State Sen. Emil Jones III to face cross-examination in bribery trial
Democratic state Sen. Emil Jones III is expected to face a rigorous cross-examination Thursday in his trial on bribery charges alleging he agreed to accept campaign funds and a job for his former intern from a red light camera company executive in exchange for his help on legislation in Springfield.
Jones, 46, is charged with bribery, use of an interstate facility to solicit bribery and lying to federal agents. The most serious charge carries up to 10 years in prison, while the others have a five-year maximum term.
Making a risky move to testify in his own defense, Jones has so far fielded friendly questions from his attorney as he blasted the government's star witness, SafeSpeed LLC co-founder Omar Maani, as a 'used car salesman' and tried to explain to jurors his statements on undercover recordings made by Maani that are at the heart of the case.
Jones denied ever agreeing to any exchange with Maani, saying he didn't trust him and was merely suggesting he donate up to $5,000 to his campaign to support one of the senator's many community causes. Jones also testified that his request for Maani to hire his former intern to a $15-an-hour part-time job was a routine recommendation and had 'nothing to do with' any red light camera legislation.
He also also had critical words for his now-deceased colleague, former state Sen. Martin Sandoval, describing the once-powerful head of the Senate Transportation Committee as 'kind of a bully.'
Sandoval pleaded guilty to taking bribes from Maani in exchange for being SafeSpeed's 'protector' in the Senate and was cooperating with authorities when he died of COVID-19 complications in December 2020.
Once the direct examination wraps up Thursday, Jones is expected to face hours of questions from federal prosecutors who will try to contrast Jones' own statements on the recordings with his courtroom testimony. Assistant U.S. Attorney Prashant Kolurri told the judge on Wednesday the cross could last up to four hours.
Jones is the first sitting member of the state General Assembly to face trial at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse since then-state Rep. Derrick Smith was found guilty of bribery nearly a decade ago. If convicted, Jones would be forced to resign under Illinois law and would almost certainly forfeit any future pension.
The trial, which began with jury selection April 7, had been slated to last only about a week but has moved slower than expected. U.S District Judge Andrea Wood said after the jury was sent home Wednesday that she hoped to have closing arguments either Friday or Monday, depending on Easter weekend schedules.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat
California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to threats over the weekend by the Trump administration that he could be arrested if he interferes with ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants. 'He's a tough guy, why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' Newsom said during an interview with MSNBC News on Sunday. The governor also issued some strong statements toward the president and his administration's crackdown on immigration. 'But, you know what? Lay your hands off 4-year-old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people that are just trying to live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes … been here 10 years,' Newsom said. The governor's comments come in response to threats by Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, to arrest anyone who obstructs the immigration enforcement effort, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, NBC News reported. 'I'll say about anybody,' Homan told the television network. 'You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' For her part, Bass said Homan's comments were unnecessary. 'I spoke to him last night. He understands that I am the mayor of the city; the last thing in the world I'm going to do is get into a brawl with the federal government. So that just made no sense. There was no reason for that comment,' she told NBC News. Newsom and other Democratic leaders have criticized Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent in Los Angeles over the weekend, saying the escalation in force will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he felt the situation called for it. Trump also backed up Homan's warning to officials, saying they will 'face judges' if they stand in the way. 'Who the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Train service between Moscow and North Korea's Pyongyang to resume this month, says Russia
(Reuters) -Russia and North Korea plan to restart a direct passenger train service between Moscow and the North Korean capital Pyongyang this month for the first time since 2020, Russia's state-owned rail monopoly said on Monday. Russian Railways said it had agreed with North Korea's railways ministry to resume a twice-monthly service between the two capitals on June 17, a journey it said took eight days and which, at over 10,000 km (6,213 miles), was the longest direct rail journey in the world. Another service between Pyongyang and Khabarovsk, a Russian city close to China's northeastern border, will restart two days later. The services will be operated by Korean State Railway, the state operator, and in the case of the Moscow-Pyongyang route will see a North Korean passenger railcar hitched to the regular Moscow-Vladivostok service and then re-attached to another train. Passenger rail traffic between Russia and North Korea was suspended in February 2020 at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Moscow and Pyongyang have since ratcheted up cooperation, including in the military sphere since President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty last year. North Korea confirmed in late April that it had sent more than 10,000 troops and weapons to Russia to assist in its war in Ukraine, aid which proved crucial for Moscow in recapturing Russia's western Kursk region from Ukraine. The two countries already operate a passenger rail service between Vladivostok in Russia's Far East and Rason, a North Korean port city. The nations are also linked by freight rail networks, although Russia does not disclose the size of the cargo traffic.
