Federal prosecutors have spent years linking former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan to alleged criminal wrongdoing through his longtime friend and ally, lobbyist Michael McClain.
But on his second day testifying in his own defense Wednesday, Madigan was asked if his friendship with McClain had survived in the 40 years since they’d served in the state Legislature together.
“It did, until recently,” Madigan testified.
The brief remark offered the greatest public glimpse into the relationship between the two men, aside from their body language in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John Blakey, since they found themselves on trial for a racketeering conspiracy.
It came as Madigan also tried to distance himself from another key figure in the case, former Ald. Danny Solis (25th), who recorded Madigan for the FBI. Madigan told the jury he’d “never heard anything negative about Ald. Solis” — until news reporting by the Chicago Sun-Times “disclosed that Mr. Solis had been involved in significant criminal activity.”
Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise made up of his public and political offices, as well as his private law firm, designed to enhance his political power and enrich himself and his allies.
Dan Collins, Madigan’s attorney, spent a little less than two hours questioning Madigan on Wednesday before McClain’s attorney, Patrick Cotter, began his own round of questions. Prosecutors have not had an opportunity to question Madigan.
McClain, who is accused of acting as Madigan’s agent, has been described to multiple juries over the years as an emissary of Madigan’s in Springfield. A separate jury has already convicted McClain, in May 2023, of conspiring with other ComEd officials to bribe Madigan.
As recently as January 2020, before either he or Madigan had been criminally charged, McClain expressed his continuing devotion to his longtime friend as it was clear the feds were building a case against ComEd and Madigan.
WBEZ cornered McClain outside a Loop restaurant, where he confirmed he’d been asked by federal investigators to become a cooperating witness but that he had rebuffed the request.
Pressed on whether it would be hard to betray someone like Madigan by aiding the government, McClain paused and then said, “It would be hard to betray myself.”
Meanwhile, Madigan and McClain appear to have had limited interactions in the courtroom since their trial began Oct. 8. On the day lawyers began questioning potential jurors, hours went by before Madigan was seen giving McClain a subtle wave.
McClain’s attorneys predicted last summer, before the trial began, that Madigan’s defense attorneys would ultimately point the finger at McClain, despite the pair’s lengthy and well-known friendship.
But so far, Madigan has simply testified that he did not authorize McClain to speak on his behalf the way he did in some of the more notorious phone calls and emails in the case.
For example, Collins brought up a comment McClain made in an email that Madigan believed that “there should be a hard and quick favorable response” to the politician’s requests.
Collins asked Madigan on Wednesday, “Did McClain accurately describe your mindset?” He also asked, “Did you instruct McClain to express this sentiment?”
Madigan denied it.
Likewise, McClain notoriously sent an email to then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore complaining that the law firm of Madigan ally Victor Reyes was having trouble with a contract renewal. McClain wrote, “I know the drill and so do you.”
“Did you instruct Mike McClain to express this sentiment to ComEd on your behalf?” Collins asked on Wednesday.
Again, Madigan denied it.
Collins also spent the morning asking Madigan about his various encounters with Solis. Prosecutors say Madigan tried to use Solis, then the chair of the City Council’s zoning committee, to steer private business to Madigan’s tax appeals law firm.
But Madigan denied connecting, in his mind, a request Solis made for help landing a paid seat on a government board with Solis’ offer to introduce Madigan to developers. Madigan also denied connecting it to his request that Solis help Madigan’s son get a meeting with a Pilsen not-for-profit that led to $43,000 in business for Madigan’s son.
Madigan also explained that he never asked Solis for help meeting a set of developers interested in a parking lot in Chinatown because procedures at Madigan’s law firm would have prevented it from hiring the developers.
“I didn’t want to meet them,” Madigan said, “because there was no way that I would take that property for representation on real estate taxes.”
Most notably, Madigan explained his reaction to a comment Solis made in 2017 about developers working on an apartment complex in the West Loop. Solis told Madigan that they understand how things work “you know, the quid pro quo, the quid pro quo.”
Madigan said that, in his mind, he had “a great deal of surprise and concern” and decided to discuss it with Solis, face to face. When he did, he said Solis seemed “very apologetic” and “had gotten the message from me, that I was not going to be involved in a quid pro quo.”
Solis continued to connect Madigan’s law firm business with the development project in follow-up discussions, though. Eventually, Madigan told Solis to “go ahead and process that,” which prosecutors have suggested was a veiled green light for a crooked deal.
But Madigan insisted Wednesday he simply didn’t find Solis’ questions on the matter to be “appropriate” — and didn’t want to confront him further.
“I answered the way I did because I didn’t think it appropriate for him to be linking the two,” Madigan testified. “That’s why I gave the answer that I gave.”