Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Isabel posted this story earlier today…
A judge rejected a bid from Michael Madigan’s former chief of staff to keep mention of his immunity deal out of a trial in which prosecutors allege he failed to keep his end of the deal and lied during grand jury testimony.
Tim Mapes served for years under former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan as the clerk of the Illinois House and as Madigan’s chief of staff. In May 2021, federal prosecutors charged Mapes with lying to a grand jury in a federal probe connected to the longtime former speaker.
U.S. District Judge John Kness denied a motion filed by Mapes’ attorney to keep mention of the immunity deal out of the trial. Mapes had argued that portions of the indictment that referred to the immunity agreement were irrelevant and prejudicial.
* From Judge Kness’ ruling…
As charged in the Indictment, seven of Defendant’s answers regarding Madigan and McClain were knowingly false; as a result, the Indictment alleges that Defendant committed both perjury and obstruction of justice. These charges are based on the following seven question-and-answer segments, which the parties refer to as Episodes 1–7:
[1] Q: Okay. Did [McClain], after he retired, kind of give you any insight into what his interactions with [Madigan] were that you weren’t privy to personally?
A: No, that wouldn’t–that wouldn’t happen.
[2] Q: Okay. And [McClain] didn’t—wouldn’t tell you what he was discussing with [Madigan] or anything that he was doing on behalf of [Madigan] in that ‘17, ‘18, and ‘19 timeframe?
A: No.
[3] Q: Do you have any knowledge about whether or not [McClain] performed any sort of tasks or assignments for [Madigan] in [the] 2017 to 2018 timeframe at all?
A: I don’t recall any.
[4] Q: . . . Do you have any reason to think [McClain] was acting as an agent for [Madigan] after he retired in 2016, that is, doing work for him or carrying out assignments for him?
A: I’m not aware of any. I’m not aware of that activity. Let’s put it that way.
[5] Q: . . . [A]ll these questions are going to be for the 2017 through 2019 timeframe. Do you recall anyone ever describing any work–anyone at all describing any work or assignments [McClain] was performing on [Madigan]’s behalf?
A: I don’t recall that–that I would have been part of any of that dialogue. I don’t know why I would be.
Q: The answer is yes or no to that question. Do you recall?
A: No, I don’t recall any of that.
[6] Q: . . . So one of the things we were trying to figure out, Mr. Defendant, is whether or not–kind of a key issue for us is whether or not [McClain] acted as an agent for [Madigan] in any respect, including that timeframe. We’re talking about the 2017, 2018, 2019 timeframe. Are you aware of any facts that would help us understand whether or not, in fact, [McClain] acted as an agent or performed work for [Madigan] or took direction from [Madigan] in that timeframe?
A: I don’t know who you would go to other than [Madigan] and [McClain]. [Madigan], if he had people do things for him like I did things for him, was—didn’t distribute information freely.
[7] Q: Let’s talk about 2017, 2018 to the present, do you know [McClain] to have acted in any capacity as a messenger for [Madigan] to convey messages to and from him?
A: I’m not aware of any.
Contesting the allegations that these statements constituted perjury and seeking to strike other allegations included in the complaint, Defendant filed the Motion to Strike, Motion for Disclosure, and Motion to Dismiss. Both the Motion to Strike and the Motion to Dismiss are addressed in turn.
* If you click here and scroll down to page 41, you’ll see excerpts from federal recordings which prosecutors say proves their case. A few of them…
GX7. In this call, Mapes tells McClain that the plan is for McClain to meet Madigan and Andrew (Andrew Madigan is Madigan’s son) for dinner. This call thus demonstrates that Mapes knew McClain was meeting with Madigan in 2018. In fact, Mapes was acting as intermediary; by telling McClain of the dinner plans on behalf of Madigan. Mapes told McClain, “So, I, I was gonna give you an update on your life, after you get to Springfield. . . one is, now you’re having dinner at Saputo’s tonight.” GX7-T at 1. It is therefore relevant to the allegation in Count 2 that Mapes testified falsely about whether Madigan gave messages for Mapes to pass along to McClain. Dkt 1., Count 2, ¶ 2(k). The second excerpt involves Mapes telling McClain about something Madigan wanted to discuss with McClain, referring to this as McClain’s “the to do list I had to give you” from Madigan. GX7-T. In the final excerpt, they once again discuss dinner plans with Madigan and McClain says he’ll be there in a half hour. GX7-T. Mapes claims that this call is not admissible because he wasn’t specifically asked about it in the grand jury. R. 66 at 7. But again, Mapes’ lies were much broader, and calls like this one are unquestionably relevant to show that Mapes knew of McClain’s role within Madigan’s orbit in 2018. […]
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. […]
GX17 (5/30/18 at 9:34 p.m.). This is another call on May 30, 2018 concerning the allegations involving Public Official C and other matters. … The conversation then turns to one of McClain’s “assignment[s]” from Madigan related the Chinatown parcel, discussed above. GX17. McClain related that “in my case uh it’s an assignment as you probably know. I’m trying to get some uh legal, um, um, property transferred from the I, CDOT.” … Finally, it is also relevant that this is the third call between the two men on May 30, 2018. The sheer number of calls between these two men on a single day is probative as to Mapes’ testimony about his memory. […]
GX36 (6/21/18). For the bulk of this call, Mapes and McClain discuss matters concerning the Democratic Party of Illinois (“DPI”), including fundraising, personnel issues, and replacing Mapes as executive director of DPI. This call is highly probative. After Mapes’ abrupt resignation, DPI was left without an executive director. This call demonstrates that Mapes knew McClain was helping Madigan with DPI operations and fundraising after Mapes resigned.
* Back to Judge Kness’ ruling…
Defendant seeks to strike the following statement from the Indictment: “MAPES provided [McClain] with messages communicated to MAPES by [Madigan], including messages concerning work and assignments [McClain] was performing on behalf of [Madigan] between 2017 and 2018.” Defendant appears to contend that this statement fails to “state the elements” of perjury as required under Vaughn because this allegation does not contradict any of his statements in Episodes 1–7 and so cannot form the basis of a perjury charge. The Court disagrees.
In Episode 4, Defendant stated that he was “not aware of any” “reason to think [McClain] was acting as an agent for [Madigan],” where “acting as an agent” was defined as “doing work for him or carrying out assignments for him.” If Defendant was, in fact, “provid[ing] [McClain] with messages communicated to [him] by [Madigan], including messages concerning work and assignments [McClain] was performing on behalf of [Madigan],” this would directly contradict Defendant’s response to the question in Episode 4. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this portion of the Indictment is denied.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Being the smartest and smuggest in these type of rooms is knowing this;
The guys down the street never ask a question they don’t know the answer.
When the guys down the street offer you immunity, confess to everything you’ve ever done, ever.
I don’t think Mapes ever heard this advice, or thought… he was the smartest in the room, smugly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:04 am
Why? Why would he do this? He has immunity and can ride off into the sunset, pension preserved and a life doing whatever he wanted. All to protect one guy. Same crazy behavior we see with Trump folks. Anything to protect the boss. Sad Very sad.
Comment by Always something Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:07 am
Says the guy who spends all day on a message board trying to prove he’s the smartest guy in the room. Noted.
Comment by Franklin Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:08 am
===Says the==
Is that you, Mapes?
===Noted===
Maybe…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:10 am
No one thinks he is the smartest but he is there anyone more smug?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:14 am
===No one thinks===
I’d first say “speak for yourself” but since I already agree and readily acknowledge I’m nowhere near the smartest, lemme join y’all in stating that obvious observation.
I don’t think I’d be too smug when being questioned by federal agents that already know answers to the questions and are giving me immunity.
Since that’s the measure in this post, to bring ya back *to* the post, yeah, I’d be quite smug in this instance at the ignorant choice made by Mapes, in his indictment.
Anything else, or can we discuss how silly it is to try to think anyone is gonna outsmart wiretaps and documents, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:24 am
Now that this motion has been denied, I wonder if Mapes would consider a guilty plea. On the other hand, he probably thinks forcing the Feds to convict him is the more Madigan-esque move in this situation.
Plea or be convicted. To my untrained eyes, those look like his only options. Either way, he’s going to prison. At least if he pleads, he can minimize his time away.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:25 am
OW, you don’t need to be the smartest guy in the room when you have the recordings and emails.
Whether or not it is illegal is up to a jury, but this all looks like a poor imitation of a scene from the Goodfellas without a charismatic or even likeable rogue to be the center or the narrative.
I just wish it hadn’t taken so long for justice to play out.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:29 am
Mapes/Madigan - Prime examples of individuals that perceive themselves as unassailable politically, will inevitably abuse the public trust and become increasingly corrupt. They seemed to be playing a game, but all of us who believed in decent and honest gov’t lost. I Look forward to the outcome of both of their trials
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:31 am
===you don’t need to be the smartest guy in the room when you have the recordings and emails.===
Which is confusing to why Mapes decided this path.
These are pointed questions to discussions, correspondences, etc… what, Mapes think they were fishing?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:34 am
== Plea or be convicted. To my untrained eyes, those look like his only options. ==
Agreed. I’m struggling to see what his defense is. Maybe a combination of “I wasn’t trying to deceive and I didn’t mean what I said?”
If he tries that, I imagine the feds would turn Mapes’ well-earned reputation for meticulousness against him.
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:40 am
What Lucky Pierre said…the sense of entitlement
and arrogance is worthy of Federal indictment.
Lock him up , and his cronies too.
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 10:42 am
These motions are doing nothing but padding the pockets of the lawyers. I do not see a path to victory for Mapes at this point. He had the proverbial “get out of jail free card” but he lost it. Cut a deal if you can.
Comment by Henry Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:02 am
Reminds me of all of RMD’s flunkies who kept their mouths shut to protect Richie. It’s too bad the feds never caught up with RMD, especially before he plundered Chicago’s finances and set himself and his brain trust up for life with post-administration positions and appointments.
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:06 am
=No one thinks he is the smartest but he is there anyone more smug?=
LOL, says the…oh never mind. He wouldn’t get it anyway.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:10 am
My Grandma wouldn’t approve of me enjoying the misfortunes of others, but it is pretty satisfying watching these grifters get their comeuppance.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:27 am
I don’t think this charge is a slam dunk. It is still a challenge to explain to a jury why exactly this is illegal conduct.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:34 am
===It is still a challenge to explain to a jury why exactly this is illegal conduct.===
Mapes is charged with perjury for lying under oath. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:36 am
- My Grandma wouldn’t approve of me enjoying the misfortunes of others -
She would if she knew Mapes.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:37 am
===illegal conduct===
Lying to a federal agent is illegal.
You don’t even have to ask them, they’ll remind you before you start answering, and a jury understands lying
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:47 am
Has Tim Mapes developed a case of Fedzheimers?
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 11:55 am
Mapes was hated by even Dem House members. A smug, arrogant jerk to all.
Dems would stand in line to sent him to jail, let alone GOP members.
Comment by Um, No Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 12:22 pm
“I just wish it hadn’t taken so long for justice to play out.” The usual twenty-to-thirty year intervals we see between significant political corruption trials in Illinois are by design. Illinois has a weak Attorney General by design. That’s why we all have to sit around for half a lifetime waiting for “justice” which in Illinois means waiting for federal authorities to act.
I was at former Guv George Ryan’s trial back in what, 2006 or 2007? It’s so long ago I can barely remember it. Meanwhile new corrupt politicians are being born and raised to adulthood.
Comment by Payback Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 2:12 pm
I know Tim rubbed many people the wrong way but my experience was as long as you worked hard he was good to you. I wish he would have cooperated although I understand why he did not do so.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 4:11 pm
==weak Attorney General==
Would you rather have an elected, partisan AG bringing these cases to trial or the DOJ?
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 4:13 pm
===I wish he would have cooperated although I understand why he did not do so.===
You understand “what” exactly?
===many people the wrong way but my experience was===
Are the “many” wrong, or didn’t work hard?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 4:14 pm
- my experience was as long as you worked hard he was good to you. -
Yeah, that’s exactly the image I get based on the long time receptionist who went public with his harassment of her. Go take a nap.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jul 25, 23 @ 5:42 pm