CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:41:02 -0000

===Quit shilling for prosecutors, Rich===

LOL

Sheesh.

Re: Question of the day

Budget Watcher — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:34:28 -0000

=== Make your own arguments without assigning crazy intent to everyone else. Lifeâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

The Fox — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:20:44 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Quinn T. Sential — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:26:28 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:31:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

casual observer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:08:51 -0000

clearly the Feds went too far, the guy killed himself.

Re: Question of the day

No name today — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:01:00 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:14:00 -0000

===Iâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

Bobs yer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:49:40 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Budget Watcher — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:24:03 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Excessively Rabid — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:13:47 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Quinn T. Sential — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:53:28 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Individual XXX — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:29:46 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

D.P. Gumby — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:26:10 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

babs — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:15:47 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Bill — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:34:56 -0000

==The USA executed every action in accordance with the law==
How do you know that?

Re: Question of the day

The Doc — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:24:38 -0000

==Is there a single one of you out there who believes that if a US Attorney decided to prosecute you, he couldnâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

Honest Abe — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:04:46 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:58:02 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Just wondering — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:57:04 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:46:52 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

any use strong arm — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:35 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Hang your hat — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:18:27 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

siriusly — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:15:58 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

phil — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:03:56 -0000

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.