Adam B. at Kos has a link to it, and discussion.
Have a look.
________UPDATE________
I put up the links w/o reading the Kos item. AFTER READING -- It's link to discussion of prosecutorial discretion and the dangers of overbroad criminalization of conduct, are worth reading. Also, by focusing on former Illinois GOP Governor George Ryan, and his criminal conviction, the material the Kos post links to shows bipartisanship in official criminal abuse of office in our sister state - indeed, no gap bipartisanism, since Rod B. succeeded Ryan and ran on a reformist agenda.
That Intangible right to "honest services," is it something Norm owed me, which was breached, or was an "honest insurance transaction" blown out of proportion?
My worry, Nasser Kazeminy's company was in offshore drilling services, and Coleman authored this little hummer which talks of his "amendment" that appears to have favored Kazeminy economic intrests, whatever its genesis and aim might be explained to have been. That unpins the meter. Raising doubt and skepticism.
As a means to passing a comprehensive energy bill, my amendment to open access to the OCS [Outer Continental Shelf, offshore "shelf" oil reserves, not too deep and troublesome to reach] while ramping up research on battery technology for plug-in-hybrid vehicles was offered as a compromise. Not only did Democratic leaders block a vote on my amendment, but they went so far as to object to drilling even if gas were to reach $10 a gallon. How high do prices have to get before producing more becomes a viable option?
It looks like Norm offering the Dems some horse trading - help Nasser prosper, and I will favor funding a truly needed thing, which if funded earlier might have yielded plug-in electric autos on the road now, while the battery technological needs stood in the way as stumbling point to achieving that end.
Eric Black published a good analysis of how the Coleman-Hays Companies-Kazeminy onion could easily be unpeeled quickly, layer by layer, if Norm truly wants and the evidence supports prompt public exoneration; with Black's item linked to here.
And that Kos link to 18 U.S.C. § 666, wow, did Norm breach the statute of the Beast? Or, since the one amendment did not pass, was there an attempt? Proving a wrongful intent, where other justification of the offshore drilling suggestion exists, is the problem with alleging Norm misbehaved that way, which is why the unreported gift approach used against Stevens in Alaska might be the better overbroad prosecutorial weapon to be deployed in this situation. To circumstantially prove some wrongful intent behind the amendment there'd probably need to be some disgruntled former staffer with a story to tell along with corroborative telephone traffic around the time that "amendment" was being formulated. With Rod B. it was easy, the FBI had his phone tapped at the operative time. We can only guess at what Norm's past phone traffic might have been, and he's presumed innocent until proven guilty to the satisfaction of a jury - if it ever gets to that.
Does any reader want to argue the discretion prosecutors have is not "overbroad?" There's support for believing that, and it's ultimately a judgment call.