Prosecutor challenges Madigan on Solis, McClain — and no-show jobs
After the click of a door and the wave of a hand comes the hushed voice of then-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan as he scolds then-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis for floating the idea of a “quid pro quo.”
Jurors saw the scene from the 2017 FBI video recording all over again Monday as Madigan faced off with Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu, the lead prosecutor who pressed Madigan to explain why he kept meeting with Solis while the City Council member repeatedly tied private gain to official action.
“The tone of your voice is quite low, correct?” Bhachu asked about the encounter.
Madigan said he didn’t think so.
“You closed the door as well?” Bhachu continued.
“Because I wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Solis,” Madigan explained.
Then Bhachu insisted that Madigan had misled Solis that day in 2017 by suggesting plans to build an apartment complex in the West Loop would be in trouble if the developers didn’t hire Madigan’s law firm.
And Madigan simply started laughing on the witness stand.
“Is there something funny about my question, sir?” Bhachu insisted.
The highly anticipated confrontation between Bhachu and Madigan drew a capacity crowd to U.S. District Judge John Blakey’s 12th-floor courtroom at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse. Bhachu, sitting on a decade’s worth of evidence gathered against the once-powerful Southwest Side Democrat, spent about two and a half hours challenging Madigan.
But it only took minutes for Bhachu to play a recording that’s been allowed into Madigan’s trial only because of the testimony Madigan gave last week. In it, Madigan can be heard laughing as he told his ally, Michael McClain, that certain ComEd contractors had “made out like bandits.”
“That’s you laughing there, isn’t it, sir?” Bhachu asked.
“Yes,” Madigan acknowledged.
At least one juror could be seen smiling when the remark aired in the courtroom.
Still, the most damaging part of Madigan’s testimony may have come near the end of the day, after Bhachu asked about Madigan’s “low” tone of voice in the meeting with Solis. Jurors first saw the video recording in November, but Bhachu played it for them again with the 82-year-old Madigan on the stand — visibly older and grayer than he was in his exchange with Solis more than seven years earlier.
Solis secretly recorded the meeting after agreeing to work undercover for the FBI in a bid to avoid prison for his own alleged wrongdoing. Madigan can be seen waving his hand before his face appears in the left side of the frame, as he lectures Solis about having used the words "quid pro quo" in a previous chat.
“You shouldn’t be talking like that,” Madigan told Solis on July 18, 2017. “You’re just recommending our law firm. … Because if, if they don’t get a good result on the real estate taxes, the whole project would be in trouble.”
Madigan testified last week that he thought he’d sent a message to Solis, in that moment, that he wouldn’t be part of a “quid pro quo.” But Bhachu on Monday went on to cite at least five other examples of Solis suggesting such an arrangement.
Eventually, Solis asked for Madigan’s help in 2018 landing a paid seat on a government board as part of an FBI ruse.
“In spite of all those statements, you were prepared to actually recommend him for a board position, right?” Bhachu asked Monday.
“I was prepared to entertain the possibility,” Madigan told the prosecutor.
‘Just answer the question’
Madigan wore a gray suit and a purple tie as he sparred with Bhachu during his third day on the witness stand in his racketeering conspiracy trial. Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and reward his supporters. His longtime ally McClain is also on trial and accused of acting as Madigan’s agent.
Bhachu’s cross-examination of Madigan is expected to continue Tuesday. But the prosecutor told defense attorneys they should expect to call more witnesses Tuesday if they have them — meaning Madigan’s testimony could be nearly done.
Blakey also signaled to jurors that all sides could finish presenting evidence by the end of this week, after roughly three months of trial. Closing arguments could begin as soon as Jan. 22.
The questioning Monday turned testy at times. Madigan sometimes asked Bhachu to repeat his questions, and the prosecutor often had to insist that Madigan answer his yes-or-no inquiries.
When Madigan answered one question about lobbying by telling Bhachu, “I think you really ought to define lobbying,” even the judge intervened.
“Just answer the question that’s posed to you, sir,” Blakey told Madigan.
Some of Bhachu’s questions seemed to amuse Madigan, including when Bhachu pointed to Madigan’s work at his law firm and questioned Madigan’s commitment to his public office.
“So when you were at the law firm…were you working as Speaker then?” Bhachu asked
“No, I was not,” Madigan said.
“So you weren’t working full-time,” Bhachu said.
Madigan laughed and replied, “Um, we can define full-time. But I gave seven days a week.”
‘You know that’s not allowed’
The politician also chuckled when Bhachu asked whether former Ald. Frank Olivo’s children had referred to him as “Uncle Mike” and whether ex-Ald. Mike Zalewski had supported his political campaigns.
“I’m about to say I presume that he did,” Madigan said.
“And you know that’s not allowed,” Bhachu said, reminding him that witnesses aren't permitted to presume.
Madigan only laughed.
Olivo and Ray Nice — Madigan’s former precinct captain — came up early in Bhachu’s cross-examination of Madigan because Madigan had testified last week that he was “very angry” to learn they’d allegedly done no work while being paid thousands of dollars by ComEd.
Prosecutors say the money was meant to make Madigan look favorably at ComEd’s legislation.
“It’s your testimony today, is it, that you had no idea that your longtime friend and political ally — whose son calls you ‘uncle’ — was getting paid eight years straight for doing little to no work for ComEd?” Bhachu asked, referring to Olivo.
“That’s my testimony,” Madigan said.
Bhachu also tried to undermine Madigan’s efforts to distance himself from McClain. Along the way, Madigan downplayed the friendship that has become notorious amid the feds’ prosecution of the two men.
Bhachu pointed to multiple examples of Madigan relying on McClain’s counsel. They included Madigan seeking out a nationally known messaging guru amid a #MeToo crisis in Springfield, telling a veteran lawmaker he had to resign, and helping the son of ex-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush find work 10 years after being fired for sexual misconduct.
The prosecutor also pointed to a notorious letter written by McClain, in which McClain pledged his loyalty to Madigan and wrote, “I am at the bridge with my musket standing with and for the Madigan family.”
“You knew Mr. McClain was very loyal to you, didn’t you?” Bhachu asked.
“Yes, I did,” Madigan answered.
“Were you very loyal to Mr. McClain?” Bhachu asked.
“I don’t think I was as loyal to him as he was to me,” Madigan answered.