No real interest in the interview or why the media spends so much time on these mopes --- whats to gain. But did Scooter mention how the G parked him in IN in a cell with a view of the electric chair?
Does cause one to question if there are any limits
Actually is made me wonder why anyone seemed surprised by the stuff at GITMO or the torture in the middle east. It is all the same govt sports fans.
Surprise no one had live video of the Kelly funeral
Greg
· 3 months ago
No. Wayward public officials deserve aggressive investigations and prosecutions. This system of government depends on citizens' faith in the fairness of it.
An obvious point, but this question is only being asked because of Kelly's suicide. The answer would be more objective had the question been asked last week. I think that reality also suggests the answer: that this is a case of personal devastation, and not representative of the results of federal pressure. I wonder whether subjects of federal investigations even committ suicide at rates higher than those of the general population...
jail
· 3 months ago
Their own strategy backfired. They put so much pressure on him that he felt it was better to take his own life than cooperate. I wonder what incentive they gave him to cooperate? You'd think they would have given him an alternative that would have made it worth cooperating.
Rich Miller
· 3 months ago
jail and others, stick to the question, please.
A Moderate's Moderate
· 3 months ago
I imagine that in cases that are as public as the Blagojevich/Ryan cases are there is a lot of pressure on the government to make the case and not to "lose". Therefore, yes they probably put more resources and effort into it and maybe in their zeal they push too hard on someone. But, isnt that what the public demands? I mean people want corrupt politicians outed or ousted. If you are culpable in that case then you why would the feds not use you as a rung on the step ladder to their ultimate target. Yes, Scott and Chris probably got more pressure on them than normal witnesses but isnt it their fault for corruptly getting involved with a corrupt governor?
Patriot
· 3 months ago
Absolutely not. Kelly's death, while extremely tragic, was at his own hands. USAs presented Kelly with all options afforded to Defendants. Merely pursuing sentences under the law is exactly what prosecutors are hired to do. Prosecutors do not draft the law. And this argument being put forth from a guy with a serious axe to grind.
Why is everyone looking to the G as the possible bad guy here? Are people forgetting that completely seperate from any G involvement was his divorce, banktrupcy, foreclosure, stained reputation, and severe substance abuse. That's a receipe for disaster for any Alpha male like Kelly and Fawell. His life came undone and ended in some seriously unfortunate circumstances.
He could have taken a page out of the Fawell book and hit the media tour upon his release.
downstate hick
· 3 months ago
They did not go too far. Do the Crime, Do the time.
wordslinger
· 3 months ago
No. By now, anyone who wants to play the corruption game in Illinois knows the stakes. You might make some money and gain some power, but you're risking it all. Your choice.
Rich Miller
· 3 months ago
===Why is everyone looking to the G as the possible bad guy here?===
Silly statement. "Everyone" is most assuredly not doing that.
Stick to the question, please.
susie
· 3 months ago
good question and I'm not sure any of us can actually answer it. I think the prosecutors can and should aggressively pursue their cases to bring down white collar criminals. Kelly's suicide is tragic, but I think the prosecutors have no reason to stay awake at night blaming themselves for what he did.
lake county democrat
· 3 months ago
Also, the amount of "pressure" depends on the amount of guilt of the suspects. Yes, there are times when a suspect may be innocent but the evidence the fed/govt has can make them look guilty, but lets get real: most of the time the government can only exert pressure because they have the goods to send the person away to prison for a long time. Govt attorneys shouldn't entrap and they shouldn't go near the topic of pressing objectively questionable charges against friends/family members in order to pressure a target.
Rich, you may think this is a bit off topic, but I'd argue the way you fairly counter govt pressure is assure decent representation. The gov't has immense resources to bring to bear on an individual, and if you're broke and can't afford lawyers how are you going to fight that even if you are innocent? Public defenders are overworked.
shore
· 3 months ago
Absolutely not. The victimization of these folks is out of control. The feds have a right to do everything to get justice for the people whether it's a murder or case of public corruption.
Pat collins
· 3 months ago
you’re broke and can’t afford lawyers
Even if you can afford one, you'll be broke afterward. A defendant in a murder case in Kane county was acquitted. He owed 800K for his defense.
He will pay that off the rest of his life.
I do not see a way around it. The Feds deal with rough people. Rough people don't respond to Marquis of Queensbury rules. I do not see a good answer.
Sporty41
· 3 months ago
Mr. Fawell confuses the difference between a plain citizen under investigation versus someone who sits at the leadership of a State. This is a big difference and, in light of all the corruption that is still ongoing on this state, to borrow from "Capone" federal prosecutors don't want to take a knife to a gunfight.
Bill
· 3 months ago
Yes. The gov't tactics in this case are deplorable, over the top, and border on immoral. This USA is worst than most. Prosecutors in many areas of the country don't operate like he does and still manage to get convictions. If you are one of his targets and he can't find anything he'll try to sweat your friends and family or conjure up some bogus lying to the FBI charge. This guy has a personal agenda and will stoop to any depths to achieve it. He is a Republican appointee who has already been in office too long. Why is he still here?
VanillaMan
· 3 months ago
How can we prove a negative when our source for information is a convicted liar?
When questioning an accused individual, it is the responsibility of both defendant and accuser to reach an understanding regarding the limits of their knowledge of the crimes committed. If the defendant is unable to show proof of non-involvement, or sufficient doubt of non-involvement, then it is the responsibility of the accuser to continue their investigation until these limits are reached.
We have a long history of proven experience in doing this. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Mr. Kelly's suicide doesn't answer any of the questions he faced and failed to answer to meet the standards we expect of a defendant.
Furthermore, Mr. Fawell's comments should be immediately suspect as a person demonstrated beyond doubt to be an untrustworthy person willing to lie. Anything Mr. Fawell says should be double-checked. He has lost any credibility as a trusted source of information, due to the crimes of which he had been convicted. If Fawell told me today was Wednesday, I'd look at my calendar to confirm that.
You don't interview liars about liars and expect any truths or insights.
The Doc
· 3 months ago
No. I get the impression from Fawell that such prosecutorial efforts are overreaching simply by virtue of the fact that it's a phenomenon of more recent vintage, at least locally. That's absurb reasoning, and unsubstantiated claptrap.
Whatever the reason - a more motivated G, more complacent and/or brazen public officials, or an angrier electorate (due to the economy or other factors), it matters not.
MrJM
· 3 months ago
"Do you think federal prosecutors went too far with their pursuit of Chris Kelly?"
No, Kelly was at the top of an organized crime syndicate run out of the Governor's mansion.
If he had been a capo of a street gang or the Outfit, we would expect the Feds to tighten the screws to make him turn over on the man at the top. The same expectation applies here.
Except that in addition to rampant criminality there was a grotesque breach of the public trust. And when you breach the trust of the public with regard to Illinois elected officials, you've really earned your infamy.
It's too bad for his family that he killed himself, but it was his ultimate act to further a criminal conspiracy.
So no tears from me.
-- MrJM
been there
· 3 months ago
No. Prosecutors have the tools to go after anyone who breaks laws. The fact that they do it selectively shouldn't be held against them.
Probably there's nowhere near enough money, and probably there are nowhere near enough FBI agents and prosecutors, for them to be able to go after every lawbreaker. If they choose to repeatedly prosecute one person who happens to appear to have committed several different crimes, and they choose to do that in a way that helps them with other cases, they have every right to do it.
Should we expect them to be compassionate? Probably not, if we expect them to work for justice in our behalf.
Louis Howe
· 3 months ago
The Fed’s charges weren’t based on nickel and dime paper work errors or subjective judgments. The charges were real and don’t constitute harassment. Kelly was a high roller with a gambling/tax problem and various kick back contracts. He was facing a decade or more in prison and obviously couldn’t deal with it. It’s tragic, but not unfair.
Way South of the Border
· 3 months ago
No. In the course of investigating one suspected crime (government corruption via his ties to the then-governor), the investigators discovered others (tax fraud, contracting fraud at O'Hare).
If one inquiry leads to more and more evidence of wrongdoing, why on earth would you dial back? There is no volume discount on corruption.
It is possible to feel human sympathy for Mr. Kelly and certainly too for his family, but to also support the aggressive prosecution of white collar criminals. These folks already have plenty of people willing to excuse them and rationalize their behavior, so you need this for balance if nothing else.
ahem
· 3 months ago
I don't think the Feds went too far. The defendants would like to have us believe that the Feds are too tough. Kelly was withholding evidence. Whatever other issues he had, he thumbed his nose at the prosecutors with his final act.
Anonymous
· 3 months ago
It speaks to the times we live in that the all but universal answer to this question is "no."
It's unbelievable.
I didn't know Chris Kelly, but what is it exactly that he did to deserve three federal indictments; sentences totaling 8 1/2 years on two of them and the prospect of facing an ADDITIONAL 10-20 year sentence (minimally) on top of that?
And, quick, answer this one: what did "Tony" Rezko do? What is he sitting in the MCC for? Everyone on this message board will simply say he was "corrupt." What does that mean today, exactly? It's worth noting, I think, that, like Chris Kelly, he wasn't an elected official. And it's worth noting, too, that the government never proved that he made a nickel off of any supposed "scheme" that they chose to prosecute.
It's simply enough, today, for the U.S. Attorney's office (or, worse, the Tribune) to point a finger and say "corruption" and whomever is at the wrong end of the pointing finger will soon be buried up to his neck. And in this environment convicted on all counts by a jury for having participated in a "scheme" of one sort or another (or worse, an ATTEMPTED "scheme").
It's all well and good, I suppose, if you can assure yourself that you'll never have an accusatory finger pointed at you. Of course, one way of attempting to ensure that is by never running for public office. And when honest people who fear wrongful prosecutiion choose not to participate in the public democratic process, you wind up with fields of candidates that include (with rare exceptions) only two types of people: (a) the sanctimonious (usually themselves former U.S. Attorneys); and (b) and narcissitic idiots like Rod Blagojevich.
The unchecked power of the US Attorneys office is itself virtually destroying the political process here. People are afraid to run for office. Office holders are terrified of DOING anything, lest they be accused of something. It's paralyzing the entire democratic system.
Something needs to change. But nothing will given the collective opinion that everything is going great and only the "bad guys" are subject to the potential abuses of the system in place.
Not all the "bad guys" are so bad.
Dirt Digger
· 3 months ago
The answer is obviously yes, as now the feds don't have any testimony from Kelly and never will.
Team Sleep
· 3 months ago
Anonymous, I would argue that Fitz is encouraging more ethical people to run. He also emblodens current officeholders who do nothing unethical to be even more proud that they are ethical and trustworthy. Senator Fitzgerald's crowning achievement (nominating Pat Fitzgerald) pays clear dividends back to the people of Illinois every single day.
The feds do NOT go after cases which they do not believe they can win. They are batting a thousand when going after corrupt power brokers, and they do it effectively enough to convince involved parties to cooperate. Chris Kelly was given ample chances to cooperate and possibly receive lighter sentences. Instead, he wanted to protect Blago. The feds will only put up with so much candor and refusal to help before they withdraw their offers.
As both a taxpayer and someone who works in politics, I must opine that such corruption and disdain for the people of this state is sad and maddening.
L.S.
· 3 months ago
I think the answer is Yes, the feds are often over-zealous in their persuit. Ever since Rudy Guliani became New York Mayor on the coattails of over-reaching conspiracy trials, it has been all too popular for fed prosecuters to use their endless resources to harass and bully defendents to the point of, in some cases, insanity. It calls into question the spirit of innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure if this is the best case to highlight that fact however. Kelly was clearly a troubled person with a lot of demons. It would be tough to say which aspect of the overwhelming ordeal lead him to this point.
Fed up
· 3 months ago
no the feds kept indicting Kelly because they discovered he committed more and more crimes. Face it Kelly took the easy way out. He could no longer live with what HE DID. He didnt seem to have any problem committing these crimes he just didnt want to pay the price when he was caught.
Third Generation Chicago Nativ
· 3 months ago
The DOJ (Fitzgerald) is very aggressive. I know that corruption has been breeding in this State, it's nice to see some things cleaned up. Then there are other things that are going nearly untouched (Cook County, but that's another day)
You have to wonder if more indictments weren't coming down the pipe? And maybe Kelly knew it. I wonder if the DOJ couldn't just get everything together and indict once?
Fawell is self proclaimed cocky, and when asked by Marin on his interview, he responded he is still cocky. Fawell has a very cocky attitude, Kelly did not had. When Kelly was in court the judge had him speak up because he was not talking loud enough.
Fawell is a pistol, he is as cocky as ever even after serving time. I don't see Fawell going away soon, he will try to make the media circuit as much as he can, and speak out on the overly agressive (as per Fawell) DOJ, specifically the US Attorney and his office.
Ghost
· 3 months ago
No.
All they did was bring charges against kelly to anser for his own conduct. The pressure was the effect of Kelly being on the indside of illegal conduct, shakedowns etc and kelly's decision to protect other criminals and criminal conduct.
The pressure was not from the US Attorney, but from kelly's decision to support and proctect the largest goverment based criminal spree in IL history.
siriusly
· 3 months ago
No, the US Attorneys did not "go too far," they did their jobs.
If the media (Carol Marin?) wants to point a finger of blame at someone, it should be the people in his life who knew he was suicidal since last week and didn't try to intervene more seriously.
Rich Miller
· 3 months ago
siriusly, stick to the question, please.
dupage dan
· 3 months ago
No. Kelly dug his own political and literal grave. We should not feel sorry for people who make concious decisions of this nature which result in their ruin. Every day I see more corruption exposed and punished by US Attorney Fitzgerald. I give thanks to former Senator Peter Fitzgerald for choosing the current US Attorney. I wasn't even voting GOP then, didn't agree with many things the Senator did but on this one I agree wholeheartedly. Unless and until the electorate in this state take on the important duty of electing honorable people to office we have to rely on the US attorney to expose and get rid of them after we vote them in. GOP or Dem, doesn't matter.
Fawell has zero credibility in this situation. Doesn't matter what he says.
Justice
· 3 months ago
I for one do not think federal prosecutors went too far with their pursuit of Chris Kelly. He and his co-conspirators affected many peoples lives in a negative fashion, without any hesitation on their part. They cared not about ruining other peoples lives. Their interest was to benefit themselves at the expense of anyone, including the public. The fact that he killed himself is a result of many other troubling factors in his life and not just the Feds. I say keep the pressure on......or as someone succinctly put it...Paybacks are hell!! Keep up the good work Fitzgerald and Don't Let Up!!
Brennan
· 3 months ago
No.
The USA executed every action in accordance with the law. Failure to do so would be a violation of the oath of the USA office.
If Chris Kelly or Scott Fawell cannot conduct political affairs in accordance with the law they are free to resign at any time and enter the public debate on such matters as private citizens.
phil
· 3 months ago
No, prosecutors obviously haven't done enough, as corruption continue to be rampant in CHicago and Illinois. It would be a shame if a criminal's suicide would be used to thwart law enforcement efforts. As Mr. Kass wrote this weekend, (to paraphrase) the sounds that this was caused by law enforcement is inevitably starting, and that is the sound of corruption whispering in your ear.
siriusly
· 3 months ago
Offering deals for cooperating witnesses is pressure, of course. Adding additional indictments is another form of pressure. A man committing suicide to escape prison is a selfish act and a form of cowardice. It is a person running away from problems and it creates more pain for his family. No, the USA did not go too far. They are not to blame here. The criminals are to blame for their own actions.
Hang your hat
· 3 months ago
Kelly's death was unfortunate and regrettable but I don't think they went too far; they got a conviction, then they uncovered more crimes. Should that mean I can do ten crimes but I should only be punished for one? Our system doesn't operate that way.
Kelly was like any other convict in that he made a value decision and bet that he was never going to get caught and that the risks were worth his rewards. When that turned out to not be the case, he had remorse and regret, as any of us would. We'll never know if he had worries about even a short stay in prison, where bad things can happen. I would be terrified. But the only ones who think this is the feds' fault are the Blago team, who would love to taint the jury pool with doubts about the feds' tactics and competence, or misplaced anger at perceived injustice. Beats arguing on the evidence, where they are totally sunk.
Are plea deals suspect? Always, so you have to hold the deals up to rigorous standards of evidence. As a practical matter, turning a source to rat out another conspirator by offering a sentence reduction deal is always going to *hurt* the prosecution a little because they have to override the idea that the witness is just lying to save his own skin or has been "bought". To get past that prejudice, the evidence procured thru the plea bargain has to be pretty darn powerful and convincing, more so than from unimpeachable sources. Generally, it needs corroboration from extra sources.
Looking back to another Rod-related case, the feds had a witness with a huge drug habit and non-mundane sexual habits, this is not a guy you as a prosecutor are happy to put on the stand as your witness... but if the evidence he gets you lines up with enough other bits, you still get your point across.
Bottom line, the feds did their job, the outcome was not their fault, it was a choice made by a desperate man facing his personal demons.
any use strong arm
· 3 months ago
yes, i believe their goal is not justice, but acclaim from the media. when that becomes the goal, the pressure they exert goes from flip or conviction, to flip or i'll ruin your life and reindict you on what ever i want, as many times as i want. we have murders every day in this city and the feds are devoting all of their resources against the politicians. not that either of them didn't deserve a strech.
steve schnorf
· 3 months ago
I know a woman, the wife of a guy the feds went after several years ago, and punished terribly because he wouldn't plead gulty. She says, in effect, if the feds knock on your door, shoot yourself immediately. It will be faster, cheaper, and more fun. Maybe Chris just waited too long.
I suggest reading Niemoller as we encourage these guys to run amuck. Is there a single one of you out there who believes that if a US Attorney decided to prosecute you, he couldn't find some basis for doing so? Does anyone out there believe Kelly wasn't given special treatment solely because of his relationship to Blagojevich?
If he had been Joe six-pack, they probably would have never even discovered him, but even if they had, he would have paid somes fines and penalties on the tax charges, maybe a few hundred thousand, maybe done 12 or 18 months.
I'll be looking over my shoulder for writing this.
Just wondering
· 3 months ago
The only one who can really tell what the feds did cannot tell his side. I guess we will never really know if they went too far.
wordslinger
· 3 months ago
Steve and others are right; when the Justice Department puts a target on your back, you're in a lot of trouble, one way or the other. They're very powerful, indeed.
But public officials, or those who would act for them, aren't Joe Six-Pack. They're powerful, they have great responsibility and trust. They're going to get a lot of attention, and they know that going in.
By the way, it should be noted, even in Illinois, the great majority of public officials and employees walk the line.
Honest Abe
· 3 months ago
Steve and wordslinger-you are both correct. Are pressure tactics used when it is too hard to prove the crime? (get someone to turn rather then perform a lengthy and time consuming investigation). Still, I do not think the prosecutors are to blame for Kelly's suicide.
The Doc
· 3 months ago
==Is there a single one of you out there who believes that if a US Attorney decided to prosecute you, he couldn’t find some basis for doing so?==
I think you have it backwards. Your comment suggests that the USA targets a particular individual and subsequently (and arbitrarily) creates justification for doing so. It begs the question of why said individual was targeted in the first place, like he or she was picked out of a hat. It's ludcrious.
I'm not saying that prosecutors don't exceed their legal authority on occasion, but there's simply no evidence such was the case here.
Bill
· 3 months ago
==The USA executed every action in accordance with the law== How do you know that?
babs
· 3 months ago
As I recall, we are still investigating actions taken by the previous Justice Dept while going after elected officials. There does seem to be a very high expectation that every Illinois pol should be indicted - not to say that there's anything wrong with that. BUT, being grossly over zealous will not produce a more ethical group of legislators. The real problem is the messenger. If Sheila Simon said the same thing, I think alot of people would have a different view of this.
D.P. Gumby
· 3 months ago
As with so much of the federal criminal justice system, the US Attys attitude and philosophy has been corrupted by the "War on Drugs". Rather than the ethical obligation to "do justice" instead simply obtain convictions, the 30-40 year "war on drugs" has created a culture that says everyone accused of a crime is a drug thug and we go after drug thugs w/ everything we've got. And, because drug thugs have all sorts of $$ to use to fight us, we have to come up w/ all kinds of tools to fight back. However, those tools have become mainstreamed into EVERY federal prosecution and the notion that every defendant should be treated like a drug thug is so entwined in the prosecutorial attitude that it's automatic. Yes, the Feds are grossly overblown in their prosecutorial philosophy. They are treating every crime as the equivalent of a Class double xx felony and every defendant as drug kingpin and every witness as a tool for them to use to achieve their goals. And, if they can't find a crime, they make one up through "conspiracy" "obstruction of justice" or "perjury". There is no sense of perspective or public policy and no rational oversight.
Individual XXX
· 3 months ago
One common thread among all of you who think the Feds are doing just fine is that you have likely never had the opportunity to have a few cozy fireside chats with the fine young men on Dearborn Street.
I have, and that's why I don't need a narcissistic crook like Fawell or a player in way over his head like Kelly (may he rest in peace) to shape may view that this USA's office routinely crosses the line in their "search for the truth."
I was drawn by bad luck and circumstances into one of the high-profile cases in the past five years. From not only my own experience of being threatened with indictment if I didn't "tell the truth" (code words for provide more information, whether you really have it or not) about a high-profile target to watching a naive witness give false testimony at trial after pretrial "preparation" by 3 AUSA's, I find "Justice" to be only a concept in that office.
Quinn T. Sential
· 3 months ago
Correct me if I am wrong; but the frist federal charge was essentially a tax evasion charge; granted it was low hanging fruit, and that is what did in Al Capone, but it was unrelated to the charges involving misconduct in government operations and activities.
The second indictment was in essence the same thing; except it arose from bid rigging, but those were private, rather than publicly bid contracts if I am not mistaken.
Only the third indictment; in collaboration with Cellini, Blago, Harris, et al arises from conspiracy involving official government actions.
So I will answer a question; with a question, and ask:
If person commits three separate and un-related crimes, is there a limit to which; or how many crimes in total they should be charged with?
I am not sure what the government has done in terms of its indictments represents "piling on", but since I view them as unrelated incidents, I would say no.
What they do in terms of plea negotiations in order to secure leverage is a different story, however but perhaps this is another question entirely. The government will often negotiate with a drug user; or a small time distributor however in order to go after the real drug traficker, so I am not sure how Kelly is treated any differently in this regard.
Excessively Rabid
· 3 months ago
No. It's not an abuse to charge someone with crimes they then plead guilty to or are fairly convicted of. He pled guilty to the first two charges and had an excellent chance of being convicted on the third. The prosecution is not just making these things up.
Prosecutors do sometimes abuse their authority, and Fitz handled Blago's arrest badly. But the defendants in this mess act as if they have a constitutional right to conduct a criminal conspiracy. Prosecuting them for what they did is neither wrong nor unfair.
What puzzles me is WHY someone would find it so impossible to tell what they know. It's not honor or loyalty, that's for sure. We do know that some of the issues involve gambling - not a traditionally wholesome business venture, and that all the issues involve powerful, ruthless people with a lot of money. You don't have to be a conspiracy buff to wonder what was keeping him quiet.
Budget Watcher
· 3 months ago
I'm trying to see the perspective of others who see Chris Kelly is a marytr who dared to stand against the evil US Justice Department. Trying... but not having much success. I sincerely wish he had made different decisions on that fateful night last week and I'm truly saddened for his family. I always hate to hear about people who lose sight of the incredible gift of life, who throw away that gift for whatever reason.
But, I'm very unlikely to see the Government as the villian in this.
Bobs yer
· 3 months ago
I don't know all the underlying facts available to the USA, so can't judge. But the feds are scary, very scary. Part of the problem is that we want to vote for the same old same old, and then expect the feds to clean up our mistakes. Did CCSA ever do anything about that regional education clown in Bellwood? Anita? Didn't think so.
If they were persecuting Kelly with the three prosecutions just to get more evidence on Citizen Blag, then yes, they went way too far.
Rich Miller
· 3 months ago
===I’m trying to see the perspective of others who see Chris Kelly is a maryt===
That's your mistake. Nobody else sees that. You're making up a straw man.
Make your own arguments without assigning crazy intent to everyone else. Life's much easier that way.
No name today
· 3 months ago
I don't think the prosecution "pushed" Kelly to suicide. It was his own decision. Kelly was a bully. He threw his weight around and tried to intimidate others. I know he did that to at least one regulatory state agency. And like all bullies, Kelly was a coward deep down inside. That's why he took the coward's way out and killed himself. Who knows, maybe he did reach out to the girlfriend. Maybe he wanted to be found and saved. I feel for his family however. especially his wife and three daughters. But for him there's nothing.
casual observer
· 3 months ago
clearly the Feds went too far, the guy killed himself.
steve schnorf
· 3 months ago
Doc, I guess I didn't express myself well. I'm not suggesting random prosecution at all, just the opposite. I believe if Kelly hadn't been a close friend of Rod's, he would be alive today. He might be in prison (he might even be out by now).
He certainly may have (probably) committed indictable crimes, but perhaps so have you (mail fraud? wire fraud? tax evasion?). So suppose you are a friend of, let's say Jesse Jackson Jr. The feds wonder if you might know some things about him that would be of interest to them. So what do they do to you? What they would do to anyone else, or 3 indictments with 3 consecutive sentences. I'm willing to wager if we were able to find someone out there that the feds had pursued 3 indictments against, seeking consecutive long prison sentences for,in the past few years the crimes that person committed would be substantially more serious than what Kelly did. He was being squeezed, and made an example of. I don't hesitate to remind peole that the US Attorney is the product of a Justice Department that has been able to justify some pretty extreme behaviors over the past 5 or 6 years.
Quinn T. Sential
· 3 months ago
Steve,
Google up Vince Fumo; and read about his first two brushes with federal law enforcement decades ago, and then his recent indictment (137 counts) and conviction (137 counts I believe also), and then look at his sentence which only recently commenced.
The Fox
· 3 months ago
Hell yes, Fitzgerald went too far and he is not the first. What is too far? Quit shilling for prosecutors, Rich. A policy of piling on indictments to the point of either face lengthy consecutive sentences or agreeing to scripts provided by the U.S. Attorney's crew is not my kind of justice. That goes for using lying to a federal agent as another indictable offense to add to a laundry list of crimes a mope who won't cooperate in some tainted process.
Budget Watcher
· 3 months ago
=== Make your own arguments without assigning crazy intent to everyone else. Life’s much easier that way. ===
You make me chuckle Zen-master. I'll file away your insightful words and remember them when life is too hard for me.
All Comments
But did Scooter mention how the G parked him in IN in a cell with a view of the electric chair?
Does cause one to question if there are any limits
Actually is made me wonder why anyone seemed surprised by the stuff at GITMO or the torture in the middle east. It is all the same govt sports fans.
Surprise no one had live video of the Kelly funeral
An obvious point, but this question is only being asked because of Kelly's suicide. The answer would be more objective had the question been asked last week. I think that reality also suggests the answer: that this is a case of personal devastation, and not representative of the results of federal pressure. I wonder whether subjects of federal investigations even committ suicide at rates higher than those of the general population...
Why is everyone looking to the G as the possible bad guy here? Are people forgetting that completely seperate from any G involvement was his divorce, banktrupcy, foreclosure, stained reputation, and severe substance abuse. That's a receipe for disaster for any Alpha male like Kelly and Fawell. His life came undone and ended in some seriously unfortunate circumstances.
He could have taken a page out of the Fawell book and hit the media tour upon his release.
Silly statement. "Everyone" is most assuredly not doing that.
Stick to the question, please.
Rich, you may think this is a bit off topic, but I'd argue the way you fairly counter govt pressure is assure decent representation. The gov't has immense resources to bring to bear on an individual, and if you're broke and can't afford lawyers how are you going to fight that even if you are innocent? Public defenders are overworked.
Even if you can afford one, you'll be broke afterward. A defendant in a murder case in Kane county was acquitted. He owed 800K for his defense.
He will pay that off the rest of his life.
I do not see a way around it. The Feds deal with rough people. Rough people don't respond to Marquis of Queensbury rules. I do not see a good answer.
This guy has a personal agenda and will stoop to any depths to achieve it. He is a Republican appointee who has already been in office too long. Why is he still here?
When questioning an accused individual, it is the responsibility of both defendant and accuser to reach an understanding regarding the limits of their knowledge of the crimes committed. If the defendant is unable to show proof of non-involvement, or sufficient doubt of non-involvement, then it is the responsibility of the accuser to continue their investigation until these limits are reached.
We have a long history of proven experience in doing this. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Mr. Kelly's suicide doesn't answer any of the questions he faced and failed to answer to meet the standards we expect of a defendant.
Furthermore, Mr. Fawell's comments should be immediately suspect as a person demonstrated beyond doubt to be an untrustworthy person willing to lie. Anything Mr. Fawell says should be double-checked. He has lost any credibility as a trusted source of information, due to the crimes of which he had been convicted. If Fawell told me today was Wednesday, I'd look at my calendar to confirm that.
You don't interview liars about liars and expect any truths or insights.
Whatever the reason - a more motivated G, more complacent and/or brazen public officials, or an angrier electorate (due to the economy or other factors), it matters not.
No, Kelly was at the top of an organized crime syndicate run out of the Governor's mansion.
If he had been a capo of a street gang or the Outfit, we would expect the Feds to tighten the screws to make him turn over on the man at the top. The same expectation applies here.
Except that in addition to rampant criminality there was a grotesque breach of the public trust. And when you breach the trust of the public with regard to Illinois elected officials, you've really earned your infamy.
It's too bad for his family that he killed himself, but it was his ultimate act to further a criminal conspiracy.
So no tears from me.
-- MrJM
Probably there's nowhere near enough money, and probably there are nowhere near enough FBI agents and prosecutors, for them to be able to go after every lawbreaker. If they choose to repeatedly prosecute one person who happens to appear to have committed several different crimes, and they choose to do that in a way that helps them with other cases, they have every right to do it.
Should we expect them to be compassionate? Probably not, if we expect them to work for justice in our behalf.
If one inquiry leads to more and more evidence of wrongdoing, why on earth would you dial back? There is no volume discount on corruption.
It is possible to feel human sympathy for Mr. Kelly and certainly too for his family, but to also support the aggressive prosecution of white collar criminals. These folks already have plenty of people willing to excuse them and rationalize their behavior, so you need this for balance if nothing else.
It's unbelievable.
I didn't know Chris Kelly, but what is it exactly that he did to deserve three federal indictments; sentences totaling 8 1/2 years on two of them and the prospect of facing an ADDITIONAL 10-20 year sentence (minimally) on top of that?
And, quick, answer this one: what did "Tony" Rezko do? What is he sitting in the MCC for? Everyone on this message board will simply say he was "corrupt." What does that mean today, exactly? It's worth noting, I think, that, like Chris Kelly, he wasn't an elected official. And it's worth noting, too, that the government never proved that he made a nickel off of any supposed "scheme" that they chose to prosecute.
It's simply enough, today, for the U.S. Attorney's office (or, worse, the Tribune) to point a finger and say "corruption" and whomever is at the wrong end of the pointing finger will soon be buried up to his neck. And in this environment convicted on all counts by a jury for having participated in a "scheme" of one sort or another (or worse, an ATTEMPTED "scheme").
It's all well and good, I suppose, if you can assure yourself that you'll never have an accusatory finger pointed at you. Of course, one way of attempting to ensure that is by never running for public office. And when honest people who fear wrongful prosecutiion choose not to participate in the public democratic process, you wind up with fields of candidates that include (with rare exceptions) only two types of people: (a) the sanctimonious (usually themselves former U.S. Attorneys); and (b) and narcissitic idiots like Rod Blagojevich.
The unchecked power of the US Attorneys office is itself virtually destroying the political process here. People are afraid to run for office. Office holders are terrified of DOING anything, lest they be accused of something. It's paralyzing the entire democratic system.
Something needs to change. But nothing will given the collective opinion that everything is going great and only the "bad guys" are subject to the potential abuses of the system in place.
Not all the "bad guys" are so bad.
The feds do NOT go after cases which they do not believe they can win. They are batting a thousand when going after corrupt power brokers, and they do it effectively enough to convince involved parties to cooperate. Chris Kelly was given ample chances to cooperate and possibly receive lighter sentences. Instead, he wanted to protect Blago. The feds will only put up with so much candor and refusal to help before they withdraw their offers.
As both a taxpayer and someone who works in politics, I must opine that such corruption and disdain for the people of this state is sad and maddening.
You have to wonder if more indictments weren't coming down the pipe? And maybe Kelly knew it. I wonder if the DOJ couldn't just get everything together and indict once?
Fawell is self proclaimed cocky, and when asked by Marin on his interview, he responded he is still cocky. Fawell has a very cocky attitude, Kelly did not had. When Kelly was in court the judge had him speak up because he was not talking loud enough.
Fawell is a pistol, he is as cocky as ever even after serving time. I don't see Fawell going away soon, he will try to make the media circuit as much as he can, and speak out on the overly agressive (as per Fawell) DOJ, specifically the US Attorney and his office.
All they did was bring charges against kelly to anser for his own conduct. The pressure was the effect of Kelly being on the indside of illegal conduct, shakedowns etc and kelly's decision to protect other criminals and criminal conduct.
The pressure was not from the US Attorney, but from kelly's decision to support and proctect the largest goverment based criminal spree in IL history.
If the media (Carol Marin?) wants to point a finger of blame at someone, it should be the people in his life who knew he was suicidal since last week and didn't try to intervene more seriously.
Fawell has zero credibility in this situation. Doesn't matter what he says.
The USA executed every action in accordance with the law. Failure to do so would be a violation of the oath of the USA office.
If Chris Kelly or Scott Fawell cannot conduct political affairs in accordance with the law they are free to resign at any time and enter the public debate on such matters as private citizens.
Kelly was like any other convict in that he made a value decision and bet that he was never going to get caught and that the risks were worth his rewards. When that turned out to not be the case, he had remorse and regret, as any of us would. We'll never know if he had worries about even a short stay in prison, where bad things can happen. I would be terrified. But the only ones who think this is the feds' fault are the Blago team, who would love to taint the jury pool with doubts about the feds' tactics and competence, or misplaced anger at perceived injustice. Beats arguing on the evidence, where they are totally sunk.
Are plea deals suspect? Always, so you have to hold the deals up to rigorous standards of evidence. As a practical matter, turning a source to rat out another conspirator by offering a sentence reduction deal is always going to *hurt* the prosecution a little because they have to override the idea that the witness is just lying to save his own skin or has been "bought". To get past that prejudice, the evidence procured thru the plea bargain has to be pretty darn powerful and convincing, more so than from unimpeachable sources. Generally, it needs corroboration from extra sources.
Looking back to another Rod-related case, the feds had a witness with a huge drug habit and non-mundane sexual habits, this is not a guy you as a prosecutor are happy to put on the stand as your witness... but if the evidence he gets you lines up with enough other bits, you still get your point across.
Bottom line, the feds did their job, the outcome was not their fault, it was a choice made by a desperate man facing his personal demons.
I suggest reading Niemoller as we encourage these guys to run amuck. Is there a single one of you out there who believes that if a US Attorney decided to prosecute you, he couldn't find some basis for doing so? Does anyone out there believe Kelly wasn't given special treatment solely because of his relationship to Blagojevich?
If he had been Joe six-pack, they probably would have never even discovered him, but even if they had, he would have paid somes fines and penalties on the tax charges, maybe a few hundred thousand, maybe done 12 or 18 months.
I'll be looking over my shoulder for writing this.
But public officials, or those who would act for them, aren't Joe Six-Pack. They're powerful, they have great responsibility and trust. They're going to get a lot of attention, and they know that going in.
By the way, it should be noted, even in Illinois, the great majority of public officials and employees walk the line.
Are pressure tactics used when it is too hard to prove the crime? (get someone to turn rather then perform a lengthy and time consuming investigation). Still, I do not think the prosecutors are to blame for Kelly's suicide.
I think you have it backwards. Your comment suggests that the USA targets a particular individual and subsequently (and arbitrarily) creates justification for doing so. It begs the question of why said individual was targeted in the first place, like he or she was picked out of a hat. It's ludcrious.
I'm not saying that prosecutors don't exceed their legal authority on occasion, but there's simply no evidence such was the case here.
How do you know that?
I have, and that's why I don't need a narcissistic crook like Fawell or a player in way over his head like Kelly (may he rest in peace) to shape may view that this USA's office routinely crosses the line in their "search for the truth."
I was drawn by bad luck and circumstances into one of the high-profile cases in the past five years. From not only my own experience of being threatened with indictment if I didn't "tell the truth" (code words for provide more information, whether you really have it or not) about a high-profile target to watching a naive witness give false testimony at trial after pretrial "preparation" by 3 AUSA's, I find "Justice" to be only a concept in that office.
The second indictment was in essence the same thing; except it arose from bid rigging, but those were private, rather than publicly bid contracts if I am not mistaken.
Only the third indictment; in collaboration with Cellini, Blago, Harris, et al arises from conspiracy involving official government actions.
So I will answer a question; with a question, and ask:
If person commits three separate and un-related crimes, is there a limit to which; or how many crimes in total they should be charged with?
I am not sure what the government has done in terms of its indictments represents "piling on", but since I view them as unrelated incidents, I would say no.
What they do in terms of plea negotiations in order to secure leverage is a different story, however but perhaps this is another question entirely. The government will often negotiate with a drug user; or a small time distributor however in order to go after the real drug traficker, so I am not sure how Kelly is treated any differently in this regard.
Prosecutors do sometimes abuse their authority, and Fitz handled Blago's arrest badly. But the defendants in this mess act as if they have a constitutional right to conduct a criminal conspiracy. Prosecuting them for what they did is neither wrong nor unfair.
What puzzles me is WHY someone would find it so impossible to tell what they know. It's not honor or loyalty, that's for sure. We do know that some of the issues involve gambling - not a traditionally wholesome business venture, and that all the issues involve powerful, ruthless people with a lot of money. You don't have to be a conspiracy buff to wonder what was keeping him quiet.
But, I'm very unlikely to see the Government as the villian in this.
If they were persecuting Kelly with the three prosecutions just to get more evidence on Citizen Blag, then yes, they went way too far.
That's your mistake. Nobody else sees that. You're making up a straw man.
Make your own arguments without assigning crazy intent to everyone else. Life's much easier that way.
Kelly was a bully. He threw his weight around and tried to intimidate others. I know he did that to at least one regulatory state agency.
And like all bullies, Kelly was a coward deep down inside. That's why he took the coward's way out and killed himself. Who knows, maybe he did reach out to the girlfriend. Maybe he wanted to be found and saved.
I feel for his family however. especially his wife and three daughters. But for him there's nothing.
He certainly may have (probably) committed indictable crimes, but perhaps so have you (mail fraud? wire fraud? tax evasion?). So suppose you are a friend of, let's say Jesse Jackson Jr. The feds wonder if you might know some things about him that would be of interest to them. So what do they do to you? What they would do to anyone else, or 3 indictments with 3 consecutive sentences. I'm willing to wager if we were able to find someone out there that the feds had pursued 3 indictments against, seeking consecutive long prison sentences for,in the past few years the crimes that person committed would be substantially more serious than what Kelly did. He was being squeezed, and made an example of. I don't hesitate to remind peole that the US Attorney is the product of a Justice Department that has been able to justify some pretty extreme behaviors over the past 5 or 6 years.
Google up Vince Fumo; and read about his first two brushes with federal law enforcement decades ago, and then his recent indictment (137 counts) and conviction (137 counts I believe also), and then look at his sentence which only recently commenced.
You make me chuckle Zen-master. I'll file away your insightful words and remember them when life is too hard for me.
LOL
Sheesh.