* Isabel posted this story earlier today…

A judge rejected a bid from Michael Madigan’s former chief of staff to keep mention of his immunity deal out of a trial in which prosecutors allege he failed to keep his end of the deal and lied during grand jury testimony.

Tim Mapes served for years under former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan as the clerk of the Illinois House and as Madigan’s chief of staff. In May 2021, federal prosecutors charged Mapes with lying to a grand jury in a federal probe connected to the longtime former speaker.

U.S. District Judge John Kness denied a motion filed by Mapes’ attorney to keep mention of the immunity deal out of the trial. Mapes had argued that portions of the indictment that referred to the immunity agreement were irrelevant and prejudicial.

* From Judge Kness’ ruling…

As charged in the Indictment, seven of Defendant’s answers regarding Madigan and McClain were knowingly false; as a result, the Indictment alleges that Defendant committed both perjury and obstruction of justice. These charges are based on the following seven question-and-answer segments, which the parties refer to as Episodes 1–7:

[1] Q: Okay. Did [McClain], after he retired, kind of give you any insight into what his interactions with [Madigan] were that you weren’t privy to personally?

A: No, that wouldn’t–that wouldn’t happen.

[2] Q: Okay. And [McClain] didn’t—wouldn’t tell you what he was discussing with [Madigan] or anything that he was doing on behalf of [Madigan] in that ‘17, ‘18, and ‘19 timeframe?

A: No.

[3] Q: Do you have any knowledge about whether or not [McClain] performed any sort of tasks or assignments for [Madigan] in [the] 2017 to 2018 timeframe at all?

A: I don’t recall any.

[4] Q: . . . Do you have any reason to think [McClain] was acting as an agent for [Madigan] after he retired in 2016, that is, doing work for him or carrying out assignments for him?

A: I’m not aware of any. I’m not aware of that activity. Let’s put it that way.

[5] Q: . . . [A]ll these questions are going to be for the 2017 through 2019 timeframe. Do you recall anyone ever describing any work–anyone at all describing any work or assignments [McClain] was performing on [Madigan]’s behalf?

A: I don’t recall that–that I would have been part of any of that dialogue. I don’t know why I would be.

Q: The answer is yes or no to that question. Do you recall?

A: No, I don’t recall any of that.

[6] Q: . . . So one of the things we were trying to figure out, Mr. Defendant, is whether or not–kind of a key issue for us is whether or not [McClain] acted as an agent for [Madigan] in any respect, including that timeframe. We’re talking about the 2017, 2018, 2019 timeframe. Are you aware of any facts that would help us understand whether or not, in fact, [McClain] acted as an agent or performed work for [Madigan] or took direction from [Madigan] in that timeframe?

A: I don’t know who you would go to other than [Madigan] and [McClain]. [Madigan], if he had people do things for him like I did things for him, was—didn’t distribute information freely.

[7] Q: Let’s talk about 2017, 2018 to the present, do you know [McClain] to have acted in any capacity as a messenger for [Madigan] to convey messages to and from him?

A: I’m not aware of any.

Contesting the allegations that these statements constituted perjury and seeking to strike other allegations included in the complaint, Defendant filed the Motion to Strike, Motion for Disclosure, and Motion to Dismiss. Both the Motion to Strike and the Motion to Dismiss are addressed in turn.

* If you click here and scroll down to page 41, you’ll see excerpts from federal recordings which prosecutors say proves their case. A few of them…

GX7. In this call, Mapes tells McClain that the plan is for McClain to meet Madigan and Andrew (Andrew Madigan is Madigan’s son) for dinner. This call thus demonstrates that Mapes knew McClain was meeting with Madigan in 2018. In fact, Mapes was acting as intermediary; by telling McClain of the dinner plans on behalf of Madigan. Mapes told McClain, “So, I, I was gonna give you an update on your life, after you get to Springfield. . . one is, now you’re having dinner at Saputo’s tonight.” GX7-T at 1. It is therefore relevant to the allegation in Count 2 that Mapes testified falsely about whether Madigan gave messages for Mapes to pass along to McClain. Dkt 1., Count 2, ¶ 2(k). The second excerpt involves Mapes telling McClain about something Madigan wanted to discuss with McClain, referring to this as McClain’s “the to do list I had to give you” from Madigan. GX7-T. In the final excerpt, they once again discuss dinner plans with Madigan and McClain says he’ll be there in a half hour. GX7-T. Mapes claims that this call is not admissible because he wasn’t specifically asked about it in the grand jury. R. 66 at 7. But again, Mapes’ lies were much broader, and calls like this one are unquestionably relevant to show that Mapes knew of McClain’s role within Madigan’s orbit in 2018. […]

GX16 (5/30/18 at 9:34 p.m.). In this short follow-up call, Mapes tells McClain that “we’re in the midst of all kind of things going on,” including related to Public Official B. McClain offers to share what he knows, and Mapes says ‘let me put you on with the boss. Okay? . . . so you’re going to inform him what you know and go from there.” This call demonstrates as clear as day that Mapes knew McClain communicated with Madigan in 2018, because Mapes sets up that conversation. It also is an example of McClain working for Madigan, helping get information to him about a brewing sexual harassment scandal. […]

GX17 (5/30/18 at 9:34 p.m.). This is another call on May 30, 2018 concerning the allegations involving Public Official C and other matters. … The conversation then turns to one of McClain’s “assignment[s]” from Madigan related the Chinatown parcel, discussed above. GX17. McClain related that “in my case uh it’s an assignment as you probably know. I’m trying to get some uh legal, um, um, property transferred from the I, CDOT.” … Finally, it is also relevant that this is the third call between the two men on May 30, 2018. The sheer number of calls between these two men on a single day is probative as to Mapes’ testimony about his memory. […]

GX36 (6/21/18). For the bulk of this call, Mapes and McClain discuss matters concerning the Democratic Party of Illinois (“DPI”), including fundraising, personnel issues, and replacing Mapes as executive director of DPI. This call is highly probative. After Mapes’ abrupt resignation, DPI was left without an executive director. This call demonstrates that Mapes knew McClain was helping Madigan with DPI operations and fundraising after Mapes resigned.

There’s lots more.

* Back to Judge Kness’ ruling…

Defendant seeks to strike the following statement from the Indictment: “MAPES provided [McClain] with messages communicated to MAPES by [Madigan], including messages concerning work and assignments [McClain] was performing on behalf of [Madigan] between 2017 and 2018.” Defendant appears to contend that this statement fails to “state the elements” of perjury as required under Vaughn because this allegation does not contradict any of his statements in Episodes 1–7 and so cannot form the basis of a perjury charge. The Court disagrees.

In Episode 4, Defendant stated that he was “not aware of any” “reason to think [McClain] was acting as an agent for [Madigan],” where “acting as an agent” was defined as “doing work for him or carrying out assignments for him.” If Defendant was, in fact, “provid[ing] [McClain] with messages communicated to [him] by [Madigan], including messages concerning work and assignments [McClain] was performing on behalf of [Madigan],” this would directly contradict Defendant’s response to the question in Episode 4. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this portion of the Indictment is denied.