Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: State spending pressures abound
Next Post: Are we really doing this again?
Posted in:
After calling 50 witnesses over the last two months, prosecutors in former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s federal corruption trial rested their case Wednesday, followed immediately by defense attorneys calling their first witness.
Lawyers for Madigan’s close friend and co-defendant, longtime Statehouse lobbyist Mike McClain, called a witness the government dropped off its own list last week: retired AT&T Illinois lobbyist Steve Selcke.
Prosecutors had closed out their case detailing a 2017 episode in which AT&T hired newly retired Democratic state Rep. Eddie Acevedo as a consultant while the company was pushing for major legislation. The feds allege Acevedo’s $22,500 no-work contract was meant as a bribe to Madigan in exchange for the powerful speaker’s help pushing the legislation through the General Assembly.
But Selcke insisted neither he nor any of his colleagues believed hiring Acevedo had any bearing on the passage of a bill AT&T had been working on for the last six years, except to prevent against “rocking the boat” with Madigan’s office.
* Sun-Times…
Selcke spent three and a half hours on the stand Wednesday, giving testimony similar to what he offered in September. He said that, as a lobbyist, he found it important to respond when an elected official recommended someone for a job — and it “was great” if the response could be positive.
Mitchell asked Selcke if he thought Madigan would allow passage of AT&T’s bill “in exchange” for Acevedo’s money. Selcke told him, “I did not have a feeling that that would result in the Speaker allowing passage.”
Madigan attorney Todd Pugh later pointed out, through Selcke’s testimony, that Madigan’s office moved to add less popular 911 reform language to AT&T’s bill after Acevedo was hired. […]
But before testimony ended for the day, Selcke told Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz there “was a concern” that not hiring Acevedo “might trigger a negative reaction from the Speaker’s office.”
Jurors have also seen a Feb. 14, 2017, email from McClain to AT&T lobbyist Bob Barry, asking if there was “even a small contract” for Acevedo. A separate email from then-AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza two days later informed AT&T’s legislative team that Madigan had assigned McClain to work on the company’s COLR relief efforts as a “special project.”
McClain’s attorney John Mitchell tried to reframe this evidence. He had Selcke confirm on the stand it isn’t unusual for lobbyists to help lawmakers with “requests” to build up relationships, or to consider job recommendations. Selcke brought up helping with a youth sporting event, or working out a service payment plan for an elected official’s financially struggling constituent, as examples of legislator requests lobbyists might address.
Selcke also confirmed AT&T tried to lobby the speaker’s office in 2017, and that he knew McClain and Madigan were close. But he told Mitchell he wasn’t aware of McClain ever threatening Madigan would kill the COLR bill if Acevedo didn’t get his contract.
In exchange for the $22,500 contract, Acevedo was ostensibly meant to prepare a report on the “political dynamics of the Latino Caucus of the General Assembly and the City of Chicago.” Prosecutors say Acevedo never made that report, which Cullen himself called “busy work” on the stand last week.
Selcke said Wednesday that such a report would have benefitted AT&T, but also told Mitchell “I don’t recall ever getting any report … relative to Mr. Acevedo’s contract.”
* Tribune…
Selcke also testified about Acevedo’s tendency to be overly partisan, which alienated many Republicans, as well as his extracurricular behavior that was the cause of many whispers around the Capitol.
“Eddie, after session, tended to go out in Springfield and occasionally would have too much to drink, and when he had too much to drink he could become belligerent and to a degree loose-lipped,” Selcke said. […]
Schwartz also revealed in her questioning that McClain had previously asked AT&T to expand two other consulting contracts, including one for former state Rep. Annazette Collins, another ally of the speaker who had gone into lobbying.
Schwartz was about to show the jury an exhibit pertaining to Collins — who was convicted of tax fraud related to the Madigan probe and is currently serving a one-year term in prison — but Pugh objected.
After a lengthy sidebar discussion, the judge told the jury the exhibit was not being admitted at that time.
…Adding… McClain rests his case…
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 10:50 am
Previous Post: State spending pressures abound
Next Post: Are we really doing this again?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Certainly a lot of smoke, but is there fire? Very hard to tell. I can see it both ways…
Comment by low level Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 11:29 am
The Myth of Madigan smoked everybody involved.
Comment by walker Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 12:36 pm
I think the Feds will be happy to get just one count against Madigan. Thinking….he’ll beat several of the charges….but they will get him on a few….like the China Town Deal. If Madigan is a convicted felon on one count…they will be happy.
Comment by Bugsy Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 1:42 pm
== I think the Feds will be happy to get just one count against Madigan. Thinking….he’ll beat several of the charges…==
Yes, agreed. How about McClain? Im not sure he beats any of the charges.
Comment by low level Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 1:54 pm
The problem for Madigan is that it looks to me like the prosecution met its burden of proof that a corrupt enterprise existed. If McClain is shown to have committed a crime, then that attaches via the enterprise to Madigan. That’s how RICO cases work. That’s why they are being tried together.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 2:00 pm
=I think the Feds will be happy to get just one count against Madigan=
With 22 counts against MJM including racketeering conspiracy, bribery, wire fraud, and finally attempted extortion - not sure how you or the jury gets down to just one.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 2:23 pm
—-low level-154pm….I agree with 47th Ward…the Rico Statutes will apply to Madigan in some way or another if McClain is found guilty. I do think Madigan put on a great defense.. .(he has great lawyers)….and on that line….I don’t think McClain’s attorneys were nearly as good.
Comment by Bugsy Thursday, Dec 19, 24 @ 3:00 pm