Crime & Law

Back on the Witness Stand, Michael Madigan Rejects Bribery and Quid Pro Quo Allegations in Corruption Trial

Michael Madigan claimed he was surprised and concerned when Ald. Danny Solis mentioned to him the possibility of a “quid pro quo” ahead of the longtime House speaker’s meeting with a property developer in 2017.

As Madigan returned to the witness stand for his second day of testimony in his ongoing corruption trial, he told jurors outright that he “would not be involved in a quid pro quo.“

“I was trying to tell Mr. Solis that there was not going to be any quid pro quo involved with me,” Madigan testified Wednesday morning inside a courtroom at the Dirksen Federal Building. “I was not gonna connect a request for an introduction with anything else.”

Testimony concluded for the week on Wednesday afternoon after Michael McClain's lawyer completed his cross examination of Madigan. Jurors will return to court Monday morning.

Madigan, who is charged alongside his longtime right-hand man McClain, is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding his political power to reward loyal allies and enrich himself.

He and McClain are charged with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud. They have each pleaded not guilty.

His testimony seeks to discredit one of the main points federal prosecutors made in their case against him — that the speaker was seeking to use his public position to benefit his private tax law firm.

Madigan’s testimony deals with a conversation between himself and Solis — the disgraced former alderperson and Zoning Committee chair who agreed to wear a wire and secretly record numerous calls and conversations for the government.

In a June 2017 call between him and Madigan about the developer of the Union West property in Chicago, Solis mentioned to Madigan “I think they understand how this works, you know the quid pro quo.”

“Yeah, okay,” Madigan replied on the recording.

But Madigan testified Wednesday he had a “great deal of surprise and concern” when he heard that remark and sought to meet with Solis face-to-face to admonish him and inform him “that I would not be involved in a quid pro quo.”

Weeks later when they did meet in person — in yet another encounter recorded by Solis — Madigan told the alderperson: “Over the phone, you made a comment that there … was a quid pro quo. … You shouldn’t be talking like that.”

Madigan testified Solis appeared “very apologetic” and “genuinely appeared to recognize that he had made a serious mistake.”

Solis, a star witness for the government, previously told jurors his “quid pro quo” remark “was dumb” and that he’d put things too bluntly. 

Solis testified that his FBI contacts hadn’t instructed him to use the phrase. But according to previous testimony from Special Agent Ryan McDonald, Solis was carrying out directions to give Madigan the impression that the alderman’s approval of necessary zoning changes was contingent on the developers hiring the speaker’s law firm.

But it wasn’t true. In a secret video recording Solis made of a meeting between himself and Union West developer Andrew Cretal a week later, Solis pushed the idea of Madigan’s law firm handling property tax appeals for the project, but didn’t tie any zoning approval to that hiring. In fact, Solis referenced having already committed to approving the zoning changes and was only held up by waiting for the results of the West Loop development study.

Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan leaves the Dirksen Federal Courthouse after the first day of his corruption trial on Oct. 22, 2024. (Andrew Adams / Capitol News Illinois)

Another scheme outlined by prosecutors involved Madigan allegedly offering to help Solis secure a position on a state board in exchange for Solis referring legal business to Madigan’s law firm.

In a June 2018 conversation recorded by Solis, he told Madigan he asked Madigan about the potential for a board seat before stating that he would “continue to get you legal business. I, I’ve got all kinds of stuff [referring to developments] happening in the South Loop and in the West Loop.”

“... see, I never knew that that section was in your ward,” Madigan replied in the recording. Madigan then mentioned that he’d been “trying to make a connection with” Harry Skydell, the director of the company that was developing the Old Post Office project in Solis’ ward in order to pitch him to hire Madigan’s private law firm.

On the witness stand Wednesday, Madigan denied that this discussion involved any sort of bribe.

“Were you connecting the two of those at that time?” Madigan attorney Dan Collins asked Wednesday.

“No,” Madigan answered.

“Were you only agreeing to recommend Danny Solis if he introduced you to Harry Skydell?” Collins asked

“No,” Madigan replied, stating that he had a “long history of helping” Solis and that he only saw this request from the alderperson as “another instance where he was asking for help, and I was prepared to give it to him."

But Madigan testified that he never did recommend Solis for a board seat because in early 2019, the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the alderperson’s “significant” criminal activity and his cooperation as an undercover mole for federal investigators.

“It made me decide not to send the resume along to Gov. (JB) Pritzker,” he said, “not to recommend him to Gov. Pritzker.”

ComEd scheme

Madigan on Wednesday also sought to distance himself from McClain, telling jurors his longtime confidant had repeatedly acted without his authorization when it came to pushing for utility giant Commonwealth Edison to act on job recommendations coming from the speaker.

In one the most extensive scheme alleged by prosecutors, Madigan and McClain are accused of arranging subcontractor jobs for several of the speaker’s associates — including 13th Ward precinct captains Ray Nice and Ed Moody, and former Chicago Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski — with ComEd, which prosecutors claim paid out more than $1 million to those individuals even as they did little or no work.

Prosecutors have also alleged Madigan and McClain convinced ComEd to retain the law firm of Reyes Kurson because one of its partners, Victor Reyes, was “particularly valuable" to Madigan’s political operation."

Jurors previously saw an email from McClain to then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore complaining about a reduction in hours guaranteed to a law firm headed by Reyes

“I know the drill and so do you,” McClain wrote in the Jan. 20, 2016 email. “If you do not get involved and resolve this issue of 850 hours for his firm then (Reyes) will go to our Friend. Our Friend will call me and then I will call you. Is this a drill we must go through?”

Madigan acknowledged he was the “friend” McClain was referring to, but he denied knowing anything about these contract negotiations and said he didn’t recall Reyes asking him for help on that issue. He also claimed he never instructed McClain to continue pushing for any extra hours in that contract.

“Did you know he was expressing this sentiment to ComEd on your behalf?” Madigan attorney Dan Collins asked.

“No,” Madigan replied.

Similarly, Madigan denied telling McClain he expected a “hard and quick favorable response” from ComEd — which McClain had written in a November 2014 email — in response to job recommendations made by the speaker around that time.

He claimed that McClain’s words did not accurately describe his mindset and that he’d never authorized McClain to express that to ComEd.

Both McClain and Pramaggiore were previously convicted of conspiring to bribe Madigan in the 2023 “ComEd Four” trial. McClain elected not to testify in this case and his defense team has already rested its case.

Madigan started his testimony Tuesday by regaling jurors with stories of his blue-collar upbringing, education and early political career. He also delved into his difficult home life, including his alcoholic father who never showed him any affection.

But the longtime speaker also talked about the allegations against him, denying outright that he’d ever traded his public office for private gain or demanded anything of value in exchange for a promise of official action.

Madigan on Tuesday claimed he only sought to help friends and associates by making job recommendations to ComEd and other companies, but he stressed those recommendations didn’t come with any strings attached.

“When people ask me for help," he testified, "if possible, I tried to help them."

He also claimed no knowledge of an alleged scheme to arrange no-work jobs for some close allies with ComEd, saying he did little more than pass their names off to McClain — who worked as a contract lobbyist for the utility giant — to see if his longtime friend could find them any help.

Madigan said when he learned that his allies had done essentially no work under those contracts, he became “very angry,” stating they weren’t living up to what he “expected from people associated with me.”

The speaker on Wednesday stated nobody ever came to him and asked for a no-show job, he never told McClain that they should be given a no-show job and he never agreed to trade any official actions in exchange for his referrals getting jobs. 

On cross examination from McClain’s attorney Patrick Cotter, Madigan stated that for the several decades where he was a public official and McClain worked as a lobbyist, he never saw a conflict of interest in their continuing friendship.

Madigan testified that McClain was a valuable source of political intelligence and the speaker would sometimes rely on him for aid in dealing with political issues across the state.

“Mike was always busy,” Madigan testified, “consequently he knew a lot of people.”

Cotter attempted to portray his client as a diligent lobbyist who worked hard to be responsive to Madigan’s various requests in order to build and maintain a strong working relationship with the most powerful politician in the state — and one he had long considered a friend.

Madigan acknowledged McClain was a very hard worker who had earned his trust, but he added that he made requests of several different people and collected information and based his decisions after speaking with multiple sources beyond just McClain.

But, Madigan added, the pair — who have been seated just feet apart for the months of their ongoing trial — are no longer close.

“Did the friendship survive?” Cotter asked.

“It did until recently,” Madigan replied.

Capitol News Illinois contributed to this report.

This is a developing story.

---