EXTRA: Give it up, Bruce!

Days after taking some political hits because he didn’t immediately denounce one-time political powerhouse Bill Cellini, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner is once again trying to get us to look behind a different curtain.

BLAGOJEVICH: A political boogeyman?

He’s now essentially reminding us that Gov. Pat Quinn was the lieutenant governor under Rod Blagojevich – who is still serving a lengthy prison sentence out in Colorado. Is Rauner now going to trash long-time Republicans who ever said anything even remotely supportive of George Ryan?

ALTHOUGH THE REAL issue that was brought up was that Rauner didn’t immediately try to separate himself from Cellini – whereas when Quinn was associated with Blagojevich, the man didn’t have a felony conviction.

Show us some evidence that Quinn has kept ties with Blagojevich since he was found guilty following two criminal trials in federal court, and then maybe it’s the same thing.

You won’t find that. In reality, let’s not forget that Quinn was the man who was kept so far out of Blagojevich’s political loop that there was one point at which the two men went nearly a full year without speaking.

To now try to claim they were somehow intimately connected is a bigger lie than any of the tales that the Quinnochio character tries to tell these days about the governor. Or is that what Rauner really means by "shaking things up" on the Springfield political scene?

SO SEEING THAT e-mail message from the Rauner campaign Thursday that included the old file photograph of Quinn standing with Blagojevich makes me wonder; do we now convict everybody who ever had their picture taken with Milorod?

Will we now get a Soviet-style rewriting of history, with people trying to destroy any evidence that they were ever in the same realm of existence with Blagojevich?

Or will we have enough sense to realize this is a stupid allegation that is best ignored?

CELLINI: Are they comparable?

Let’s be honest about one other point – the idea that Rauner deserves much blame for being in the same room with Cellini (who has served his sentence and is now a free man) earlier this week in Springfield is also a non-issue.

PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE’S no evidence the two talked at all on that occasion, or really have much of any relationship.

And if Rauner were really anything resembling a respectable candidate for public office, he would have been able to put this issue to rest instantly. Trying to score political points for himself now just comes across as lame.

We’ll see how the two men conduct themselves when they wind up appearing together Friday at the Illinois Education Association meeting to be held in Chicago.

  -30-

For all his money, Rauner is a political amateur on the campaign trail

I’m guessing that Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner wishes he could have a do-over of his campaign appearance earlier this week in Springfield.

RAUNER: Definitely NOT a political pro

Because he wound up getting a double-hit. Both the Chicago Sun-Times and State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield covered the event with the Sangamon County Republican Foundation – and they came up with separate issues on which to make Rauner look bad.

WITH THE WAY the Internet can spread those local stories into regional matters, Rauner now has a pair of gaffes to have to deal with – and which will likely be written into the litany of events used when people now try to write a quickie bio of just who Bruce is.

Rauner even gets bashed for things beyond his control; although the way he handled it shows he’s a political amateur.

He’s going to learn that just because he’s spending his own money to fund a campaign against Gov. Pat Quinn, that doesn’t mean he controls what issues other people choose to think of as important.

Specifically, it seems that among the people who were present at the Springfield-based event was Bill Cellini. Remember him?

HE’S OUT OF prison, having served his sentence for his criminal offense (which involved trying to strong-arm a Hollywood producer into making campaign contributions). He’s a free man, and he chose to show up at a Republican event.

He didn’t meet with Rauner, who claims he didn’t even realize Cellini was present and that he barely knows the man. Which may all be true!

CELLINI: He's back, and likes Bruce

But the Sun-Times talked to Cellini, who said he found Rauner to be “impressive” and someone he’d vote for because Bill still considers himself to be of the GOP. There was a time when a Cellini backing (particularly if accompanied by the kind of campaign cash he had the skills to raise) would have caused a candidate to jump for joy.

But now with a felony conviction on his record and an image as the ultimate political insider whom Rauner claims he’s fighting against, Rauner wanted to avoid the appearance of getting an endorsement of any kind.

BUT HE ALSO knows there are those political people whose support he will need who would resent it if he were to blast Cellini too hard. That’s what caused him to give a rather lame “no comment,” along with the explanation that he doesn’t really know the man.

MADIGAN: Does Rauner need him out?

Which gave Quinn the ammunition he needed to have his campaign people trash Rauner of guilt by association. “Mr. Rauner claims to want to root out corruption and ‘shake up Springfield,’ yet when faced with an endorsement from the ‘King of Shakedowns,’ mum’s the word,” an aide told the Sun-Times.

The Capitol Fax newsletter of Springfield reported on Wednesday that Rauner later came out with a statement saying he, “obviously renounces Cellini.” But it’s a little late now. The Cellini/Rauner image will stick.

It makes me wonder how a “Gov. Rauner” would cope with things the first time he has to go head-to-head against a “Speaker Madigan.” Or does Rauner think his money can buy him legislative leaders who will be compliant with his demands – a large part of the reason why I’m skeptical of the term limits talk he is spewing on the campaign trail.

AS IF ALL of that wasn’t enough, take the Springfield press – which didn’t think of Cellini’s presence as a big deal. But they did try calling him out on his anti-labor rhetoric. Rauner said he thinks he is, “very pro-worker.”

This coming from the candidate who talks of freezing pension benefits “forever.” This is the guy who has the labor unions worked up into an ire. By what definition he thinks he’s “pro-worker” makes me wonder how delusional he truly is!

QUINN: Does he get a Rauner double?

What he really was doing, however, was trying to avoid a tricky question. For being the anti-labor guy was the strategy for winning a Republican primary in which none of the opponents had the kind of funds necessary to rebut the claim.

Like the “Mighty Oz” telling us not to look behind the curtain, Rauner was letting us know he doesn’t want to talk about that anymore.

BECAUSE NOW, IF he brings up the labor rhetoric, Quinn does have the kind of funds to make sure it spreads. Quinn can use it to rile up the organized labor interests to the point where they do turn out strongly to vote in support of his campaign.

These days, Rauner wants to be the guy with the loving, Democratic-voting wife who talks vaguely about “shaking things up.”

Not the Bill Cellini buddy who has the labor unions gearing up to stick a shiv in his back come the Nov. 4 general election.

  -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-

“Letter of the law” can result in unpopular, yet justified, court actions

I can’t feel too much compassion for the woman who got grilled severely during an appearance Friday in U.S. District Court to determine whether her background should have made her unfit to serve on the jury that found William Cellini guilty.

I also don’t get too upset over the plight of a family who is upset that the man facing criminal charges for an auto accident that killed one of their members is a fugitive because he skipped out on his bail.

BECAUSE WHAT IS happening in both of these cases (the latter of which is pending in Cook County circuit court) is that officials complied with the “letter of the law,” which means that regulations were strictly followed.

The people who have a problem with the way these cases are going are the ones who want to let their emotions and personal prejudices get involved in the rulings of the courts.

Anytime that happens, we develop real problems. The ones that are occurring now are miniscule, by comparison. We ought to be glad that things are turning out the way they are.

In the case of Candy Chiles, the juror in the Cellini trial who didn’t tell prosecutors and defense attorneys of her prior convictions on felony charges got all emotional and tried to claim that defense attorney Dan Webb was harassing her. She ultimately stormed out of a courtroom, and I’m sure she thinks she’s the one who’s being picked upon.

YET THE REPORTS coming from her court hearing on Friday all noted that she justified not telling of her prior guilty pleas to drug possession and DUI charges because she thinks that is in her past.

“It’s in my past. I never mention it at all, that foolishness in my life,” she said.

Personally, I hope that is true – the part about her bad behavior being in her past. I do believe that some people (if not all) can get their acts together and make something positive out of their lives.

But I don’t know of anyone who could get away with deciding for themselves what kinds of information they could provide to the courts when it is specifically asked of them.

ANYBODY ELSE WHO tried to take such a haughty attitude would quickly find themselves being found in contempt of court. The only people who are defending her now are the ones who are so eager to have Cellini found guilty of his criminal charges that they’re willing to overlook any potential flaws in the prosecution’s case.

Which is why Webb gave her “the third degree” on Friday. He’s trying to undermine her credibility to the point where people might feel the need to overturn the Cellini conviction.

I’m not convinced that outcome is going to happen. But I do want a Cellini conviction that is beyond reproach. Letting tainted evidence come into play is more reprehensible than anything that Cellini might have done.

Then, there’s the case of Saul Chavez, who was arrested following an auto accident that left a pedestrian dead. When he made his initial court appearance, a judge set bond at $250,000. And while there are some people for whom such a bond would be a prohibitive sum, Chavez’ family managed to come up with the cash.

OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, the 10 percent that meant he needed to produce $25,000 in order to be released while his trial is pending.

However, as sometimes occurs, Chavez has not shown up in court anymore. He seems to have skipped town. In fact, there is evidence that he has returned to Mexico (he was a Mexican citizen).

Which means if he ever does get caught, he’s going to face a serious heap of trouble – with additional charges that likely will be more severe than what he now faces. Any chance he ever had to have a life in this country are now long-gone.

But there are those people, including the family of the man who was killed, who want to turn this into a partisan battle. Because some counties automatically notify the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of all their non-U.S. citizen inmates.

BUT COOK COUNTY last year made a big production out of saying it would no longer provide such notification.

The end result is that the family is now claiming (in very vulgar language) that had the county board not taken such an issue related to immigration, Chavez would still be in jail.

Even though he had managed to post bail!

As much as he – or some other people – might not like it, until one is convicted of something, they have a right to have the option of posting bail if charges are pending against them. Either that, or we had better prepare for a massive expansion of the county jail complex to accommodate all the people who come into contact with the judicial system.

IF THIS PARTICULAR case had been worthy of locking Chavez up in the county jail while the criminal case was pending, a judge would have denied bond outright.

So while this case puts me in the position of siding with someone who skipped bail (and, possibly, the country), I hate the idea that someone thinks that this person needs to be locked up before any “guilt” is proven. And many of the people willing to side with that family seem to be using the case to express their own ideological hang-ups related to immigration reform.

If anything, I find that idea to be more reprehensible than Chiles’ belief that she can pick-and-choose what she tells about herself to the courts.

  -30-