Michael J. Madigan’s attorneys tried once more Tuesday to distance the previous Illinois Home speaker from a longtime pal and confidant, urgent ComEd’s onetime high counsel over whether or not he had direct information of the lads discussing an uncommon regulation agency contract.
However federal prosecutors simply piled on extra proof of ongoing, routine chatter between Madigan and Michael McClain, who’re on trial collectively for a racketeering conspiracy. The feds did so by calling longtime Madigan aide Will Cousineau to the witness stand.
Cousineau, who turned a lobbyist for Cornerstone Authorities Affairs in 2017, testified for lower than an hour earlier than courtroom adjourned for the day Tuesday. However he informed jurors that Madigan and McClain would generally organize to make use of his workplace to fulfill alone.
“I believe [McClain] and the Speaker talked on a reasonably common foundation,” Cousineau testified.
Cousineau ended his profession in authorities as Madigan’s senior adviser. He additionally testified in two different trials in 2023. However that is the primary time he’s taken the witness stand with Madigan within the room. He informed jurors Madigan was the “final choice maker” within the Home.
Madigan and Cousineau interacted little within the courtroom Tuesday, if in any respect. Madigan watched Cousineau’s testimony with a poker face. When courtroom ended for the day, Madigan started to pack his issues, his again to Cousineau, as Cousineau left the courtroom.
Madigan, who resigned in 2021, is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to reinforce his political energy and enrich his allies. Prosecutors say McClain, who labored as a ComEd lobbyist, was the agent who dealt with Madigan’s “soiled work.”
Jurors have already heard a number of recordings demonstrating their shut relationship and communication. That’s regardless of earlier arguments by Madigan’s attorneys that he was “ignorant” of what individuals mentioned behind his again.
Earlier than Cousineau took the stand Tuesday, jurors heard extra testimony from former ComEd basic counsel Thomas O’Neill. He beforehand informed jurors in regards to the strain he felt from McClain to signal and renew a contract for the regulation agency of Madigan ally Victor Reyes. It occurred when ComEd wanted Home approval for laws essential to its backside line.
O’Neill additionally mentioned the deal was uncommon as a result of it assured 850 hours of labor per yr to the regulation agency.
When O’Neill later tried to scale back that assure, McClain wrote an e mail to then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore in January 2016. He referred to Madigan as “our pal,” and he warned Pramaggiore that Reyes would go to Madigan.
“Our Good friend will name me after which I’ll name you,” McClain wrote. “Is that this a drill we should undergo?”
When Madigan lawyer Dan Collins had an opportunity to cross-examine O’Neill on Tuesday, he pressed him on his precise information of Madigan’s involvement.
O’Neill admitted that he’d begun to wonder if McClain was invoking Madigan’s identify with out permission. When Collins requested whether or not O’Neill had any cause to suppose “Madigan had any curiosity” within the contract, O’Neill mentioned he may solely level to “background” info, like Reyes’ position as a Democratic fundraiser.
“Aside from these emails, you don’t have any direct information of any conversations between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan in regards to the Reyes Kurson contract?” Collins pressed.
“Right,” O’Neill answered.
O’Neill additionally acknowledged for Assistant U.S. Lawyer Sarah Streicker that he didn’t take part in conversations McClain had with Madigan, Pramaggiore or fellow ComEd lobbyist John Hooker — who have been all caught on secret FBI recordings jurors will hear.
In the meantime, McClain lawyer Patrick Cotter requested O’Neill immediately whether or not he may recall McClain ever suggesting that the utility ought to “commerce or change jobs at ComEd” to safe Madigan’s vote on laws.
“I don’t recall him saying these phrases, no,” O’Neill replied.
Cotter requested O’Neill about individuals who have been really helpful for jobs at ComEd however by no means employed — together with Madigan’s son-in-law. He requested whether or not saying “no” to McClain on a job suggestion would endanger ComEd laws.
“I don’t recall him ever utilizing these phrases,” O’Neill mentioned, referring to McClain.
O’Neill agreed that McClain might be “persistent,” however he mentioned he didn’t suppose McClain violated ComEd ethics insurance policies by making job suggestions. O’Neill additionally mentioned it wasn’t uncommon for lobbyists to make hiring suggestions, or for ComEd to rent somebody to enhance political relationships to their profit.
Requested if McClain was a beneficial asset for the utility, O’Neill agreed. He mentioned McClain was employed particularly due to his connection to Madigan, whose historic relationship with ComEd had been “not nice.”
Cotter requested if it improved when McClain was employed.
“I’d say sure,” O’Neill mentioned.
In actual fact, Cousineau’s testimony later put McClain within the room with Madigan and members of his workers as they mentioned a few of ComEd’s key laws in 2015.
Except for McClain — a ComEd lobbyist — everybody else in that assembly was both a present, or former, worker of the Speaker’s workplace, in keeping with Cousineau.
