|
A look at day 2 of the ComEd 4 trial
Friday, Mar 17, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller * Both former Reps. Scott Drury and Carol Sente, who testified for the prosecution yesterday, voted for ComEd’s bill in December of 2018. That bill is the basis for this corruption trial. Madigan didn’t vote either way. But this transcript from September of 2018 sure looks like Madigan was involved with details and Mike McClain was doing his bidding…
This doesn’t prove bribery, of course, but it does show Madigan was involved. …Adding… From an insider…
* The federal government is trying to prove that McClain acted as Madigan’s agent on the ComEd bill, and they have recordings to back up their general argument about McClain’s duties. From Hannah Meisel’s story…
…Adding… The Lang thing does have that vibe…
* From the Tribune…
* Sun-Times…
* ABC7…
Full McClain quote…
* The government is also trying to show the jury the alleged seediness of Illinois politics under Madigan…
* Meanwhile, Madigan’s people monitored every channel, including comments on this website…
Nobody followed Drury because Drury was not in any way collegial. When you spend most of your time at your job lecturing colleagues and grandstanding instead of working with them, you just don’t get too far in life, no matter what profession you’re in. * More on Drury…
1) All chamber leaders in both parties have controlled the appointment of committee members and chairs/spokespersons for longer than I’ve been around, and still do to this day. And the majority chamber leaders still control the legislative flow and schedule. 2) After moving all bills out of Rules to standing committees for two years, the House has now reverted back to the old ways. More here. * Isabel’s coverage roundup… * Tribune: Despite nearly four decades at the helm of Illinois politics, ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan’s voice was rarely heard publicly, outside of an occasional news conference or speech on the House floor. But Madigan’s voice echoed through a Chicago federal courtroom on Thursday as prosecutors played a series of undercover recordings showing how the then-powerful speaker muscled out one of his longtime allies, Lou Lang, to stave off a potentially new sexual harassment scandal. * Crain’s: A series of bombshell recordings, many of which were excerpts of intercepted conversations not disclosed in previous court filings, showed Madigan greatly concerned with getting Lang out of his caucus in 2018 following sexual harassment allegations leveled against Lang earlier that year. * Hannah Meisel: Calls between Madigan and McClain mentioned they’d been informed of the harassment claims against Lang by the former top attorney in the speaker’s office at the time, Heather Wier Vaught. Wier Vaught on Thursday confirmed the existence of those 2018-era harassment claims surrounding Lang. “I don’t dispute that more than one person came forward with allegations against Lou,” she told Capitol News Illinois, noting those individuals whose claims never were made public had a right to privacy. * WGEM: During cross-examination, McClain attorney Pat Cotter said it was understandable that Madigan wouldn’t want “someone in leadership who was at that point facing a second sexual harassment claim.” But Lang declined to acknowledge he was facing harassment claims at the time, employing the line “just because someone says there was an allegation does not make it true.” He especially chafed at Cotter’s later use of the word “charges.” * ABC Chicago: today was about establishing former House Speaker Mike Madigan as the one person during his tenure who could make or break a piece of legislation, wrote the rules that ran the House and would substitute committee members if he knew a particular member was going to vote against his wishes. “I did not expect to lose my chairmanship because I was acting in the best interests of my district,” said Carol Sente, a former State Representative from Vernon Hills who believes she was punished for not supporting bills that were important to Madigan. * NBC Chicago: Scott Drury, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who came to Springfield in hopes of passing legislation to address what he saw as large number of wrongful convictions in his native Lake County, testified that the Illinois House was run by what many called the “Speaker’s Rules.” […] Both former House members described how Madigan would use the rules committee to either bless or kill litigation. * Sun-Times: Other revelations in the trial Thursday included details of the FBI’s approach to ComEd executive Fidel Marquez on Jan. 16, 2019. FBI special agent Ryan McDonald told jurors that he and another agent, dressed in suits, visited Marquez at a family member’s home around 6 a.m. that day. McDonald said they played tapes for Marquez. In one, the agent said Marquez had been caught discussing allies of Madigan who were being paid by ComEd through Doherty’s company. In another, Marquez was allegedly heard discussing efforts by Madigan to install former McPier boss Juan Ochoa on the ComEd board.
|
- Stuck in Celliniland - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 11:34 am:
==Scott Drury, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney
He never described himself as a lowly attorney, always as the “former federal prosecutor.”
- ddp76 - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 11:43 am:
Shoulda bought Scott Drury that clock.
- low level - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 11:56 am:
So the former federal prosecutor testified for federal prosecutors. Wow. What a surprise.
They will hold him up to be some sort of saint without mentioning how disliked he was among Democratic collegues of all stripes as Rich alluded to.
- vern - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 11:57 am:
Not sure this was a particularly strong start to the feds’ case. I don’t see how this foundation will establish for the jury that anything Madigan did was extraordinary or outside the normal practice of politics. Especially with Lang testifying that he asked for lobbying contracts in exchange for resigning.
These politician witnesses seem like they either have old grudges with Madigan or are avoiding prosecution themselves. Still a long way to go, obviously, but at some point the feds need to distinguish Madigan from the average politician.
- Annonin' - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 11:57 am:
OK recap 3 GA members, 2 voted yes and one said he saw no unusual actions
Tribbies shocked that Drury blocked from a clock was not a major element of the testimony. Suggests some understood memento for supporters not likely to go to opponents.
- low level - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:11 pm:
Can anyone explain why McClain was so trusted? A downstate member from Quincy who was defeated and left the House in 1983. Why him?
- Anyone Remember - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:11 pm:
“Speaker’s Rules.”
IF that is illegal under federal law, will they repeal the statute of limitations and prosecute Lee Daniels & Pate Philip? /s
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:14 pm:
That was from CapFax comments from before we were strongly encouraged to stop posting under anonymous. I wish I had known how much the Speaker’s Office cared but then I might have used the comments section to troll them with ridiculous things.
===Nobody followed Drury because Drury was not in any way collegial.===
In many ways this feels like an understatement.
- JoeMaddon - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:15 pm:
**Can anyone explain why McClain was so trusted? A downstate member from Quincy who was defeated and left the House in 1983. Why him?**
McClain and MJM were close. They traveled (and I believe at one point roomed) together. It wasn’t just about McClain being a former legislator. It was about legitimate friendship and trust.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:37 pm:
Drury could have been as collegial as Ted Kennedy and I doubt he would have pried anyone from Madigan. A certain elected pol (I won’t say whether currently in office or not) told me as much when I spoke with them about Madigan around the time of the “admit these kids to the University of Illinois” list became known.
- Anyone Remember - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:37 pm:
Change re The Rules Committee. Is it possible the change is due to substantive committees being swamped with bills to the extent they don’t have the resources to adequately review all of them?
In the 101st GA, there were 5,879 introduced House Bills. 102nd GA, 5,867. 103rd GA? In 3 months (pre-filed bills started 12/05/2002), 4,019.
- Roman - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:43 pm:
== Not sure this was a particularly strong start to the feds’ case ==
That was my initial reaction, too. But I think all of us here in capfax world are a little jaded by these things. I suspect ordinary civilians, like the people serving on the jury, are shocked by some of the things we see as just routine political machinations. That obviously helps the feds’ case a bunch.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:43 pm:
=== Drury could have been as collegial as Ted Kennedy and I doubt he would have pried anyone from Madigan.===
The point isn’t if Drury did or didn’t pry anyone away, the point is Drury having followers “as he was”.
Changing the goal posts to Drury’s own persona to have a wavy that Madigan was “going to anyway” misses the whole point.
- Jane Byrne's Hairpiece - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:47 pm:
T-minus 3, 2, 1 until Rich Miller and McClain are in the wire tap audio recordings.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:47 pm:
=== he would have gotten a lot more done if he just went with the flow of corruption===
If you feel all of Illinois politics and in the governing of this state is corrupt then no matter what is said you will not look at governing honestly or the honesty to what has been done in and around state government.
Bitter is an ugly color
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:49 pm:
===Rich Miller and McClain are in the wire tap audio recordings===
LOL
We didn’t talk on the phone much. But, who knows, maybe.
However, if you think he shared with me his alleged criminal enterprises, you’d be wrong.
Nice try, though.
- JS Mill - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:49 pm:
=I don’t see how this foundation will establish for the jury that anything Madigan did was extraordinary or outside the normal practice of politics.=
It is setting the stage for the fact that McClains words and actions were synonymous and an extension of MJM. When they get to the illegal acts that were directed by McClain, the feds want the jury to understand that it was at the direction of MJM. Could be a tough sell, or maybe not. We’ll see.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:53 pm:
===Is it possible the change is due to substantive committees being swamped===
Not just possible, but almost assuredly probable.
- Hannibal Lecter - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 12:55 pm:
===Rich Miller and McClain are in the wire tap audio recordings===
=== We didn’t talk on the phone much. But, who knows, maybe. ===
Sounds like a question of the day. If Rich was found to be on a wiretap of McClain, what would be be talking about?
My guess would either be Oscar the puppy or the daily special at the Sangamo Club.
- Arsenal - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:19 pm:
==They will hold him up to be some sort of saint without mentioning how disliked he was among Democratic collegues of all stripes as Rich alluded to.==
Well, yeah, and I put my antipathy for Drury behind no man’s, but that’s not actually relevant to this trial. In other words, two things can be true at once: 1) Drury was a doofus that nobody liked; 2) The ComEd 4 were trying to bribe MJM.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:25 pm:
=== Drury could have been as collegial as Ted Kennedy and I doubt he would have pried anyone from Madigan.===
This isn’t a college dorm room. He tried to go to war, but couldn’t find any allies.
Just 18 months after he left the House, some people with actual skills and personalities did find allies. 19, to be exact.
I mean, he lectured his colleagues so much that they openly derided him. Even Kelly Cassidy, one of the 19, and no friend of MJM, mocked him on the House floor during a debate. Oswego Willy designed a t-shirt in commemoration…
Some of y’all are choosing to die on the absolute wrong hill.
- Arsenal - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:27 pm:
==I don’t see how this foundation will establish for the jury that anything Madigan did was extraordinary or outside the normal practice of politics.==
It doesn’t have to. This isn’t MJM’s trial. Right now, the prosecutors need to prove that the ComEd 4 tried to bribe MJM.
The feds are laying a very deliberate foundation here. MJM was all powerful, and McClain often spoke for him. Next they show how McClain told ComEd that MJM wanted this or that in exchange for passing or killing a bill, and they’ll be off to the races.
I do worry that the feds are being a little too deliberate and that the argument is getting too attenuated. And I agree that if you really understand how the Dome worked in those days, Drury lacks some credibility in describing how bills actually moved. But the feds are better at this than me, so let’s see what happens.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:31 pm:
Some things are so… “so”…. they need a t-shirt
:)
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:40 pm:
=== Why him? ===
He was slated to be Madigan’s Majority Leader when MJM won the House in 1982 under the new map. Madigan described him at the time as his “best friend.” But he lost his seat.
- Arsenal - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:49 pm:
==Just 18 months after he left the House, some people with actual skills and personalities did find allies. 19, to be exact.==
Including Drury’s successor in the House, in fact.
- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:51 pm:
==honestly and transparency doesn’t make a lot of friends in state politics, including on this blog.==
Another victim heard from
- Arsenal - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 1:52 pm:
==Yeah, he would have gotten a lot more done if he just went with the flow of corruption.==
How did he at all stem the flow of corruption, though? I mean, your false binary is fun and all, but the fact of the matter is that it took someone besides Former Federal Prosecutor Scott Drury to finally dislodge Madigan, so clearly what he was doing didn’t work.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:16 pm:
We are two days into a long trial. Hard to draw any conclusions at this point.
- Final 4 - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:17 pm:
Is there a place online to listen to all the wiretaps played to date in court?
- Amalia - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:23 pm:
we’ve gone from assume you are bugged to assume your comments on CapFax will be printed out and shared with Mike Madigan.
- Illini 9th Seed - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:35 pm:
I’ve always been amazed at how much money the Laborers and the Operators have given Madigan or dispersed at Madigan’s direction to other members of the GA. Along with their respective appointments to the Tollway, so it is no surprise to see them brought up on day 2 here. You have to wonder how close those guys are to having their own indictments brought before the court.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:42 pm:
===finally pretend to do something===
Narrator: They actually did do something, they denied Madigan the gavel.
- Sue - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 3:55 pm:
Kind of senseless if not idiocy to predict or conjecture the outcome of any trial as complex as this one based on a couple of witnesses and opening statements. One must remember that obtaining approval from the chief judge for wiretaps requires probable cause that crimes had been or were actively being committed. Also- given the nexus to Madigan- the wiretap applications had to first be vetted at main Justice. Lawyers can cross examine witnesses as much as they want but when a jury has a defendants own words played in open court it will take a magician to obtain acquittals for these defendants -
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 4:00 pm:
Also, aside from Drury’s many, many shortcomings, there was no appetite in that party to divide itself while it was at war with a Republican governor who had openly vowed to leverage the state’s fiscal crisis in order to break public and private sector unions, and who had also made that guy public enemy number one.
The deliberate rejection of contextual history by some here is beyond disingenuous.
- Boone's is Back - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 4:08 pm:
The family has got a lot of buffers
- low level - Friday, Mar 17, 23 @ 4:19 pm:
Q: Did you find nine people who would vote against the speaker?
A: (Smiling) No.
Q: Did you find anyone?
A; (Smiling) No.
Q: Do you know where you are, Mr. Drury?
A: (Smiling) No.
A: