Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: bp Is Investing In Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From the Chicago Tribune’s latest ComEd 4 story…
Under the governing case law, prosecutors do not have to show a specific or obvious quid pro quo between Madigan and the four defendants, only that there was a corrupt intent to provide the stream of benefits to Madigan in order to win his influence
If that reasoning survives, it could change a whole lot of things in Illinois and throughout the country.
* On to Steve Daniels at Crain’s…
Former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggiore took the stand in her own defense late Thursday, but the day’s drama in the “ComEd Four” trial centered on Joe Dominguez, her successor in that job and the man who ultimately signed the utility’s 2020 deferred-prosecution agreement, essentially admitting to an elaborate bribery scheme.
Dominguez, subpoenaed to testify as a defense witness for Pramaggiore, found himself being interrogated by Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu almost as if he were the defendant. […]
What upset Dominguez were questions suggesting that he hadn’t been honest in meetings with the feds, while still ComEd CEO, after the investigation became public. At the time, Dominguez was answering questions after obtaining a proffer letter that required him to be truthful but also barred the government from using anything he said in those sessions against him in any prosecution.
The source of the friction was video captured by Fidel Marquez, then a ComEd insider working as a government informant, in March 2019. In that video, Dominguez and Mike McClain, ComEd’s lead outside lobbyist, discussed the lobbying subcontracts for associates of House Speaker Michael Madigan kept on the lobbying contract of Jay Doherty.
* From that surveillance video…
United States v. McClair, et al. 20 CR 812
In-person conversation between Michael McClain, Joe Dominguez, and Fidel Marquee
March 5, 2019
10:18 a.m.SPEAKERS:
Michael McClain, Fidel Marquee, Joe Dominguez(NON-PERTINENT CONVERSATION)
DOMINGUEZ: But anyway, with Jay, so-
McCLAIN: So, let’s go back, I think we gotta go backwards, so um, the history with Madigan is, um, even in the, uh, when, when Lee Daniels was, was uh, Speaker-
DOMINGUEZ: Mhm.
McCLAIN: -we had a bill that we wanted, uh, heard and Lee wanted no part of it, and even then Madigan grabbed the bill and had to meet us in his office, and um the same thing when we de-regged-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
McCLAIN: -um, it’s it’s just um, um, I don’t know if it’s his, um view of ComEd, uh, from even the 70’s when, when, you know, he got to name people to be meter readers, you know it’s the old-fashioned patronage system, and-
DOMINGUEZ: Mhm.
McCLAIN: -um ComEd played it like um, like a-
DOMINGUEZ: Like a chip.
McCLAIN: -you’re a Ward Committeeman and, um, we have seven meter readers in your, in your, in your ward and you can name four of them, you know (laughs). And that’s just the way ComEd was, for, uh, years. And then as, as we kinda morphed into um, not being able to do that, no meter readers and um, ah your, your um, frankly, your employees are more skilled than a lot of people in his Ward, uh, we morphed into, “How else can we help you?”
DOMINGUEZ: Right.
McCLAIN: Right. And um, so um, it’s um, he would, like, for instance, you don’t know this gentleman, he’s died, he died, Tom Donovan, have you met Tom Donovan yet?
DOMINGUEZ:Yeah.
McCLAIN: So, his son, Brian, was a lawyer. And uh, one of Madigan’s requests was, “Would you hire Brian Donovan?” And we hired him as a lawyer, to a big salary. And um, I, I don’t know what kind of lawyer he was. Unfortunately, the gentleman died, what do you think, maybe five or six years ago now?
DOMINGUEZ: Oh its, its, its, its way, yeah, older.
McCLAIN: He was very young.
UNKNOWN: Do you want me or no?
MARQUEZ: Uh, no, I’ll brief Joe later. Yeah. Brian, in fact Brian and I were officemates. He used to sit next to me, and he was doing a lot of compliance work.
DOMINGUEZ: I didn’t know that Tom’s (unintelligible)-
MARQUEZ: Yeah, so, he was, he was uh, we were about the same age. So, I think he, he might have died at least, what year is this, at least seven years ago, might be, might be more.
(Simultaneous conversation.)
MARQUEZ: Uh, sudden, sudden, sudden, it was sudden. It was tragic-
McCLAIN: Tom, Tom was trying to get him at a law firm and stuff like that, but just couldn’t get. And the kid was not dumb, don’t misunderstand me. It wasn’t, it was, He’s not dumb.
MARQUEZ: He worked in regulatory, he worked in regulatory at the time.
McCLAIN: Not Ivy League but he did his job.
DOMINGUEZ: Hm.
McCLAIN:Like Fidel says, mainly uh, compliance. Yeah, but the gentleman died, but you know, Tom, always had a special love for ComEd, before that and after that-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
McCLAIN:-because of that commitment. So um, um, so that, that’s just what we’ve always done for, good lord, over 20 years now, because we can’t really do meter readers, we don’t have them anymore-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
McCLAIN: -we don’t linemen, there’s no one from the 13th Ward that’s a lineman. So what we have is, uh, um, Mike Zalewski, Junior, I’m sorry, Senior, used to be an alderman, um next uh, and his son is Chairman of the Revenue Committee, um and uh, Ray Nice, who’s a top three precinct committeeman-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
McCLAIN: Uh, and uh, they’re all, they’re all good solid people.
DOMINGUEZ: And available, when, when we need uh, when we need some help, right?
McCLAIN: Mm-hmm.
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, so.
McCLAIN: So, it’s um, it’s uh, it’s a um, it’s sort of like um, this is my impression, you might say, “Mike that’s not how it happened at all,” but, like you hired Liz Brown. I suspect that was a request of Mike Carrigan.
DOMINGUEZ: It wasn’t, but I knew it would be-
McCLAIN: Okay.
DOMINGUEZ: -well received by Mike at a time-
McCLAIN: Right.
DOMINGUEZ: -where we had a little bit of a rough relationship-
McCLAIN: Right.
DOMINGUEZ: -and he might be on the ICC. So, its uh, and I like Liz.
McCLAIN: And then uh, so, Jim Durkin came to us and said, we’d like you to hire Tom Walsh.
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, we get that.
McCLAIN:(Laughing) That’s, that’s what we do right? I mean, um, it’s sort of like, if uh, if you came in and said uh, okay-
MARQUEZ: And I caught flak for that.
McCLAIN: Yeah, you did.
MARQUEZ: Well, we had this gentleman’s agreement. That utility wouldn’t hire other utility’s contract lobbyists, and Tom was working for People’s at the time, but I said look, I got called and says, “You broke the trust.” I said, “It was a request. Suck it up.”
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, that’s right.
McCLAIN: Yeah, so um-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, there’s exceptions to every rule.
McCLAIN: It would be like you coming in and saying, “Ok Fidel, I wanna cut a million dollars out of your budget and half your contract lobbyists gotta go.” Then Fidel would have to sit down and say, “Okay, now this guy game from Jim Durkin (laughs) -
DOMINGUEZ: Nah, no, no, listen. And this is true in every jurisdiction, right?
McCLAIN: Yeah.
DOMINGUEZ: Now, but, ha-, Fidel, was there an, an issue with Jay’s deal that I was holding it up or-
MARQUEZ: Well, J, J, so Joe-
DOMINGUEZ: -because that’s what I was unaware of- (Non-Pertinent Conversation.)
MARQUEZ: And I was always taught, you gotta know what you’re signing.
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah (unintelligible).
MARQUEZ: So, I was, I was just-
DOMINGUEZ: I’m fine.
MARQUEZ: -making sure, Joe, this is what it is. You know, it’s coming out of your budget. It’s four hundred grand, so that you, that, that was, that was it.
DOMINGUEZ: Fidel, my view on all this, on this stuff is, is it’s, it’s like the lobbying team itself. You know. There are,at periods of time where people are saying, “What the hell are these guys doing? Why are we paying them?” And then they will do something in the minute, in the magic moment-
MARQUEZ: That, that, that’s worth a hundred times-
(Simultaneous conversation.)
MARQUEZ: -what you’re paying them.
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, right, right. And so that, that’s-
MARQUEZ: No, I, it was just me, wanting to make sure Joe, that
DOMINGUEZ: No, I don’t I don’t wanna hold it up, this is fine.
MARQUEZ: So, we’re going, it’s going forward. When you sent me that note-
DOMINGUEZ: Okay, good.
MARQUEZ: That was it.
DOMINGUEZ: Good.
MARQUEZ: I just wanted you, you to be aware.
DOMINGUEZ: We gotta do that business, you know.
MARQUEZ: Yeah.
DOMINGUEZ: So.
MARQUEZ: Yeah. Good.
DOMINGUEZ: How else could we be helpful?
McCLAIN: Um, hav, have you decided what kind of bill we’re going to have? Are we gonna-
MARQUEZ: Y, you know what? Can I ask-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
MARQUEZ: -Veronica to come in here?
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
MARQUEZ: I did have a call with Dean Apple this morning-
DOMINGUEZ: Okay.
MARQUEZ: -based on your direction last night-
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah.
MARQUEZ: -and I wanna share that.
DOMINGUEZ: Yeah, good.
MARQUEZ: Mind if we have Veronica come in here?
McCLAIN: Sure. No, of course. Want me to get her?
MARQUEZ: No, I’ll get her. But, you can stay here.
(END OF PERTINENT CONVERSATION)
* Isabel’s roundup…
* Tribune | Ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore takes stand in own defense, says Speaker Madigan cared most about ‘staying speaker’: In a highly anticipated moment, Pramaggiore, 64, took the stand Thursday afternoon in the “ComEd Four” bribery trial, where she and three associates are accused of bribing powerful Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan to advance the utility giant’s legislative agenda in Springfield. […] “He’s a very quiet person, doesn’t say a lot,” she said. “But I did get to know a bit about him. I think we had mutual respect for each other.”
* ABC Chicago | Former CEO takes stand in her own defense, denies bribery: “Did you think ComEd had influence with speaker Madigan so you could call on him to get legislation passed?” defense attorney Scott Lassar asked. “No,” Pramaggiore answered. Pramaggiore was only on the stand for about 45 minutes, focusing mostly on scene setting for the bulk of her testimony which will resume on Monday.
* ABC Chicago | Prosecution rests its case as former CEO says she plans to testify: First up was ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore’s defense team, who called as their initial witness a former ComEd executive who was part of the process to develop and negotiate some of the legislation in question at the trial. Val Jensen said the company didn’t get everything it wanted and that it was coalition building with environmental and labor groups that ultimately led to the bill’s success.
* WTTW |: Pramaggiore went on to recount when the company plucked the DePaul law school graduate from her job as an anti-trust attorney at a Chicago law firm through her rise at ComEd, and how when she reached the top ranks she got in the trenches, and learned from lower-level employees how badly the company needed to be turned around. Stories took a personal bent, as she shared that she relied on leadership lessons from a book by Gen. Colin Powell to get ComEd linemen to open up about how problems with trucks and scheduling caused a hinderance for repairs. She also described how she accompanied co-defendant, and former ComEd head of government and external affairs, John Hooker, to some of Chicago’s most under-resourced neighborhoods.
* Sun-Times | Despite cache of secret FBI recordings, ex-ComEd CEO tells jurors in bribery trial she didn’t view Madigan as an ally of utility: However, Pramaggiore’s testimony began only 50 minutes before the scheduled end of court Thursday. That meant it barely had time to scratch the surface of the case before the trial wrapped up its fifth week. Pramaggiore’s defense attorney, Scott Lassar, will likely have far more questions to ask when the trial resumes Monday. But that’ll be the easy part. When Lassar is finished, Pramaggiore will surely face a vigorous cross-examination by federal prosecutors in the high-stakes case. They gave her a hint Thursday of what might be to come with their questioning of another witness called by Pramaggiore’s legal team — Joseph Dominguez, another former ComEd CEO.
* WTTW | ‘This Was a Hell of a Plum’: Madigan Ally Tells ‘ComEd Four’ Jury He Was Paid For Years To Do Little or No Work: Edward Moody, one of the federal government’s key witnesses in the “ComEd Four” trial, said Tuesday that starting in 2012, he received monthly checks from lobbyist and longtime Madigan confidant Michael McClain under the guise of doing consulting work for ComEd. But according to Moody — who is testifying under an immunity deal with the government — he was actually being paid to continue working as a political operative on Madigan-connected campaigns.
* Crain’s | At ‘ComEd Four’ trial, Ed Moody reminisced about his rise and his financial rewards: Testifying with what appeared to be honest pride under a grant of immunity from federal prosecutors, Moody spoke of how he and his brother became political troubleshooters for Madigan. Sent to districts outside Chicago where a candidate was struggling, they would swoop in as Madigan’s elite precinct squad of sorts.
* Capitol News Illinois | Top Madigan foot soldier testifies he didn’t work for $4,500 monthly checks: “I never got the sense that (Madigan) wanted me to become a lobbyist because you start to build a business,” Ed Moody testified to a federal jury on Tuesday. Moody’s attorney asked for and was granted an immunity agreement. “I didn’t feel like he wanted me to be independent of his politics,” Moody said.
* Tribune | ‘I control the contract’: Longtime Madigan precinct captain Ed Moody takes stand in ‘ComEd Four’ bribery trial, says speaker set him up with lobbying deal: Moody also said he sought Madigan’s blessing for two public offices — county commissioner and as recorder of deeds — because “politically, he would be the boss” and had the power to “put a brick” on any potential appointment. Moody’s testimony, which came near the end of the prosecution’s case in chief, was crucial because he’s the only one of the Madigan-approved “subcontractors” allegedly paid by ComEd to cooperate with the government.
* Sun-Times | Longtime precinct captain says he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by ComEd to do political work for Michael Madigan : Moody said his success in turning out votes helped him land government jobs. But he also said he continued working thousands of hours on campaigns that were important to Madigan out of “fear” of losing such a job. “Always fear,” Moody said.
* Tribune | Evidence seen and heard by the jury: The more than 100 secretly recorded phone calls and meetings, which were gleaned from wiretaps and confidential informants over the course of more than a year, form the backbone of the case, one of the most highly watched political trials in Illinois for years.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 10:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: bp Is Investing In Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Under the governing case law, prosecutors do not have to show a specific or obvious quid pro quo … .”
Haven’t SCOTUS decisions, going back at least to Kerner, chipped away at that?
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 11:25 am
A gem from this conversation among alleged crooks…
“What the hell are these guys doing? Why are we paying them?” And then they will do something in the minute, in the magic moment”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 11:27 am
===chipped away at that?===
Apparently not. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 11:27 am
===alleged crooks===
Um, Dominguez was never charged.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 11:28 am
===Um, Dominguez was never charged.===
True, and the prosecution was barred from discussing the deferred prosecution agreement that ComEd entered into and for which it paid a $200 million fine.
Frankly, I think Scott Lassar might still be working for the feds with this defense so far. Putting Dominguez on the stand was a bad idea. Putting Prammagiore on the stand is very risky too.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 11:55 am
===If that reasoning survives, it could change a whole lot of things in Illinois and throughout the country.===
I think this is what the defense wants everyone to believe because of their own interests. The legal theory of the case never really surprised me. You can give and receive bribes through third parties. I think it is in my White Collar Crime outline from law school.
They should make a “former federal prosecutor” fallacy for this notion that former federal prosecutors can never do anything corrupt ever.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 12:15 pm
once again, yet another day, I keep thinking how disgusted I am at the behavior of people I don’t know and people I know. Com Ed case, the case with Roberto “the five hour mouth” Caldero, it’s all just disgusting. Public service is an honor and a huge responsibility. abusing that privilege is awful.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 12:15 pm
Last week the defense for Pramaggiore had a secretary from Misiricordia Home, and a press secretary, talking about what an honest person the ComEd CEO was. Weird, like what you would see at a sentencing hearing.
ComEd has been getting too big for their britches for years, and the legislature has given them way too much power in areas like trespass and eminent domain on private property. I hope the feds take them down a few pegs.
Comment by Payback Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 2:46 pm
===I hope the feds take them down a few pegs.===
ComEd is not on trial. It already agreed to a plea deal and a hefty fine. The jury won’t hear about that though until after this trial is over.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 3:55 pm
Comment from Anne P.
“The speaker wanted to remain speaker … he had to get a Democratic majority elected … he had to have money.”
This was said to support the comment that contributions were
more important than jobs from Com Ed to Madigan. Except there is all that evidence that those people who got the jobs got them because they were in it for Madigan, and they donated to him.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 17, 23 @ 4:50 pm