Michael J. Madigan’s longtime friend wrote a seemingly thoughtful email to ComEd executive Fidel Marquez in 2014, sharing details of a dinner conversation where Madigan had allegedly pondered Marquez’s allegiance and wondered out loud, “Are there two Fidels?”
But Wednesday — 10 years to the day after Michael McClain fired off that email — Marquez found himself on a witness stand in a federal courtroom. That’s where Madigan’s defense attorney asked Marquez incredulously, in front of a jury, “Did you really believe that?”
“Did you really believe that Michael Madigan, at dinner, was telling Michael McClain — kind of doing a psychological evaluation of you that there’s ‘two Fidels’ — do you really believe that conversation took place?” attorney Tom Breen demanded.
Marquez assured him that he did, but Breen had sent his own message. He and a colleague spent their day trying to plant doubt in jurors’ minds about the weeklong testimony from Marquez, who hopes to avoid prison by working with the FBI. His testimony against McClain and Madigan, Illinois’ once-powerful House speaker who resigned in 2021, has spanned five days.
The defense attorneys asked Marquez Wednesday about a false answer he gave while trying to buy a gun, about legal trouble in his divorce, and about his deal with prosecutors that led him to secretly record McClain and three other colleagues. Marquez testified he couldn’t “recollect” whether the FBI had offered him anything when they first approached him.
“You’re telling us that the FBI did not give you any consideration — any inducement — to set up your four friends?” Breen pressed at one point, raising his voice and gesturing toward Marquez.
“What I said was, ‘I don’t recall,’” Marquez insisted.
Madigan’s legal team also seemed to break with McClain in a strategy anticipated since the trial began. Breen questioned Marquez’s claim that McClain spoke on Madigan’s behalf. Breen even referred to McClain being a “pain in the butt,” particularly as McClain recommended people for jobs at ComEd.
“You had the perception these were coming from Michael Madigan?” Breen asked in a reference to those job referrals.
“That was a belief that was widely shared,” Marquez said, “not just by me but by other leadership at ComEd.”
Still, Marquez acknowledged to Breen that he never confirmed whether Madigan was behind any of it.
Madigan and McClain are on trial for a racketeering conspiracy. Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and enrich his allies, with McClain acting as his agent.
One key pillar of the case is an alleged bribery scheme involving ComEd. Prosecutors say ComEd paid five Madigan allies $1.3 million over eight years for do-nothing jobs — and generally hired workers and interns who were recommended by Madigan — so that Madigan would look favorably at its legislation. McClain has already been convicted for his role in the scheme.
Marquez pleaded guilty in 2020 to a bribery conspiracy for the role he played. He is one of two key cooperating witnesses expected to take the stand during Madigan’s trial. The other is former Chicago Ald. Danny Solis (25th), who prosecutors say could testify as soon as next week.
McClain sent the “two Fidels” email on Nov. 13, 2014, amid a push to land ComEd jobs and internships for people, supposedly at Madigan’s behest. McClain wrote that Madigan told him at dinner that “sometimes Fidel is totally responsive and engaging,” but “sometimes he is not with us.”
Breen asked Marquez if he’d ever heard of someone trying to get something done “by saying there’s a downside to not doing this for me?”
“[McClain] played that ticket … constantly, didn’t he?” Breen asked.
Breen also asked Marquez, “You really think Michael Madigan had anything to do with the internships?”
“I did,” Marquez told him.
Wrapping up his own cross-examination, McClain attorney Patrick Cotter tore into Marquez about the false answer he’d given on a gun form in March. A federal judge warned Marquez last spring that he’d given “a gift” to defense attorneys. On Wednesday, Cotter accepted it wholeheartedly.
Marquez answered “no” on that form when it asked if he was “under indictment or information in any court for a felony.” He also answered “no” when asked if he had “ever been convicted in any court … of a felony.”
The feds filed charges against Marquez in 2020 using a document known as an “information.”
Marquez testified Wednesday he knew he hadn’t been charged by indictment, but the word “information” didn’t “strike” him — he hadn’t remembered it years later.
Cotter pounced on that answer.
“Did the word ‘felony’ resonate with you on March 8, 2024?” Cotter demanded. “Did you remember that part of the court proceeding?”
Cotter noted that Marquez has given testimony in the trial “as to what you understood Mike McClain meant when he said certain things to you … back in 2012 through 2019, right?”
“Understanding is at the heart of this case between yourself and others,” Cotter said. “That understanding is based entirely on the same memory we’ve all seen you talk about here in relation to attempting to buy the firearm?”
Marquez responded by referring to a nearby “binder full of documents” — even lifting it up at one point. He said it had helped him “refresh” his memory during the trial.
“I didn’t have the plea agreement in my pocket or on my phone, to refer to it” when trying to buy the gun, Marquez explained.
He told the jury he tried to buy the gun to fend off rattlesnakes near his Arizona home.
“The truth … is you violated the conditions of your release, correct?” Breen asked, when it was his turn to ask him about the attempted gun purchase.
When Marquez admitted that he had, Breen turned to Marquez’s divorce.
“The truth is, you attempted to conceal $400,000 from a wife during the course of a divorce, correct? … The truth is, in 2022, you were held in contempt of court for not transferring certain property in a divorce proceeding, weren’t you?”
Marquez acknowledged both were true.
“You were threatened, as a matter of fact, with jail time if you did not transfer certain stock or assets, correct?” Breen asked.
Finally, hoping to convince jurors there are indeed two sides to Marquez, the defense attorney asked, “When you’re threatened with jail, you comply, right?”
“I ended up complying, yes,” Marquez told him.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
