The Jackson 2: Common crooks
In the end, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. proved to be nothing more than a crook — another in a long line of common Chicago crooks who have used their power and position not for public service but for self-service. The same goes for Sandi Jackson, his wife and former Chicago alderwoman.
Mr. Jackson, a Democrat of Illinois who gave up his House seat in November after 17 years, has agreed to plead guilty to one federal count of conspiracy. He spent about $750,000 in campaign money for personal gain. That included a $43,350 gold-plated Rolex watch. He also spent more than $9,500 on children's furniture. And he was really big into furs and Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee memorabilia.
Mrs. Jackson, who resigned her public post last month, has agreed to plead guilty to one federal count of filing false joint federal income tax returns from 2006 to 2011. She could — and should — be sentenced to the count's maximum penalty of three years in prison.
Jesse Jr. faces up to five years in the slammer, has to surrender his ill-gotten goods and pay back the three-quarters of a million dollars that he five-fingered from people he snookered into donating to his campaign. He'll likely be stripped of his congressional pension, valued at $45,000. The feds could — and again should — fine these Windy City crooks an additional combined half-million bucks.
Jesse Jackson Jr. invariably is referred to in liberal media circles, still, as one of the nation's leading black politicians devoted to black causes. And that won't change as long as the blind continue to praise the crooked.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.