Feds attack efforts to gut case
Defense seeks to suppress dozens of wiretapped calls, secret recordings of former House speaker
Former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s attempt to suppress the dozens of wiretapped calls and secret recordings that form the backbone of the government’s bombshell racketeering case is a “flimsy effort to create an air of impropriety where none exists,” federal prosecutors said in a motion Tuesday.
The 152-page filing also ripped defense claims that the indictment fails to connect any benefits Madigan allegedly received from utility giants Commonwealth Edison and AT&T Illinois to any action the powerful speaker took — or didn’t — on particular legislation.
“Without batting an eye, time and again Madigan stood prepared to take official action in his capacity as an Illinois representative and Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, at times with the connivance and assistance of his confederate (Michael) McClain, in exchange for legal work being steered to his private law firm,” the filing stated.
The government’s response to defense pretrial motions is part of a protracted legal battle in a case that rocked Illinois politics and ultimately ended Madigan’s record run as the state’s most powerful politician.
Defense attorneys have four weeks to file any reply, and U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey has set a motion hearing for Aug. 29.
The filing Tuesday goes deep into the legal weeds at times but also lays out in the starkest language yet what prosecutors intend to prove at trial: that Madigan, the longest-serving legislative leader in the country, “exploited his position as a high-ranking public official to manipulate the levers of state and local government for the purpose of illegally enriching himself and his associates.”
“Madigan, together with his loyal lieutenant Michael McClain — a self-described soldier and faithful agent for Madigan — arranged for a flood of corrupt payments and perks to be doled out to Madigan and his associates in exchange and as a reward for Madigan’s abuse of his official powers,” the prosecution team, headed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu, wrote in its filing.
Madigan, 81, and McClain, 75, are charged in a 23-count indictment with racketeering conspiracy and individual counts of using interstate facilities in aid of bribery, wire fraud and attempted extortion.
They have pleaded not guilty, and a jury trial is set for April 2024.
Among the allegations in the indictment was a scheme by ComEd to secretly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments and other perks to Madigan loyalists in exchange for the speaker’s influence on legislation in Springfield.
Four others charged separately in that scheme, including McClain, were convicted by a jury on bribery conspiracy charges in May. McClain is scheduled to be sentenced for that offense in January.
In November prosecutors unveiled a superseding indictment adding allegations that Madigan and McClain participated in another scheme to funnel payments from AT&T to a Madigan associate in exchange for the speaker’s influence over legislation the telephone company wanted passed.
The Madigan indictment also accused the former speaker — along with the assistance of McClain — of illegally soliciting business for his private property tax law firm during discussions about a potential commercial development on a stateowned parcel of land in Chinatown.
Then-Ald. Daniel Solis, who was secretly cooperating with the investigation, recorded numerous conversations with Madigan as part of the Chinatown land probe, including one where the speaker allegedly told Solis he was looking for a colleague to sponsor a House bill approving the land sale.
The deal was consummated.
Attorneys for both Madigan and McClain have argued in previous court filings that federal investigators, in their zeal to land a prized political target, cut corners in the investigation and ultimately filed charges that misuse the bribery statute and attempt to criminalize legal lobbying and politicking.
Madigan’s legal team also accused federal prosecutors of misleading the chief judge in applications to tap Solis’ phone and later members of Madigan’s inner circle, saying they deliberately misconstrued an innocent 2014 meeting with Chinatown developers at the speaker’s law office as a possible shakedown, then later buried crucial “exculpatory” information in a footnote.
Madigan’s attorneys, Sheldon Zenner, Daniel Collins and Gil Soffer, have asked Blakey for an evidentiary never
hearing to determine whether investigators made any misrepresentations in the wiretap applications.
Though rarely granted, the so-called Franks hearing could provide a fascinating glimpse into how the government built its investigation, first by gathering evidence on Solis’ own misdeeds, then by pressuring him into cooperating against two of the state’s most powerful and long-standing politicians, Madigan and then-Chicago Ald. Edward Burke.
The motions have focused largely on an Aug. 18, 2014, meeting at Madigan’s law office where developer See Wong, who was secretly cooperating with investigators due to his own misdeeds, met with the speaker, Solis and a Chinese real estate magnate who wanted to build a hotel in Chinatown.
The roughly half-hour meeting formed the basis of future wiretap requests for Solis and was also included in later applications to tap a phone belonging to McClain, which led to numerous recordings of Madigan himself.
The defense motion said prosecutors improperly “theorized” in their original 2014 application that Madigan
and his law partner had conspired with Solis, who at the time was the head of city’s Zoning Committee, to threaten to withhold Solis’ approval of a zoning request unless the developer hired Madigan’s law firm.
The misrepresentations were repeated by prosecutors for years in subsequent wiretap requests, even after Solis, when confronted with a recording of the meeting, tried to explain that he would have very likely approved the zoning change regardless of whether the developer hired Madigan’s firm, according to the defense motion.
It wasn’t until 2018 that the government, in a footnote “buried” in the McClain wiretap application, acknowledged Solis’ statements denying any quid pro quo at the meeting. But the footnote also tried to “spin” Solis’ comments by adding he’d admitted “an independent observer would interpret” what was said at the meeting as pressure to hire Madigan’s firm.
According to the motion, that comment was added to an FBI report about “a remarkable” two-day session where Solis was repeatedly challenged by agents and prosecutors who were trying to parse what was said on the disjointed recording.
Solis, according to the motion, never adopted the government’s viewpoint during the questioning, offering only the comment, “I see (your) point.”
Madigan was not charged with any wrongdoing stemming from that 2014 meeting. The defense motion stated that was due to “one simple reason — Madigan had committed no crime.”
The response by prosecutors Tuesday contained numerous pages of blackedout material regarding the Solis warrant and any interviews he gave to investigators, much of which have never been made public.
In the unredacted portions of the motion, prosecutors called the defense arguments “without merit,” noting that the Solis wiretap was approved by then-U. S. District Judge Ruben Castillo four years before any of the recordings that will be played at Madigan’s trial were made. If there were any issues with the application, they had no bearing on the legality of the request, prosecutors said.
Moreover, according to prosecutors, Solis’ cooperation had led to a trove of other evidence by the time the McClain wiretaps were approved in 2018, including consensual recordings he made of Madigan allegedly directly soliciting business for his law firm in exchange for official acts.
“In short, there were no errors in the affidavit, let alone material and intentionally made ones, that would justify an evidentiary hearing,” the motion stated.
Solis was charged with unrelated corruption counts last year as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office and will likely see charges dropped after his cooperation is completed.