Tim Mapes once seemed to be the guy who knew everything in Springfield.
He spent two decades as Michael Madigan’s chief of staff and was widely viewed as the only person with direct access to the Illinois House speaker.
But Mapes also was seen as threatening and controlling. His tenure ended with harassment and bullying accusations in 2018.
Then, three years later, Mapes found himself in front of a federal grand jury. That’s when prosecutors say he offered “blatantly false” testimony — suddenly saying he knew nothing.
Now, Mapes is set to stand trial starting Monday in Chicago on federal charges of perjury and attempted obstruction of justice for an alleged bid to block prosecutors’ investigation of Madigan, who forced Mapes to resign in 2018, and Michael McClain, another Springfield insider.
Corruption investigations have led to trials and convictions of six people in Chicago so far this year. Jurors hearing these cases have been vocal in rejecting defense arguments.
Now, a new panel could hear dozens of recordings that prosecutors say undermine Mapes’ 2021 testimony that he didn’t know — or couldn’t recall — work McClain did for Madigan.
In addition to being Madigan’s chief of staff, Mapes also served as executive director of the Democratic Party of Illinois.
McClain, charged in two separate indictments, was convicted at trial with three others earlier this year for a conspiracy to bribe Madigan to benefit ComEd. Next April, Madigan and McClain face trial in a second case that accuses them of racketeering conspiracy.
Madigan and McClain also loom large in Mapes’ case. Key witnesses from McClain’s first trial are set to return to the stand. Among them: state Rep. Robert “Bob” Rita, who has testified in two corruption trials this year, and former Madigan aide Will Cousineau.
The backdrop this time will be a series of #MeToo scandals in 2018 that rocked Springfield and forced key figures including Mapes out of office.
The FBI was listening at the time, and prosecutors are ready to play recordings that were secretly made amid the fallout.
Some revolve around former state Rep. Lou Lang, who testified earlier this year about the events that led to his resignation. Lang is expected to return to court for Mapes’ trial.
Another recorded call, from April 2018, had Madigan, McClain, Mapes and others discussing whether to form a committee to investigate sexual harassment at the Capitol.
A prosecutor recently said in court the call shows “Mapes was not telling the truth” when he told grand jurors he didn’t know about McClain’s work for Madigan.
Mapes’ lawyers declined to discuss his pending trial.
In court, they have argued that questions posed to him before the grand jury were vague. They’ve said his answers to others — “I don’t recall” — were “literally true.” And they’ve said they might try to have Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu, the lead prosecutor in the Madigan investigation, testify. Bhachu helped question Mapes before the grand jury, his colleagues have said in court.
Prosecutors say Mapes’ claims are undercut by his close ties with McClain and their frequent and often personal contact, especially when Mapes found himself in the political wilderness after a quarter century of service to Madigan.
Presiding over Mapes’ trial will be U.S. District Judge John Kness, a former federal prosecutor nominated to the bench in 2019 by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2020. Kness also presided over the Madigan-related bribery case against ComEd, dismissing the charge against ComEd last month as part of a deal the utility reached with prosecutors.
‘I don’t recall’
Mapes’ grand jury testimony followed a Feb. 11, 2021, interview with prosecutors.
An immunity order from Chief U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer made clear that Mapes’ grand jury testimony could be used against him only if he lied or otherwise failed to follow the order.
Mapes testified for hours before the grand jury on March 31, 2021, fielding questions from two prosecutors who asked more than 650 questions, records show.
The perjury charge centers on his answers to seven queries, all dealing with McClain’s work for Madigan:
- Asked whether McClain had ever given him insight into his interactions with Madigan, Mapes said, “No, that wouldn’t — that wouldn’t happen.”
- Asked whether McClain shared what he’d been discussing with Madigan or anything he was doing “on behalf” of Madigan around 2017, 2018 or 2019, Mapes said, “No.”
- Asked if Mapes knew whether McClain performed tasks or assignments for Madigan between 2017 and 2018, Mapes said, “I don’t recall any.”
- Asked whether Mapes had reason to think McClain was acting as an agent for Madigan after McClain’s retirement in 2016 or whether McClain was doing any work for Madigan, Mapes said, “I’m not aware of any. I’m not aware of that activity. Let’s put it that way.”
- Asked whether anyone ever described any work McClain had been doing for Madigan between 2017 and 2019, Mapes said, “I don’t recall that — that I would have been part of any of that dialogue. I don’t know why I would be.” Pressed for a yes or no answer, Mapes said, “No, I don’t recall any of that.”
- Asked whether he was aware of any facts that would help prosecutors understand if McClain acted as an agent, performed work or took direction from Madigan between 2017 and 2019, Mapes said, “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.”
- Asked whether he knew McClain to have acted as a messenger for Madigan between 2017 and 2021, or to have conveyed messages, Mapes said, “I’m not aware of any.”
To prove the perjury charge, prosecutors must show that Mapes testified falsely, that the testimony was relevant or “material” to the investigation and that Mapes knew the testimony was false.
To prove the broader attempted obstruction of justice charge, they also must prove Mapes acted “corruptly.”
Mapes and McClain
Prosecutors say the recordings they plan to play for jurors reveal a “close friendship” between Mapes and McClain. They say the men even shared a “deeply personal” call on June 6, 2018, the day Madigan forced Mapes to resign.
McClain told Mapes on that call, “You’re the only person’s made me cry.”
One week earlier, it had been Lang who found himself at the center of harassment and intimidation accusation in Springfield. An activist made claims against the lawmaker during a news conference May 31, 2018. The night before, federal authorities say they recorded four calls between Mapes and McClain.
McClain gave Mapes advice during one of those calls about how Lang should handle the situation, prosecutors say. In a short follow-up call, McClain also offered to share what he knew about what was going on.
“Let me put you on with the boss, OK?” prosecutors say Mapes replied.
They have said the first call shows that Mapes was “highly attuned to the drama surrounding [Lang] and McClain’s role in mitigating the fallout for Madigan” and that the second “demonstrates as clear as day that Mapes knew McClain communicated with Madigan in 2018.”
They’ve also suggested the discussion makes it “more likely” Mapes was aware of an episode in November 2018 that came up early in McClain’s first trial. McClain got on the phone with Lang that month, after another accusation surfaced, and told Lang it was time to step down.
In that call, McClain claimed to be an agent of Madigan — which Lang did not seem to doubt.
Separately, prosecutors say McClain referred in one of those May 2018 conversations with Mapes to an “assignment” he’d been given involving a property in Chinatown. That property later became part of the separate indictment against Madigan and McClain, set for trial next year.
The comment “shows that Mapes knew McClain did ‘assignments’ for Madigan in 2018,” according to prosecutors.
In a call June 27, 2018 — following Mapes’ resignation — prosecutors say McClain told Mapes about a recent conversation he’d had with Madigan about how to reallocate work following Mapes’ departure.
In another call, on July 26, 2018, McClain allegedly told Mapes he was on an “assignment” that involved trying to determine if then-state Rep. Sam Yingling planned to vote for Madigan as speaker, records show.
By February 2019, the two men were heard discussing legislative committees in Springfield, which prosecutors say “demonstrates that Mapes knew McClain was doing work for Madigan.”
‘Assignment to get Madigan a chicken sandwich’
Mapes’ lawyers Andrew Porter, Katie Hill and Sarah Bakker have sought to block many of the recordings, arguing that much of what was discussed is irrelevant and that prosecutors were trying to improperly expand on Mapes’ indictment.
Kness has said he’ll rule on the admissibility of specific recordings on a day-by-day basis once the trial is underway, though he gave the lawyers general guidance during a pretrial hearing.
Regarding the conversations that Mapes and McClain had about Lang in May 2018, the defense attorneys have acknowledged the men “clearly discussed politics.” They also wrote that “all Springfield politics in some way would have had an [effect] on Madigan as the speaker of the House of Representatives.
“But Mapes was charged with lying about whether McClain did ‘tasks’ or ‘assignments’ for Madigan between 2017 and 2019,” they wrote.
They also argued that nothing caught on tape at that time “establishes McClain doing any assignments for Madigan related to Lou Lang.”
McClain did make the comment about an “assignment” involving the Chinatown property, but the defense lawyers say Mapes did not reply beyond a simple “mm-hmm.”
As to McClain’s later comment about an “assignment” involving Yingling, Mapes’ attorneys said it had nothing to do with the investigation that landed Mapes in front of the grand jury.
McClain was using the term “flippantly,” they wrote.
And they said McClain might as well have been telling Mapes, “I’m on an assignment to get Madigan a chicken sandwich.”
