* Tribune…
Former House Speaker Michael Madigan testified in his corruption trial Wednesday that he was taken aback when then-Ald. Daniel Solis told him over the phone that the developers of a West Loop condo tower understood “the quid pro quo” of hiring Madigan’s law firm.
“A great deal of surprise and concern,” Madigan said of the reaction in his head when Solis, who turned out to be working undercover for the FBI, uttered the phrase.
Solis seemed like a stand-up guy and straight arrow, and the comment continued to eat at him, the former speaker said under direct examination by his attorney, Daniel Collins.
“I decided that I wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Solis to give me an opportunity to tell him that I would not be involved in a quid pro quo,” Madigan told the jury.
* Capitol News Illinois…
A few weeks later, Solis brought the developer to Madigan’s downtown Chicago law office to meet with the speaker and his law partner, Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner. In the meeting, which lasted a little over half an hour, Madigan was mostly silent, letting Getzendanner explain how the firm usually handled property tax appeals for large developments.
But prosecutors were most interested in what happened before the meeting, when Madigan pulled Solis into his office and closed the door, admonishing the alderman in a near-whisper.
“Over the phone, you made a comment that there, that there was a quid pro quo,” Madigan said in the video, to which Solis replied: “Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah.”
“You shouldn’t be talking like that,” Madigan continued. “You’re just recommending our law firm because if they don’t get a good result on the real estate taxes, the whole project would be in trouble. Which is not good for your ward. So you want high-quality representation.”
* Madigan on the Chinatown deal…
* Sun-Times…
Madigan spent much of his testimony Wednesday distancing himself from McClain and another key figure, former Ald. Danny Solis (25th), who secretly recorded Madigan for the FBI.
While Blakey agreed that the “door is open” for the “bandits” recording to be played at trial, it’s not clear whether it will be played during Madigan’s cross-examination by prosecutors or later, during a rebuttal case they’re expected to bring. […]
Bhachu argued that the recording became relevant when Madigan testified he was “angry” at associates of his who allegedly did no work while being paid thousands of dollars by ComEd. The claim is part of the same alleged conspiracy that led to McClain’s earlier conviction.
Defense attorneys have adamantly opposed letting jurors hear the “bandits” tape, and up until now they’ve been successful in preventing it. Madigan made the comment in August 2018 to McClain while discussing former Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon.
* Courthouse News reporter Dave Byrnes…
* Courthouse News Service…
When [Mike McClain’s] attorney Patrick Cotter began his own cross-examination of Madigan, Cotter asked if Madigan’s friendship with McClain survived all their years together.
“It did, until recently,” Madigan responded.
The comment sparked a chorus of winces and “oohs” from those watching Madigan’s testimony.
Cotter got in his own lick in at the former speaker. The attorney asked if McClain helped arrange meetings between Madigan and the leaders of companies like ComEd on “multiple” occasions.
“I met with people from those companies, I don’t know if I’d call it multiple,” Madigan responded.
“Did you do it more than once?” Cotter asked.
“Yes,” the speaker answered.
* Fox Chicago…
“Did you ever actually take any official action to benefit a piece of Com Ed-supported legislation because of any job that Com Ed may have given to somebody you referred to, Mike McClain?” Cotter asked.
“No,” said Madigan.
“Basically Madigan threw Mr. McClain under the bus,” said former prosecutor Patrick Collins, who observed the proceedings today. “He’s basically said, ‘all those tapes the jury heard, that was McClain freelancing. Mr. McClain’s lawyer is now cross-examining and has a difficult job. If he says, ‘wait a minute, my guy was doing it all at your request,’ then he’s effectively admitting part of the scheme. And he’s not doing that. We’re seeing Mr. Cotter going around the edges of this.” […]
Testimony is wrapped up for the rest of the week, so prosecutors likely won’t get their chance to cross-examine Madigan until next week, on Jan. 13.
- coinflip - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:18 am:
has anybody checked the breach to see if mcclain is there with his musket?
- low level - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:19 am:
Lang remained loyal to him, MJM threw him under the bus
McClain remained loyal to him, he also got thrown under the bus.
Then he also is “upset” w Moody and Nice, who also were fiercely loyal.
My opinion of him has changed. I really wish he hadnt said anything.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:20 am:
=== I would not be involved in a quid pro quo===
I really thought this is the sort of thing that was supposed to look more like, “I’m sorry, we can’t represent you” rather than coaching another elected official at how to better voice the implication.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:44 am:
- give me an opportunity to tell him that I would not be involved in a quid pro quo -
It certainly reads more like you wanted to tell him not to call it a quid pro quo.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:48 am:
I think the problems for the prosecution are that the case is very complicated and hard to follow, there’s seemingly no evidence that Madigan put any money in his own pocket, and the cooperating witnesses (e.g., Solis) don’t have clean reputations.
I don’t know if that’s enough to get a not guilty verdict, but perhaps enough for a mistrail. I doubt the feds would choose to re-prosecute the case if that happens.
- Just Me 2 - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:45 am:
Friendly Bob - Blagojevich was never accused of pocketing money either, although I concede it took two trials to find him guilty after the prosecution took efforts to simplify their case.
- Yes Sir - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:50 am:
Seeing the rats scurry is more valuable than any sentence could accomplish.
On this day that we lay an extraordinarily good, honest and decent man to rest in President Carter, it is striking to witness what the antithesis of those virtues resemble in these men.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:01 pm:
===“I decided that I wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Solis to give me an opportunity to tell him that I would not be involved in a quid pro quo,” Madigan told the jury.===
I’m pretty sure this is why Madigan took the witness stand. He had to respond to what he was recorded saying on the tape the feds played, which was pretty damning. I’m not sure his answer is completely believable, particularly given that his continued statement to Solis could be interpreted as coaching Solis to use more precise language. The only way for Madigan’s team to counter the prosecution’s interpretation of this exchange required Madigan to testify. Now he’s going to face cross examination, and also, his testimony is allowing additional tapes to be played.
Risky strategy. Did the defense believe they needed to do this? Does that indicate they believe the prosecution is making an effective case?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:07 pm:
===I’m pretty sure this is why Madigan took the witness stand===
I agree to a point. I think he needed to rebut the allegations about ComEd and AT&T, but the property tax stuff looks to my eyes like a much stronger case.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:11 pm:
Prosecution needs to be focused and concise on cross… make the case as cleanly as possible while not confusing the jury. Haven’t done that with the case in total, but the cross here can close the matter for the jury. MJM will deflect to McClain… can’t let him be seen as the real brain trust. Who would believe it? Make it clear how unbelievable that is.
- Whoops - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:15 pm:
I think the most interesting thing is by Cotter taking up the afternoon questioning Madigan (which I don’t know if there was a way to be quicker) gives the AUSA much more time to prepare and practice their cross exam. If I’m MJM I’m not happy about this turn of events.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:17 pm:
===gives the AUSA much more time to prepare and practice their cross exam===
On the other hand, jurors go home for several days with Madigan’s unchallenged testimony at the top of their minds. That’s also important.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:18 pm:
- I’m not sure his answer is completely believable -
I agree. When the prosecution asks why he continued to be involved in moving the deal forward what’s he going to say?
If you don’t want to be involved in a quid pro quo you probably ought to stop being involved in one.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:22 pm:
===If you don’t want to be involved in a quid pro quo you probably ought to stop being involved in one===
Totally agreed. I wrote a column on that. When someone says something like that, run away and never look back.
- allknowingmasterofraccoondom - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:58 pm:
“I don’t know if that’s enough to get a not guilty verdict, but perhaps enough for a mistrail. I doubt the feds would choose to re-prosecute the case if that happens.”
One can hope. But only one. Just one person is hoping.
- Colonel Mustard - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:59 pm:
Low level at 10:19 - don’t forget Madigan threw his long time and loyal Chief of Staff under the bus, too. Mapes went to prison for Madigan. Probably kept his daughter from being Governor, also. You’re on your own with that guy.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:06 pm:
Throwing McClain under the bus was always the predictable, only strategy. I’m not sure it’s enough, but it’s the best play he can run.
- Juice - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:10 pm:
Didn’t realize with Tim and Lou being credibly accused of sexual harassment creating distance from them counted as Madigan throwing them under the bus.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:12 pm:
- McClain remained loyal to him, he also got thrown under the bus. -
Part of being loyal is protecting your friends. McClain acted like a reckless buffoon and is a big reason why Madigan got indicted in the first place.
- Dotnonymous x - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:44 pm:
“It was an underling”…gives the jury something to hang their hat on…but only if they’re looking for a hat rack.
- low level - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 2:40 pm:
==Probably kept his daughter from being Governor,==
Correct. Had he walked away and allowed Lisa to run when she was ready, none of this would have happened and she very likely would still be Governor today.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 4:51 pm:
Have to wonder who McClain’s attorney is seeking to represent.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 7:01 pm:
- Had he walked away and allowed Lisa to run -
I’ve always found it insulting from the Lisa fan club that they strip her of any agency. Was she not a grown woman that could have ran if she wanted?
- JoanP - Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 8:55 pm:
= Was she not a grown woman that could have ran if she wanted? =
Of course, she was. But she is also a grown woman who was aware of the political realities of the situation.