Madigan’s Longtime Aide Takes the Stand to Testify Against “Ultimate Decision Maker” in the HouseWitness’s Testimony
Michael J. Madigan’s attorneys tried again Tuesday to distance the former Illinois House speaker from a longtime friend and confidant, pressing ComEd’s onetime top counsel over whether he had direct knowledge of the men discussing an unusual law firm contract.
But federal prosecutors just piled on more evidence of ongoing, routine chatter between Madigan and Michael McClain, who are on trial together for a racketeering conspiracy. The feds did so by calling longtime Madigan aide Will Cousineau to the witness stand.
Cousineau’s Testimony
Cousineau, who became a lobbyist for Cornerstone Government Affairs in 2017, testified for less than an hour before court adjourned for the day Tuesday. But he told jurors that Madigan and McClain would sometimes arrange to use his office to meet alone.
“I think [McClain] and the speaker talked on a fairly regular basis,” Cousineau testified.
Cousineau ended his career in government as Madigan’s senior adviser and tested in two other trials in 2023. But this is the first time he’s taken the witness stand with Madigan in the room. He told jurors Madigan was the “ultimate decision maker” in the House.
Madigan’s Reaction
Madigan, who resigned in 2021, is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and enrich his allies. Prosecutors say McClain, who worked as a ComEd lobbyist, was the agent who handled Madigan’s “dirty work.”
Jurors have already heard several recordings demonstrating their close relationship and communication. That’s despite earlier arguments by Madigan’s lawyers that he was “ignorant” of what people said behind his back.
O’Neill’s Testimony
Before Cousineau took the stand Tuesday, jurors heard more testimony from former ComEd general counsel Thomas O’Neill. He previously told jurors about the pressure he felt from McClain to sign and renew a contract for the law firm of Madigan ally Victor Reyes. It happened when ComEd needed House approval for legislation crucial to its bottom line.
O’Neill also said the deal was unusual because it guaranteed 850 hours of work per year to the law firm.
When O’Neill later tried to reduce that guarantee, McClain wrote an email to then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore in January 2016. He referred to Madigan as “our friend,” and he warned Pramaggiore that Reyes would go to Madigan.
“Our Friend will call me and then I will call you,” McClain wrote. “Is this a drill we must go through?”
Cross-Examination
When Madigan attorney Dan Collins had a chance to cross-examine O’Neill on Tuesday, he pressed him on his actual knowledge of Madigan’s involvement.
O’Neill admitted that he’d begun to wonder whether McClain was invoking Madigan’s name without permission. When Collins asked whether O’Neill had any reason to think “Madigan had any interest” in the contract, O’Neill said he could only point to “background” information, like Reyes’ role as a Democratic fundraiser.
“Other than these emails, you have no direct knowledge of any conversations between Michael McClain and Michael Madigan about the Reyes Kurson contract?” Collins pressed.
“Correct,” O’Neill answered.
O’Neill also acknowledged for Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker that he did not participate in conversations McClain had with Madigan, Pramaggiore, or fellow ComEd lobbyist John Hooker — who were all caught on secret FBI recordings jurors will hear.
Conclusion
The trial continues, with jurors hearing more evidence of the close relationship between Madigan and McClain. With testimony from former and current ComEd officials, the feds are building a case against Madigan, who is accused of leading a criminal enterprise to enhance his political power and enrich his allies. The outcome of the trial will determine the fate of Madigan and McClain, with potential prison time on the line.
FAQs
Q: What is the charge against Madigan and McClain?
A: They are accused of a racketeering conspiracy, which is a charge that accuses them of participating in a criminal enterprise designed to further their political power and financial gain.
Q: What is the purpose of the trial?
A: The trial aims to determine whether Madigan and McClain are guilty of the charges against them, and if so, to sentence them accordingly.
Q: What is the significance of Cousineau’s testimony?
A: Cousineau’s testimony provides evidence of the close relationship between Madigan and McClain, and that Madigan was the “ultimate decision maker” in the House.
Q: What is the significance of O’Neill’s testimony?
A: O’Neill’s testimony provides evidence of the pressure he felt from McClain to sign and renew the contract with the law firm of Madigan ally Victor Reyes, and that McClain referred to Madigan as “our friend” in an email.
