The backbone of the case against former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan consists of more than 200 recordings that prosecutors promised jurors would hear over the next several weeks.
The tapes could begin to roll as soon as Thursday. And if the first few days of testimony are any indication, things will play out much the way they did early in last year’s ComEd bribery trial, which ended with the conviction of Madigan’s co-defendant, Michael McClain, and three others.
The first bombshell moment of that trial involved the testimony of ex-state Rep. Lou Lang. The FBI secretly recorded a 2018 call between Lang and McClain, in which McClain told Lang to resign from the General Assembly. McClain also claimed to be someone’s “agent” — and the feds say he meant Madigan.
Now, the start of Madigan’s racketeering conspiracy trial is largely mirroring the start of the ComEd bribery trial. Lang is expected to testify Thursday. He was spotted Wednesday down the hall from Madigan’s trial courtroom.
That means testimony — which so far has given jurors a lesson on Springfield, Madigan’s power and ComEd’s need to pass crucial legislation — is about to heat up.
The witnesses so far include ex-state Reps. Carol Sente and Scott Drury, as well as ComEd executive Scott Vogt. Prosecutors told the judge they next plan to call Lang and FBI Special Agent Ryan McDonald. The same group served as the first five witnesses in the ComEd bribery trial.
Madigan’s trial always threatened to serve, in part, as a re-run of that case. The same allegations in the ComEd trial are contained in six of the 23 counts in Madigan’s 117-page indictment. Prosecutors say ComEd paid $1.3 million to five Madigan allies for do-nothing jobs, hoping that he’d act favorably toward ComEd’s legislation in Springfield.
McClain worked as one of ComEd’s lobbyists, and Vogt actually testified Wednesday that he was perhaps the most important lobbyist in its stable.
There are allegations in Madigan’s indictment beyond the ComEd scheme. But another key difference this year is the presence of Madigan’s defense team. For example, Lang has testified about his November 2018 call with McClain twice — once in the ComEd trial and again during last year’s perjury trial of Madigan’s longtime chief of staff, Tim Mapes.
But Lang did not face cross-examination from a Madigan defense attorney either time.
The Lang episode actually threatens to undermine a claim made by Madigan attorney Tom Breen during his opening statement this week: That Madigan was “completely ignorant of what people are saying behind his back” and that people “don’t have the authority to speak that way for Michael Madigan.”
That’s because the FBI didn’t just record the phone call between McClain and Lang. Agents also recorded McClain speaking separately to Madigan and Mapes. Someone had threatened to come forward with an allegation against Lang around that time, following months of #MeToo scandals in Springfield.
McClain got on the phone with Mapes on Oct. 31, 2018, and said, “I gotta tell him that he’s gotta move on. That he has no future in the House.” Then, on Nov. 3, 2018, McClain asked Madigan “when do you want me to call Lang and just lower the boom on him?”
“Sooner rather than later,” Madigan told him.
McClain’s phone call with Lang took place five days after that.
“I’m an agent,” McClain told him, “somebody that cares deeply about ya, who thinks that you really oughta move on.”
The jurors who are among the next to hear that recording spent their day Wednesday learning more about why ComEd needed to pass legislation in Springfield so badly. Vogt told jurors he believed Madigan’s support was essential.
An electrical rate freeze between 1998 and 2006 created a “dire” financial situation for ComEd, Vogt explained. It significantly affected ComEd’s investment in infrastructure, leading to increased power outages and longer wait times to get customer’s power back on.
The utility lobbied heavily for the passage of the Energy Infrastructure and Modernization Act in 2011, as well as the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which helped ComEd more reliably predict the rates it could charge customers.
“[Madigan] controlled, to a large degree, what bills made it to the floor… and had an opportunity to be voted on,” Vogt, a senior vice president for strategy, told the jury.
But on cross-examination, Madigan attorney Dan Collins peppered Vogt with questions about the bill’s widespread benefits, including for the jurors hearing the case. The benefits included job creation and statewide infrastructure investment, Vogt testified.
McClain attorney Patrick Cotter also pressed Vogt on whether McClain ever suggested a secret deal with Madigan was afoot.
“At any point in the almost 10-year period you spent with Mike [McClain], did he ever say or do anything that led you to believe he had the ability to get Mike Madigan to take official action on behalf of ComEd?” Cotter asked.
Vogt said he did not.