* It was well-known that Speaker Madigan ran the House the way he ran the 13th Ward operation. He tended to treat his Democratic legislators as constituents (which they are in a way because they vote every two years on leadership). And it wasn’t just about their bills or projects in their districts. A nephew has legal trouble? Go to Madigan and he’ll help find you a good lawyer. Want to impress the in-laws with good Cubs tickets? Madigan has those. Need a job for somebody close to you? Ask Madigan…

* From the mentioned Tribune article…

Later, Andrade “reached out to thank McClain for landing his wife a job at the secretary of state’s office,” prosecutors wrote in the filing, arguing the episode provides “another example of Madigan and McClain rewarding Madigan’s political allies with benefits, which is alleged as one of the purposes of the criminal enterprise.”

In his comments to the Tribune on Monday, Andrade said he didn’t know if Madigan had anything to do with his wife’s hiring. And while Andrade remembers talking to McClain, he’s not sure why he would have thanked him specifically.

He said a bout with COVID has caused lapses in his memory. But Andrade said he did remember that, during the call, McClain misidentified the division of White’s office where his wife worked.

It wasn’t all shady. For instance, when Rep. Esther Golar left the hospital to vote to override a Bruce Rauner veto, the hospital refused to readmit her. Madigan helped get her back in. More here.

       

9 Comments » - Barrister's Lectern - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 12:37 pm: === Later, Andrade “reached out to thank McClain for landing his wife a job at the secretary of state’s office,” prosecutors wrote in the filing, arguing the episode provides “another example of Madigan and McClain rewarding Madigan’s political allies with benefits, which is alleged as one of the purposes of the criminal enterprise.” So Madigan recommending someone for a job at the Secretary of State’s Office is now criminal activity? I thought elected officials had a first amendment right to make job recommendations? - Excitable Boy - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 12:43 pm: - So Madigan recommending someone for a job at the Secretary of State’s Office is now criminal activity? - Who said that? Have you never followed a trial before? - Barrister's Lectern - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 12:54 pm: Excitable Boy, the excerpt cited above literally used the job recommendation to the SOS as “another example of Madigan and McClain rewarding Madigan’s political allies with benefits, which is alleged as one of the purposes of the criminal enterprise.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 1:20 pm: ===which is alleged as one of the purposes of the criminal enterprise=== It’s an illustration of how the alleged criminal stuff was also handled. A pal of mine calls this the “Seinfeld Finale Trial,” and my pal is not far off. - Beep booop - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 1:37 pm: Interesting strategy, I’d be a bit concerned (if I was prosecution) that jurors hear stuff like this and simply think “Sounds like they were just good at their jobs and good at taking care of their people.” I know it’s just one data point , but still. The lawyers know more than I do, just speculating - James - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 1:48 pm: The Feds continue to paint a weak picture to me. There is smoke here, but it seems like just smoke from incense and not from a fire. This all just seems like typical political horse trading and member management. - hystorically - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 1:55 pm: ==Interesting strategy, I’d be a bit concerned (if I was prosecution) that jurors hear stuff like this and simply think “Sounds like they were just good at their jobs and good at taking care of their people.” == Most people don’t have “a guy” they can call up to help a spouse or a nephew get a job. When they hear these things they likely don’t think they’re good at their job, but rather why the heck is a politician helping this guy when no one is helping me. They jump to the conclusion it must be nefarious. The government is using wholly legal conduct to make the point that legal conduct was used for criminal purposes. - Pundent - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 2:11 pm: =I’d be a bit concerned (if I was prosecution) that jurors hear stuff like this and simply think “Sounds like they were just good at their jobs and good at taking care of their people.”= Having participated in quite a few trials I suspect that the jurors are growing tired. Jurors expect to see some sort of a smoking gun. It’s part of our human nature and what we’re accustomed to from TV and movies. When their is no smoking gun jurors either invent one in their minds, or take out their frustrations on the attorneys often by focusing on minutiae or personal characteristics (how the attorneys talk, what they wear, personal habits, tics, etc.). A long trial, based on lots of inferences, runs the risk of this being more about the courtroom characters than the evidence. Politicians are generally disliked which doesn’t bode well for Madigan, but the prosecution’s case does not seem exceptionally strong. Trying a case over multiple months unless you’re going through lots of specific criminal acts. This case seems like it’s being built largely on inferences and perceptions. - A Long Time Coming - Thursday, Nov 14, 24 @ 3:24 pm: = The government is using wholly legal conduct to make the point that legal conduct was used for criminal purposes.= To Barrister’s point, what was the criminal purpose here? TrackBack URI Uncivil comments, profanity of any kind, rumors and anonymous commenters will not be tolerated and will likely result in banishment. Name/Nickname - Required E-mail - Not required URL - Not required