Read Online A Just Cause by Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki
Ads: Link
is evidence that various federal felonies are being committed,â he said (565). Scullyâs testimony accomplished the committeeâs intent: to establish that the wiretaps had been installed only after thorough review and approval by a federal judge and that the recordings had been obtained based on probable cause.
There was little Genson could do to challenge the validity of Scullyâs remarks. Instead, he attempted to use the witness to his advantage. He lauded Scullyâs experience and cited the many awards that Scully had received during his career with the Department of Justice. He asked Scully a series of questions concerning wiretap procedures, not to probe but to solicit affirmation and show that he and the witness were in agreement. Then Genson turned the questioning to the Blagojevich case. Scully confirmed that he had played no part in the preparation of the documents necessary to install the wiretap, had not read the application, and therefore never made a judgment as to the existence of probable cause.
Genson then asked if Scully knew whether the governorâs defense counsel had been given the affidavits used in the Blagojevich case, eliciting an immediate objection from Jim Durkin. Durkin did not know the objective of the lawyerâs question, but he was not going to provide the shrewd Genson any latitude. He objected because the question was not relevant and the witness had already stated that he had no knowledge of the Blagojevich case. Genson disagreed and continued by reading a section of a federal statute regarding the restrictions on the use of wiretaps. The lawyer was challenging the use of the wiretaps by the investigative committee and perhaps looking toward the eventual trial. He was attempting to use Scullyâs reputation and prestige to support his claims, but Currie and the committee stopped him. Calling his questions and statements irrelevant, and saying they exceeded the limits of clarification, Currie informed Genson that the committee would be happy to accept the statute he cited or any statistics he may wish to present to the committee, but his line of questioning was inappropriate.
The committee next swore in Matt Brown, executive director of the Procurement Policy Board (PPB) from its creation in 1998, and Ed Bedore, a member of the PPB since its founding, as witnesses for the prosecution. As members of the PPB, which has oversight over the stateâs procurement process, Brown and Bedore could provide intimate details about highly suspicious activities of CMS in the award of contracts and leases since Blagojevich had taken office in 2003. The audit of CMS published in 2005 provided circumstantial evidence of administrative wrongdoing, but the committee needed solid evidence. The legislature was well aware of the problems the PPB and Brown were having dealing with CMS and the Blagojevich administration. Jack Franks had been investigating the procurement deficiencies since Blagojevich had taken office and on several occasions had engaged in verbal altercations with CMS personnel and had publicly criticized the governor. Lou Lang had kept in touch with Matt Brown concerning his ongoing problems with CMS.
The committee had informed Brown and Bedore beforehand what it wanted them to discuss in their testimony. Hoping for tangible evidence, the committee had asked the witnesses to elaborate on sole source contracts where CMS or departments determined that the vendor was the only qualified supplier, cases where state leases had expired but the state continued to occupy the property (holdover leases), standards for leasing and building improvements, and the stateâs conducting of business with offshore companies that paid no federal or state tax. The committee was focused; the areas selected had been the subject of investigations by Jack Franks and his State Government Administration Committee and had long been sources of controversy between the governor and the
There was little Genson could do to challenge the validity of Scullyâs remarks. Instead, he attempted to use the witness to his advantage. He lauded Scullyâs experience and cited the many awards that Scully had received during his career with the Department of Justice. He asked Scully a series of questions concerning wiretap procedures, not to probe but to solicit affirmation and show that he and the witness were in agreement. Then Genson turned the questioning to the Blagojevich case. Scully confirmed that he had played no part in the preparation of the documents necessary to install the wiretap, had not read the application, and therefore never made a judgment as to the existence of probable cause.
Genson then asked if Scully knew whether the governorâs defense counsel had been given the affidavits used in the Blagojevich case, eliciting an immediate objection from Jim Durkin. Durkin did not know the objective of the lawyerâs question, but he was not going to provide the shrewd Genson any latitude. He objected because the question was not relevant and the witness had already stated that he had no knowledge of the Blagojevich case. Genson disagreed and continued by reading a section of a federal statute regarding the restrictions on the use of wiretaps. The lawyer was challenging the use of the wiretaps by the investigative committee and perhaps looking toward the eventual trial. He was attempting to use Scullyâs reputation and prestige to support his claims, but Currie and the committee stopped him. Calling his questions and statements irrelevant, and saying they exceeded the limits of clarification, Currie informed Genson that the committee would be happy to accept the statute he cited or any statistics he may wish to present to the committee, but his line of questioning was inappropriate.
The committee next swore in Matt Brown, executive director of the Procurement Policy Board (PPB) from its creation in 1998, and Ed Bedore, a member of the PPB since its founding, as witnesses for the prosecution. As members of the PPB, which has oversight over the stateâs procurement process, Brown and Bedore could provide intimate details about highly suspicious activities of CMS in the award of contracts and leases since Blagojevich had taken office in 2003. The audit of CMS published in 2005 provided circumstantial evidence of administrative wrongdoing, but the committee needed solid evidence. The legislature was well aware of the problems the PPB and Brown were having dealing with CMS and the Blagojevich administration. Jack Franks had been investigating the procurement deficiencies since Blagojevich had taken office and on several occasions had engaged in verbal altercations with CMS personnel and had publicly criticized the governor. Lou Lang had kept in touch with Matt Brown concerning his ongoing problems with CMS.
The committee had informed Brown and Bedore beforehand what it wanted them to discuss in their testimony. Hoping for tangible evidence, the committee had asked the witnesses to elaborate on sole source contracts where CMS or departments determined that the vendor was the only qualified supplier, cases where state leases had expired but the state continued to occupy the property (holdover leases), standards for leasing and building improvements, and the stateâs conducting of business with offshore companies that paid no federal or state tax. The committee was focused; the areas selected had been the subject of investigations by Jack Franks and his State Government Administration Committee and had long been sources of controversy between the governor and the
Similar Books
