* Sun-Times…
Federal jurors Wednesday heard Michael J. Madigan’s allies talking on secret FBI recordings about an “old-fashioned patronage system,” the need to keep Madigan “happy” in Springfield and how it’s unwise to “put anything in writing” because “all that can do is hurt ya.”
All told, prosecutors spent their day playing more than a dozen recordings in the corruption trial of Madigan, Illinois’ former longtime House speaker. Former ComEd executive Fidel Marquez, who wore a wire for the FBI in 2019, continued to occupy the witness stand.
Jurors saw their first undercover video recordings since testimony began. Included were some of the most prominent recordings from 2023’s ComEd bribery trial, and Marquez’s testimony mirrored the comments he delivered then.
Jurors saw grainy video of Madigan ally Michael McClain meeting inside Saputo’s restaurant, a well-known Springfield haunt where “Higher and Higher” by Jackie Wilson could be heard in the background. They also saw then-City Club President Jay Doherty hold up four fingers to signal that former 13th Ward Ald. Frank Olivo was being paid $4,000 a month by ComEd.
* Capitol News Illinois…
Earlier in their conversation, McClain affirmed Marquez’s concern that Dominguez may view Doherty’s contract through the lens of his former job as a federal prosecutor and start asking questions. In that case, McClain said, Marquez should explain how valuable the subcontractors were to Madigan’s political organization, adding that the arrangement was a “favor.”
McClain also explained that by using Doherty’s contract to pay the Madigan allies, ComEd had insulation from any federal tax investigation “if the IRS ever comes in and says, ‘Who are these guys and what do they do?’”
“It’s Doherty’s contract, so Doherty’s the one that has to – has to prove that,” he said.
McClain then offered to talk to Dominguez himself. After initially declining the help because the matter was internal to ComEd and McClain’s involvement might be seen as “inappropriate,” Marquez invited McClain to a meeting with Dominguez and Hooker in early March 2019.
* Courthouse News…
In another February 2019 meeting Marquez recorded with McClain and Hooker, Marquez floated the possibility that Dominguez, a former federal prosecutor, would reject the arrangement ComEd reached with Doherty and Madigan’s Chicago associates.
Hooker warned that Madigan — whom Marquez referred to as “our friend” in the video — may not be so supportive of the energy company’s work in Springfield if that was the case.
“You’re not going to do it? You’re not going to do something for me, I don’t have to do anything for you,” Hooker imagined the then-speaker might think.
As it turned out, the worry was unfounded. Marquez and McClain spoke with Dominguez in early March 2019, and when Marquez breached the issue, Dominguez was amenable to maintaining the arrangement with Doherty and the Chicago subcontractors. He said lobbyists often seem like they’re doing nothing until “the magic moment,” and agreed with Marquez that in that moment they may be worth “a hundred times” what they’re being paid.
* Tribune…
The meeting recorded by Marquez in Doherty’s downtown office took place a little over a month after he’d agreed to cooperate with the FBI. As a pretense for the discussion, Marquez said he needed guidance on what to tell incoming ComEd CEO Joseph Dominguez about the off-the-books subcontractor arrangement.
Doherty, who on the video appears pink-faced and jovial, explained to Marquez repeatedly that the subcontractors — who included precinct captains Ray Nice and Ed Moody and former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski — did basically nothing. He rarely even communicated with them, he said.
“They keep their mouth shut,” he said. “But do they, do they do anything for me on a day-to-day basis? No.”
But, Doherty said, it was important to keep the arrangement going in order to maintain good relations with Madigan, Doherty said on the video.
“To keep Mike Madigan happy, I think it’s worth it,” he said. “I don’t think I’d tinker with that.”
- Um, no - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:12 am:
This whole thing is a mob movie. Who plays “Don” Madigan in the feature film?
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:23 am:
“… old-fashioned patronage system .. .”
IF Madigan is guilty because of that, why did Fitzgerald let Fawell skate? Why didn’t he go after the Sangamon County GOP, whose Chairman was one of Ryan’s departmental heads?
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:29 am:
The video and audio will definitely leave a mark on MJM. They speak for themselves—there is no need for the Feds to create a narrative. Plain-spoken corruption is obvious, and the MJM legal team can’t really impeach the voracity of the video and audio.
- low level - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:33 am:
==Why didn’t he go after the Sangamon County GOP==
Or DuPage and Pate.
- Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:34 am:
“old-fashioned patronage system”
Yeah, I remember those.
Winchester, Dunn, and Luechtefeld had smaller, but highly successful franchises here in Southern Illinois.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:37 am:
“Or DuPage and Pate.”
Fair point. However, many of “patronage crimes” were committed in the Howlett Building. The Citizens For Ryan PC using SOS Personnel records was there, not Cook or DuPage …
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 10:48 am:
why not go after certain people? well, for example, Topinka was a fbi source for years, per a sun times article. so who knows who else was.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 11:09 am:
===Who plays “Don” Madigan in the feature film?===
William H. Macy.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 11:31 am:
- IF Madigan is guilty because of that, why did Fitzgerald let Fawell skate? -
Madigan isn’t on trial for patronage, he’s on trial for accepting bribes in exchange for legislative support. Why is this so hard for many of you to understand?
- low level - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 12:50 pm:
==he’s on trial for accepting bribes in exchange for legislative support.==
Its a little more complicated then that, because at no time is the government alleging Madigan took anything in exchange for helping pass legislation.
- Barrister's Lectern - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 1:05 pm:
=== Madigan isn’t on trial for patronage, he’s on trial for accepting bribes in exchange for legislative support. Why is this so hard for many of you to understand? ===
The feds are alleging that the patronage = bribes.
- low level - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 1:58 pm:
==The feds are alleging that the patronage = bribes==
Exactly. I don’t see why that is so difficult for Excitable Boy and others to understand.
- Jimmy 87 - Thursday, Nov 7, 24 @ 2:08 pm:
===Why is this so hard for many of you to understand?===
For me, it’s that none of the testimony thus far has directly or even indirectly - shown that Madigan wanted or asked that Nice, Moody, Ald. Zalewski or anyone else for that matter be added to the Com Ed lobbyist list.
The Union Leauge Club meeting with Hooker actually refutes this idea, he talks about hiring friends of Madigan as being his idea. He says, “I was the one — me and McClain was — I was the one that created it,” Hooker said on the recording. “And I had to explain it to Frank.”
Lookk, you can call it a “bribe”, or you can call it “patronage,” but where is the evidence that Madigan - quoting from the statue here - “demanded, sought, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept anything of value” in return for being “influenced in the performance of any official act?
I’m not sure having a bunch of lobbyist talking about ways to keep the Speaker of the House happy meets that threshold unless the feds can show that Madigan - even indirectly - knew or asked for any of this.