they made it clear that they want Bill Cellini to go to prison. What they do NOT want is anything resembling what his attorneys will ask for, and will probably beg for, come the day nine days from now when he has to stand before “da judge.”

BLAGOJEVICH: The benefactor?

Which is probation. They’d like him to get hit with a significant fine, and some thoroughly-humiliating process by which his life will be watched by federal officials.

ISN’T THAT PUNISHMENT enough, for a man of his age?

In my mind, I can already hear all the people shouting out, “Hell No!!!,” or using other choice obscenities to indicate their displeasure – in large part because Cellini is a wealthy man.

Federal officials included in their memo an estimate that back in 2005, he was worth $153 million (which means that being the anonymous guy who tells governors what they should do can be a lucrative field).

After enduring his legal bills to try to fight off (unsuccessfully, it should be noted) a conviction, I don’t know what he’s worth now. It could be significantly less – even though I doubt he’s so broke that he’d be applying for unemployment benefits anytime soon.

WHICH MEANS SOME people will argue he has too much money and could “buy” himself a comfortable stay in probation or supervision.

Besides, when it comes to age, let’s remember that former Gov. George Ryan is a couple of years older than Cellini and still has nearly one full year to serve within the Bureau of Prisons system.

RYAN: Soon to be free?

Although Cellini, if he survives a prison term, would likely be older than the 79 years Ryan will have when he is set free on Independence Day (literally) of 2013.

I’m just going to be a little wary of those people who come off as too eager for incarceration in this case – in which Cellini tried getting a Hollywood producer to make a significant campaign contribution to now-incarcerated former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

HE DIDN’T ASK anything for himself. Then again, he didn’t have to. Because just think of all the favors Blagojevich would have owed him in exchange for arranging the contribution.

Which is how Cellini gained his influence. He was the guy who helped campaigns of both the Democratic and Republican persuasion come up with the money to pay for all the stunts they had to engage in to gain public attention and get elected.

Many of them likely would not have been elected in the first place had it not been for the help of Cellini and others like him; many of whom are still in existence in the unincarcerated segment of our society.

And because of his age, he has a chance to wither away in relative anonymity – being turned into a mere number instead of a name.

  -30-

EXTRA: It’s about time!

FITZGERALD: Moving on

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is stepping down from his post – a fact that I’m sure has some political observers quaking in their pants.

These are the people who seem to have had dreams of having Fitzgerald as the top federal prosecutor for Chicago and northern Illinois for life – which is the image that had me quaking in my pants.

SO DO I take some pleasure in the fact that Fitzgerald himself had the sense to realize he’s already held the post far longer than any other man, and that it was time for him to want to step down from the job and do something else with his life?

Yes, I do. And personally (although I doubt he cares what I think) I hope he finds pleasure and success in wherever his life takes him, once he leaves next month. Personally, I envy someone who is secure enough financially to be able to quit a job and take the summer off (as Fitzgerald plans to) to reflect, and figure out what he wants to do.

It was kind of assuring during the past decade to have a federal prosecutor who wasn’t obsessed with the idea of using the post to establish credentials that could help him run for political office someday.

It was also unusual to have a U.S. attorney who so-often was brought in to cases involving federal government or other parts of the country, because he was an expert prosecutor. Usually, our federal prosecutors are themselves little more than aspiring political hacks.

ALTHOUGH HAVING SOMEONE who is so intensely in a prosecutorial mode always made me wonder if that is way too harsh a stance for anyone to have to take – particularly if there’s no real limit on how long that person will be in office.

It was just a few days ago that I finally got around to seeing the film “J. Edgar,” the Leonardo DiCaprio vehicle where he depicts FBI head J. Edgar Hoover as an earnest man who believed in law enforcement and science, but allowed the power to go to his head in reinforcing his own hang-ups about society!

At one point, I actually found myself wondering, “How long until Pat Fitzgerald becomes like that?” I’m relieved to know now that it won’t happen.

It’s just that I realize that U.S. attorney has always been a limited position. Generally, somebody gets picked for the post, serves a four-year stint, then moves on. Until now, Fitzgerald wasn’t showing any signs of moving on.

JUST BECAUSE THE kind of people who want to lock everybody up were satisfied wasn’t a good enough reason.

And yes, I’ll concede that whoever replaces Fitzgerald will be very much unlike him. After all, it will be Barack Obama who gets to name the replacement, with the advice senior Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and the consent of the U.S. Senate – which will have to confirm the appointment.

The only real question is whether Republican opposition will try to gum up the works to delay a replacement for as long as possible. Perhaps they have dreams of being able to delay a new U.S. attorney to a future date when it would be GOP officials who would get the final word in choosing a person to be the head prosecutor.

In my “book,” that would be the real immoral act!

  -30-