In response to the Sept. 24 editorial “Guilty, and not so guilty,” we would like to clarify some facts from the corruption trial of former Chicago Water Commissioner John Bolden. We fully accept the jury’s verdict, but we disagree with the Tribune’s conclusions that the government’s investigation was flawed by overzealousness.
The undisputed evidence at trial showed that in summer 1995, Ald. Allan Streeter, who for the previous two years had been extorting an undercover FBI agent, suggested the agent could get Water Department trucking assignments from Mr. Bolden. When asked whether Mr. Bolden was a “player,” Ald. Streeter replied that Bolden was “us,” meaning corrupt. When Ald. Streeter first spoke of Mr. Bolden, he already had introduced the agent to numerous public officials whom he indicated were corrupt and would be interested in taking bribes. Among them were former Ald. Ambrosio Medrano and Ald. Jesse Evans, both of whom accepted numerous bribes and stand convicted.
Faced with this credible evidence that Bolden was corrupt, the government had two options: Ignore the evidence or attempt to corroborate the information. We chose the latter.
The evidence at trial showed the government was exceptionally cautious in pursuing its undercover operation toward Mr. Bolden. The agent asked Ald. Streeter to talk to Mr. Bolden privately to determine whether he was interested in accepting bribes. The agent repeatedly told the alderman that Mr. Bolden should not attend a corrupt meeting if he wasn’t interested in bribes and that Ald. Streeter certainly should not push, pressure or force him to attend. When Mr. Bolden appeared at the first meeting, the agent made a corrupt proposal to him, stating he didn’t want to do anything that would make Mr. Bolden feel “uncomfortable.” Mr. Bolden responded that he was “not the least bit uncomfortable” and that he “understood.” Subsequently, the agent twice offered Mr. Bolden $1,000, which he accepted both times.
The government has an obligation to investigate allegations regarding corrupt officials, particularly when the source of the information is himself corrupt and has provided credible information about other corrupt officials in the past. Failing to do so would invite, and merit, even worse criticism.
We are pleased that the Tribune recognized the important public service that Operation Silver Shovel has played in exposing corruption. We believe the public has zero tolerance for corrupt officeholders, and we intend to continue using our resources to eliminate corruption wherever possible. Neither the public nor law enforcement is served if we fail to meet our important responsibility and obligation to seek justice.
