* This was an interesting, if horribly belated, development…
* From Meisel’s story…
Earlier in the day, Schwartz said Mapes had the opportunity to be a “star witness” in the government’s investigation into Madigan and McClain’s purportedly corrupt dealings. But Porter took issue with that assertion.
“So let’s unpack that,” Porter said of Schwartz’s “star witness” comment. “Because that assumes – without evidence – that Tim Mapes knew whether Madigan and McClain were discussing these topics.”
Porter reminded the jury of testimony from former Madigan staffer-turned-lobbyist Will Cousineau, who said Madigan and McClain would often use the conference room in his downtown Springfield office to have private meetings. Other witnesses in the case testified that Madigan and McClain often dined alone together in Springfield, and that Madigan was a private person.
By the time Mapes sat for his grand jury testimony, McClain and three others had already been indicted on bribery charges in connection with ComEd, and Porter said Mapes was well aware the grand jury was interested in potential criminal activity.
But, he said, Mapes was completely ignorant of that. […]
Further, Porter said, in order to prove the charges against Mapes, the government would have to prove Mapes lied about things that were material to the grand jury’s investigation.
More from the Tribune…
Saying Mapes could have been a star witness “assumes, without evidence, assumes that Tim Mapes knew whether Madigan and McClain were discussing these topics,” Porter said. “And he didn’t. … He couldn’t remember what he didn’t know.”
That’s a decent debating point, but I don’t know if it will have any impact on the jury, particularly since it came so late in the game.
* But, really, did Mapes hurt the federal government’s investigation? As I pointed out in my recent newspaper column, Mapes was never once asked during his grand jury testimony whether he’d witnessed or even suspected illegal activity. As I also noted in my column, the feds haven’t yet shared any Mapes or Mapes-related recordings or emails of him being part of any allegedly illegal act. If they had him on something, you’d think they would’ve shared that with the jury. So, how would the feds know that Mapes would’ve been a “star” prosecution witness?
* Instead, the feds asked a judge to give Mapes immunity then set what sure looked like a perjury trap. Mapes and his lawyers should’ve known this was happening and behaved accordingly. Instead, Mapes jumped right into that obvious trap like a “good soldier.” Sun-Times…
Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur at times turned and pointed toward Tim Mapes in the middle of a courtroom as she set out to shred his defense to perjury and attempted obstruction of justice charges at the end of a long day of arguments.
The veteran prosecutor told jurors in a dramatic high-energy closing that “this is the man who was loyal, who does not give any ground, who refused to give any insight or light into the world close to Michael Madigan or Michael McClain.” […]
MacArthur responded by telling the jury “the life that Mr. Mapes chose for himself was the one that he put on the table on March 31, 2021,” the day he allegedly lied to the grand jury.
* More from yesterday’s prosecution closing…
Also very true.
The jury is deliberating, so stay tuned.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:19 am:
“Earlier in the day, Schwartz said Mapes had the opportunity to be a “star witness” in the government’s investigation into Madigan and McClain’s purportedly corrupt dealings”
Mapes passed up his chance to assist the feds during the investigation phase, and then he foolishly lied to the Grand Jury. Assuming he is found guilty, he might be able to negotiate a reduced sentence by finally diming out MJM.
- vern - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:42 am:
=== the feds haven’t yet shared any Mapes or Mapes-related recordings or emails of him being part of any allegedly illegal act ===
There’s really only a few possible explanations for this.
1. Mapes’s defense is correct, and Mapes was siloed away from any criminal activity by Madigan and McClain. That seems… unlikely.
2. Madigan’s defense is correct, and McClain was running Madigan’s patronage operation out of ComEd without Madigan or Mapes knowing about it. That seems… even more unlikely.
3. The feds are correct and have the full picture, which means Madigan and McClain ran the ComEd operation and one attempted property tax quid pro quo, but no other crimes. Mapes lied to the grand jury out of an instinct for loyalty. Seems even less likely.
4. Most likely, all of these guys were up to their eyeballs in a wide range of schemes, and would’ve gotten away with it completely if it weren’t for McClain’s big mouth. Since McClain was the only weak link generating evidence, they could only charge the crimes that were in his portfolio.
- Suburbanon - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:44 am:
So when Mapes does not become the “Star Witness” the Feds wanted, they decide to punish him by going after his “lies” about activities that have no connection to the underlying Grand Jury probe. Unbelievable. Put in that perspective, it sounds like a petty prosecution.
Your point about Mapes’s lawyers is absolutely on target. How could they not see the trap they were getting into? Another unbelievable.
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:48 am:
Not a big fan of the phrase “perjury trap.” Nobody forces you to lie when you testify. That’s something people consciously choose to do, all the time. The fact that there are rarely consequences for all the testilying that takes place doesn’t render it less of an offense.
- This - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:49 am:
The Mapes’ blunder was not going along with his immunity agreement to be honest in the grand jury. That decision may cost him prison time and has cost him enormous time, energy
and money for this trial.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 10:56 am:
It strikes me that the prosecutors were looking for Mapes to corroborate things they already had from other sources. Then he chose to not remember anything. I think they didn’t pursue specifics of what they had knowing the conversation would yield nothing. They also knew it would all go direct to MJM and McClain who may not have been aware of all they had at the time. They weren’t after Mapes, hence the immunity deal. Then he chose to lie… foolishly. And he ends up here… he did it to himself.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 11:51 am:
===not going along with his immunity agreement===
There was no “agreement.” It was imposed by a judge.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 12:08 pm:
The defense changing gears is an interesting tactic, but they’ve presented some pretty specific evidence and it doesn’t appear that the prosecutors directly asked him a question about whether or not Madigan and McClain were engaged in a criminal conspiracy and he said “I don’t know.”
“He didn’t lie in response to the question he wasn’t asked” is not a great criminal defense.
- Joseph Heller - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 12:25 pm:
=== Schwartz notes that when Mapes was asked in the grand jury who were Madigan’s close friends ===
I mean, that is a matter of opinion, but I wouldn’t call McClain a friend either, not even after four minutes. I doubt Mapes named himself either. McClain was a political ally for sure, but “friend”?
Friends definitely do not freelance claiming - or creating the appearance — they are working on your behalf when in fact they are pursuing their own agenda. They also don’t gossip about your decision to have an open, thorough investigation of harrassment charges behind your back.
Mapes should have said “That’s a matter of opinion, not fact, if you wanna know, ask Madigan.”
- Pizza Man - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 12:29 pm:
Well said…Joseph Heller. Mapes issued a weak response and stayed quiet too. He sure wasn’t like that when he ran the House Dem operation: House chamber, caucus, party, etc.
- X Marks the Spot - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 12:45 pm:
=the case seems pretty petty=
The irony given the mean spirited, overtly petty nature of this man is incredible.
The entire ComEd dynamic is but one company. The organized crime shake down tactics were pervasive over decades.
Few tears will be shed when the entire crew goes to prison. Hundreds hiding under their desks in fear for years are culpable, cowardly accomplices.
- The Captain - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 1:00 pm:
After all the testimony and opening and closing statements my one takeaway is that there’s no one worth rooting for here. Certainly not the prosecutors or the defense, or even really most of the witnesses who came off some combination of sheepish (Cousineau), foolish, to put it mildly (McClain) or humiliated (Lang). I can’t think of an outcome that I’d find just, I think no matter the outcome I’m going to think that some people got it better/worse than they probably deserved.
I do think it’s the defendant’s fault he finds himself in this spot, but without a doubt this isn’t a prosecution that is applied equally or fairly to all grand jury participants.
- Pizza Man - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 1:37 pm:
Will Timothy Mapes, the long-time confidant, tough-knuckled chief of staff, and loyal and trusted advisor to MJM survive his own blunder? I don’t think so. MJM: you’re up next in April.
- Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 1:43 pm:
=== Will Timothy Mapes, the long-time confidant, tough-knuckled chief of staff, and loyal and trusted advisor to MJM survive his own blunder? ===
I mean, he’s not looking at a capital offense here. So convicted or not, he will survive. Let’s not get too far into hyperbole. Regardless of the outcome, he will eventually “be fine”.
- Eire17 - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 1:49 pm:
“Perjury trap”?
The questions were not that hard. Tim—long after being tossed—stood next to MJM at his annual funder at Island Bay. Clearly Tim and Mclain spoke a lot. Tim knew plenty. I don’t wish ill will on anyone. Whatever happens happens. I’m not sitting here praying for a conviction. But this was not a “perjury trap”. Tim could have easily given more more complete and truthful answers. He chose not to. Bad choice
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 2:03 pm:
===But this was not a “perjury trap”===
I believe it was. The reason being they forced immunity on him, likely because he was being uncooperative during interviews. If he kept it up, they’d have him. And he did and they did.
- low level - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 2:09 pm:
==Hundreds hiding under their desks in fear for years are culpable, cowardly accomplices.==
Could you explain what you mean here?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 2:09 pm:
It was told to me a long time ago that when you ask for immunity it’s a tough ask and you need to deliver. If you are given immunity freely without asking it’s the prosecution putting a burden on you to comply under pressure.
These two avenues are not arbitrarily