Jurors hint at impasse in bribery trial of Illinois state Sen. Emil Jones III
CHICAGO — Jurors on Wednesday told the judge overseeing the federal corruption trial of state Sen. Emil Jones III that they may be approaching a deadlock in their deliberations.
In a note late in its second full day of talks, the panel wrote to U.S. Judge Andrea Wood that it may not be able to agree on two counts, those alleging bribery and lying to the FBI, respectively.
'It doesn't look like the jury can reach a unanimous agreement on counts one and three. Is there any assistance that can be provided,' the jury note read. In a separate note, the jury observed that count one states Jones agreed to accept a bribe and money for an associate and asked if it needs to find both of those things to be true along with other criteria to convict.
The jury is expected to resume its work Thursday morning after further instructions from the judge.
Jones allegedly agreed to help a red-light camera executive with legislation in Springfield in exchange for $5,000 and a part-time job for his former intern.
The trial, now in its third week, featured testimony from the prolific FBI mole Omar Maani, a co-founder of SafeSpeed LLC who admitted to using steak dinners, cigars and cash payments to get his way on red-light camera legislation with politicians. Jones, federal prosecutors allege, was one of those officials— caught on wires laughing over Waygu filets and telling Maani he would 'protect' the company from a Republican opponent in the Illinois House of Representatives.
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. He is the first sitting member of the Illinois General Assembly to stand trial in almost a decade.
Jones' lawyers have argued that the senator, who continues to represent the far South Side and south suburban 14th District, was 'in the way' of an expansive net of other legislators on the take. They contend that Jones met with Maani at the behest of admittedly corrupt state Sen. Martin Sandoval to try and get a stubborn bill out of committee and that he was in fact trying to distance himself from Maani.
Jurors began deliberating late in the day Monday, following nine days of testimony and arguments. On their first full day of deliberations, they sent several notes to Judge Wood inquiring, among other things, whether they should consider the crime of bribery to have been committed the moment an official agrees to a deal or whether that official's later actions should influence their decision.
Shortly before jurors were left Tuesday, Wood instructed them that 'the crime of bribery as charged in Count 1 has been committed at the time the defendant solicits, agrees to accept or accepts the thing of value, so long as all the other elements of the crime are satisfied at that point in time.'
Several members of Jones' family have been present for most of the trial, including Former Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who handed off his seat to the younger Jones in 2009.
Jones testified on direct examination that he 'always wanted to be a state senator' and held a series of jobs with the state before deciding to run in 2008. Prosecutors sought to poke holes in Jones' narrative of his career on cross-examination, pointing out that the elder Jones orchestrated his son's taking his seat in the Senate.
The jury also heard testimony that Jones had provided information about numerous individuals to the FBI and identified photographs of people he dealt with, including 'an executive at an organization' that hired one of Jones' relatives after he'd helped get them funding. Jones was asked to wear a wire for an investigation into Roseland Community Hospital but ultimately did not end up cooperating, he testified.
He has maintained that he decided to fight the charges 'because I knew I didn't do nothing wrong and I had nothing to hide.'
Wood asked lawyers for Jones and the government to reconvene at 8:45 a.m. Thursday to agree on an answer for the jurors' question about whether Jones needed to accept one or both things of value to be found guilty of bribery.
____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Neo-Nazi group ‘actively seeking to grow in US' with planned paramilitary training event
An international neo-Nazi terrorist organization is boldly continuing to build in the US and planning a new paramilitary training event without fear of local authorities or the FBI, which once dismantled it in a nationwide effort. The Base, founded in 2018 by a former Pentagon contractor living in Russia and now suspected of Kremlin-sponsored espionage, once boasted close to 50 stateside members before the bureau made more than a dozen arrests in a years-long counter-terrorism operation. But since the presidential election campaign last year and what many then believed to be a surefire victory for Donald Trump, the Base saw an opportunity in a potential administration uninterested in policing white supremacy and went about ramping up its ranks. Related: Energized neo-Nazis feel their moment has come as Trump changes everything Now, the Base has a presence in Ukraine, performing sabotage operations inside the country against the embattled government, and new and dangerous cells emerging across Europe, and it appears to be growing in the US, where the FBI under the Maga acolyte Kash Patel has signalled it isn't prioritizing investigations of far-right extremism. In its early history, part of what first piqued the interest of authorities was the Base's courting of military veterans who could help drill its foot soldiers in a series of training camps across the US. Eventually implicated in an assassination plot, mass shootings and other actions in Europe, the Base went so far as to have a fortified compound and cell in Michigan, led by a US army dropout. Online evidence from its various accounts, several of which live on Russian servers to avoid censorship on American sites, shows the Base has real plans for a national gathering this summer where members intend to train in paramilitary drills as in years past. 'The Base in [the] USA is preparing for an upcoming national training event,' reads one of its recent posts soliciting crypto donations. 'This one might be our most attended training event in [the] USA in a while. We could really use some financial support to help our members with travel expenses.' The post continued: 'When you donate money to the Base, you're investing in a White Defense Force that's aiming to protect white people from political persecution and physical destruction.' The Base then published a new photo of armed members claiming to be in the midwest, which follows a trend in 2025 of the group bragging about its unafraid American presence. As a sort of taunt to its enemies, on the day of Trump's inauguration the Base released a photo of four members somewhere in Appalachia, in what was the largest number of American members in one photo in over a year. Related: Alleged former members of neo-Nazi group claim its leader is Russian spy 'The upcoming national training event indicates that the group is seeking to grow and is willing to take the risk of advertising it publicly in advance,' said Joshua Fisher-Birch, an analyst of far-right terrorism who has been following the Base's movements for close to a decade. 'The Base appears to be actively seeking to grow in the US.' Fisher-Birch notes that even if the gathering involves 'fewer than 20 people', it is by no means 'low profile' and suggests the group sees momentum is on its side. 'An event entails planning, coordination, travel and face-to-face meetings between different regional groups, indicating that they operate in an environment where they view the potential amount of risk as acceptable,' he said. 'The group has previously stated multiple times that being a member or training with them is a risky endeavor; however, planning a meetup, which they will inevitably use for propaganda purposes, is a different approach than even a year ago, when the group advertised regional activities.' In response to queries about the Base's latest movements, the FBI told the Guardian that it only investigates people who have or are planning to commit a federal crime and pose 'a threat to national security'. 'Our focus is not on membership in particular groups but on criminal activity,' said a spokesperson for the FBI. 'Membership in groups is not illegal in and of itself and is protected by the first amendment.' But in Michigan and in Georgia, members of the Base were charged with their criminal associations to the group. The Trump administration's security posture on the far right is to downplay its significance. Yet experts unanimously agree: it is the top domestic terrorism threat facing the country. Instead, Patel, the FBI's director, has gone about removing agents from pursuing the far right, while one of Trump's first actions in his second term was to provide unconditional pardons, en masse, to all of the January 6 insurrectionists. Fisher-Birch also pointed out that the Base had taken itself more seriously and upped its activities in Ukraine to the tune of calling for the murder of government officials and acts of sabotage – with the clearly stated goal of forming a white ethnostate in the west of the country. Already, the Ukrainian cell has uploaded geolocated videos of some of these attacks, one showing the burning of a military vehicle and what looks like a government electrical box. In a video released on a Russian video-sharing site in mid-May, Rinaldo Nazzaro, the founder and leader of the Base, who is living in St Petersburg, released a video describing the importance of new training videos proving to potential recruits that his group is not just online, but in the real world. 'It's propaganda through actions, not just words,' he said. It isn't clear where the paramilitary training will take place, but Nazzaro is known to have purchased land in the Pacific north-west that he intended to use as a headquarters for the Base and its activities.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fury as Republicans go ‘nuclear' in fight over California car emissions
California has long been one of the nation's preeminent eco-warriors, enacting landmark environmental standards for cars and trucks that go much further than those mandated by the federal government. Vehicles across the country are cleaner, more efficient and electric in greater numbers because of it. But that could all change if Donald Trump and his Republican allies manage to revoke the state's ability to set its own, stricter emissions standards amid a White House crusade to combat climate-friendly policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and updates its own federal standards for all states on smog and emissions from cars and trucks, which the Biden administration made even stricter last year, saying they will save American drivers thousands in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of a vehicle. But for decades, California has been granted the ability to make those rules even stricter to help address some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, which are linked to a host of health effects that disproportionately affect people of color. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to reverse the waivers, in move that prompted fury from Democrats who call it a 'nuclear' option, calling it an unprecedented, and illegal, use of the statute. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have agreed, saying EPA waivers are not subject to the review law. The House approved similar resolutions earlier this month. The resolutions now go to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign them. 'This move will harm public health and deteriorate air quality for millions of children and people across the country,' said senators Alex Padilla, Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. 'This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again,' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Thursday. 'We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.' Kathy Harris, the director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized California's ability to mandate strict emissions standards for cars, trucks and buses had existed for nearly 60 years, noting the state had been granted more than 75 waivers under Republican and Democratic presidents. Among the waivers include rules to increase the share of electric vehicles each year among all new car and truck sales, as well as mandates that auto companies introduce progressively cleaner vehicles. She described the waivers as a 'quadruple win', benefiting public health, air quality, drivers' pockets and the economy as a whole. 'These waivers are not new or novel,' Harris said in an interview. 'California has historically been innovators in systems to help produce cleaner air and stymying California's ability is a direct attack on our ability to limit pollution and health harming pollutants in the air.' She added revoking the waivers would immediately lead to an increase in pollution on the nation's roadways. More than a dozen states follow California's lead on emissions standards, according to the California air resources board. The standards now cover nearly 40% of new light-duty vehicle registrations and more than a quarter of heavy-duty vehicles like trucks across the entire US. Automakers have largely followed California's emissions standards as well so they can continue to sell cars there, as the state equates to the fourth-largest economy on the planet. Newsom upped the ante in the nation's environmental future in 2020, declaring his state would ban the sale of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Eleven states have also joined California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the 2035 deadline, a reality that has spooked major car companies. Joe Biden's administration approved the plan at the end of his term. Trump, however – a vehement opponent to many of the nation's climate efforts – has vowed to see them reversed. 'California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,' Trump said during his campaign last year. 'I will terminate that.' Newsom on Wednesday cast the battle as a nail in the coffin for the American car industry and decades of public health advancements. 'The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean-air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,' he challenged Republicans in a statement. 'Will you side with China or America?' The Senate's decision may have sweeping effects far beyond the state's borders. Harris said she recently pulled up pictures of what air quality looked like in cities around the country in the 1960s before the Clean Air Act, the seminal environmental law that regulates the nation's air quality, was in effect. She described normal levels of smog in California as blanketing the state similar to the apocalyptic clouds of wildfire smoke that have descended during recent fire seasons. The American Lung Association also found last month that Los Angeles remained the country's smoggiest city for the 25th time in 26 years of tracking, despite decades of improvements in air quality. 'I think we have forgotten about what our air used to look like,' Harris said. 'We take it for granted because it's a policy that's been around for so long we don't really recognize those direct benefits. 'There is still a long way to go, we have not succeeded in fully cleaning up our air yet,' she added. 'These types of policies help ensure we are moving in a positive direction.'
