Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Tribune…
A lawyer for ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan’s longtime confidant told a federal jury Tuesday that the allegations of bribery and corruption against the pair were simply a misguided attempt to criminalize legal lobbying and the relationship-building at the heart of the state’s politics.
Michael McClain did “perfectly 100% legal favors for Mike Madigan,” for the purpose of “building trust and maintaining and increasing access to Mike Madigan,” McClain attorney John Mitchell said in his opening statement.
The government’s view of the evidence “is just wrong,” Mitchell told jurors.
“They were so focused on Mike Madigan that they missed it,” he said. “He did not act with an attempt to bribe Mike Madigan or help him obtain bribes. … He is 100% innocent.”
* Sun-Times…
Mitchell offered jurors the most extensive dirty-laundry list so far for government mole Danny Solis, the former City Council member who secretly recorded Madigan and McClain for the FBI.
Mitchell told jurors that Solis “stole hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds”; took bribes in the form of “cash, Viagra, and prostitutes”; that he lied to a grand jury “and his own wife and family”; and that he now manages to vacation in “tropical islands” thanks to his deal with prosecutors.
“You’ll see what a real criminal looks like,” Mitchell said. “You’ll see what a real public corruption defendant looks like. It’ll take him a week to testify about all the bribes he took.” […]
Testimony in their racketeering conspiracy case got underway Tuesday after Mitchell’s opening statement. Prosecutors could call as many as 50 witnesses in the trial that could last well into December. But they kicked things off with the same two witnesses who began testimony in McClain’s 2023 trial: Drury and former state Rep. Carol Sente.
* WTTW…
After opening statements wrapped up Tuesday morning, former state Rep. Carol Sente was the first government witness called Tuesday. […]
Sente told jurors about a predatory lending bill she brought forth in 2011 that she said had strong bipartisan support. But when she discussed the legislation with Madigan, he told her that he didn’t “want to talk about that bill again” and “it’s not moving forward.” […]
Sente also testified about another bill focused on budgeting transparency she said she’d worked on and was listed as chief sponsor. But later, Madigan’s name appeared as chief sponsor.
When she confronted him about this, he told her if she wanted to remain chief sponsor, she would need to include an amendment proposed by Madigan. Sente said she ultimately agreed to do so, knowing that if she refused Madigan would’ve killed the bill.
* Fox Chicago…
Later, another former Democratic state lawmaker, Scott Drury, told jurors: “The Speaker had the ultimate authority to control the legislation, the committees. The Speaker had a lot of power.”
Drury said at one point he had a meeting with Madigan, who told him he couldn’t figure out what Drury wanted.
“I just said I want good government, and he just laughed,” Drury testified.
* Some more from the app formally known as Twitter…
Sente apparently never brushed up on her answers from last March as she just wrongly testified again that meetings of the Rules Committee are not public. They’re not well-attended but they’re certainly open because I’ve certainly been. She may be conflating it with Bill Review.
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) October 22, 2024
Similar story with a second bill Pugh flags.
The point is that, even though the bills never became law, they didn't stall in the House, where Madigan was speaker.
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) October 22, 2024
We are breaking for the day with Drury still on cross. And it seems like Pugh is kind of just warming up
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) October 22, 2024
* This morning from the Tribune…
Federal prosecutors on Wednesday are expected to play a first wave of nearly 200 secretly recorded conversations in the landmark corruption trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan, including series of calls between the powerful speaker and his associates allegedly plotting the ouster of then-state Rep. Lou Lang in 2019.
Lang, a Skokie Democrat, has already testified twice for the U.S. attorney’s office about the embarrassing episode that ended his political career, which centered on an accusation of sexual harassment that Madigan believed was about to go public.
In one wiretapped call the jury is expected to hear, Madigan’s longtime confidant, Michael McClain, told Lang, “I just think it’s in your best interest to leave while you’re strong and not face all that, if you’re still a member. This is no longer me talking, I’m an agent.” […]
Prosecutors have said they will call Lang to the stand Wednesday after the testimony of former state Rep. Scott Drury wraps up.
* More…
* ABC Chicago | Mike Madigan trial LIVE updates: Testimony to continue for 2nd day in former IL speaker’s trial: Co-defendant Michael McClain’s defense has wrapped up their opening statements as the Michael Madigan federal corruption trial moves forward. McLain’s defense attorney John Mitchell told the jury, “The evidence will show mike McClain was a lobbyist and like all lobbyist he understood if you want to get access to a politician you need to develop a relationship of trust…a favor by itself is not a bribe, a favor is a favor.”
* WGN | Government calling first witnesses in Michael Madigan corruption trial; co-defendant’s attorney gives opening statement: On Tuesday morning, McClain’s attorney told the jury of eight women and four men that in the hundreds of hours of secret recordings and thousands of documents used to charge the defendants, there isn’t a whiff of any illegal conduct by McClain. Rather, McClain’s attorney told the jury that all his client did was legal lobbying and legal favors for Madigan in order to maintain access to the powerful state lawmaker. He said doing such things for elected leaders, with no expectations of something in return, is nothing more than doing a favor and does not constitute a bribe.
posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 8:35 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Drury didnt just blame Madigan. Remember that ARDC complaint he filed against Rep. Sims? All because his bill didn’t get out of Criminal Law Committee. Had a press release about that too.
Comment by Nope. Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 8:51 am
OK, I’m reading everything Drury and Sente said and not finding any evidence of a crime. In fact, Drury sounds even more dopey then usual. On the other hand, the former federal prosecutor was probably overjoyed to be back in a federal courtroom. Im sure he relished being there but again, not sure what was illegal in everything he described.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:13 am
Madigan: “Legal lobbying” versus Blagojevich: “Political horsetrading.”
Hmmm.
Comment by Gravitas Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:28 am
=and not finding any evidence of a crime=
The Feds are building the case, so give it time. At this point, they are establishing the MJM was a cad who did not act in good faith and mocked good governance. The jury will connect his lack of character with evidence of the crimes that will come.
“Drury said at one point he had a meeting with Madigan, who told him he couldn’t figure out what Drury wanted. “I just said I want good government, and he just laughed,”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:38 am
Agree with low level on this. Drury is bitter since he was left out in the cold during his Springfield days. I’m sure Drury is feeling some sort of self relevance.
Comment by 6150 Joliet Rd Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:39 am
We talked about this last year, and while I was derided by many on this blog for saying so, I still don’t believe the Rules Committee meetings can be considered “public” to any reasonable person. The meetings dates/times are not posted anywhere for people to go to, they are in a location that doesn’t appear on maps of the building, and not even members of the committee knows what is going to happen until after it is over.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:45 am
Differences in reporting already becoming stark. S-T notes Drury false statements and Sente’s note, others ignore or skip thru. It will be interesting to see how it evolves. Mr/Ms low level is correct no crime was described.
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:47 am
Can we really believe that Drury’s recollection of how Madigan responded over dinner over a decade a go. The dude has testified three times now that Madigan put a brick on all of his bills after he voted present for Speaker, and it turns out that was either just a lie or Drury mis-remembering his own career.
He also can’t even recall what he testified to at the La Schiazza trial just a month ago.
Mapes shouldn’t have acted the way he did with the grand jury. In many respects it was Tim being Tim, and he gets to face the consequences of that. But these facts seem to be more consequential, especially when the intent of the embellishment is being used to help get them into prison for long periods of time.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:48 am
Maybe they’ve done this and I missed it, but shouldn’t the defense ask the government’s witnesses something like?: “So, when a bill successfully passes through the House, does it become a law?”
It might be useful way to remind the jurors that a bill has to pass the senate and be signed by the Guv, which would help illustrate that while Madigan was certainly powerful, he didn’t have the final say — and often did battle with governors and senate presidents. Would also allow them to highlight that bills like FEJA had support from every labor union and just about every environmental group in the state, not just ComEd. Don’t get me wrong, Madigan and McClain are going down and I don’t think the best lawyering in the world will change that. But the legislative geek in me is bothered that the jurors in all these cases aren’t really getting the full picture.
Comment by TNR Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:58 am
=Can we really believe that Drury’s recollection of how Madigan responded over dinner over a decade a go=
First-hand eyewitness testimony is highly regarded in courtrooms. MJM’s defense team can try to impeach Drury all they want - but it is what it is, and it is now part of the record.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 10:07 am
==At this point, they are establishing the MJM was a cad who did not act in good faith==
We could debate that day and night given the difference in our political leanings, and thats fair, but lets focus on Drury. Is his testimony helping the feds make that case? It seems to me he is being unnecessarily evasive.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 10:10 am
The Drury and Sente testimony is all foundational to establish the control Madigan had over the House and its proceedings. Not sure if they’re the best reps to do this given their history but we’ll see.
The case against Madigan will be tougher than most as it’s largely based on inferences. That’s why this is going to be a long, long trial. Don’t expect bomb shells in the first day or even through the last day. This isn’t the Blago trial.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 10:11 am
Regardless of how former Representative Drury performs in front of the jury, I’d think his presence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief would only undermine the strength of the case to people who know former-federal-prosecutor Scott Drury.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 10:51 am
= to people who know former-federal-prosecutor Scott Drury=
Good luck with that theory - highly doubtful that any of the jurors are that plugged into IL politics.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 11:03 am
I see readers still can’t get past their disgust with drury. But, as I see it, the point of the testimony is not to establish them as witnesses to criminal behavior but as observers of a legislative process Madigan controlled.
Comment by jim Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 11:43 am
===as I see it, the point of the testimony is not to establish them as witnesses to criminal behavior but as observers===
Yeah, well, that doesn’t seem to be going so well precisely because of who those folks are.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 11:45 am
Drury’s testimony was a disaster. Even Meisner seems to think so.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 11:52 am
== “Drury said at one point he had a meeting with Madigan, who told him he couldn’t figure out what Drury wanted. “I just said I want good government, and he just laughed,” ==
There is no way this actually happened or that Drury remembered this in such vivid detail but forgot he passed bills.
Comment by hystorically Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 3:34 pm
Maybe Madigan did laugh, because pretty much none of Drury’s bills would have resulted in good government. He just wanted to keep poking at people and couldn’t be bothered to get co-sponsors for most of his bills in the 100th GA. A couple that had co-sponsors did actually pass.
Comment by Leslie K Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 6:06 pm
They’ve got a laugh…so there’s that.
Now they’re laugh interpreters?…kinda like dream interpretation…exactly.
I imagine Madigan is guilty…but the case looks weak.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 9:09 pm
Drury was a party joke in Springfield. He couldn’t get out of his own way. He belittled his colleagues and thought he was superior to everyone. “As a former federal prosecutor,” it was a wasted legislative career.
Comment by Frida's Boss Wednesday, Oct 23, 24 @ 10:17 pm