I have always been fascinated by Chicago politics and am also surprised at some of the endorsements for Paul Vallas. I wonder if those endorsements have prompted Brandon Johnson to think outside the box. I recently received a text from Johnson’s campaign seeking support. I’ve lived in Springfield for the past 5 years and only ever lived in Chicago for 2 years in the mid ‘70’s.
As someone who relishes the the thought of Trump being indicted I could not disagree more either with the Poitico article nor the Chicago Tribune. I absolutely think inditement in the NY case on felony charges could be good for Trump and that it is far afield from the Smolett case. Here’s why. As the NYT noted in an excellent analysis , “A New York Times review and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York state prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign. Bringing an untested case against anyone, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or narrow the case.”
In other words, the legal theory on which they are trying to get Trump on a felony is as we attorneys like to say “creative”. This means that the following scenario could occur. Because a judge could look at the theory of the case and hold that it simply is not viable the case could be quickly thrown out and that dismissal be upheld by judges who might have a reputation for being very liberal or who had ruled against Trump in other matters. Trump wouldn't even have to gain an acquittal, the “ wrong” that had been done would have been proved early and easily. That is the nightmare scenario and could make inditement where the legal theory is cleaner harder. It could rally support behind Trump. If I could I would personally beg the NY prosecutor not to bring the felony case.
As with anything, there are always people on the margin. There are certainly people on the margin of supporting Trump that might fall in with him if they feel there is a special injustice instead of moving behind an alternative candidate. This is a pretty big stretch that can be easily characterized as political.
There is no law in NY against paying hush money. So, the DA has to build a shaky ladder. Cohen paid the hush money. The Trump organization reimbursed Cohen and recorded the transaction as legal expenses. The indictment would claim that it wasn't legal expenses, so it was an improperly recorded business traction, which is a misdemeanor. Then that the payment was political spending. Then claim that the spending violated federal campaign law, which they cannot try in state court. But since the business recording was to cover up another crime, that makes it a felony in NY. And it took six years to come up with this.
Trump indictments related to the documents, Georgia, and Jan. 6 would be much more meaningful and beneficial for the country.
Trump should face neither better nor worse treatment than non-Trump in equivalent circumstances. Applying this principle is easier said than done, however, insofar as the possibly-soon-to-be alleged conduct is bound up with his run for office.
This sounds like an unusual case, but I read that the NY DA does go after business record violations with some regularity. The story you nicely lay out doesn't sound quite as nutty to me as I think it sounds to you. The world of corruption and white-collar criminal law is notorious for its deployment of seemingly arcane hooks to catch slimy actors for their shenanigans, and many a slimy actor has found themselves thus ensnared in the past.
I'm not entirely persuaded that the hush money is the legal equivalent of an off-book campaign contribution and expenditure. After all, if Trump had used actual campaign funds to pay the hush money -- basically what the contemplated charge suggests he should have done instead -- his critics would surely cry foul in that case as well on the reasonable ground that such an expenditure is, oops, for personal use.
Still, I've read that there's a NY law about promoting any campaign, even federal, through any unlawful means. If that "unlawful means" is the business record violation, one spots a fatal circularity -- conviction for either crime relies on proof of the other.
But this person tweets that yet a third crime, bank fraud, could support the second crime that would support a felony conviction of the first:
So glad to know that the state legislature is wasting time on a cat declawing bill. Pretty sure that doesn't get to the top 100 things to be concerned about in Illinois.
I'm all for a law banning the declawing of cats. It's the mutilation of a cat's natural defense, not just its paws. People who would take this step shouldn't choose a cat as a pet in the first place.
And lots of people who would have adopted cats will follow your advice which will result in more stray and feral cats. But at least they will have their claws so they can continue to decimate the songbird population.
Let us also consider that there must certainly be multitudes of ready and willing prospective adoptive parents for whom the only thing holding them back from going all in and signing on the dotted line is the dreaded prospect of having an unkempt moppet or two who perpetually leave assorted streaks and patches of greasy and sticky nastiness in there wakes. And don’t get me started on the nose picking, eewww, gross. I think a simple requirement that all orphaned children have all of their fingers removed should take care of this problem, but I could see where Lynne, not wanting to take any chances, might prefer amputation at the wrists.
I'm not sure I buy the nature argument. These are not wild animals. They exist to keep humans company. Ever since their first domestication however many thousands of years ago, they've been bred for that purpose, haven't they? They are routinely denied, without much controversy, the natural and fundamental urge to mate and procreate. Declawed cats are indoor cats, so they have no need of "natural defenses," and I'm not sure we need them killing mice or whatever.
I'd be more persuaded by an argument that declawing is persistently painful for cats. I must say, though, that in the case of my mom's (inherited) declawed cat, I see no evidence of that. Meanwhile, she can cuddle with him, as he likes to do, without fear of human pain!
Deluca is either shockingly stupid or he thinks that the electorate is shockingly stupid. Pollution? Garbage? Volume? And the answer is cemeteries? But at least since he is a Democrat, I can be sure that he is not unduly influenced by lobbyists and has the best interest of the public in mind. Not a slippery, corrupt, liar.
I would have thought that the Morticians’ Benefit Association would have given Deluca some better talking points. It reads like he heard himself talking and couldn’t keep going with it.
Vallas is getting lots of endorsements because he's been in Chicago politics for the last 50 years and at some time backed these guys. It's just a political payback. And plus if he wins politically you want to be backing the winner.
Cats declawing: We need to hear from the cats on this one and see what their position is.
Disco: Thank God the Sex Pistols showed up and saved rock and roll.
I have always found Jeff Leving's "father's rights' " practice to be manipulative and overblown. The majority of fathers who "lose" custody do so because they don't want it. When a father seeks custody or joint custody, they generally get it. However, ginning up custody battles is apparently quite lucrative.
So the legal landscape is rife with men who invest considerable time and expense to attempt to win custody of children that they don’t actually want. Well alrighty then! Thanks for the insight.
That is not what I said, but since you bring it up, there have been cases where men have used the threat of a custody battle to intimidate women to ask for less financial support. However, the point I was trying to make is that Mr. Leving has exaggerated how hard it is for fathers to get custody in order to convince men to hire him, and then he seems to run up the fees in an unethical fashion.
Again, I appreciate that you do not resist the urge to conclude your argument with an ad hominem attack.
Two reflections on The ComEd case. The first is that my questions was answered as to why our Rep. Lou Lang quit after we voted him in but before he took the oath. Now we know - Mike Madigan told him to quit rather than face unsubstantiated accusations. The other is that I'm going to have a tough time not considering the electric utility to be a victim of extortion as opposed to a criminal.
I agree. It looks like a protection racket, where payments are required to keep the big guy from becoming unhappy. Sadly, I also think EZ is correct. Illinois voters are complacent, tolerant, or resigned to the routine corruption of Illinois Democrats at the state, county, and city level. We even have numerous examples of reelecting indicted officials. There has been no meaningful legislation to address the issue, there is no reason to believe that anything has changed in Springfield, and we can expect more of the same.
I've been struggling to find a reason - any reason at all - that could make me actually want to support either of the mayoral candidates. As a die-hard policy wonk and former campaign junkie, I'm pretty stressed that, for the first time in my adult life, I'm contemplating not voting in this election. Absolutely nothing I've seen or read about either candidate has shown me he has either the brains or strength of character required to handle the incredibly difficult job of mayor.
A healthy ego is needed for anyone running for office, which I don't consider an inherently bad thing. But when ego is the main driver - which is what I get from both Johnson & Vallas - it is guaranteed to be bad for our City's future.
Ahh...the slippery slope/hyperbole/ad hominem insult argument! A triple play! Care to go for the grand slam? My cats are not declawed by the way, but they are all spayed and neutered. Oddly, in your view,. I am not in favor of castrating children who are up for adoption.
I can understand the lack of enthusiasm some have in our choice for mayor. But I think that there are two major issues that should both sway a vote and encourage voting. The policing issue is well covered and seems to me easy to decide, in favor of Vallas.
But the issue that gets little attention is the new Chicago school board. In 2024 there will be a new board with 10 members appointed by the mayor, an appointed president and 10 elected members. It is easy to imagine Johnson appointing 10 CTU members, maybe Jesse Sharking as president. Of course, the CTU will be out in force for the elected seats. And 2024 is the next teacher's contract.
We can assume that there will not be a strike. Board to CTU: What do you want? CTU: Here's the list. Board: Are you sure we can't do more? CTU: Sure, here's another list. Board: Great, lets sign! We know the mayor is already on board with your non-CPS demands for how the rest of the city should be run.
And in 2026 the appointed members will have no problem running for the all-elected board.
Regardless of the philosophical issues on education, I think we would be better off with Vallas.
With these words anything can seem like torture...
"Nail clipping is the amputation of the last bit of nail of each finger and toe. It would be like cutting off the tips of your fingers. The standard method of nail trimming is clipping with a scalpel or guillotine clipper. The wounds are closed with spit or super glue, and if too short the ends are bandaged. Another method is nail "biting" or shortening the nails using one's teeth. Both can cause lasting physical problems for you… Nail trimming can cause finger pain, back pain, infection, tissue necrosis (tissue death) and lameness. Removing nails changes the way a person's hands scratch a blackboard or one's foot meets the sole like wearing an uncomfortable pair of shoes. Improperly removed nails can regrow, causing nerve damage and bone spurs." Very frightening indeed. (I'm not against the bill - just the 'scary language' being used.
I know that many people are uncomfortable that Vallas may be too cozy with right of center ideas, people, and groups. This is based primarily on snippets from his social media and interviews over a number of years. But with regard to his actual proposals, detailed answers to questions at forums, and work history, there is little reason to believe that he is any more than a center right Democrat.
Brandon Johnson is obviously from the CTU party, and his proposals, rhetoric, and programs are pretty well aligned with the Chicago Democratic Socialists. I'm not sure how many DS Alders there will be on the council after the runoff (maybe 10), but Johnson has said that he will bring in 'my people' to all leadership positions. And the CDS Caucus could provide the leverage to organize the City Council to his tastes. He is supported and closely aligned with DS Alders Roderiguez-Sanchez and Ramirez-Rosa. These guys are all sincerely far-left, as can be seen in their web site. When they say 'defund the police' they really mean totally eliminate the budget.
This election is not a closet Trumpian Republican against a Progressive Democrat. Whichever side you prefer, I hope that no one sits out the election. Even if you have to hold-your-nose to vote.
The Pritzker spokesperson made the reductive jab that is common in media and politics. "will listen to experts or instead to right wing talk show hosts when making decisions about people’s lives", as if talking to an interviewer or report makes that person into a primary advisor. Also, it obscures the actual actions of the governor and mayor.
The governor and mayor both followed the CDC guidance on masking, social distancing, testing, tracing, and vaccines which is good, and wholly defendable in a health emergency. But when the CDC recommended banning gatherings of 50 or more people they specifically said "the guidance did not apply to the daily operations of organizations such as schools, institutes of higher learning or businesses." And yet the mayor and the governor both shut down schools and non-essential businesses. They also shut down parks, the lake front, and outdoor venues. Similarly, when the CDC eased rules on groups, venues, masks, schools, etc the mayor and the governor did not follow the guidance. So they were selective about when they followed the guidance of the experts. There are many other examples. And during the entire course of the pandemic which lasted over two years, they never asked for legislative support or approval but relied on emergency authority.
The governor and his mouthpiece seem petulant and thin skinned in responding the way they did.
I have always been fascinated by Chicago politics and am also surprised at some of the endorsements for Paul Vallas. I wonder if those endorsements have prompted Brandon Johnson to think outside the box. I recently received a text from Johnson’s campaign seeking support. I’ve lived in Springfield for the past 5 years and only ever lived in Chicago for 2 years in the mid ‘70’s.
As someone who relishes the the thought of Trump being indicted I could not disagree more either with the Poitico article nor the Chicago Tribune. I absolutely think inditement in the NY case on felony charges could be good for Trump and that it is far afield from the Smolett case. Here’s why. As the NYT noted in an excellent analysis , “A New York Times review and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York state prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign. Bringing an untested case against anyone, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or narrow the case.”
In other words, the legal theory on which they are trying to get Trump on a felony is as we attorneys like to say “creative”. This means that the following scenario could occur. Because a judge could look at the theory of the case and hold that it simply is not viable the case could be quickly thrown out and that dismissal be upheld by judges who might have a reputation for being very liberal or who had ruled against Trump in other matters. Trump wouldn't even have to gain an acquittal, the “ wrong” that had been done would have been proved early and easily. That is the nightmare scenario and could make inditement where the legal theory is cleaner harder. It could rally support behind Trump. If I could I would personally beg the NY prosecutor not to bring the felony case.
As with anything, there are always people on the margin. There are certainly people on the margin of supporting Trump that might fall in with him if they feel there is a special injustice instead of moving behind an alternative candidate. This is a pretty big stretch that can be easily characterized as political.
There is no law in NY against paying hush money. So, the DA has to build a shaky ladder. Cohen paid the hush money. The Trump organization reimbursed Cohen and recorded the transaction as legal expenses. The indictment would claim that it wasn't legal expenses, so it was an improperly recorded business traction, which is a misdemeanor. Then that the payment was political spending. Then claim that the spending violated federal campaign law, which they cannot try in state court. But since the business recording was to cover up another crime, that makes it a felony in NY. And it took six years to come up with this.
Trump indictments related to the documents, Georgia, and Jan. 6 would be much more meaningful and beneficial for the country.
Trump should face neither better nor worse treatment than non-Trump in equivalent circumstances. Applying this principle is easier said than done, however, insofar as the possibly-soon-to-be alleged conduct is bound up with his run for office.
This sounds like an unusual case, but I read that the NY DA does go after business record violations with some regularity. The story you nicely lay out doesn't sound quite as nutty to me as I think it sounds to you. The world of corruption and white-collar criminal law is notorious for its deployment of seemingly arcane hooks to catch slimy actors for their shenanigans, and many a slimy actor has found themselves thus ensnared in the past.
I'm not entirely persuaded that the hush money is the legal equivalent of an off-book campaign contribution and expenditure. After all, if Trump had used actual campaign funds to pay the hush money -- basically what the contemplated charge suggests he should have done instead -- his critics would surely cry foul in that case as well on the reasonable ground that such an expenditure is, oops, for personal use.
Still, I've read that there's a NY law about promoting any campaign, even federal, through any unlawful means. If that "unlawful means" is the business record violation, one spots a fatal circularity -- conviction for either crime relies on proof of the other.
But this person tweets that yet a third crime, bank fraud, could support the second crime that would support a felony conviction of the first:
https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1634666895977725953
More here: https://www.justsecurity.org/85581/the-manhattan-das-charges-and-trumps-defenses-a-detailed-preview/
I tell ya, if they can establish all that crime, it starts to look like maybe he did something wrong....
tweets round of 16 - darn it, EZ, you've paired too many good ones against each other!
So glad to know that the state legislature is wasting time on a cat declawing bill. Pretty sure that doesn't get to the top 100 things to be concerned about in Illinois.
I'm all for a law banning the declawing of cats. It's the mutilation of a cat's natural defense, not just its paws. People who would take this step shouldn't choose a cat as a pet in the first place.
And lots of people who would have adopted cats will follow your advice which will result in more stray and feral cats. But at least they will have their claws so they can continue to decimate the songbird population.
Or the sewer rat population
Let us also consider that there must certainly be multitudes of ready and willing prospective adoptive parents for whom the only thing holding them back from going all in and signing on the dotted line is the dreaded prospect of having an unkempt moppet or two who perpetually leave assorted streaks and patches of greasy and sticky nastiness in there wakes. And don’t get me started on the nose picking, eewww, gross. I think a simple requirement that all orphaned children have all of their fingers removed should take care of this problem, but I could see where Lynne, not wanting to take any chances, might prefer amputation at the wrists.
I'm not sure I buy the nature argument. These are not wild animals. They exist to keep humans company. Ever since their first domestication however many thousands of years ago, they've been bred for that purpose, haven't they? They are routinely denied, without much controversy, the natural and fundamental urge to mate and procreate. Declawed cats are indoor cats, so they have no need of "natural defenses," and I'm not sure we need them killing mice or whatever.
I'd be more persuaded by an argument that declawing is persistently painful for cats. I must say, though, that in the case of my mom's (inherited) declawed cat, I see no evidence of that. Meanwhile, she can cuddle with him, as he likes to do, without fear of human pain!
Deluca is either shockingly stupid or he thinks that the electorate is shockingly stupid. Pollution? Garbage? Volume? And the answer is cemeteries? But at least since he is a Democrat, I can be sure that he is not unduly influenced by lobbyists and has the best interest of the public in mind. Not a slippery, corrupt, liar.
I would have thought that the Morticians’ Benefit Association would have given Deluca some better talking points. It reads like he heard himself talking and couldn’t keep going with it.
Vallas is getting lots of endorsements because he's been in Chicago politics for the last 50 years and at some time backed these guys. It's just a political payback. And plus if he wins politically you want to be backing the winner.
Cats declawing: We need to hear from the cats on this one and see what their position is.
Disco: Thank God the Sex Pistols showed up and saved rock and roll.
I have always found Jeff Leving's "father's rights' " practice to be manipulative and overblown. The majority of fathers who "lose" custody do so because they don't want it. When a father seeks custody or joint custody, they generally get it. However, ginning up custody battles is apparently quite lucrative.
So the legal landscape is rife with men who invest considerable time and expense to attempt to win custody of children that they don’t actually want. Well alrighty then! Thanks for the insight.
That is not what I said, but since you bring it up, there have been cases where men have used the threat of a custody battle to intimidate women to ask for less financial support. However, the point I was trying to make is that Mr. Leving has exaggerated how hard it is for fathers to get custody in order to convince men to hire him, and then he seems to run up the fees in an unethical fashion.
Again, I appreciate that you do not resist the urge to conclude your argument with an ad hominem attack.
"Alders"? Feh! Say "Councilors"! It's gender neutral and has the advantage of being a real word. "Alders" are a kind of tree, aren't they?
Two reflections on The ComEd case. The first is that my questions was answered as to why our Rep. Lou Lang quit after we voted him in but before he took the oath. Now we know - Mike Madigan told him to quit rather than face unsubstantiated accusations. The other is that I'm going to have a tough time not considering the electric utility to be a victim of extortion as opposed to a criminal.
I agree. It looks like a protection racket, where payments are required to keep the big guy from becoming unhappy. Sadly, I also think EZ is correct. Illinois voters are complacent, tolerant, or resigned to the routine corruption of Illinois Democrats at the state, county, and city level. We even have numerous examples of reelecting indicted officials. There has been no meaningful legislation to address the issue, there is no reason to believe that anything has changed in Springfield, and we can expect more of the same.
I've been struggling to find a reason - any reason at all - that could make me actually want to support either of the mayoral candidates. As a die-hard policy wonk and former campaign junkie, I'm pretty stressed that, for the first time in my adult life, I'm contemplating not voting in this election. Absolutely nothing I've seen or read about either candidate has shown me he has either the brains or strength of character required to handle the incredibly difficult job of mayor.
A healthy ego is needed for anyone running for office, which I don't consider an inherently bad thing. But when ego is the main driver - which is what I get from both Johnson & Vallas - it is guaranteed to be bad for our City's future.
Ahh...the slippery slope/hyperbole/ad hominem insult argument! A triple play! Care to go for the grand slam? My cats are not declawed by the way, but they are all spayed and neutered. Oddly, in your view,. I am not in favor of castrating children who are up for adoption.
In reply to my good friend Steven K
I can understand the lack of enthusiasm some have in our choice for mayor. But I think that there are two major issues that should both sway a vote and encourage voting. The policing issue is well covered and seems to me easy to decide, in favor of Vallas.
But the issue that gets little attention is the new Chicago school board. In 2024 there will be a new board with 10 members appointed by the mayor, an appointed president and 10 elected members. It is easy to imagine Johnson appointing 10 CTU members, maybe Jesse Sharking as president. Of course, the CTU will be out in force for the elected seats. And 2024 is the next teacher's contract.
We can assume that there will not be a strike. Board to CTU: What do you want? CTU: Here's the list. Board: Are you sure we can't do more? CTU: Sure, here's another list. Board: Great, lets sign! We know the mayor is already on board with your non-CPS demands for how the rest of the city should be run.
And in 2026 the appointed members will have no problem running for the all-elected board.
Regardless of the philosophical issues on education, I think we would be better off with Vallas.
With these words anything can seem like torture...
"Nail clipping is the amputation of the last bit of nail of each finger and toe. It would be like cutting off the tips of your fingers. The standard method of nail trimming is clipping with a scalpel or guillotine clipper. The wounds are closed with spit or super glue, and if too short the ends are bandaged. Another method is nail "biting" or shortening the nails using one's teeth. Both can cause lasting physical problems for you… Nail trimming can cause finger pain, back pain, infection, tissue necrosis (tissue death) and lameness. Removing nails changes the way a person's hands scratch a blackboard or one's foot meets the sole like wearing an uncomfortable pair of shoes. Improperly removed nails can regrow, causing nerve damage and bone spurs." Very frightening indeed. (I'm not against the bill - just the 'scary language' being used.
I know that many people are uncomfortable that Vallas may be too cozy with right of center ideas, people, and groups. This is based primarily on snippets from his social media and interviews over a number of years. But with regard to his actual proposals, detailed answers to questions at forums, and work history, there is little reason to believe that he is any more than a center right Democrat.
Brandon Johnson is obviously from the CTU party, and his proposals, rhetoric, and programs are pretty well aligned with the Chicago Democratic Socialists. I'm not sure how many DS Alders there will be on the council after the runoff (maybe 10), but Johnson has said that he will bring in 'my people' to all leadership positions. And the CDS Caucus could provide the leverage to organize the City Council to his tastes. He is supported and closely aligned with DS Alders Roderiguez-Sanchez and Ramirez-Rosa. These guys are all sincerely far-left, as can be seen in their web site. When they say 'defund the police' they really mean totally eliminate the budget.
https://chicagodsa.org/campaigns/defund-cpd
https://www.dsausa.org/working-groups/abolition-working-group/
This election is not a closet Trumpian Republican against a Progressive Democrat. Whichever side you prefer, I hope that no one sits out the election. Even if you have to hold-your-nose to vote.
The Pritzker spokesperson made the reductive jab that is common in media and politics. "will listen to experts or instead to right wing talk show hosts when making decisions about people’s lives", as if talking to an interviewer or report makes that person into a primary advisor. Also, it obscures the actual actions of the governor and mayor.
The governor and mayor both followed the CDC guidance on masking, social distancing, testing, tracing, and vaccines which is good, and wholly defendable in a health emergency. But when the CDC recommended banning gatherings of 50 or more people they specifically said "the guidance did not apply to the daily operations of organizations such as schools, institutes of higher learning or businesses." And yet the mayor and the governor both shut down schools and non-essential businesses. They also shut down parks, the lake front, and outdoor venues. Similarly, when the CDC eased rules on groups, venues, masks, schools, etc the mayor and the governor did not follow the guidance. So they were selective about when they followed the guidance of the experts. There are many other examples. And during the entire course of the pandemic which lasted over two years, they never asked for legislative support or approval but relied on emergency authority.
The governor and his mouthpiece seem petulant and thin skinned in responding the way they did.