‘We had to hire these guys‘: Jury in ‘ComEd Four’ trial hears recordings laying out role of Madigan’s confidant as go-between for utility
The far-reaching federal investigation into an alleged scheme by ComEd to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan was heating up in early 2019 when two key players described how it worked in startlingly blunt fashion.
“We had to hire these guys because Mike Madigan came to us,” Michael McClain, the speaker’s trusted confidant, told lobbyist John Hooker on the call. “That’s how simple it is. So if you want to make a federal court suit over it, OK. But that’s how simple it is.”
The recording was among a series of damaging FBI wiretaps played in the ongoing “ComEd Four” bribery trial Monday showing in vivid detail how McClain served as the key go-between for the utility and Madigan, handling everything from mundane hiring requests and ward disputes to high-level strategy for major energy legislation.
On another call from February 2019, McClain boasted to an Exelon executive he’d been doing “assignments” for Madigan for 25 years and “you’ve never read about me in a newspaper.”
“I’m pretty discreet,” McClain said on the call.
Listen to the audio:
The recordings, which were played back-to-back for an hour without a witness on the stand, featured a who’s who of Madigan’s most trusted associates, including 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn, former state Rep. John Bradley, former top staffer-turned lobbyist Shaw Decremer, as well as the speaker’s son, Andrew.
In addition to talk about the subcontractor arrangement, the calls captured McClain and his co-defendants and colleagues obsessing over who might replace him as the person assigned to keep ComEd in Madigan’s good graces, since McClain had ostensibly retired from lobbying.
“There is no one right now that I can actually tell our friend, ‘This is the lead (person), and when you call that guy will snap to, or that gal will snap to, and know what to do and get back to you,” McClain told Hooker and another co-defendant, Anne Pramaggiore, on one call. “There’s no one in the company that has that kind of smack right now.”
Listen to the audio:
The issue of who would replace McClain also was on the mind of Madigan himself. In two separate calls played for the jury, the speaker asked McClain who was going to be his point person on a bill being pushed by ComEd affiliate Exelon Generation.
“Who’s gonna drive the bus, do you have an answer on that?” Madigan asked McClain in a telephone call on Feb. 26, 2019.
McClain said he intended to use Will Cousineau, one of Madigan’s top lieutenants who’d recently moved on to a lobbying gig. “OK, all right,” Madigan responded.
Listen to the audio:
Charged in the indictment are McClain, 75, Pramaggiore, 64; Hooker, 73, and Jay Doherty, 69, a lobbyist and consultant who formerly led the City Club of Chicago.
The indictment alleges the defendants schemed to shower Madigan allies with jobs, contracts, internships and legal work to woo the now-indicted Democratic ex-speaker into looking favorably at ComEd’s Springfield agenda.
Among those allegedly receiving payments: Former 13th Ward Ald. Frank Olivo, precinct captains Ray Nice and Ed Moody, and Mike Zalewski, the former alderman of the 23rd Ward.
The defendants’ attorneys contend that the so-called scheme was nothing more than legal lobbying, part of the state’s high-stakes, often-messy politics where myriad interest groups and stakeholders compete for access to lawmakers.
McClain and Madigan are charged in a separate corruption case that is tied to the ComEd scandal.
The recordings that prosecutors played Monday came as the trial’s fourth week got underway, and helped buttress the testimony of the government’s star witness, Fidel Marquez, a former ComEd senior executive who cooperated with authorities in exchange for leniency.
Marquez, who was on the witness stand over five days, testified Monday that when he became ComEd’s top government affairs executive in 2012, a plan was already in place to pay Madigan associates as subcontractors with Doherty’s consulting company.
After being confronted by the FBI in January 2019, Marquez flipped and agreed to make secret recordings of colleagues. In a ruse created by investigators, Marquez went to each of them asking for input on what he should tell incoming ComEd CEO Joseph Dominguez about the subcontractor arrangement.
Marquez’s request set off a series of phone calls, including the one played in court Monday where McClain told Hooker that someone should be transparent with Dominguez and tell him how things operate.
On that call, made on Feb. 20, 2019, Hooker boasted that their plan to use Doherty as a go-between was “the best way to do it” and was “clean for all of us.”
“Right,” McClain responded. “We don’t have to worry about whether or not, I’m just making this up, whether or not (Zalewski) is doing any work or not. That’s up to Jay Doherty to prove that. ... We’re not monitoring his workload; whether or not Zalewski’s earning his five grand a month. That’s up to Jay Doherty.”
Hooker reminded McClain that they had come up with the plan, and that Madigan “thought it was great.”
Several of the calls portrayed the defendants as less than thrilled with Dominguez, a former federal prosecutor from New Jersey who was unaccustomed to how things worked in Springfield.
McClain told Pramaggiore and Hooker on one recording from Feb. 20, 2019, that he doesn’t trust Dominguez because “I don’t think he really respects Madigan.”
“I wouldn’t trust Joe,” he warned. “I would trust Joe to think that this is a quid pro quo and that he’s wired.”
Pramaggiore chimed in, saying Dominguez was just thinking about his “next job.”
McClain added that he wouldn’t mind having a “daddy talk” with Dominguez, and if he wanted to fire him, “That’s fine.”
“My instinct is that I come up to Chicago and I sit down with Dominguez and I say, ‘Now look-it (expletive), if you want to pass this bill, this is what it requires. So, either you’re gonna play in the tier-one game here, or you’re gonna keep playing in your tier-two game here ... but this is like serious business, it’s millions of dollars.’”
Later, on the phone with Andrew Madigan, the speaker’s son, McClain said he was driving back from Springfield, where he’d met with Dominguez and “closed the deal” on keeping the subcontracts with a consulting firm owned by City Club of Chicago President Jay Doherty.
McClain expressed annoyance to the speaker’s son that too many lobbyists forget that “Mike Madigan is the real client.”
Before the recordings were played, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber handed the defense a small victory by barring another wiretapped call where Madigan and McClain allegedly laughed about how much some of their cronies had made.
On that tape, Madigan says to McClain, “Some of these guys have made out like bandits, Mike.” “Oh my god, for very little work too,” McClain responds.
Patrick Cotter, McClain’s attorney, argued the remarks were not directly tied to people whose hirings are focused upon in the case.
In late testimony Monday, prosecutors called Janet Gallegos, Doherty’s administrative assistant for nearly 20 years, who testified about a series of increases in Doherty’s ComEd contract every time a new subcontractor was added.
Invoices showed by the prosecution indicated Doherty’s $20,000-a-month contract with ComEd had grown to $37,000 monthly by the time Moody was hired in 2014. That amount appeared to include $3,500 more than what Doherty was paying for the subcontracts, though Gallegos testified she did not know where the extra money was going.
The Moody contract continued until about the time he became a county official, first as a Cook County Board member and then as recorder of deeds.
Prosecutors have said Moody was shuffled on to the lobbyist firm of former state Rep. John Bradley, the Democrat from Marion who previously served on Madigan’s leadership team.
In early 2015, Doherty instructed Gallegos by email to be sure all of the checks to Olivo, Nice and Moody were recorded and that they should be classified as “client expense: Com Ed.”
Gallegos said she would note that at the end of the year on profit and loss statements.
Earlier Monday, Marquez, the prosecution’s star witness, wrapped up five days of testimony following a flurry of defense questions designed to undermine his cooperation in the wide-ranging probe.
Marquez, 61, a former senior vice president for ComEd, mostly held firm despite the efforts to knock him off stride, explaining that his deal to cooperate with the government was to tell the truth no matter how it affects the case.
On Thursday, Marquez was hammered with questions about his decision to become a government mole and make secret recordings of his colleagues after being confronted by the FBI in January 2019. Marquez pleaded guilty to bribery conspiracy and is expecting prosecutors to recommend a sentence of probation.
He testified on redirect Monday that his deal with the government did not depend on whether the defendants are found guilty or not guilty, only that he provide truthful testimony.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu also pushed back on defense suggestions that Marquez was doing the government’s bidding to save his own skin.
“Did you make those guys say what they said on those recordings?” Bhachu asked at one point, referring to the four defendants across the room.
“I did not,” Marquez answered.
In cross-examination of Marquez earlier Monday, Doherty’s attorney, Michael Gillespie, drilled down on a video recording Marquez made of a meeting with Doherty in February 2019, shortly after Marquez’s cooperation began.
The recording is particularly damaging to Doherty because he talks at length about the subcontractor arrangement and tells Marquez candidly that he should not touch it, since ComEd’s “money comes from Springfield.”
In his questioning, however, Gillespie pointed out that Marquez was the one who interjected the idea that Doherty was talking about rate hikes, insinuating that the government was twisting an innocent comment by Doherty.
Gillespie also asked about Olivo and Zalewski, who were put on Doherty’s contract at Madigan’s behest.
Marquez agreed that as ex-elected officials, the aldermen were useful as lobbyists on “specific projects,” and that Doherty never said in their recorded meetings that any subcontractors were brought on to pass bills in Springfield.
Bhachu, on redirect, fired a series of questions specifically about any work Zalewski did.
“Did he make a single phone call for you?” Bhachu asked.
“No,” Marquez said. He also agreed Zalewski never attended a meeting or wrote a single report.
“Fair to say he did absolutely zero?” Bhachu asked.
“That would be fair,” Marquez said.
