Written by 
Late in the day, the prosecution of Madigan’s corruption trial highlighted an apparent contradiction in Madigan’s direct testimony.
CHICAGO (CN) — Former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan was in the hot seat Monday afternoon, facing cross-examination headed by federal prosecutor Amarjeet Bhachu in his federal corruption trial.
Over the course of the day, Bhachu jumped topics frequently. The prosecutor addressed Madigan’s relationship to Madigan’s longtime ally and co-defendant Mike McClain, what Madigan knew about the do-nothing subcontractor jobs ComEd officials purportedly helped arranged for his political allies and how Madigan managed his political organization in Chicago’s 13th Ward.
At one point Bhachu even asked Madigan if in 2018 he tried to help find work for Jeffrey Rush, son of retired Illinois congressman Bobby Rush. The Chicago Tribune reported in 2007 that Jeffrey Rush was fired from a supervisor job with the Illinois Department of Corrections, and subsequently charged with official misconduct, for reportedly having inappropriate sexual relationships with women at a halfway house.
Madigan remained evasive through most of Bhachu’s questions on that topic and others — when Bhachu asked if Jeffrey Rush was the kind of person Madigan ought to help find a job, for example, Madigan responded that he “relied upon the representations of the father,” and wanted to help the younger Rush get a second chance.
When Bhachu asked Madigan to clarify his answer, the former speaker repeated, “I relied upon the representations of the father.”
Bhachu did manage to pin Madigan down in an apparent contradiction to his direct testimony near the end of the trial day. It involved former Chicago alderman and zoning chair Danny Solis, who secretly recorded conversations with Madigan and others for the FBI between 2016 and 2018 in exchange for a deferred prosecution agreement on his own corruption charges.
Madigan, seeking real estate tax work for his private law firm Madigan & Getzendanner, asked Solis for an introduction to the developers of the so-called “Union West” residential project in June 2017. The project was located in Solis’ city ward at the time. Solis arranged a meeting between the developers and Madigan & Getzendanner in July, but not before intimating to Madigan that the developers knew how things “worked.”
“I think they understand how this works, you know, the quid pro quo, the quid pro quo,” Solis told Madigan in a secretly recorded June 23, 2017 call.
Madigan told his own attorney Dan Collins on direct examination last Wednesday that he felt “a great deal of surprise and concern” at Solis’ “quid pro quo” — Latin for “this for that” — remarks, as he did with subsequent talks in 2017 where Solis seemed to link zoning approval for the Union West project to the developers contacting Madigan & Getzendanner.
Solis recorded video of Madigan pulling him aside and chiding him over his use of the “quid pro quo” language, the same day they met with the Union West developers in July 2017. Madigan repeated on the stand last week that he wanted nothing to do with a quid pro quo arrangement
“There would be no quid pro quo with me … I was not going to connect a request for an introduction with anything else,” Madigan told Collins.
Jurors have seen evidence, including video Solis secretly recorded, that Madigan nevertheless agreed in 2018 to recommend Solis for a state board position once Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker had taken office. This past November, Solis testified this was a ruse as part of his undercover work; that he was never interested in a state board job.
Madigan nevertheless told Collins last week he “never heard anything negative” about Solis when considering a recommendation to Pritzker’s administration on his behalf.
“I didn’t hesitate. I had a long history of helping Mr. Solis,” Madigan told Collins.
Bhachu hammered on this apparent contradiction — how Madigan decided to help Solis and said he had never heard anything negative about him, but was still surprised and concerned over what must have looked like Solis’ repeated ethical lapses.
Madigan responded that by 2018, he thought he’d already “delivered the message” that there would be no quid pro quo to Solis.
Bhachu’s questions had another impact besides placing Madigan in an apparent contradiction under oath. Once jurors left for the day, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey raised Madigan’s knowledge of quid pro quo to ask if the former speaker was pursuing an ignorance-of-the-law defense regarding the federal bribery charges he faces. Whether or not he is could affect the rest of the defense case.
Blakey gave Madigan’s attorneys until Tuesday morning to address the question, but said the former speaker “isn’t leaving the stand” until he gets a definitive answer.
Collins concluded his direct examination of Madigan last week. Patrick Cotter, representing McClain, also concluded his questions for the former speaker.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.