State Sen. Emil Jones III will testify in his own defense at bribery trial
Democratic State Sen. Emil Jones III has decided to testify in his own defense of bribery charges alleging he solicited a $5,000 contribution and a job for his former intern from a red light camera company executive who was seeking the senator's help on legislation.
Jones' decision to take the witness stand is risky, particularly for a sitting elected official facing high-stakes public corruption charges.
But clearly the calculus of the defense team was that only Jones can put a different spin for the jury on statements he made on a series of undercover recordings at the heart of the case.
His testimony is expected to begin at about 3:45 p.m.
Earlier Tuesday, the jury heard Jones as he told FBI agents who knocked on his door in September 2019 that he never felt 'comfortable' talking to his longtime colleague, then-state Sen. Martin Sandoval, particularly about a red light camera company executive who wanted to be his 'friend.'
'Because he's an intimidating guy, you know?' Jones said about Sandoval on the morning of Sept. 24, 2019, the day the FBI raided Sandoval's offices in Springfield along with more than a dozen other locations. 'And you hear rumors about him…that he's just shady.'
In the recorded interview, which was played for the jury in Jones' bribery trial Tuesday, the agents pointed out Jones' claimed trepidation about Sandoval didn't stop him from sitting down for a steak dinner with Sandoval and Omar Maani, the co-founder of SafeSpeed LLC, to talk about how he could compensate Jones in exchange for his help on legislation in Springfield.
Didn't Jones ask Maani specifically to raise $5,000 for his campaign? Didn't he ask Maani to hire his former intern? And didn't he offer to 'protect' SafeSpeed from state Rep. David McSweeney, a staunch opponent to red light cameras?
When Jones seemed to downplay what he'd said, the agents, Timothy O'Brien and Nijika Rustagi, laid their cards on the table: They had video of the entire thing.
'I don't think it was as soft as that,' O'Brien warned Jones near the end of the 40-minute interview. 'I think it was a little more direct. I certainly have the video with me where (you) said: 'I'll make sure I'll take care of you guys with McSweeney…'.I'd be happy to play the video for you if you want.'
Jones was also warned by Rustagi that everything he said could be used in the federal grand jury and that if he lied he could be charged. When Rustagi asked if Jones wanted to change any of his answers based on that, Jones declined.
Then he joked: 'After watching Trump for the last two years, I understand.'
On Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors rested their case against Jones after presenting five witnesses over five days of testimony.
Jones, 46, whose father, Emil Jones Jr., led the state Senate for years before orchestrating to have his son replace him in 2009, 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.
According to the charges, Jones agreed to accept $5,000 in campaign funding from Maani in exchange for Jones' help with legislation in Springfield. Jones also asked Maani to give his former office intern a part-time job, which led to $1,800 being paid to the intern in exchange for no work. the charges alleged.
Jones is the first sitting member of the state General Assembly to face trial at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in nearly a decade. If convicted, Jones would be forced to resign under Illinois law and would almost certainly forfeit any future pension.
The roughly 40-minute interview played in its entirety Monday took place in Jones' living room and was recorded without Jones' knowledge, which O'Brien said was done in an effort to 'facilitate an honest and truthful conversation' with the senator.
O'Brien testified Tuesday that when the interview concluded, he and his partner seized Jones' cell phone pursuant to a search warrant and made a digital copy at the FBI offices. Later that day, O'Brien went back to Jones' South Side home to return the phone.
Jones answered the door, O'Brien testified, and as he took back the phone, he said 'something to the effect that he was chewed out by his dad and by his attorney for speaking to me.'
Five months later, Jones came in for another interview at the IRS offices across from Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, O'Brien said. This time, he had a lawyer participating by phone, and the purpose was for Jones to come clean and begin cooperating with the investigation, O'Brien testified.
Unlike in his previous interview, O'Brien said this time Jones was asked if he made any agreements with Omar Maani, 'He acknowledged that he requested a job for (his intern) as well as a campaign contribution in exchange for changing the legislation.'
According to O'Brien, Jones admitted that he and Maani had specifically come up with the $5,000 figure at their July 2019 dinner, and that he knew the intern, Christopher Katz, was being paid even though Maani was not giving him work.
O'Brien said the interview moved on to 'additional information' Jones may have 'related to other topics for investigations we had or potential investigations.'
Jones was shown photos, made identifications 'and provided information about those individuals and others,' he said.
Their next interview with Jones was in August 2021, when Jones had new attorneys, O'Brien testified. Jones continued to provide information unrelated to the facts of the SafeSpeed case, he said, though Jones was never considered to be 'actively' cooperating.
Jones was charged a little over a year later via a criminal information, which typically indicates the defendant has an agreement with the U.S. attorney's office to plead guilty. Instead, Jones took the case to trial.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Advocates call on Michigan lawmakers to condemn ICE detention of Detroit student
Advocates are calling on Michigan lawmakers and school officials to condemn the immigration arrest of an 18-year-old Western International High School student. (Elaine Cromie / Chalkbeat) This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for Chalkbeat Detroit's free newsletter to keep up with the city's public school system and Michigan education policy. Maykol Bogoya-Duarte, an 18-year-old undocumented immigrant, had planned to return to Colombia with his mother after he graduated from Western International High School. With roughly one semester left in school, Maykol began making arrangements to leave the U.S. But his plans and his education were upended last month when he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Instead of finishing out his junior year this week, the teen is in custody of the federal government and faces an 'imminent' risk of deportation, according to his attorney. Immigration advocates are now calling on Michigan's governor, several Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation, and Detroit school district leaders to fight for Maykol's release so he can complete his schooling in the U.S. 'At this time of the year, students should be focused on graduation and summer,' said Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, who is representing Maykol. 'And here we have a student on precious time who is being deported. He should be able to finish his studies.' Maykol is only 3.5 credits away from graduating, Robinson said, and would likely be able to finish school around the end of the calendar year. His attorney said he is asking to be released and granted a stay of deportation to see his studies through before returning to Colombia. Maykol was arrested on May 20 after he attempted to join a school field trip to Lake Erie Metropark, about 25 miles from Detroit. While driving with three other students in the car, Maykol was pulled over for tailgating another vehicle, said Robinson. The teen was asked to provide his driver's license but only had a City of Detroit identification card. Michigan does not currently issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The local police officers who pulled Maykol over could not speak Spanish and had trouble communicating with him, Robinson said, so they called Customs and Border Protection. 'An important aspect of this story is that local police, instead of relying on internal translation services, were relying on Border Patrol agents to interpret for them,' said Robinson. The practice of calling on Border Protection for traffic stops with people who can't speak English could be interpreted as racial profiling, the attorney said. Randy Krause, chief of the Rockwood Police Department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Maykol, who came to the U.S. at 16, received a final deportation order in 2024. After that, Maykol was working with ICE and the Colombian Consulate to obtain the travel documents he needed to depart the country, according to his attorney. 'We were in compliance with their order,' said Robinson, adding the documents are required in order to board an airplane out of the country. 'It takes time for those documents to be generated.' He was still in the process of arranging to return to Colombia with his mother when he was arrested. It's unclear if he would have been able to graduate before leaving. On Monday afternoon, Robinson and Maykol's family didn't know where he was. They believed he was being moved from the Chippewa County Correctional Facility to another location early Monday morning, the attorney said. 'We expect when he does reach where he will spend the night tonight, we will be able to find him, or he will be able to make a phone call to us or his mom,' said Robinson. The attorney said because of the high number of people detained by ICE, the agency places them wherever bed space is available. 'We're seeing people detained in far parts of Michigan,' he said. 'We're also seeing people being sent to Ohio and other places as well.' By Monday afternoon, nearly 900 people had signed a petition asking Michigan officials to condemn Maykol's arrest, urge for him to be released to complete his high school education, and 'to put preventative policies in place to better support immigrant students and families.' Three advocacy groups — 482Forward, MI Students Dream, and the People's Assembly — created the petition. Lindsey Matson, the deputy director of 482Forward, said the advocacy effort is aimed at raising awareness of the issue and the petition, if it gains traction, will put pressure on those who have the power to intervene. 'Even a statement from the school board will be helpful,' Matson added. The petition calls for action from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, U.S. Sens. Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, U.S. House Reps. Shri Thanedar and Rashida Tlaib, and the Detroit Public Schools Community District. Thanedar, in a Monday evening post on X, formerly Twitter, responded to the detention, saying: 'ICE should not be detaining high schoolers! Maykol Bogoya-Duarte just needs 3 credits to graduate, but was put in detention by ICE. He should be released immediately and allowed to get his diploma.' Nikolai Vitti, superintendent of the district, told Chalkbeat last week that the school system's police department had advocated on the student's behalf. But the district did not notify students and families of the arrest because Maykol was not 'under the protection and responsibility' of the school system when ICE detained him, said Vitti. Robinson said notification about the incident or future instances like it would provide reassurances to families about how the district responds in these situations. 'I think people are looking for something like that from the school district,' said Robinson. In addition to advocating for Maykol's release to allow the teen to finish school, the attorney said the district should ensure its policies and practices support the needs of community members with immigration challenges. That includes making sure students and staff understand their rights in interactions with law enforcement, he added. In New York, the detention of a student has gained widespread attention and calls from advocates and political leaders for his release. (A second teen has since been detained.) Similarly, the detention of a teenager in Massachusetts prompted rallies. Less attention has been paid to Maykol's plight in comparison. Matson said his case isn't less important than what has happened in the other states. 'I feel like Democrats in Michigan have not really stood up for our immigrant population here,' she said. The advocacy groups calling for Maykol's release are asking community members to attend the Detroit Public Schools Community District board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday at Martin Luther King Jr. High School to urge school leaders to make public statements. Immigration advocates are also encouraging community members to call the offices of state and national lawmakers, as well as ICE. Lori Higgins is the Detroit bureau chief. You can reach her at lhiggins@ Hannah Dellinger covers K-12 education and state education policy for Chalkbeat Detroit. You can reach her at hdellinger@ Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Atlantic
41 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build
The buzziest idea in Democratic politics right now is the 'abundance agenda,' which criticizes liberals for saddling government programs with bureaucratic red tape that delays those programs to the point of never delivering. Few examples seem to illustrate the point better than rural broadband. As part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress allocated $42.5 billion in subsidies to a new Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Its required 14 procedural steps to actually get this funding to internet service providers, or ISPs—companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Frontier—along with significant labor, environmental, and domestic-production requirements, seem to fit the pattern of a well-intentioned program that has been stuffed with too many bells and whistles. (One of us, Asad Ramzanali, worked on broadband issues including BEAD in both the House of Representatives and the White House.) Thus, three and a half years after the law passed, shovels have still not broken ground on any project funded by this program, as the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently explained to an incredulous Jon Stewart, who lamented the 'incredibly frustrating, overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband.' Figuring out how to provide high-speed internet to all Americans has been an important public-policy goal for decades. As the coronavirus pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is crucial to full participation in society. And multiple empirical studies have shown that increased broadband access is correlated with stronger economic growth. Yet more than 7 million homes and businesses still do not have access. But the current political debate misunderstands the nature of the problem at almost every level. When it comes to broadband, procedural simplicity on its own hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. The deeper issue is that the United States government has abandoned the full range of policy tools that would actually get the job done. Any effort to achieve 'abundance' must start by recognizing that red tape isn't the only reason America can't seem to build anymore. The BEAD program does seem overcomplicated. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to complete a national map of where broadband is currently missing, the Commerce Department to distribute funding to states, state-level broadband offices to allocate subgrants to internet service providers, and the ISPs to deploy cables to connect homes to the internet. The numerous intermediate steps—initial planning grants, five-year action plans, map challenges, final plans, and more—sound like the kind of red tape that blocks progress and generates distrust in government. The solution seems glaringly obvious: simplify the steps. Cut out all the middlemen and empower the FCC to provide money directly to ISPs as efficiently and quickly as possible. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion. The first Trump administration had the same thought. In 2020, the FCC rolled out a multibillion-dollar program called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). To allocate the money, the FCC quickly identified areas that had insufficient service. It then held a reverse auction of small geographic plots, awarding the subsidy to whichever ISP submitted the lowest bid for each plot. There was no notice of funding opportunity. No planning grants. No five-year action plans. No subgranting process. No state broadband offices. And no labor, environmental, small-business, or diversity requirements. ISPs quickly bid a cumulative $9.2 billion to serve high-speed broadband to 5.2 million homes and businesses. Jerusalem Demsas: Not everyone should have a say In many ways, RDOF was a neoliberal economist's dream—an efficient allocation of scarce public resources distributed through a competitive process. But removing bureaucratic steps turned out not to result in a better outcome. Without accurate mapping data to understand where need existed, RDOF allowed ISPs to bid on serving such locations as an empty patch of grass, industrial-park storage tanks, and a luxury resort that already had broadband. Without proper due diligence, other providers committed to projects that were not technically or financially feasible. As a result, the RDOF program still hasn't delivered much broadband to Americans. More than one-third of the bids have already been deemed in default, according to the FCC. In other words, nearly 2 million of the 5.2 million promised locations will never get service under the program, and that number is likely to keep growing. Worse, many of these locations may not get service from BEAD, either, because RDOF was assumed to cover them. Within that context, Congress's approach to the BEAD program—making sure that broadband maps are accurate; that state governments, who know their residents and needs best, develop thorough plans that will ensure long-lasting service; and that communities have opportunities to provide input—is less baffling. With the benefit of hindsight, the process should have been simpler. But Congress was clearly responding to the failures of RDOF, which meant more checks in the system. Why is internet service a problem that the government needs to solve, anyway? The answer is that private-sector companies seek to maximize profits, but in many rural areas, building networks is unprofitable. There might not be enough customers to offset the onetime costs of construction or even the ongoing costs of repairs, customer service, and overhead. To date, the federal government's approach to promote service in unprofitable areas has almost exclusively been to subsidize private companies. The first federal broadband subsidies go back to at least 1995. Since then, the U.S. has put more than $100 billion into broadband expansion, primarily into rural areas, across more than 100 federal programs. Like RDOF, many of these programs have severely underperformed. This is what happens when government loses the ability, or the will, to undertake more direct interventions in the market and to challenge, not merely subsidize, corporations. A century ago, America faced a problem almost identical to the broadband shortage: rural electrification. Well into the 20th century, life in much of rural America was little changed from the 19th. Without electric appliances—refrigerators, washing machines, even lamps—running a farm was backbreaking, round-the-clock work. By 1935, private providers had electrified more than 80 percent of nonfarm households but only 11 percent of farm households. That year, as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Congress created the Rural Electrification Administration to address this problem. At first, REA Administrator Morris Cooke hoped to partner with private electricity companies, not unlike our current subsidy-heavy approach for broadband. However, those companies argued that rural electrification would not be financially self-sustaining. Even with government support, they proposed building out to only 351,000 new customers, which would leave millions unconnected. The New Dealers recognized that subsidies to private firms could only go so far. So they turned to three other strategies. First, when the private sector was unable to serve all Americans, the REA organized communities across the country to develop their own, cooperatively owned electricity-distribution networks, funded by the federal government. The REA encouraged state laws to charter these cooperatives, provided engineering support to build infrastructure, and assisted cooperatives in negotiating for sources of electrical power. Second, the New Deal created public options. Federal government–owned providers, most famously the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to generate electricity at affordable rates. These public options functioned as an important 'yardstick,' in Roosevelt's words, to evaluate the performance of the private sector. If the private sector refused to offer electricity at affordable rates, the TVA could step in to sell electricity directly to cooperatives instead. Third, private-sector electricity providers were classified as public utilities subject to strict regulation. The government couldn't build public plants to generate power across the entire country or successfully organize every community. So it required electric companies to expand services to cover everyone in their existing and adjacent service areas, even households that were unprofitable to serve. These utilities were required to set prices that allowed them to turn reasonable but not excessive profits. George Packer: How Virginia took on Dominion Energy The REA was a success. By 1940, a quarter of farm households were electrified, and by 1953, that figure had risen to 90 percent. That same year, retail rural electricity rates approximated rates found in urban areas. A similar approach could be applied to rural broadband today. Local governments could offer public broadband—as happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, run by the municipally owned electric company, a public option that competes with Xfinity and AT&T. Cooperatives could purchase internet service in the same way as they buy electricity. And public-utility regulations could require broadband providers to cover areas adjacent to their service areas at a reasonable price in exchange for rate regulation. So why has the federal government focused on subsidizing for-profit ISPs rather than using the mixed approach that worked during the New Deal era? Consider what happened in Chattanooga. After its municipal model proved successful, ISPs saw a threat and mobilized. They successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass laws restricting public options in broadband. Twenty-five states, including Tennessee, had such laws on the books in 2019, according to a report by BroadbandNow. In Congress, Democrats have repeatedly proposed federal legislation to preempt such state laws, but those proposals have languished. And although some of the state limits on public options have been repealed, 16 states still restrict municipal broadband. Lobbying from ISPs might likewise explain why the FCC has never used its existing legal authority to require ISPs to expand service at mandated affordable prices. (A conservative appeals court foreclosed that option for the FCC only recently.) The lesson of rural broadband is that some government failures are due not to procedural excess, but to giving up on regulatory tools that might antagonize Big Business. Unfortunately, learning this lesson again may now cost us $42.5 billion. Last week, the Department of Commerce rolled back many procedural hoops of the BEAD program—ostensibly with the same goals as RDOF. It's tempting to think that America can learn how to build again without having to wage difficult battles against powerful corporate interests, simply by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. But if efficient building were really so easy, we'd already be doing it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Says This 1 Thing 'Says Everything You Need To Know' About Trump
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday said the fact that he has had to prepare for the possibility of getting arrested amid protests in the city of Los Angeles 'says everything you need to know' about President Donald Trump. In an interview with 'Pod Save America,' Newsom was asked if he has a plan in place in the event that he is taken into custody after Trump endorsed his arrest. 'What's so absurd about that question is I've actually thought about it,' Newsom said. 'The fact that we are even having that conversation with our folks, and have had that conversation with our folks in the United States in 2025, I mean, it says everything you need to know about who's in the White House right now,' Newsom continued. BREAKING: Gov. @GavinNewsom on having to have the conversation about what would happen if the Trump administration arrests him.'It says everything you need to know about who's in the White House right now.' Watch the full interview on Pod Save America's YouTube channel. — Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) June 10, 2025 Earlier on Monday, Trump said he would arrest Newsom if he were in border czar Tom Homan's shoes despite the fact that there are no grounds to detain the governor. 'I would do it,' Trump told reporters. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. He's done a terrible job.' Homan, however, later told 'CBS Evening News' there are no plans for that to happen. 'Well, that whole thing's been taken outta context,' Homan said. 'They haven't crossed a line yet, but like any other U.S. citizen, if you cross that line, I don't care who they are. The governor, the mayor, whatever — when you commit a crime against ICE officers, we will seek prosecution.' Tom Homan, President Trump's border czar, tells @CBSNews there are no plans to arrest California Gov. Gavin Newsom, despite what the president said. As protests continue in Los Angeles following large-scale immigration raids, he says anyone who interferes with ICE officers could… — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) June 10, 2025 Over the weekend, Homan had warned Democratic officials, like Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass, they could face arrest if they interfered with ICE raids. 'I'll say it about anybody,' Homan told NBC News. '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.' Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard in California against Newsom's wishes after immigration raids sparked protests in the city. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday sued Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the move, describing it as illegal. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends,' Bonta said in a statement. The governor also slammed Trump for deploying U.S. Marines in his state, threatening more legal action. Newsom has warned that Trump's actions in California are a 'preview of things to come' for other states across the country. 'It's a coming attraction,' the governor told 'Pod Save America.' Gavin Newsom Slams Trump's Arrest Endorsement As 'Authoritarian' 'Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar California Gov. Newsom Proposes Pausing Expansion Of Health Care To Low-Income Immigrants
