Retrial for ex-AT&T boss accused of bribing Madigan postponed until next year
The abrupt move came as the parties met for a pretrial conference before U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in advance of La Schiazza's retrial, which had been set for June 3.
Instead, Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Chapman advised the judge that both sides were in agreement that the trial should be delayed at least until fall, in large part to give prosecutors 'more time to consider our position, especially with our new U.S. attorney (Andrew Boutros) coming on board.'
'He's basically drinking from a firehose right now in the first few weeks since his arrival,' Chapman said.
La Schiazza's attorney, Tinos Diamantatos, said he was in agreement with the delay.
The move would also avoid any conflict with Madigan's sentencing, which is currently set for June 13 before U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey. The jury in Madigan's case deadlocked in February on the lone charge related to La Schiazza, but convicted the former Democratic speaker on host of other corruption charges involving a similar bribery scheme by ComEd.
Gettleman noted that having both proceedings unfolding at the same time 'was a real concern' and that he'd already been considering moving the start of La Schiazza's trial until after Madigan's sentencing was complete.
Also Thursday, Gettleman said Thursday he's still considering a revamp of the jury instructions in La Schiazza's case, which, like many bribery-related cases, are in flux after the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar in a ruling last year on what prosecutors have to prove.
'I think we've seen juries hang lately — including ours– because these instructions are terribly confusing,' Gettleman said. '…I don't want another hung jury. And I don't think anybody does. I want these to be as plain as possible'
In the end, Gettleman settled on a new trial date for La Schiazza for Jan. 22, 2026.
'Well, I guess that's all we do today,' he told both sides 'Have a nice June, I guess. Find something else to do.'
La Schiazza, 67, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiracy, federal program bribery and using a facility in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity.
The charges alleged La Schiazza agreed in 2017 to pay $2,500 a month to former state Rep. Edward Acevedo, Madigan's onetime assistant majority leader, through the lobbying firm of longtime Madigan political aide Tom Cullen.
In exchange for the payments, the speaker helped shepherd AT&T's bill ending mandated landline service through the General Assembly, giving La Schiazza a career notch on his belt and saving the telecommunications giant millions of dollars, according to prosecutors.
La Schiazza's attorneys argued it was nothing more than legal lobbying, and that there was no evidence that Acevedo's hiring was tied to any official action by Madigan.
The trial in September was seen as a sort of litmus test for prosecutors in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision last June that the federal 666 bribery statute required an advance agreement by both sides to exchange an official act for something of value, rather than a 'gratuity' given after the fact.
After a weeklong trial, including three days of deliberation, Gettleman declared a mistrial when the jury announced it had deadlocked. The panel was overwhelmingly leaning toward a conviction, juror Jocelyn Duran told the Tribune, but a lone holdout was not convinced and said there was nothing that could change their mind.
One juror who stayed behind to talk to lawyers in the case in open court, a 62-year-old man from Naperville, told the defense panel that the discussions bogged down over whether there had been an 'exchange' between La Schiazza and Madigan and if La Schiazza knew that it was improper.
'We really struggled with (La Schiazza's) intent,' he said.
Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted on 10 of 23 counts, including one count of conspiracy related to a multipronged scheme to accept and solicit bribes from utility giant Commonwealth Edison. Jurors also convicted him on two counts of bribery and one Travel Act violation related to payments funneled to Madigan associates for do-nothing ComEd subcontracts.
Madigan also was convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board.
But the jury's final verdict was mixed, deadlocking on several counts — including the AT&T related count and the marquee racketeering conspiracy charge — and acquitting Madigan on numerous others. Jurors also deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant, Michael McClain.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Texas Democrat Refuses To Leave Capitol Overnight in Redistricting Standoff
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. A House Democrat has refused to leave the Texas Capitol overnight to protest the latest Republican move in the ongoing redistricting standoff. State representative Nicole Collier has said she will stay in the building until Wednesday to protest a Republican requirement forcing Democrats who fled the state to have police escorts to and from the House to ensure they turn up to vote. Why It Matters Earlier this month, Collier and 50 other Texas Democrats traveled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts to stop a vote on a new redistricted map, drawn up by the Republican Party and thought to favor the GOP's chances in upcoming elections. The Democrats accused the GOP of gerrymandering, and the GOP in turn called out the Democrats for disrupting the passage of legislation. After two weeks of fighting, which included legal threats and the issuing of arrest warrants, the Democrats returned to the House for a session that ended without a vote on the redistricting bill. A plainclothes state trooper, center, shadows Texas state Representative Toni Rose as she shows her permission slip to the media and prepares to leave the House Chamber in Austin, Texas, on August 18. A plainclothes state trooper, center, shadows Texas state Representative Toni Rose as she shows her permission slip to the media and prepares to leave the House Chamber in Austin, Texas, on August 18. AP Photo/Eric Gay What To Know Upon Democrats' return to the state Capitol, speaker Dustin Burrows said they could leave the House floor only with written permission and if they agreed to be under the custody of a law enforcement officer until the House's next meeting on Wednesday. Collier refused to participate in this arrangement and was not allowed to leave the House floor without an escort. On X, an account for the Texas House Democratic Caucus began a livestream on Monday night showing Collier in the House. Representative Gene Wu, the chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, posted a photo on X showing food items Collier had with her, which included dried peaches, popcorn and instant noodles. Thank you for all who are watching the @TexasHDC livestream. @NicoleCollier95 & I have snacks! For those asking, the livestream does not have audio. #txlege — Gene Wu (@GeneforTexas) August 19, 2025 What People Are Saying State representative Nicole Collier said in a statement: "I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts." U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, wrote on social media: "As a former Texas State Rep, let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous. Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' & take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure. That's some old Jim Crow playbook." She added: "Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds." Representative Gene Wu, the chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement: "We killed the corrupt special session, withstood unprecedented surveillance and intimidation and rallied Democrats nationwide to join this existential fight for fair representation—reshaping the entire 2026 landscape." Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas NAACP, said in a statement: "The quorum was made, so her constitutional action in representing her district cannot now provide the basis for her detention." Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows said: "Members who have not been present until today, for whom arrest warrants were issued, will be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated DPS officer appointment." What Happens Next As Texas' redistricting plans proceed, similar measures are brewing in other Republican states. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a dispute over redistricting in Louisiana and earlier this year overturned a lower court decision that ruled South Carolina's congressional map was unconstitutional. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has said he will retaliate against Republican redistricting efforts by redistricting the Golden State to favor his party.
Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting move isn't pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier
King Gavin is at it again! That's the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Trump-driven redistricting. The president 'doesn't play by a different set of rules — he doesn't believe in the rules,' the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. 'And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. ... We have got to meet fire with fire.' California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu. 'An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!' whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state's rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County. The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a 'MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION' (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said 'Newscum' was giving 'a giant middle finger to every Californian.' Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census. Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom's so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, 'F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.' I'm not fully convinced that Newsom's plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing. I also don't discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week. If Californians reject Newsom's plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation. For now, though, I'm going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy? Where were they during Trump's fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media? Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden's 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump's Big Bloated Bill, even though it's expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating? We're supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps? Pot, meet black hole. If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would 'stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.' That's an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley's bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can't you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place? We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don't believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make 'Los Angeles a safer place, since we won't have politicians that'll do that, we do that ourselves.' The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as 'an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.' Newsom is not everyone's cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution's redistricting section and assuring us it's OK, because he's the one doing it, is discomfiting. But you know what's worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love. History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom's attempts to counter that scourge.
