Sunday, July 09, 2006
Carol Marin’s Blinders
Former television anchor’s Carol Marin’s Sun-Times column today explains why she wanted Mayor Richard Daley’s patronage chief Robert Sorich and his fellow defendants to be found not guilty.
I guess her message is that they weren’t close enough to Daley.
Marin refers to how the U.S. Attorney did not want Mara Georges, Daley’s female chief lawyer, to be questioned by defense attorneys about
That’s the whole point of what is happening today, in my opinion.
Nine years ago, President Bill Clinton’s then-U.S. Attorney and the Daley administration completely ignored the blatant violations of the anti-patronage Shakman Decree, not to mention the accompanying fraud that can’t have been very different from what was proved in the Sorich trial.
The man U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald’s picked for U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, has not had blinders on.
That, Carol Marin, is the story.
Of course, the feds and Daley’s folks did not “bother to investigate nine years ago.”
Marin needs to read more John Kass column’s. Like today’s, which explains how people like Algonquin’s Michael Hall has helped “eviscerate” the
You know, the ones written by the guy on the State of Illinois beat in the James R. Thompson Center when Marin was a big TV news star.
= = = = =
Today’s column also reminded me of Marin’s July 31, 2005, puff piece about the pristine purity of former Democratic Party Finance Chairman and now Downstate Teachers Retirement Fund felon Joe Cari—recent TV star in the California Democratic primary—just two days before he pled guilty.
(Still waiting for a mea culpa on that one.)
(And, I'd link to the original column, if I could find it on the Sun-Times web site.)
I guess her message is that they weren’t close enough to Daley.
Marin refers to how the U.S. Attorney did not want Mara Georges, Daley’s female chief lawyer, to be questioned by defense attorneys about
how she could possibly be “unaware” of irregularities in hiring at City Hall when she herself had turned over patronage records subpoenaed by the feds back in 1997 that directly pointed to that.Then, Marin includes this stunning sentence in parentheses:
It was something neither she nor the feds bothered to investigate nine years ago.What is she talking about?
That’s the whole point of what is happening today, in my opinion.
Nine years ago, President Bill Clinton’s then-U.S. Attorney and the Daley administration completely ignored the blatant violations of the anti-patronage Shakman Decree, not to mention the accompanying fraud that can’t have been very different from what was proved in the Sorich trial.
The man U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald’s picked for U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, has not had blinders on.
That, Carol Marin, is the story.
Of course, the feds and Daley’s folks did not “bother to investigate nine years ago.”
Marin needs to read more John Kass column’s. Like today’s, which explains how people like Algonquin’s Michael Hall has helped “eviscerate” the
"My client didn’t take one dime"defense.
You know, the ones written by the guy on the State of Illinois beat in the James R. Thompson Center when Marin was a big TV news star.
= = = = =
Today’s column also reminded me of Marin’s July 31, 2005, puff piece about the pristine purity of former Democratic Party Finance Chairman and now Downstate Teachers Retirement Fund felon Joe Cari—recent TV star in the California Democratic primary—just two days before he pled guilty. (Still waiting for a mea culpa on that one.)
(And, I'd link to the original column, if I could find it on the Sun-Times web site.)
Labels: Carol Marin, Joe Cari, Mara Georges, Michael Hall, Richard Daley, Skakman Decree
Comments:
<< Home
I also think there is another missing component. I have included excerpts from an earlier Marin column. Perhaps some people make too light of the effect political hirings have on our lives? If they are the catalyst for a vehicle accident that takes the lives of innocents, we are appalled and want someone to pay with big jail time. But the comments below would perhaps suggest that because the result isn't identified with such an immediate tragedy, the sentences and attention paid to the prosecution of the case is somehow over the top.
If a political favorite obtains a job (usually for life) with good pay and benefits even though another person might have filled the bill better - we, the public, take the loss in performance and the person who didn't get the job has had their life/future altered too. Did the absence of this job create the final straw that broke a fragile marriage, or keep someone from obtaining medical care that would have saved their child's life, or cause people to lose their home, or eliminate a person from the world of college and thereby break the thread that might have brought the person to medical school and a cure for cancer, etc.?
Why would this domino effect not be enough to force the unethical, found guilty folks to do jail time?
First do no harm.
They did harm and they did it knowingly.
The jurors said so.
The evidence said so.
Maybe if we had a time machine to visit the future we'd be able to see the negative effects on those who missed out on jobs - and the sentence would be far greater than 2 - 4 years?
---------------
RE: U.S. pushes for too much in city corruption trial June 28, 2006 BY CAROL MARIN
Excerpt 1 of 2
But does this rise to the level of a federal crime worthy of prison time? I don't think so. I think this is nothing short of a federal expedition to catch far bigger fish by the names of Degnan, Reyes and Daley. End of Excerpt 1
Excerpt 2 of 2
In the Sorich trial, no one is accused of taking bribes or trips to Disneyland or getting magnums of champagne and Cuban cigars, though there is no question that tax dollars were misspent and public safety disregarded. Case in point is the 19-year-old building inspector named Andy Ryan. End of Excerpt 2
Post a Comment
If a political favorite obtains a job (usually for life) with good pay and benefits even though another person might have filled the bill better - we, the public, take the loss in performance and the person who didn't get the job has had their life/future altered too. Did the absence of this job create the final straw that broke a fragile marriage, or keep someone from obtaining medical care that would have saved their child's life, or cause people to lose their home, or eliminate a person from the world of college and thereby break the thread that might have brought the person to medical school and a cure for cancer, etc.?
Why would this domino effect not be enough to force the unethical, found guilty folks to do jail time?
First do no harm.
They did harm and they did it knowingly.
The jurors said so.
The evidence said so.
Maybe if we had a time machine to visit the future we'd be able to see the negative effects on those who missed out on jobs - and the sentence would be far greater than 2 - 4 years?
---------------
RE: U.S. pushes for too much in city corruption trial June 28, 2006 BY CAROL MARIN
Excerpt 1 of 2
But does this rise to the level of a federal crime worthy of prison time? I don't think so. I think this is nothing short of a federal expedition to catch far bigger fish by the names of Degnan, Reyes and Daley. End of Excerpt 1
Excerpt 2 of 2
In the Sorich trial, no one is accused of taking bribes or trips to Disneyland or getting magnums of champagne and Cuban cigars, though there is no question that tax dollars were misspent and public safety disregarded. Case in point is the 19-year-old building inspector named Andy Ryan. End of Excerpt 2
<< Home
