A recent poll has found that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has lost considerable support among Chicagoans:
A new poll shows that more than half of Chicago voters believe Mayor Rahm Emanuel should resign amid the fallout from the release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video two weeks ago.
The poll, conducted by Ogden & Fry for the Illinois Observer, asked likely voters three questions about Emanuel concerning job approval and his handling of the McDonald case. A total of 739 people deemed likely to vote next year based on their voter history responded to the Dec. 5 survey.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe that the mayor was lying when he said he hadn’t viewed the video of Laquan McDonald’s killing before it was released to the public. More than two-thirds disapprove of the way the mayor is handling his job. More than half think he should resign.
A group of 100 mostly black clergy members have called for a special prosecutor to investigate McDonald’s shooting:
About 100 clergy members and activists representing Chicago’s black community have called on Gov. Bruce Rauner to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald, but the governor’s office said he has no such authority.
Bishop James Dukes, of the Liberation Christian Center in West Englewood, and other ministers questioned whether Emanuel would have been re-elected had video of McDonald’s death not been kept under wraps until last week, on the same day Officer James Van Dyke was charged with the teen’s murder.
“Many of us have stood in support of him [Emanuel]. What was his involvement? And we feel disenfranchised, and we feel that we’ve been led astray,†he said
The pastors said they feel betrayed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, after the he sought their support for re-election while at the same time he was fighting efforts to release the McDonald video.
It’s hard for me to see what would be accomplished by a special prosecutor unless the express objective is to kick the resolution of the matter safely past the 2016 general elections. There are already at least three investigations and all of them have been ongoing for more than a year. That includes the Department of Justice’s own investigation. If they’ve lost confidence in the Department of Justice, appealing to Gov. Rauner doesn’t seem like an effective move to me.
As far as the Department of Justice’s investigation goes, it seems to me that there’s already a prima facie case for conspiracy. The doctrine that justice delayed is justice denied goes back a long way. It honestly seems to me as though there’s a lack of trust all the way around. When do you engage the judiciary? The legal system consists of more than police officers and attorneys general.
The Illinois State’s Attorney’s Appellate Prosecutor Office has a division which takes referrals from state’s attorneys, particularly when there is a potential conflict of interest. I’ve also seen the office review controversial decisions not to prosecute. (The one that comes to mind is an assistant state’s attorney caught in a drug sting, who was also a federal court judge’s son. The State’s Atty fired the employee, declined to prosecute and referred something to this Office which reviewed the decision)
But the State’s Attorney is a Constitutional Officer, no less than the Governor, and it’s her right and/or obligation to make referrals. I wouldn’t expect this to happen unless there is a perceived conflict.
Hmmm. . .
I think this is the statute:
“Whenever the State’s attorney is sick or absent, or unable to attend, or is interested in any cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, which it is or may be his duty to prosecute or defend, the court in which said cause or proceeding is pending may appoint some competent attorney to prosecute or defend such cause or proceeding, and the attorney so appointed shall have the same power and authority in relation to such cause or proceeding as the State’s attorney would have had if present and attending to the same.”
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=005500050K3-9008
This suggests anybody could go to a court and make the case that the State’s Attorney is interested (has a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest) and get a court-appointed special prosecutor, but I’m skeptical that this can be done without the State’s Attorney’s consent unless the State’s Attorney is unavailable.
It goes back to the point I made: if you don’t trust the CPD, IPRA, the Cook County States Attorney, the State’s attorney, or the Attorney General of the U. S., it seems to me there’s a pretty basic problem. It’s like the line in “The King and I”:
Left unanswered is why they keep endorsing the reelection of all of these people they don’t trust.