Roundup: Madigan ends testimony
Wednesday, Jan 15, 2025 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* Sun-Times…
Before he left the witness stand Tuesday after nearly 12 hours of testimony over four days, ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan explained why he kept meeting with then-Ald. Danny Solis, even though Solis had caused him “a great deal of surprise and concern.”
Madigan told a jury he thought he’d effectively delivered a message to Solis “that there would be no ‘quid pro quo’” in 2017. He said he gave the 25th Ward City Council member “the benefit of the doubt” after that, given their lengthy political relationship.
But Madigan, who was regarded as Illinois’ most powerful politician before Solis helped the FBI with the historic corruption investigation that ended Madigan’s reign, also told the jury that “we all have regrets in life.”
“One of my regrets is that I had any time spent with Danny Solis,” Madigan testified.
* WGN…
Defense attorney Dan Collins asked Madigan why he continued interactions with Solis.
“Because I thought I had made it clear to him there would be no ‘quid pro quo,’” Madigan answered. […]
Amid Tuesday’s cross-examination, prosecutors say the former Illinois Speaker of the House should have known better.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu: “Sir, you actually voted on bribery laws in the past during the course of your tenure as a public official, right?”
Madigan: “Yes, that’s right.”
* Tribune…
Bhachu ended his cross-examination by asking about the effort to get a job for state Rep. Jaime Andrade’s wife, and a recorded call where Madigan asked McClain about possibly putting her on “retainer” with ComEd consultant Jay Doherty.
Madigan testified last week he suggested Andrade’s wife be retained by Doherty’s firm so nobody would know Madigan was behind the move.
“When you didn’t want folks in the General Assembly to know who was behind payments to Jaime Andrade’s wife, the person who came to mind was Jay Doherty?” Bhachu asked.
“I thought of Doherty, yes,” Madigan said.
* WTTW…
After Madigan concluded his testimony, jurors heard from his longtime legal partner Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, who similar to Madigan testified that their law practice had guardrails in place to prevent any conflicts of interest with the speaker’s legislative positions. […]
Specifically, Getzendanner said that potential clients who’d had business with the General Assembly or the House of Representatives would be flagged so the firm would not contract with them. […]
On cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker focused on Getzendanner’s testimony that Madigan was a “big driver” of their firm, focusing on business and client acquisition.
“Fair to say Mr. Madigan was the rainmaker for the firm?” she asked.
“Yes,” Getzendanner answered, adding that Madigan brought in more business than any other single attorney at the firm.
* Federal Courts Reporter Jon Seidel…
* The Tribune’s Jason Meisner…
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 15, 25 @ 11:28 am:
If I am understanding McClain’s motion correctly, this is his team’s way of saying “nuh-uh” to Madigan’s testimony. It’s more nuanced than that, but they are claiming McClain is being prosecuted by the Feds and now by Madigan, who threw McClain under the bus with his testimony.
The general gist of it is, McClain is insisting he did nothing wrong and his actions were legal lobbying. He isn’t quite saying that he was acting on Madigan’s instructions, but is coming very close to contradicting that testimony.
Of course, this is coming late in the game, but could be grounds for appeal later. I think he has a point and that the judge will reconsider it now that Madigan testified. Severing the defendants seems like a practical impossibility at this point, but who knows?
- Payback - Wednesday, Jan 15, 25 @ 1:54 pm:
During motions between Madigan’s defense lawyers and prosecutors last week re. admitting the “bandits” phone recording, Collins objected because it was outside the time frame of the indictment 2011-2019. I expect that this investigation began under Patrick Fitzgerald.
Wiki states that Fitzgerald left USAO-NDIL in June 2012. I see no indication that this whole investigation would have got off the ground if Fitzgerald had not started the wheels in motion. Maybe one day in the next 100 years, Illinois will have a real Attorney General that can prosecute public corruption.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 15, 25 @ 2:32 pm:
===Collins objected because it was outside the time frame of the indictment 2011-2019.===
It was. Then Madigan said under oath that he was surprised and angry that these people did little to no work for ComEd. That’s the only reason the prosecution was able to play that recording. It undermines his sworn testimony.
The laugh was brutal.
- low level - Wednesday, Jan 15, 25 @ 3:07 pm:
==Maybe one day in the next 100 years, Illinois will have a real Attorney General that can prosecute public corruption.==
The US Attorney’s Office is prosecuting it.
- Lincoln Lad - Wednesday, Jan 15, 25 @ 5:55 pm:
Seems to me that McClain has grounds to appeal… there’s no way to severe them at this point. Likely would take years to retry him. Also don’t see a mistrial… could this have been the plan all along if things didn’t go well?