Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Looking back at Northwestern’s 2021 cheerleader sexual harassment, racism lawsuits
Next Post: Pritzker leading trade mission to UK
Posted in:
* Background is here and here if you need it. Jon Seidel…
Michael Madigan’s former chief of staff reached out to a defense attorney for the then-powerful Illinois House speaker after he was approached by FBI agents in early 2019, then he called a longtime Madigan confidant and said he was “reporting in,” prosecutors say.
While the feds do not argue those actions by Timothy Mapes were unlawful, they do say it demonstrates “his loyalty” to Madigan and Michael McClain, “and his intentional effort to withhold information” from a federal grand jury in March 2021.
That and other details about the case against Mapes were revealed in a 65-page document filed by prosecutors early Tuesday morning, four weeks ahead of Mapes’ trial on perjury and attempted obstruction of justice charges. […]
Mapes told a grand jury in March 2021 that he did not recall being told if McClain did any work for Madigan between 2017 and 2019. But prosecutors contend the “close relationship” between Mapes and McClain, as well as their “consistent communications,” show that “Mapes could not have forgotten the critical role McClain played in Madigan’s political operation.”
* From the federal filing…
This evidence demonstrates that Mapes lied in the grand jury when he testified that he did not know what interactions McClain had with Madigan from 2017 to 2019. The evidence reveals that Mapes knew McClain was working on a piece of legislation related to property in Chinatown for Madigan, and that Mapes contacted Madigan’s lawyer after FBI agents contacted Mapes in 2019. The evidence also shows Mapes’ frequent communications with McClain concerning a wide range of personal and professional topics and their close relationship with each other.
* The feds have a lot of audio files to back up their claim that Mapes knew about interactions between McClain and Madigan. There are a ton of examples, but here are some…
GX15 (5/30/18 at 6:26 p.m.). This call again is an example of Mapes and McClain discussing sensitive political issues that affect Madigan. It is the first of four calls between the two men on one night. McClain fills Mapes in on a woman who accused then-Representative Public Official B of sexual harassment. At the end of the call, McClain gives Mapes advice as to how Public Official B should address the allegations, and Mapes says “okay.” Contrary to Mapes’ motion, this is an adoptive admission, but in any event it is admissible to show Mapes was on notice of the sensitive role McClain played in matters affecting Madigan and the Speaker’s Office. This call is relevant for the additional reason that Mapes specifically lied about Public Official B, as alleged in Count Two of the indictment. This and other calls show that Mapes is highly attuned to the drama surrounding Public Official B and McClain’s role in mitigating the fall-out for Madigan. This call thus makes it more likely that Mapes was well aware of McClain’s role in forcing Public Official B out of office months later, in the fall of 2018. (There are also calls between Mapes and McClain about Public Official B’s ouster, but this earlier call also makes it more likely that Mapes would not have somehow forgotten those later calls.)
GX16 (5/30/18 at 9:34 p.m.). In this short follow-up call, Mapes tells McClain that “we’re in the midst of all kind of things going on,” including related to Public Official B. McClain offers to share what he knows, and Mapes says ‘let me put you on with the boss. Okay? . . . so you’re going to inform him what you know and go from there.” This call demonstrates as clear as day that Mapes knew McClain communicated with Madigan in 2018, because Mapes sets up that conversation. It also is an example of McClain working for Madigan, helping get information to him about a brewing sexual harassment scandal. Although the call was minimized, and thus the conversation with Madigan was not included in the recorded portion, the excerpted portion nevertheless clearly shows the manner in which McClain was brought in to help with sensitive issues impacting the Speaker’s Office.
Public Official B is former Rep. Lou Lang, who, the filing claims, will be testifying at Mapes’ trial.
* Public Official C is Rep. Bob Rita, who will also be testifying…
GX57 (8/21/18). In this call, McClain tells Mapes that he is in Chicago to meet with Public Official C about gaming legislation (which Public Official C will testify about at trial) and that he was having dinner with Madigan. This is yet another example of McClain relaying assignments he was working on for Madigan and describing plans to meet with Madigan. Mapes also asks McClain if “they” had started “Sunday phone calls,” a reference to Sunday review meetings held by Madigan and his close staff in the Speaker’s Office, which the jury will also hear about at trial. Again, this call shows that Mapes is well aware that McClain is doing work for Madigan. Mapes also asks about Public Official B, and if there had been any report as to the sexual harassment allegations against him. The entirety of this call shows how much detail Mapes knows about McClain’s comings and goings, in just one brief phone call. […]
GX12 (5/24/18). This is a call between McClain and Public Official C, who will testify about trial. The indictment alleges that Mapes gave testimony about McClain’s interactions with Public Official C. Dkt. 1, Count 2. The two men are generally discussing gaming legislation, a topic that is relevant because McClain tells Mapes in another call (GX57) that one of McClain’s “assignments” from Madigan was to work with Public Official C on gaming legislation. The bulk of the call will not be offered for its truth but to show McClain playing the exact role he told Mapes about; advising Public Official C on gaming. Significantly, when Public Official C asks how to move the bill, McClain tells him, “let me check with Mapes.” This last statement is admissible as a statement of intention or plan under Rule 803(3), and it is relevant because it shows McClain’s plan to talk to Mapes about gaming legislation.
* Will Cousineau will also testify at the trial…
GX13 (5/25/18). In this call, McClain tells Cousineau that he should talk to Mapes about a piece of legislation one of Cousineau’s lobbying clients want on a bill. This is not offered for its truth. Instead it’s a piece of advice, and thus admissible as a “verbal act” rather than for its truth. Cousineau will be able to testify about this call, and the role Mapes played in the Speaker’s Office both before and after his resignation.
Lang, Rita and Cousineau all testified at the ComEd Four trial. None have been accused of wrongdoing. Lang and Rita both received “non-target” letters from prosecutors. Cousineau was granted immunity.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 12:44 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Looking back at Northwestern’s 2021 cheerleader sexual harassment, racism lawsuits
Next Post: Pritzker leading trade mission to UK
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Bob Rita is going to be entitled to a federal pension pretty soon with all his work as a witness/mole.
Comment by DougChicago Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 12:49 pm
It does seem like the Feds are putting the screws to Mapes with this perjury charge, but the level of arrogance for him to testify before the grand jury is stranger than fiction.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 1:01 pm
== Bob Rita is going to be entitled to a federal pension pretty soon with all his work as a witness/mole. ==
Lol. I was going to suggest he get an apartment in the South Loop given all the time he spends at the Dirksen Building. He could walk to work.
Comment by Anon4 Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 1:02 pm
Mapes was immunized before his testimony. All he had to do was tell the truth and he’d be facing nothing.
Comment by DougChicago Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 1:24 pm
It would seem Mapes’ case is the most straight forward of the bunch. He either lied to the grand jury or didn’t. No quibbling over the differences between bribery and political good will.
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 1:46 pm
===No quibbling over the differences===
Read the background links. Lots of quibbling.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 3:10 pm
====All he had to do was tell the truth and he’d be facing nothing.====
And it doesn’t make any sense to me why he just didn’t tell the truth. I don’t think it was any secret that McClain was still somewhat involved with Madigan. Heck, almost everyone use to stay involved one way or another with Madigan’s organizations well after retiring or moving on.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 3:31 pm
I would challenge anyone here to answer accurately 650 questions over a period of seven hours regarding events from three years prior. Of course he didn’t answer with perfect accuracy. No one could. And that was the plan from the feds from the start.
Comment by Chump Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 3:40 pm
@Chump
If you believe Mapes didn’t know what was going on between Madigan and McClain I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 3:43 pm
Who would have ever thought Bob Rita would be the, witness/mole?
Comment by Choice Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 4:54 pm
===witness/mole===
C’mon. He wasn’t a mole.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 4:59 pm
People who’ve been in Mapes crosshairs in the past will enjoy watching this. Can’t bully your way out of this one, or use the Speaker to get your way.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 7:08 pm
Wondering if MJM has the slightest bit of remorse for the lives being ruined. They continue to be loyal, if not smart. Is there the tiniest, momentary feeling of remorse?
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Jul 11, 23 @ 7:16 pm
Did anyone else catch in the federal filing that the State is seeking to prevent a memory expert from testifying? That seems incredibly relevant where the defendant is accused of lying when he said he didn’t remember.
Comment by the 647 Wednesday, Jul 12, 23 @ 12:25 pm