Crime & Law
‘I Put the Knife Into Cullerton’: Madigan Details Falling Out With Senate President as Testimony Continues
Video: The WTTW News Spotlight Politics team on Michael Madigan’s testimony and more of the day’s top stories. (Produced by Paul Caine)
Michael Madigan has presented himself to jurors throughout his ongoing testimony in federal court as careful, shrewd and non-confrontational.
But following a “serious disagreement” in 2018 with Illinois Senate President John Cullerton — a fellow Democrat and family friend — the powerful House speaker went to incoming Gov. J.B. Pritzker to “put the knife” into his counterpart.
Madigan is charged along with his longtime right-hand man Michael McClain with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud. The pair is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding Madigan’s immense political power to reward loyal allies and enrich himself.
They have each pleaded not guilty.
Madigan concluded his testimony Tuesday afternoon after four days on the witness stand. His defense team expects to rest its case Thursday, followed by the government’s rebuttal case, meaning all testimony may be finished this week, more than three months after the trial began. Closing arguments are slated to begin next week.
The Cullerton episode — which Madigan discussed in a wiretapped December 2018 phone call with McClain played in court Tuesday for jurors — demonstrated how Madigan could remain both non-confrontational but still ruthless during his decades in public office.
During the call, McClain asked Madigan “how his meeting” with the newly elected governor had gone. Madigan believed it went “pretty well” before noting that he’d “put the knife into Cullerton three or four times.”
In court Tuesday, Madigan explained he’d used that term figuratively, but that he and Cullerton had had a “serious disagreement” during the 2018 election cycle after Cullerton funded a negative advertising campaign against Madigan.
“Does Cullerton have any association to your son at all?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu asked.
Madigan confirmed that Cullerton is his son’s godfather and that Madigan and his wife had chosen him for that role.
“And you’re talking about putting a knife into Cullerton, is that right?” Bhachu asked.
“Correct,” Madigan answered.
Madigan told jurors he believed Democrats should have been working together to fight against outgoing Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner rather than “fighting among ourselves.”
“Was Cullerton at this meeting?” Bhachu asked.
“I don’t think so,” Madigan answered.
“So you’re doing it behind his back?” Bhachu asked. Madigan replied that he didn’t recall the exact context of the meeting, but explained the origins of his split with Cullerton.
Jurors on Tuesday also heard additional testimony relating to Madigan’s alleged efforts to reward then-25th Ward Ald. Danny Solis with a state board seat appointment in exchange for Solis funneling tax work to Madigan’s private law firm.
Solis, who chaired the powerful Zoning Committee, had begun secretly recording phone calls and conversations as a government mole in 2016 after he was confronted with evidence of his own bribery schemes.
In one conversation recorded by Solis in June 2018, he spoke with Madigan about the potential for a state board seat before stating that he would “continue to get you legal business. I, I’ve got all kinds of stuff happening in the South Loop and in the West Loop.”
Later that year in August, Solis mentioned to Madigan a couple of board positions that were “generous in their compensation.” During that conversation, Solis told Madigan, “I’ve helped you in the past, I’m gonna continue to help you,” before mentioning developers whom he could connect Madigan and his law firm to.
Asked if he believed this was tying the potential board seat to future tax work, Madigan testified, “That’s what Mr. Solis was doing,” while claiming that he was “just carrying along the conversation.”
Madigan told Solis to “just leave this in my hands,” but stressed in court that what he meant was that he was only considering putting Solis’ name in a larger file of recommendations to Pritzker, but that he never promised Solis that he would get any board seat in exchange for tax work.
Madigan previously testified that he never did pass Solis’ name along to Pritzker because in early 2019, Solis’ government cooperation became known publicly.
Before the board seat came up, during a June 2017 call between Solis 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, OK,” Madigan replied on the recording.
Madigan last week claimed he felt a “great deal of surprise and concern” when he heard those comments, but prosecutors noted that Madigan spoke with Solis multiple more times before he ultimately confronted him weeks later and told him not to use the term “quid pro quo.”
On Tuesday, Madigan testified that he thought he’d been “effective” in admonishing Solis about that quid pro quo and gave him the “benefit of the doubt” moving forward, which was why he was still open to recommending Solis for a state board seat in 2018.
“We all have regrets in life,” Madigan testified, “and one of my regrets is that I ever had any time spent with Danny Solis.”
After Madigan concluded his testimony, jurors heard from his longtime legal partner Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, who similar to Madigan testified that their law practice had guardrails in place to prevent any conflicts of interest with the speaker’s legislative positions.
He is expected to be one of the final witnesses called by Madigan’s defense team.
Specifically, Getzendanner said that potential clients who’d had business with the General Assembly or the House of Representatives would be flagged so the firm would not contract with them.
Beyond those groups, Getzendanner testified, their firm would also avoid working with unions, lobbyists and even nursing homes due to their connections to state government.
Madigan’s attorneys presented communications from Getzendanner showing he shared lists of potential clients who’d been flagged with the speaker’s House staff so they could identify and eliminate any potential conflicts.
On cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker focused on Getzendanner’s testimony that Madigan was a “big driver” of their firm, focusing on business and client acquisition.
“Fair to say Mr. Madigan was the rainmaker for the firm?” she asked.
“Yes,” Getzendanner answered, adding that Madigan brought in more business than any other single attorney at the firm.