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
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Backing RFK Jr., Elon Musk Priority
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a new bill to address a key priority of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Why It Matters Sanders, a Vermont independent, alongside Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the "End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act," which, if passed, would ban prescription drug advertising on TV, radio, print and digital platforms as well as social media. Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients' knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements. The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically. What to Know Sanders and King announced the legislation on Thursday, highlighting that the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $5 billion on TV ads in 2024 and that many of these drugs cost more in the U.S. than in other countries that do not allow drug companies to run ads on TV. "The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said, describing the fact that the U.S. stands mostly alone in allowing pharmaceutical ads as an "international embarrassment." vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C. vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, director of communications Anna Bahr confirmed to Newsweek his office has reached out to Republicans to join the bill. Bahr pointed to lobbying from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries as to why the U.S. has not joined other countries in bannign the ads. "Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties," she said in a statement to Newsweek. "Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress. During that same period, they have provided over $700 million in campaign contributions. And they are equal opportunity contributors. They contribute heavily to both Republican and Democratic candidates." Secretary Kennedy—as well as Elon Musk, who previously served in Trump's administration—have expressed support for ending pharmaceutical advertising. "Let's get President Trump back in the White House and me to DC so we can ban pharmaceutical advertising," Kennedy wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on November 3, 2024. During his own presidential campaign, Kennedy said he would have issued an executive order ending the advertisements on his first day in office. Newsweek reached out to DHS for comment via the department's press contact form. Caleb Alexander, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek that while a potential ban's impact on drug prices remains uunclear, there would be benefits to ending these advertisements. Pharmaceutical advertisements can drive up "inappropriate demand" for prescription drugs in settings where they may not be needed, he said. "In terms of the potential benefits of banning [direct-to-consumer advertisements], the most immediate and likely is that it would temper demand for products in settings where they may not be needed," Alexander said. The U.S. has "evolved to believe" the benefits of the ads, such as empowering patients to identify health concerns, outweigh the risks, though much of the research on the topic indicates that the benefits may not be worth the drawbacks, he said. What People Are Saying Alexander told Newsweek: "Direct to consumer advertising has been a lightning rod for controversy, and it remains a curious and unique feature of the U.S. marketplace. While a ban on direct advertising may be welcomed by many, it's not going to fundamentally transform the marketplace for prescription drugs in the United States, simply because DTCA is highly concentrated among a small number of products. It may be a reasonable political and public health target, but I think that if you just look at the way the dollars flow, there's vastly more money spent on marketing drugs to prescribers." Senator Angus King wrote in a statement: "The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier. The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements." Elon Musk wrote to X in November 2024: "No advertising for pharma." What Happens Next It's unclear whether a majority of senators are also in support of the bill. So far, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have co-sponsored the bill, according to Sanders' office.
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
House approves Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Trump's administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk. The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. 'This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,' said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. 'That's $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won't see wasted. It's their money.' The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump's big tax and immigration bill. He also said it's possible the Senate could tweak the bill. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school. 'Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,' McClain said. 'It's about people in our country being put first.' The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage, and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and chief executive of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,' added Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.' Freking writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
