DOJ reviewing ‘ComEd Four' bribery case, defense reveals in asking for sentencing delay
The Department of Justice is reviewing the convictions in the landmark 'ComEd Four' bribery case involving former House Speaker Michael Madigan on counts involving violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the Trump administration says has been stretched beyond its intended reach.
The revelation, which further threatens to unwind what had been a slam-dunk victory for the U.S. attorney's office, came during a status hearing in the ComEd case on Thursday, where prosecutors asked to proceed to sentencing on the counts that U.S. District Judge Manish Shah left standing.
Defense attorneys strongly objected, saying they received a letter recently from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's office saying the case was under review by the Department of Justice, which would make a decision whether the false statements counts charged under the FCPA should be dropped.
The defense also said the Supreme Court's ruling last week in the case of former Chicago Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson gives them further ammunition to argue that the false statements counts should not stand.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker, however, said they have no timetable on when the attorney general might weigh in and have 'received no guidance' on what the decision might be. 'We will follow whatever guidance we get,' she said.
Streicker also said there was no basis to delay sentencing any further in this case, including over the issue of Thompson's case, which she said involves a different statute and has no bearing on the ComEd verdict.
'The defendants have had more than a full opportunity over the past two years to make post trial motions…It is now time for sentencing,' Streicker said. There is no basis to just delay sentencing based upon a hope that something might turn the defendant's way.'
Shah agreed, saying he was satisfied that a proceeding to sentencing would finally bring the prosecution to a close and leave it in the hands of appellate courts. He said he wanted to sentence the four defendants separately sometime in July and asked the parties to consult their schedules and get back to him.
Before the hearing adjourned, however, attorney Patrick Cotter, who represents longtime Madigan confidant Michael McClain, appeared to grow agitated, telling the judge that the defendants could find themselves sentenced on charges just before the Department of Justice rules should never have been brought in the first place.
'It seems to me, to be quite frank, reckless to proceed with sentencing,' Cotter said. 'It does affect the position of the defendants …I would ask you to consider waiting until we get a response.'
But Shah denied the request without further argument. 'I don't agree it is reckless,' he said, adding that if something changes, he 'sure you'll tell me.'
'You have your lines of communication with the Department of Justice and I'm not doing anything to interfere with that,' Shah said. 'My view is that it's more important to proceed to conclusion than wait on uncertain and amorphous deliberations happening' in Washington.
The ComEd Four defendants — McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore; internal ComEd lobbyist John Hooker; and consultant Jay Doherty — were convicted in May 2023 in an alleged scheme by the utility to funnel payments to Madigan-favored contractors in exchange for the longtime Democratic speaker's influence over legislation in Springfield.
Earlier this month, Shah granted a new trial on some counts, saying the Supreme Court's ruling last year on a key bribery statute means the jury was not instructed properly.
In making his ruling, however, Shah left intact the convictions on a number of other counts, including the lead count of conspiracy and charges alleging the defendants cooked ComEd's books to hide the scheme.
Adding to the complexity was that four of the five counts that were left standing involve violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Last month, President Donald Trump ordered a review of how the Justice Department enforces that law, which he said has been 'stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States.'
In the ComEd Four case, the four defendants were convicted for falsifying books and records, not any bribery of foreign officials that the law originally sought to punish, the defense pointed out in asking Shah last month to stay the proceedings.
Madigan, meanwhile, once the most powerful politician in the state, was found guilty on Feb. 12 of bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges alleging he used his public office to increase his power, line his own pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates.
But neither prosecutors nor Madigan could declare total victory in that case either. Jurors' final verdict was overall mixed, deadlocking on several counts — including the marquee racketeering conspiracy charge — and acquitting Madigan on numerous others.
Jurors also deadlocked on all six counts related to McClain, who was charged in both the Madigan and ComEd Four indictments.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kweisi Mfume is pitching an old-school approach to one of House Democrats' highest-profile jobs
Frustrated by Democrats' seniority system, Kweisi Mfume fled the House three decades ago, saying he could do more to advance civil rights from the outside. Now he's back and trying to reap the benefits of seniority at a moment when many in his party are starting to openly question it. The Baltimore native last month surprised many House colleagues by entering the wide-open race to lead Democrats on the high-profile Oversight Committee, seeking to fill the spot vacated by the sudden death of Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly. Into the void jumped a pair of young, ambitious members — Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Robert Garcia of California — as well as a close Connolly ally, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts. And then there's Mfume, who at 76 is making no bones about this being the capstone of a long career that included stints leading the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP — jobs he took back in the 1990s. 'I started a long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth,' Mfume joked in an interview, before describing his old-school approach to legislative relations: 'The first thing you learn is how to count votes, which has never failed me yet,' he said, adding that he would be careful not to alienate colleagues 'by doing something that causes problems for them in their district.' Rather than detail a point-by-point agenda for taking on President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, Mfume said if elected he'd convene the committee's Democrats to decide a course of action. The party, he said, can only move forward with a 'consensus.' That style stands in sharp contrast to a Democratic base that's itching for more aggressive leadership and a more visible fight with Trump — something the other candidates are clearly heeding: Garcia has tangled with the Justice Department over his criticism of Elon Musk; Crockett has broached the prospect of a Trump impeachment inquiry; and Lynch, as the panel's interim top Democrat, attempted last week to subpoena Musk during a panel hearing. The race also threatens to become a proxy fight for broader questions about age and seniority inside the Democratic Party. House Democrats ousted several aging committee leaders at the end of last Congress as they girded for a fight with the Trump administration — and many in the base were disappointed when Connolly triumphed over Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. The winner is poised to lead efforts to investigate and thwart the Trump administration if Democrats can retake the House majority next year — and ride herd on a chaotic panel that in recent months has featured intense personal attacks between lawmakers and the display of nude photos. 'It's a street fight every day,' said Rep. Lateefah Simon of California when asked about the panel and what it takes to lead it. 'It's every single day being able to expose the hypocrisy of this administration and to tell the truth.' There was a time when Mfume would have been a natural choice for such a moment. First elected to Baltimore's City Council at the age of 30, he quickly butted heads with legendary Mayor William Donald Schaefer. After longtime Rep. Parren Mitchell retired, Mfume easily won the seat in 1986 and within a few years become a national figure due to his chairmanship of the CBC. Ascending to that role just as Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency, he became an important power broker, forcing key concessions in Clinton's 1993 budget and pushing the White House to restore ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. He also clashed with Clinton at times, including over his decision to pull the nomination of prominent Black legal scholar Lani Guinier to a top Justice Department post. But after Democrats lost their House majority in 1994 — and Mfume lost a quixotic bid to enter the party leadership — he decided two years later to forgo a long climb up the seniority ladder. He instead took the helm at the Baltimore-based NAACP, a job thought to better harness his skills at organizing and oratory. Former Maryland state Sen. Jill Carter said Mfume has long had the 'it factor' and 'charisma' that matters in politics. When Carter ran against Mfume in his 2020 House comeback bid, she got a reminder of how well her rival was known in the district and beyond: 'When some of my people did exit polling, they got the response, 'Oh, we love Jill but, come on, this is Kweisi.'' What's less clear is whether Mfume's reputation in Baltimore, burnished over 45 years in the public eye, makes him the man for the moment as far as his contemporary House colleagues are concerned. He's not known as a partisan brawler, and he said in the interview he doesn't intend to become one. 'There are always going to be fights and disagreements,' he said. 'It's kind of escalated in the last few years to a level that we haven't seen before. I think the main thing is to moderate and to manage the disagreements, because you're not going to cause any of them to go away. How you manage them and how they are perceived by the overall public is what makes a difference.' Mfume is leaning heavily, in fact, on the style and reputation of the man who filled the 7th District seat for the 24 years in between his House stints — the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, who served as top Democrat and then chair of Oversight during Trump's first term and is still spoken of in reverent terms inside the caucus. Mfume concedes that Cummings might have been the better communicator — he 'had a little more preacher in him than I do' — but said they share a similar lofty approach to politics. Like Cummings, he suggested prescription drug prices might be a committee priority. What Mfume is unlikely to have is the official support of the Congressional Black Caucus, a powerful force in intracaucus politics. With two members in the race — Crockett also belongs — Mfume said he does not expect a formal CBC endorsement after an interview process Wednesday. But he still expected to draw support from the bloc — especially its more senior members. Other factors complicate Mfume's candidacy. One is age: He is a year older than Connolly was when he was elected to lead Oversight Democrats last year. For those who prize seniority, Lynch has actually spent more time on the panel. And his 2004 departure from the NAACP was marred by controversy: The Baltimore Sun reported the executive committee of the group voted not to extend his contract under threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit; the NAACP later paid the woman who complained a $100,000 settlement. Mfume strenuously denied any wrongdoing, but while the episode has not emerged as a major issue in the Oversight race, some Democrats have privately expressed reservations about elevating a leader with personal baggage to potentially lead investigations of Trump. 'There's never been one person to corroborate that one allegation — not one,' Mfume said. About the payment, he said, 'I found out about it, quite frankly, after it happened.' Much of the Democratic Caucus remains undecided ahead of the June 24 secret-ballot vote. Candidates will first go before Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee, which will make a recommendation to the full caucus. 'I think that you have a situation where Mfume and Steve Lynch are getting support from folks who put seniority at top, and maybe the other two candidates would probably lean toward members who are newer, and then you got a whole host of folks that's in the middle. And I think that's where the battle is to see where they fall,' said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.). One younger member said he was swayed by Mfume's experience. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is 48 and had weighed his own bid, said that while other candidates were compelling, the Baltimorean had a 'leg up.' 'Kweisi shows me pictures of him with Nelson Mandela,' he said. 'I was like, I'm not going to run against Nelson Mandela's best friend.'

Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State says NH roads getting deadlier by the day
Deadly driving crashes continue to rise across New Hampshire with 2025 already outpacing last year, when 135 roadway deaths marked a 6% increase overall and young driver deaths spiked at an alarming rate, transportation officials said. As of Monday morning, 45 people had died in crashes across the state since Jan. 1, according to Mark Munroe, highway safety program manager for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation. Yearly traffic deaths have been trending up since 104 people died in crashes in 2020. In 2024, deaths among drivers age 16 to 21 more than doubled, with 10 fatalities. Most recently, a teen was killed in a motor vehicle incident in Bedford Sunday night. Details of that incident have not been released. So far this year, four drivers under 21 have died, compared with three over the same time period last year. There's been an even bigger spike in deaths among drivers over 70 — 11 deaths, nearly double for that age range, Munroe said. To address the number of roadway deaths, last year the state relaunched a program called Driving Toward Zero, which aims to reduce traffic fatalities by 50% by 2030. This past February, 75 first responders, safety, transportation, health and municipal officials held a Traffic Fatality Summit aimed at curbing the trend. Munroe could not be reached for further comment Tuesday afternoon, but said in late February he had never seen anything like the deadly trends across the state in his 40 years working in public safety. Both Munroe and State Police Lt. Chris Storm have repeatedly voiced concern and frustration with the deadly trends they're seeing. New laws considered This year, legislators have considered three bills addressing recent dangerous driving trends. None have passed so far. HB 466 would have made it so anyone who refuses to take a blood-alcohol test loses their license for a year. Representatives killed that bill and a similar state Senate bill. HB 482 would have raised the fine for driving over 100 mph to $750 on the first offense with a 90-day license suspension. The state Senate tabled the bill last month. However, the House and Senate are working on similar legislation. HB 776 would add wrong-way driving to the list of factors that elevate driving while intoxicated or impaired to aggravated DWI, which has stiffer penalties. State Police said there were 271 wrong-way drivers reported in 2024. The bill passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting a conference committee after it was amended by the Senate. More statistics Of the 45 people killed this year, 26 were drivers, eight were not wearing a seat belt, six were pedestrians and eight were on motorcycles. The number of pedestrians killed is double what it was at this time last year. dpierce@

an hour ago
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.