Will Foxx wind up paying politically for her attempt to do the “right” thing?

The Chicago Tribune gave us a disclosure this week with regards to the criminal charges eventually dismissed against actor Jussie Smollett – hinting that it was an act of legal overkill by officials to seek 16 criminal counts against him for his alleged “lies” to police about a racially-motivated attack against himself.

FOXX: Two-day gaffe becomes lifelong screwup

The newspaper managed to get ahold of text messages within the Cook County state’s attorney’s office – and found a message from State’s Attorney Kim Foxx herself.

ONE THAT SAID Foxx thought Smollett was just a “washed up celeb who lied to cops,” and that, “when people accuse us of overcharging cases, … 16 counts on a class 4 (felony, the least severe type) becomes exhibit A.”

Implying that Foxx, in her own mind, thinks she’s protecting the public from legal overkill – prosecutorial-types wanting to lock up everybody in sight they can get ahold of.

There’s just one problem with this line of logic – and it applies even if you fully buy into the notion that Smollett was being victimized by law enforcement-types in this whole matter; which ties back to a January incident where the actor filed a complaint with police saying he was the victim of an assault with racial overtones.

As though he, as both a black and gay man, was the one being persecuted – first by two bigoted thugs (who supposedly put a noose around his neck while telling him “This is MAGA Country”), then by cops and prosecutors who were eager to make him out to be the criminal.

IT WAS ONE of the first rules I had pumped into my head over and over back in the days when I was a cop-type reporter for the old City News Bureau. Police DON’T file criminal charges against people.

Prosecutors do!

Police make arrests, and their investigations provide the basis for the state’s attorney to file criminal charges against people. But there are cases when police arrest someone, and the resulting charges don’t match up with the severity that police think is warranted.

So if this really was a case where Smollett was grossly overcharged, it was Foxx’ own staff that did the overcharging.

THIS MAY BE the biggest reason why it is absurd that the criminal case against Smollett was closed and the records sealed. Because the lack of information creates so much uncertainty about what is really going on.

Personally, I have no problem in believing that the charges had to be dropped because of some legal error that would have made getting a criminal conviction that would stand up under legal appeals impossible to obtain.

But if what we’re learning from text messages is true, it was the state’s attorney’s office itself that seriously screwed up. Which makes all the secrecy nothing more than a matter of covering up the ineptitude of the state’s attorney’s office.

The problem, however, is that some people want to believe the criminal case – which to me always stunk!

YES, THE IDEA of a racial attack that included the rhetoric implying this Age of Trump was to blame was just TOO perfect to be believable. Truth usually isn’t that clean or perfectly set up. I can comprehend why police heard the story early on and thought it was worthy of closer inspection.

But this whole affair would have a better chance of dying down if prosecutors had admitted it was their own overkill. We’d have had a day or two of taking pot shots at Kim Foxx’ reputation, then we’d get bored and move on to the next so-called controversy.

Instead, this issue is going to linger and there will be people determined to use it against Foxx when she seeks re-election in 2020. It may well become the lede of her obituary when the day comes that her life’s legacy needs to be written. Foxx, who botched Smollett investigation, dies, it will read. Or something like that!

Of course, the real issue is that many people are offended that Smollett gets off without prosecution. As though real justice would have been served by allowing an overkill of legality to proceed. And Foxx, who may really believe she was trying to do the “right” thing, winds up getting taken down as a result.

  -30-

It’s nice to see how common the idea of females in government has become

I didn’t realize what I was doing until after I cast my ballot at an early voting center for next week’s primary election – I picked women for the nominations for the three government posts that have serious challengers.

DUCKWORTH: Send her to Senate

As I previously wrote, I finally overcame my reluctance to get enthused about the Hillary R. Clinton presidential dreams enough to vote for her.

WHILE ALSO GIVING my support in the U.S. Senate primary to Tammy Duckworth to challenge Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., in the November general election. And also casting a primary vote for Anita Alvarez to keep her political post for Cook County state’s attorney.

Not that it was some sort of unique pick – in the state’s attorney Democratic primary, all of the choices were women. I’m sure there already will be people ready to lambast me for not preferring Kim Foxx or Donna More for the post.

While for the U.S. Senate, I could also have considered Andrea Zopp. Only Hillary didn’t have other women running against her, and I just couldn’t seriously think of  casting a ballot for Willie Wilson – he of the failed mayoral bid and likely to be equally unsuccessful for president next Tuesday.

But it feels like evidence of the continued evolution of our political structure that the three political posts for which there were serious choices to make (all of the others in my South Side district were people running unopposed, or just against token challengers) wound up producing so many female challengers.

NOW I KNOW there probably will be some people who won’t want to acknowledge this as anything significant. Perhaps they want to believe gender shouldn’t be a factor.

Although I’d argue it is people who think that way who truly are the problem. Because it’s as though they fantasize about a day when women don’t get elected any longer and we can go back to the days of all-male officials who don’t have to take into account the concerns of other types of people.

ALVAREZ: Not perfect, but who is?

In short, the people who are the bulk of the voters who have given Republican Donald Trump many of his primary election and caucus victories thus far.

We aren’t anywhere near the point where gender (or ethnicity or race) isn’t relevant. So I find it worth noting that my own ballot wound up producing so many potential female nominees for the Democratic ballot.

THEN AGAIN, I’M also not young enough to be of an age that would think the presence of women in government is routine.

I was in high school back when Jane Byrne won the Chicago mayoral election – the one we now regard as largely a fluke of the weather and a government official’s inability to control the situation.

CLINTON: Can she trump Trump?

While my first ballot cast in the 1984 election cycle was the one that gave us Geraldine Ferraro as a vice-presidential candidate (a move we now remember as presidential hopeful Walter Mondale’s act of desperation in his failed bid to defeat incumbent Ronald Reagan.

Even as recently as the 1998 election cycle when Illinois got its first female lieutenant governor (remember Corinne Wood?), many political-watchers joked that the accomplishment was only achieved because she ran against Mary Lou Kearns for the Democrats.

SO BEING ABLE to so easily cast a ballot with such a strong female presence felt, to me, like something significant – and perhaps a blow against those voters who probably think they’re saving us from “those broads” when they vote against them.

Honestly, I think I picked the best candidates on the Democratic ballot (although I expect serious challenges to my choice for state’s attorney), even though I’ll admit that when it comes to all of those judicial candidates, sometimes I’ll deliberately vote for the female.

Just to counter the people who seriously think it makes sense to vote for anyone with an “O’” or a “Mc” or anything else Irish-sounding who happens to appear on their ballot.

  -30-

Foxx wants us to not look behind the curtain w/ Preckwinkle standing behind

I found it interesting to learn of the new campaign advertising spot for state’s attorney hopeful Kim Foxx that tries to emphasize her independence.

The new spot tells us of how she experienced first-hand as a child the mean streets of the old Cabrini-Green public housing complex, and makes us think that she identifies with the problems of the segment of our electorate most offended by the behavior of incumbent State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez.

YET THAT ADVERTISEMENT was something I first saw included in a Thursday morning e-mail message from Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle – the woman for whom Foxx worked most recently as her chief of staff.

There are those people who want to believe that the Foxx campaign is merely a tool by which Preckwinkle is trying to assert her own authority over other governmental units.

The combination of the concepts of independence and political ties seems to me to be a strange one, particularly since the Preckwinkle e-mail (officially from the Preckwinkle for President electoral committee) is a fund-raising pitch.

A ploy for us to make contributions of $5, $10 or $25 to the Foxx campaign fund, so as to allow Kim to have “the resources to fight back against these attacks.”

WITH THE ATTACKS being those people determined to point out every potential flaw of the Preckwinkle administration in charge of the Cook County Board, then claim it’s all Foxx’ fault since she was in charge of running Preckwinkle’s county government staff during much of that time period.

How truly independent is Kim Foxx ...

“Kim Foxx’ opponents are trying to discredit our efforts to transform Cook County government,” Preckwinkle wrote in her Foxx fundraising pitch.

So for all the efforts to claim that Kim Foxx is her own woman, she’s going to be clung to by the Preckwinkle people who see that any attacks on her are also going to be blows to themselves.

I’m sure Toni Preckwinkle doesn’t want her own future governance being hindered by the politicking that will take place during the next month over who gets the Democratic nomination for Cook County state’s attorney.

SO SHE THROWS in the appeal for small-scale donations, which is what some political people like to use so they can create the impression that they’re not tied to corporate and other big-money interests.

... from her former boss?

Of course, all those $5 contributions can add up, and potentially into sums that sway the bigger-money people into taking a candidate serious enough that they wind up kicking in their money too.

All too often, those interests want to throw out their money to as many potential candidates as possible – so they can claim they backed “da winner” regardless of which candidate actually wins.

Insofar as Foxx’ actual commercial spot is concerned, it tells us how violence and pleas for help “they’re still here” in urban communities where the issue of violence being caused by the police is not some fantasy too ridiculous to take seriously. Whether that’s enough to get a majority to vote for Foxx, rather than just turn her campaign into the preference of the third of the Chicago population that is African-American, has yet to be seen.

HOW THIS SPOT will play among the electorate and make them want to actually vote (rather than being turned off by whichever nitwit candidates remain in the presidential field by the time the March 15 primary comes along) will be determined.

 

PFANNKUCHE: Takes on Dem winner come Nov.

Although I wonder if there will be even less interest come the November general election when the eventual Democratic nominee claims the right to challenge Republican Christopher E.K. Pfannkuche in the November general election.

Who, you might ask? I must confess that the only reason I know the name is because I remember him prosecuting cases I wrote stories about back when I was a reporter-type person at the Criminal Courts Building for the City News Bureau of old.

Even then, what I most remember about him was that he liked to be identified in copy with his middle initials, but would never actually tell me what they stood for. Maybe by the time November rolls around, I’ll finally learn the answer to that question.

  -30-

Will Dems follow orders, back Foxx?

The Cook County Democratic Party put the word out Thursday – loyal Democrats are supposed to back Kim Foxx’ bid to be the new state’s attorney.

FOXX: The official choice of Dem party

With the party deciding to slate her bid over that of incumbent State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and challenger Donna More, it means that the political operatives in charge of getting people to actually turn out and vote for Democrats on March 15 will be under orders to stress votes for Foxx.

OR, IF THEY happen to be among those people who just can’t bring themselves to vote for the woman who was once chief of staff to county board President Toni Preckwinkle, they will be under orders to keep their mouths shut and do nothing to interfere with Foxx’ campaign operations.

Personally, I remain unsure how the election for a new state’s attorney this year will turn out.

I don’t doubt that people upset by incidents involving police violence against black people will be in place, and there will be some people more than willing to see incumbent Alvarez go as punishment for the fact it took her office about a full year to decide to prosecute the Chicago cop who shot Laquan McDonald to death.

Even those who I’m sure want to protect the interests of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Sacrifice Anita, but keep Rahm!

BUT THE FACT is that Foxx will not be in a head-to-head political fight against Alvarez come the Democratic primary. More, a one-time federal prosecutor who also has been involved with the Illinois Gaming Board, has her own share of supporters.

The overly-simplistic way of viewing this fight is to say Foxx will dominate the South Side and suburbs where significant numbers of African-American people live (she is a resident of suburban Flossmoor), while More will be the preferred opposition to Alvarez for North Side and suburban voters who are overwhelmingly white.

PRECKWINKLE: Will she decide election?

Which could result in a split that gives Alvarez just enough voters to win a three-way fight.

So what does this decision to slate Foxx really mean?

IF IT IS a factor in getting North Side and suburban political types to get on board with the program for Foxx, it could be significant. It could be what enables her share of the vote to top Alvarez – particularly if it drives More’s campaign into irrelevancy.

But the one thing I have learned about being around political people is their talk in public often does not match their actions.

RAUNER: Will ties help, or hurt, More?

I could very easily envision a whole batch of whispering taking place up north that enables More to keep getting voter support – even though publicly the officials will claim they’re going along with the political party’s pick on Thursday.

For all I know, the fact that More has a record of financial ties (as in campaign contributions) to Gov. Bruce Rauner could wind up being a boost for herself – even though I’m sure both Alvarez and Foxx will go out of their way to make More out to be the governor’s lackey because of it.

IN SHORT, I remain confused about how this particular election will turn out – and remain convinced that the race for Cook County state’s attorney will be the prime campaign at stake on March 15.

ALVAREZ: Any love for Anita these days?

U.S. president? Forget it! Who really cares which of those clowns running in both major party’s political primaries manages to take Illinois voter supports? Just a bit more evidence of the overly-local tendencies Chicago and suburban voters tend to have when it comes time to walk into the voting booth on Election Day!

And one that could provide yet another anecdotal story about how the political parties just don’t mean as much these days as they did in the days of “the Machine” when “Boss Daley” could bark orders at who should get elected to office.

Somehow, I don’t think Preckwinkle has the same boss-like tendencies.

  -30-

EXTRA: Could racial split boost Anita?

It was a common theme I read expressed on the Internet on Wednesday; Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez is despicable because it took her office two years to figure out that a cop who hit a handcuffed suspect warranted criminal charges.

Will suburban incident ...

I saw countless people use this incident to claim it as all the more evidence of why we should dump Alvarez when we get the chance come the March 15 Democratic primary.

BUT THERE ALSO was another common theme I noticed, and it is the reason I wonder if we’re going to have a whole mess of peeved voters come March 16 who are going to say they voted against Anita, only to have her get re-nominated.

... impact state's attorney's election?

For there are two challengers to Alvarez for the Democratic nomination for state’s attorney – and this threatens to become a campaign with a racial split that could see Anita get more votes than either; even if not enough to claim a voter majority.

There are some people who say Alvarez’ incompetence is all the evidence we need to justify a vote for Donna More. She seems to have some political people of electoral influence on her side, and prominent criminal attorney Sam Adams, Jr., came out publicly in her favor.

ALVAREZ: Benefits of incumbency

Yet there are other political people of an African-American racial flavor who seem to be equally vociferous in claiming that Alvarez’ incompetence is all the evidence we need to justify a vote for Kim Foxx.

FOXX IS A former chief of staff to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who is the big cheese giving her political backing enough to think seriously of running.

FOXX: Is Preckwinkle backing enough?

While More is a former assistant state’s attorney and prosecutor herself who can claim the potential financial support of Gov. Bruce Rauner and the other wealthy people who backed his campaign.

In short, she could have the kind of money that allows her to be competitive.

MORE: Could she be the North Side's favorite?

While I have heard some observations (which are predictable) that Foxx’ political reach doesn’t extend beyond the South and West side neighborhoods in Chicago, and perhaps those southern suburbs (Foxx herself lives these days in suburban Flossmoor) that have majority African-American populations.

THIS COULD BECOME the election where all the white people who want to dump Anita Alvarez go for More, while all the black people pick Foxx.

As for the Latino segment of the electorate, nobody is going to dominate them. Not even Alvarez, whose own background as a career prosecutor in the state’s attorney’s office who gained the top post in the 2008 election cycle makes the more activist of Latino voters suspicious.

It really could turn out that if one candidate cannot ultimately dominate the Alvarez opposition (I don’t doubt that many people upset over the death of Laquan McDonald blame her even more than they blame Mayor Rahm Emanuel), the challengers could split about 65 percent while Anita could wind up winning with about 35 percent of the vote.

And the fact that a videotape exists of suburban Lynwood police officer Brandin Frederickson cold-cocking a criminal suspect in cuffs inside the police station won’t matter all that much.

  -30-

No matter how unpopular, can anyone put up a serious challenge to Alvarez for state’s attorney this year?

I don’t doubt that some people are outraged at Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and not just because it seems her office took way too long to decide to prosecute the shooting death of a black teenager by a white Chicago cop that some want to view as an open-and-shut case.

But I still wonder if Alvarez’ chances of political survival are based on the idea that all the people who can’t stand her won’t be able to unite behind a single challenger.

BECAUSE AS OF now, there are two people saying they’ll run against her in the March election for the Democratic nomination for state’s attorney.

We have Kim Foxx, whom it seems is the preference of Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, and Donna More, herself a career prosecutor and part of the legal community.

I found it amusing to learn of a Public Policy Polling poll this week that actually had Alvarez with 33 percent voter support in the lead.

It placed Foxx in second place with 24 percent, and More with 11 percent at this point in time.

ACTUALLY, I SHOULD write that Foxx is in third place, because “undecided” was actually in second place 32 percent. Which is understandable – it’s early. How many rational people have given any thought to the March primary elections?

Only the political geeks (such as myself) who can’t comprehend that real people have lives and won’t give much thought to down-ballot races for another couple of months.

It’s always possible that a Foxx/More brawl could wind up splitting people so much that the people who always are inclined to back an incumbent could be just enough to win this election.

Particularly if it is true what I hear that More has the potential to tap into wealthy contributors and have the campaign fund that could allow her to be competitive. We probably shouldn’t presume that it would be “Foxx” finishing in second place in this election cycle.

ALTHOUGH IT’S ALSO possible that some of those contributors could come back to bite More in the behind. She’s already drawing criticism for the fact that she was one of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s financial supporters in the 2014 gubernatorial election cycle.

Making some say her claims of being a Democratic partisan are nothing but a crock if she was one of the people who “sold out” Pat Quinn to give us the current governor and the budget stalemate that makes Illinois government the peak of our political foolishness these days.

But I’m not ruling her out, because I don’t doubt some of those people who were itching for a political statement would view More as providing a shakeup similar to what Rauner thinks he’s doing at the state government level.

Then again, maybe Foxx will be the second place finisher and More will wind up being the person who deprives her of enough Alvarez opposition votes to actually be capable of winning the election.

OF COURSE, IT’S still early. It’s 90 or so days to March 15 and the primary that probably will be dominated by thoughts of presidential hopefuls. There still is time for both Foxx and More to fall into the political trap of saying something stupid that gets exaggerated into a major scandal that allegedly shows up unfit either woman is for public office.

Not that I expect Alvarez’ perception to change. I suspect the people who always were opposed to her will remain so, and there’s nothing she can do to improve. She just has to avoid sinking herself lower than she already is.

Because she’s not that far from “36 percent.” That’s the level of support that Harold Washington got in the 1983 primary for mayor. A majority of Chicagoans that time around desperately wanted – for whatever reason – either Jane Byrne or Richard M. Daley.

While I’m not comparing Anita to Harold, let’s be honest. This primary could become a brawl between Foxx and More that winds up maintaining the status quo.

  -30-

EXTRA: Who pays politically for death of McDonald at hands of cop?

One of the first pieces of copy I read Wednesday morning was a rant pointing out the great injustice of the death of Laquan McDonald and the fact that no one was charged until this week – the fact that Rahm Emanuel got re-elected as mayor.

ALVAREZ: Will she pay for McDonald death?

For if we had known back in 2014 when the slaying by a police officer (a cop definitely shot McDonald, what is in dispute is criminal intent) actually occurred, the public would have been so outraged that it would have punished Emanuel.

THERE’S NO WAY anyone would have seriously voted for him (except for the nitwits who like the idea of ‘law and order’ being the killing off of people not exactly like themselves).

We’d have “Mayor Chuy” these days. It would be Jesus Garcia having to cope with the partisan nitwit show taking place at the Statehouse in Springfield, and all the other financial problems the city faces these days.

That may be part of the problem. Instead of trying to address the real issue of why a segment of our society has such a serious distrust of law enforcement, we have some people wishing to place political blame.

As in “throw the bum out” on Election Day will seriously solve anything.

SINCE IT ISN’T possible to punish Emanuel (at least not until 2019), now it seems we’re looking for someone else to blame.

That person could well become Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez – who has never really been that popular with the public. She’s too Latina to satisfy the “law and order” types, while she’s a life-long prosecutor – which offends the activist types.

Can Donna More be the one to beat Anita,...

Which makes me wonder if she’s destined to be the “fall guy” (so to speak) for the death of McDonald.

Alvarez has challengers for next year’s Democratic primary (whose winner likely will go on to whomp all over the GOP nominee in November, it’s not like Gov. Bruce Rauner has really created a strong Republican apparatus in Illinois), and they’re likely to use this issue to beat on her.

KIND OF LIKE the way Redd Foxx’ “Fred Sanford” character used to say someone beat up on “Aunt Esther’s face” with an ugly stick. With apologies to LaWanda Page, it wasn’t pretty.

... or could it be Kim Foxx?

Neither will next year’s election cycle.

Already amongst my motley crew of Facebook-type friends are political people touting the merits of Donna More and Kim Foxx (no relation to Redd that I’m aware of).

As it is, More already is using Facebook to be critical of the fact that a criminal indictment didn’t come more quickly. “While I take some solace in the fact that some action was finally taken, why has it taken Anita Alvarez and the state’s attorney’s office 13 months to indict?,” she wrote.

ALTHOUGH I’M WONDERING if it will turn out that having two women challenging Alvarez will mean the opposition vote (the “Anybody But Anitas”) will split and she winds up winning re-election despite the public outcry from people desperate to point to a political loser as the outcome of the whole McDonald affair.

Could Laquan have cost Rahm the post?

Personally, I’d be more concerned about the criminal trial of the officer himself involved in the incident. No criminal case is ever as open-and-shut as some want to believe that Laquan’s death is.

And it would wind up looking ridiculous to our city’s public image if we were to dump Alvarez, only to have the officer in question wind up being acquitted eventually.

  -30-

Law enforcement types the biggest control freaks because they can be

Dealing with police and court officials for the past quarter century has let me know there are varying personalities amongst those who devote their lives to protecting the public safety.

Some have a strong sense of public duty, while a few probably ought to be locked up. And the bulk of them are no more intelligent than the rest of us – even though they’re doing a difficult job that many of us couldn’t handle.

BUT IT DOES create a sense among many that they want to exist in their own world; without the prying eyes of the public monitoring what they do. Just like the Army – which often gives off a sense that they’d like to handle the public by issuing a statement saying war was declared, then issuing a follow-up statement years later saying the war was won!

So a pair of news stories I stumbled across on Friday were not the least bit surprising – the Chicago Tribune reported how police in Fox Lake are upset that the coroner in Lake County, Ill., is giving out details related to the slaying earlier this month of a police lieutenant.

While the Chicago Sun-Times reported how the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is now relying on the grand jury system to handle criminal cases involving firearms, rather than bringing them before a judge for a preliminary hearing.

The latter puts the early stages of prosecution under the control of prosecutors, rather than judges who might find flaws with cases. While the Fox Lake police have tried saying little to nothing about the case, only for reporter-types to wind up getting details from the coroner’s office.

IN THE CASE of the Fox Lake police, they have tried saying they want little information to get out because they supposedly want to have details that only a criminal suspect would know.

So he (or she, I shouldn’t make assumptions) can inadvertently trap him/herself in their own words.

So while the police have said multiple shots were fired in the incident that killed Joseph Gliniewicz, the coroner has said the officer was shot in the torso. Although even the coroner has been hesitant to say much more.

It’s not a flood of lurid detail coming from the coroner, but it is enough that the Fox Lake police felt the need to issue a statement calling the coroner “unprofessional” and “completely irresponsible.”

PROBABLY BECAUSE THE police only want to have to make a statement saying that an arrest has been made – something they haven’t been able to do yet.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the coroner said one reason he has given out as much detail as he did was because of some rumors that had become public. He wanted to correct the record. Is that unprofessional?

Or could it be a police department willing to let the public think nonsense so long as it benefits them. Similar to one story I once covered where authorities claimed to have the suspect on video tape committing an act of vandalism – and it turned out during the bench trial that the video depicted 23 different people doing various things!

Not as specific as police wanted us to think.

OF COURSE, THESE cases get into the court system, where there also are officials who want things done their way, The Chicago Sun-Times said that State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez told her staff earlier this year to take gun cases to grand juries to get indictments – rather than having a judge hold a preliminary hearing.

Such a hearing gives a judge a chance to rule on whether the police were justified in arresting someone – or if the charges before the court are totally bogus. A judge can always be predictable, but grand juries give us that old cliché, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

The state’s attorney’s office told the newspaper that they’re merely trying to be more consistent with the way they handle criminal cases involving firearms. Which sounds noble, particularly since police are interested in creating cases that will wind up with convictions.

A defendant being indicted for a gun offense sounds ominous. Unlike a case being tossed out because a judge decided the evidence to support charges was too weak to take seriously!

  -30-

Have gift cards replaced turkeys as 21st Century preference for buying a vote?

It’s one of the oldest tactics for political people representing less-than-middle-class voters to try to get their electoral support – an aldermanic “gift” whose appreciation is expected to be repaid in the future with a “vote.”

Oftentimes, that gift was a turkey or something else that could be the main course for an upcoming holiday meal. To this day, there are political people who make a point of getting turkeys they can give away to their constituents – in hopes that they get the public recognition of their “generosity.”

SO HAVE ALL those political people been behaving in a criminal manner?

Perhaps, if we’re to take the outrage being expressed against 5^th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston these days, it is.

For Hairston is the alderman who WFLD-TV reports tried encouraging people to show up to vote for the upcoming Election Day by offering up raffle tickets – the prizes for which included gift cards to area businesses.

For all we know, some of those tickets could have been used at area grocery stores to buy items for the holiday meal (Thanksgiving isn’t that far off in the future).

ALTHOUGH THE RAFFLE is on hold, and probably now won’t happen because of the negative publicity Hairston would get – the exact opposite of her intentions.

She tried using a Facebook page promoting herself to tell people how she’d give them a raffle ticket if they showed up at the polling place. WIN A PRIZE FOR YOUR VOTE!!!!! was the theme she was trying to push.

She seems to have thought it would be perceived as Hairston trying to encourage people to do their civic duty and vote on Election Day.

Instead, it seems that people of a certain mindset took it as something amounting to a bribe – as if the raffle ticket was a bribe (or is that BRIBE!!!?!) in exchange for a vote.

ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD be noted that nowhere in the raffle announcement on Facebook were people being told exactly how they should vote. I’m presuming that Hairston figured people living in the South Side’s fifth ward would have enough sense to disregard any consideration for candidates who have an “R” associated with their names.

But the fact that she didn’t try to specifically sway someone to vote for a particular candidate may be the reason she evades some sort of criminal prosecution – although the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday that the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is looking into the whole matter.

The state election code is going to be up for interpretation in coming weeks.

Personally, I’m not bothered as much by her raffle tickets to encourage voting as I am by her attitude since then. When the matter became public, Hairston took the raffle ticket offer off her Facebook page.

IT SEEMS TO be invalid now. And Hairston is telling reporter-type people that she doesn’t want to talk about the issue any more. As though she can make it go away just because she stopped doing it before any serious damage may, or may not, have been done.

Even though I’m fairly sure that law enforcement types aren’t going to be too concerned about the after-effect. It’s the initial act itself that will get them all worked up.

So we’ll have to see in coming months if the state’s attorney winds up concluding that this matter is worth the time, effort and cost it would take to prosecute someone for the act.

Although I’d wonder if the real “offense” is that an alderman thought she could “buy off” votes for the cost of a Walgreen’s gift card. Which shows as little respect for the voter (how cheaply they can be bought) as the turkey-bearing politicos of old.

  -30-

Death to Trotter campaign? More like the butt of tacky jokes in coming months

When I wrote a couple of weeks ago that we ought to start getting used to the idea of “Rep. Donne Trotter, D-Ill.,” it was based off the idea that several Democratic Party officials were saying that they really want him to win the special election.

TROTTER: We'll learn how thick his skin is

And that they were willing to work to get him slated as the preference of the Democratic Party in Cook County. Which would mean that any of the other candidates would have to seriously grasp the attention of the voting public in the Illinois Second Congressional district.

THAT, AND THEY’D have to have the capacity to come up with lots of money to pay for their own campaign.

But now, we have Trotter’s name prominently in the news. He’s definitely getting the most attention of any of the prospective candidates to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. – although for all the wrong reasons.

Trotter, who should have been at the Statehouse in Springfield on Wednesday and Thursday for the veto session, actually was planning to be in Washington, D.C.

Part of it was to attend an event for African-American politicos across the nation. And it seems that he also was going to work his connections to try to raise some of the money he needs if he is to campaign seriously in the special election cycle that runs through April 9.

BUT AS MANY of us know, he never got on the airplane at O’Hare International Airport. He spent Wednesday-into-Thursday in a Chicago Police lockup.

His carry-on bag was found to have a pistol in it, along with a clip loaded with ammunition. He faces charges in Cook County Circuit Court, and bond was set for him at $25,000 on Thursday.

It had some people initially speculating that Trotter is going to prison. He’s going to be a felon. He can’t run for office. So which of the other nothings will manage to come forward.

Of course, much of that speculation was from people who didn’t like the idea of Trotter being considered all-so-dominant to begin with.

THEY WANT TO believe he’s political toast!

Upon learning details, I have to admit that I’m swayed by the fact that Trotter actually has a permit to carry this particular weapon (one he got through connections he has with a security company). That may well be the factor that ultimately gets the current felony charges reduced to something less significant.

Besides, I have known many political people (particularly when it comes to those officials who represent African-American constituencies -- remember Dorothy Tillman?!?) who manage to get some sort of credential that gives them the authority to carry a pistol.

It’s as though they think electoral office includes a firearms permit as one of its perks!

SO THE IDEA that Trotter would feel the need to have a firearm? I’m not shocked.

The part that is shocking is Trotter’s story that he “forgot” he was carrying the weapon. “I forgot” usually doesn’t work as a legal alibi in criminal cases – although I couldn’t help noting that the Capitol Fax newsletter looked up the relevant criminal statute and found that prosecutors will have to prove that Trotter “knowingly (had) in his or her possession any firearm …”

“I forgot,” combined with that legal permit, may well get him out of any serious trouble.

But there are legal issues, then there is public perception.

AND THAT IS where the Trotter campaign for Congress is going to take a blow – although some of those Democratic Party officials told the Chicago Sun-Times that they’re sticking behind Trotter for the time being.

I’m just waiting to see which candidate is the first to use their precious campaign funds to produce and air a negative ad that bashes Trotter as some sort of gun-toting maniac!

It will be nonsense, but it will be the kind of rhetoric that he’ll have to deal with throughout the campaign. It will be the issue that all the opponents can use against him.

Although noting that some gun rights advocates on Wednesday were defending Trotter, it makes me wonder if he might actually pick up a few votes in those rural parts of the district where local candidates like to talk about “concealed carry” – which this wasn’t because Trotter didn’t have the pistol on his person when it was found by airport security.

UP UNTIL NOW, Trotter’s “trademark,” so to speak, were the bowties that he always wore with his immaculate suits. But we’re going to get a lot of material for bad jokes from the happenings of the past couple of days.

How long until we get the image of Trotter as a bow-tied,  but gun-toting, cowboy walking his way up toward Capitol Hill?

  -30-

Give it a rest, already!

It has been nearly 18 years since the date that I went into the old Stateville Correctional Center to watch a homicide committed in the name of “justice” – as in the execution by lethal injection of John Gacy.

That date was some 16 years after Gacy went from being a respectable citizen who once met first lady Rosalyn Carter (left) and was a clown at children’s parties, to the guy who abducted and killed young men and stuffed their remains in the crawl space of his home.

AND SOME OF those incidents were nearly a decade old by the time police got around to arresting Gacy.

My point? This is an old case, one so old that I question how much of the physical “evidence” remains in a state solid enough to be worth anything to a credible investigation.

So I really have to wonder what the point is in terms of any law enforcement entity thinking that there is more to be found at this late date some two score after the original incidents.

Which is why I was kind of pleased to read the reports on Friday about how the Cook County state’s attorney is refusing to let the county sheriff do some more digging at sites where they think more bodies, more remains or more evidence could be found.

OFFICIALLY, THERE ISN’T enough “probable cause” to believe that anything would be found by such digging.

Although I believe even if they found “something,” it would be so weak that it wouldn’t be worth the effort.

So excuse me for thinking that the idea of continuing to investigate the “crimes” of John Gacy is something amounting to a waste of time. I’d like to think our law enforcement people have more important things to worry about.

Perhaps there are some unsolved cases that could get their attention, rather than delving into a case where the prosecution took place more than three decades ago and where the ultimate punishment has already been served.

DOES ANYONE THINK Gacy will come back to life so he could be put on trial again?

Even if that were physically possible, it’s not like we have a death penalty in this state any longer. And propping up the corpse of John Gacy in a prison cell for eternal incarceration strikes me as being even more incredibly twisted than continued investigation.

Heck, would Gacy corpse tampering qualify for prosecution under the bill being reviewed by the Illinois General Assembly this spring that makes necrophilia a crime? Because it would be corpse tampering!

But let’s get serious.

WE MAY WELL have to accept the fact that we already know all we’re ever going to know about the Gacy crimes. Too much time has passed for us to figure out the remaining unknown details.

Evidence deteriorates with time. Which may well have been the ultimate strategy of William Heirens, the longest-serving Illinois inmate who died earlier this month for a trio of slayings in 1946.

He claimed in recent years that he “didn’t do it” and that he was pressured into making the confession that prosecutors threw in his face every time he sought parole. Perhaps he thought that the fingerprints and lipstick smudges on mirrors didn’t mean as much now that they didn’t physically exist anymore.

If you want the truth, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that someone, someday tries to argue for the innocence of John Gacy himself. Not that I expect anyone of any real sense to buy into it.

BUT I WOULD give such a legal effort about as much credibility as I would any further results found in an investigation into Gacy’s guilt.

DART: Idle time?

Even if the latest effort is being inspired by a now-retired Chicago cop who claims he recalls seeing Gacy once with a shovel digging in a certain area – the area that officials checked in 1998, found nothing of substance, but want to check again.

It all comes off as too much of an effort to get one’s name in the papers (or in the 21^st Century, one’s name all over the Internet search functions).

Does Tom Dart really need any more public attention? Perhaps we should focus our attention on trying to find things for him to do that will keep him busy.

  -30-