* WTTW…
A “malignant tumor.” A “stage actor.” A “walking crime wave.” That’s how powerful Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s legal team refers to disgraced former Chicago Ald. Danny Solis who sought to “trick” the speaker into discussing illicit arrangements.
Madigan’s defense attorney Dan Collins told jurors Monday that Solis, the longtime 25th Ward alderperson turned government mole, carried out carefully orchestrated productions directed by federal investigators.
“As you evaluate the circumstances,” Collins said, “you’ve got to understand that these are staged circumstances.”
Collins’ remarks came on the fourth day of closing arguments in Madigan’s landmark corruption trial at the Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago.
* Sun-Times…
Collins called on jurors to clear Madigan and again distanced him from McClain. The defense attorney derided McClain as “Mr. Important” and argued that he embellished and exaggerated his influence with Madigan — once writing that he was “at the bridge with my musket” for Madigan’s family.
“Who talks that way?” Collins asked.
But Collins saved his most ferocious rhetoric for Solis, who represented the 25th Ward for more than two decades and rose to become head of the City Council’s Zoning Committee. FBI agents confronted him in June 2016 with evidence of his own wrongdoing, and he agreed to wear a wire against powerful politicians such as Madigan and ex-Ald. Edward M. Burke.
If Solis holds up his end of a deal he struck with prosecutors, Solis is expected to avoid a criminal conviction — and will never face an actual trial. Collins argued Monday that Solis’ “free pass” means jurors can’t trust him.
* Tribune…
But Collins said there were two sides to Solis, and that the one Madigan was reacting to was a lie.
“Between the deal (Solis) struck, his effort to hide things from the government, and then his tax crimes that we discovered in our investigation, you know everything you need to know about Danny Solis and why you can’t trust him, Collins said. “He is not just a walking microphone.”
Solis played on Madigan’s devotion to his family when he framed his request for a state board seat as a way to support his wife and kids, Collins said. Solis in fact had no real desire to be appointed to a state board — he asked Madigan for a recommendation only at the direction of his government handlers.
“If somebody comes and asks for help, Mike, if possible, will help that person,” Collins said, reiterating a frequent phrase from his closings. “(Solis) asked Mike Madigan if he would help. And Mike said ‘yes.’ This is not a scheme, this is not a bribe, this is Mike Madigan saying ‘yes’ when he’s asked for help — and the kicker for Solis is to use family.”
* Center Square…
Regarding former Madigan staffer Will Cousineau’s testimony, Collins said there were inconsistencies.
“He was scared to death up there,” Collins said of Cousineau. “He got himself an immunity deal.”
Collins said it was McClain who claimed he got the Reyes Kurson law firm a lot of business from ComEd over the years, even though firm partner Victor Reyes was a longtime Madigan ally.
“ComEd had a policy of supporting minority businesses,” Collins said.
“That cannot be a thing of value in exchange for official action.”
* Tribune Courts Reporter Jason Meisner…
* Courthouse News Service…
Collins further accused Solis of using dishonesty to implicate Madigan in the Chinatown land transfer episode. Solis, in 2017 and 2018, represented the area of Chinatown where the parking lot is located. Collins claims Madigan only got involved in the land transfer effort because Solis falsely told him that both the local community and the community’s Democratic state Representative Theresa Mah supported it. That effort sputtered in Springfield when it turned out neither claim was true.
As for potential developers Solis pitched to build on the site once Chicago took ownership of it, Collins denied Madigan wanted anything to do with them. He denied the former speaker even asked for an introduction. […]
The defense attorney concluded his presentation by reminding jurors to “see the man” of Mike Madigan, and warning them not to let their cynicism toward politicians fill in what he claimed were evidentiary gaps in the government’s case.
Though Madigan’s closings are now finished, jurors still need to hear closing arguments on behalf of Madigan’s codefendant Mike McClain, and the government’s rebuttal closings, before they begin deliberations.
- Red headed step child - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 9:08 am:
Mike had but a few days left as a free man
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 9:29 am:
So “Mike” Madigan was the longest serving house speaker in the country, and ran the Democratic Party of Illinois for decades, all by letting everyone run around making decisions for him without his knowledge?
If the jury buys that I have a dozen bridges for sale.
- Steve - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 9:36 am:
Calling Danny Solis a walking crime wave really doesn’t help Madigan. Who’s voluntarily associated with Madigan several times at his office on La Salle Street: none other than Mike Madigan. We are supposed to believe one of the most sophisticated politicians doesn’t know who he’s dealing with?? The jury will decide on the evidence on those tapes Solis made of Madigan. If Madigan is convicted it will be because the jury found Madigan’s words on tape, evidence of crimes.
- ElTacoBandito - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 9:42 am:
You almost forget McClain’s on trial too. Is he just slam dunk guilty?
- Rabid - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 9:47 am:
You will be fine, sincerely
- Juice - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:12 am:
Well Excitable Boy, that’s not what the defense is claiming, but you do you.
I had actually worked in the Governor’s office during the period of time where the alleged crimes were committed. And the fact of the matter is that it was always trust but verify with McClain. He often used his relationship with Madigan to try to get what he wanted, whether it was something that was even on Madigan’s radar or not, and some things it was definitely trust but verify. Sometimes he was delivering a message from Madigan, sometimes he wasn’t. But it was not unusual for McClain to puff himself up to try to get people to move on his or his paying clients’ agendas, not Madigan.
- anon2 - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:13 am:
Madigan’s hands aren’t clean. However, I wonder if the jury will be repelled by the smell of entrapment. While what the FBI did may not meet the legal definition of the term, it still may rub some jurors the wrong way to have the Feds send Solis to Madigan to follow the federal script to lure the Speaker into a “quid pro quo,” as Solis described it at the direction of his handlers.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:17 am:
- And the fact of the matter is that it was always trust but verify with McClain. He often used his relationship with Madigan to try to get what he wanted, whether it was something that was even on Madigan’s radar or not -
I got news for you big shot, ComEd was on Madigan’s radar.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:21 am:
I’ve had this feeling all along that this will end in a mistrial and Madigan won’t be re-tried. He’s very well known in Chicago and very old, and my guess is a couple of jurors will refuse to convict.
Not supporting him or ignoring his misdeeds, just have a feeling how this will end upl.
- Beaverbrook - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:28 am:
Having witnessed Mike Madigan at work in Springfield for over 30 years, I would say you have to be pretty naive to think Madigan was not aware of the many schemes that would profit him. The Com Ed case is one of many that would get a politician like Mike in trouble with the law. He was masterful at orchestrating legislation for decades that would benefit his law firm. Will he remain Mr. Teflon? It is time for the jury to decide.
- Juice - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:47 am:
“ComEd was on Madigan’s radar”
Not what I said, but whatever. Again, you do you. Can have a logical comment based on the evidence presented at trial, and facts of issues that have actually occurred in Springfield, or you can just go with your preconceived bias.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 10:58 am:
- or you can just go with your preconceived bias. -
I don’t have any bias for or against Madigan. The defense is trying to portray him as an unwitting victim of these bad actors.
If you use a little common sense and actually review the evidence, especially the wiretaps, that idea falls on its face.
- Payback - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 11:19 am:
“FBI agents confronted him in June 2016 with evidence of his own wrongdoing, and he agreed to wear a wire against powerful politicians such as Madigan and ex-Ald. Edward M. Burke.” It didn’t take much for Solis to fold on the spot when the G-men braced him in his driveway. Best bet is not to “talk to” cops/feds about anything, you might end up like General Flynn if you get a date wrong.
There used to be a great vid on the Gary North website, “A law professor and a policeman on why you should never speak to the police without your lawyer present” or something like that. It was a lecture to a law school class. Everything I learned about investigations was spot on in that video.
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 3:23 pm:
Solis and credibility can not be used in the same sentence without choking…with laughter.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 28, 25 @ 3:38 pm:
I saw a story that included excerpts of Cotter’s summation on McClain’s behalf. I didn’t see this if it’s already been reported, but I assume McClain asked the judge for a directed verdict, claiming the prosecution failed to make its case. I further assume that motion was denied.
Cotter is very good at what he does, but claiming all of this was legal lobbying and politics makes me wonder if he was paying attention during the trial. My guess is, the jurors were paying attention.
If I ever end up at the defense table, I hope I can afford someone like Cotter on my side. Not sure it’ll work, but that’s why we have trials.