Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Watch the rollercoaster, don’t ride it
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Giannoulias awarding grants to combat carjackings and vehicle thefts
Posted in:
* We talked yesterday about prosecution witness Tom O’Neill’s testimony against the ComEd Four. Today, let’s look at his cross-examination. Tribune…
“Did Mike McClain ever tell you that Speaker Madigan was guaranteed to support ComEd’s legislation?” McClain’s attorney, Patrick Cotter, asked at one point. O’Neill responded no.
To my eyes, that kinda plays in to the prosecution’s case. The feds claim the reason for the alleged bribery scheme was to make sure a sometimes hostile Madigan did what the defendants wanted.
* ABC 7…
On cross-examination, O’Neill admitted that at no time during the years he was General Counsel did anyone at ComEd suggest that Madigan would do as they wanted in the Assembly because he was being given contracts and jobs for his political allies.
Yeah, but he may not have been in that particular loop.
* Sun-Times…
ComEd’s former top lawyer confirmed Wednesday that he — not ComEd executive Anne Pramaggiore — made the decision in 2011 to hire a law firm with political ties to Michael Madigan as ComEd tried to pass a key bill in Springfield.
So given that Pramaggiore is now on trial for an alleged bribery conspiracy revolving around Madigan, her defense attorney sarcastically asked Thomas O’Neill whether he then went to Pramaggiore, confessed and said, “I lost my head and I just bribed Mike Madigan.”
O’Neill confirmed he did not. […]
And when asked by Doherty defense attorney Gabrielle Sansonetti whether O’Neill believed the effort to hire Reyes Kurson “was connected to legislation,” O’Neill told jurors, “No, I did not.” […]
The [Reyes Kurson] contract was originally signed in 2011, one day before the Illinois General Assembly overrode a veto by then-Gov. Pat Quinn to pass EIMA. But O’Neill said he didn’t believe the bill was in danger.
Legislative leaders were committed to overriding Quinn, he said.
It may not have been bribery to O’Neill’s eyes at the time, but he wasn’t part of the alleged cabal.
* Crain’s…
After getting O’Neill to agree that McClain could be “a bit of a pest,” McClain attorney Patrick Cotter on cross-examination said to O’Neill, “At the end of the day, you did what you wanted to do with Reyes Kurson. You cut their hours.” “Yes,” O’Neill responded.
“Did you intend to bribe Mr. Madigan by hiring Reyes Kurson?” Cotter asked. “I did not,” O’Neill said. […]
In cross-examination, Pramaggiore attorney Scott Lassar, a former U.S. attorney for Illinois’ Northern District, pointed out that [Juan Ochoa’s appointment to ComEd’s board] was being pushed by Madigan as a favor to other politicians. U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez wanted Madigan’s help in getting Ochoa appointed. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also went to bat for Ochoa with ComEd, Lassar said.
Likewise, Joe Dominguez, who was ComEd’s CEO at the time (Pramaggiore had been promoted to CEO of all Exelon-owned utility companies and was Dominguez’s boss), had met with Ochoa and backed the appointment, Lassar said. “That was my understanding, yes,” O’Neill replied.
Exelon CEO Chris Crane also sided with Pramaggiore.
* More from the Tribune…
“There are fights you pick and fights you don’t. … I thought it was something we could handle,” O’Neill answered [when questioned by prosecutors “couldn’t you have said no” to the contract].
On cross-examination, Lassar and Cotter both zeroed in on whether O’Neill felt that the hiring of Reyes’ firm was a bribe.
When Cotter asked if O’Neill had “a corrupt intent” when he hired the firm, prosecutors objected and O’Neill did not answer. Cotter then asked, “Did you hire Reyes to bribe Michael Madigan?”
“I did not,” O’Neill answered.
* Capitol News Illinois…
Although a “due diligence” background check conducted on Ochoa also pulled up items from Ochoa’s past – including a property he owned that was foreclosed upon after he’d stopped paying the mortgage – O’Neill said those concerns weren’t top of mind.
O’Neill said he was more concerned with a person close to Madigan having access to exclusive information about ComEd that the utility’s executives only disclosed to board members in their quarterly meetings.
But in a call with Pramaggiore and the CEO of ComEd’s parent company, Exelon, O’Neill said Pramaggiore acknowledged “the Madigan connection,” and said she was “for that.”
“She wanted to go forward (with Ochoa’s appointment),” O’Neill said. “She thought it was important.
* Isabel’s coverage roundup…
* Tribune | Ex-ComEd lawyer testifies request to put Juan Ochoa on utility’s board came from Michael Madigan: In one of the central allegations in the government’s case, Tom O’Neill, ComEd’s former chief lawyer, testified that Madigan wanted former McPier chief Juan Ochoa to get placed in a rare vacant seat on the company’s board in late 2017 and that CEO Anne Pramaggiore was behind the move because Ochoa’s resume came from Madigan. “I did discuss that I had some concerns about someone (recommended by) the speaker’s office being on the ComEd board,” O’Neill said of a conversation with Pramaggiore where he cited “optics” and the possibility that an ally of the speaker would have access to exclusive company information that could go before the board.
* Crain’s | Trial covers flurry of anguished emails over ComEd contract with Madigan ally: ComEd’s legal department, which O’Neill ran, had concluded it didn’t have much work Reyes Kurson was equipped to do and sought to cut back the firm’s hours under its contract with ComEd. McClain, through many emails, negotiated on Reyes’ behalf, addressing detailed items like renewal options and fees. O’Neill, in his second day on the witness stand in a trial that’s expected to last another six or seven weeks, said he was surprised at what a headache the relatively low-priority contract became.
* Bloomberg Law | Ex-Exelon Counsel Testifies About ‘Pressure’ in ComEd Four Trial: McClain was pestering O’Neill and arguing with him over the minutia of the terms of the firm’s contract, and O’Neill said he didn’t understand why the speaker would be so interested in ComEd’s contract with the Reyes Kurson law firm. “I started to wonder if he was using speaker’s name for impact,” O’Neill said.
* ABC Chicago | Prosecutors try to connect Mike Madigan to various utility contracts, hirings: “I’m sure you know how valuable Victor is to our Friend,” McClain wrote in an email to Pramaggiore dated January 20th, 2016. He added that: “I know the drill and so do you. If you do not get involved and resolve this issue of 850 hours for his law firm per year then he will go to our Friend. Our Friend will call me and then I will call you. Is this a drill we must go through?” “Our Friend” is, according to the indictment, one of the ways McClain often referred to Mike Madigan, who in 2017 appears to have exercised his influence with the utility once again.
* Telephone conversation between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan | ComEd Exhibit 92-T: Michael McClain speaks to Speaker Michael Madigan about moving state Rep. Lou Lang “to the dark side, that’s what I call lobbying.”
* Telephone conversation between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan | ComEd Exhibit 99-T : A brief conversation between Speaker Michael Madigan and Michael McClain.
* Telephone conversation between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan | ComEd Exhibit 101-T: MCCLAIN: So, Michael, the reason why I called ya, is I want to let ya know I have (unintelligible) Lou Lang and, um, (unintelligible) long discussion (unintelligible) fight it, he just doesn’t like it, right? MADIGAN: Mhm.
* Telephone conversation between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan | ComEd Exhibit 102-T: Speaker Michael Madigan and Michael McClain have a brief conversation about state Rep. Lou Lang.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 10:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Watch the rollercoaster, don’t ride it
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Giannoulias awarding grants to combat carjackings and vehicle thefts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===Yeah, but he may not have been in that particular loop.===
That seems like something the government can establish on redirect.
===O’Neill said he was more concerned with a person close to Madigan having access to exclusive information about ComEd that the utility’s executives only disclosed to board members in their quarterly meetings.===
This is very interesting testimony to me.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 10:43 am
I call all of this the “legislative - lobby complex” - the lawmaking, lobbying and fundraising that fuels the machine. Similar to the “military - industrial complex” Eisenhower talked about.
Not sure if it was illegal but this trial is revealing it for people.
Comment by low level Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 10:45 am
The public is getting a peak at how the spices get tossed in during the sausage making.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 11:05 am
Rich’s right to suggest O’Neil’s testimony is a microcosm of the case itself, but I think a juror could sit there and listen to an experienced attorney at a large corporation testify over and over that, yeah, this all seemed fishy and designed to curry favor, but it was never overt, and decide no one should go to prison for vIbES.
And all it takes is one.
Comment by custard Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 11:20 am
“It may not have been bribery to O’Neill’s eyes at the time, but he wasn’t part of the alleged cabal.”
Actually O’Neill was part of decision makers at the time. It was the Citadel lawyer who wanted to say it was bribery.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 11:33 am
==all seemed fishy and designed to curry favor, but it was never overt, and decide no one should go to prison==
I agree. The cross examination was very effective in bringing this out yesterday I thought.
Comment by low level Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 11:47 am
This case seems quite complicated to a disinterested observer. I wonder what the jury thinks. Were they expecting to see photos of someone giving someone a bag of cash?
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 12:09 pm
===O’Neill said he was more concerned with a person close to Madigan having access to exclusive information about ComEd that the utility’s executives only disclosed to board members in their quarterly meetings.===
That might have been a good way for lawmakers to keep an eye on COMED schemes to unjustifiably raise rates on customers. The government contends that instead of stopping these schemes, the lawmaker(s) were in on it. This case is going to be very interesting.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 12:10 pm
I wouldn’t expect the senior executives as ComEd to directly speak or write emails as to the intent behind their actions. They’re smarter than that. Who do you think they are, Mike McClain?
Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 12:42 pm
Lincoln Lad is a genius. 1000% spot on.
Comment by low level Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 12:55 pm
While potentially confusing to the disinterested, I’m sure the recordings being heard in the courtroom are making the case crystal clear for the jurors. This will not end well for these four, which will not bode well for Himself.
Comment by Second place Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 1:26 pm
Where is the Quid Pro Quo ?
Comment by MOON Thursday, Mar 23, 23 @ 1:58 pm