After six weeks of evidence, closing arguments in the “ComEd Four” bribery trial, involving an alleged scheme to bribe then-Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, have been set for Monday.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber told the jurors Wednesday they had heard all the testimony in the case and instructed them to come back Monday morning, when they’ll hear some final stipulations followed by closing arguments from both sides.

Leinenweber did not set a time limit on arguments with the lawyers, but said he’d “like to get it all in in one day.”

Meanwhile, both sides will be in court Thursday for what could be an extensive conference about jury instructions, to decide the specific legal guidelines for the jury during deliberations.

A total of 13 defense witnesses were called to the stand beginning last week, including two of the four defendants, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and ex-ComEd lobbyist John Hooker, who testified on their own behalf.

The pace of the defense case quickened Wednesday after the other two defendants, Michael McClain, a retired lobbyist and longtime Madigan confidant, and Jay Doherty, a lobbyist and former head of the City Club, opted not to testify.

Doherty called one character witness on his behalf, while McClain called no witnesses at all.

It was McClain’s lawyer, Patrick Cotter, however, who landed perhaps the most memorable lines of the day, suggesting in his questioning of Hooker that the entire premise of the prosecution was ludicrous.

“In all your years of experience, did you ever think for one minute that Mike Madigan would risk his speakership and his power to get a few more people some jobs at ComEd?” Cotter asked, his voice rising to a shout. “Some summer interns? … Anybody?”

“No, I did not,” Hooker answered.

“It’s a crazy idea, isn’t it?” Cotter shot back.

“It’s a bad idea,” Hooker agreed.

Hooker was among some 50 total witnesses to testify in the trial, which began with jury selection on March 14.

As promised, the case has held up a mirror to Illinois politics on a much larger scale, reflecting the cozy relationships between lobbyists, politicians and clout-heavy public utilities that depend on action in Springfield, where Madigan controlled the fate of virtually every piece of legislation.

It has also featured an only-in-Illinois cast of characters who allegedly benefited from Madigan’s vaunted political machine.

The jury heard from a sitting legislator, state Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island, who testified memorably last month that Madigan ruled his fellow Democrats “through fear and intimidation.”

Legendary 13th Ward precinct captain Edward Moody, meanwhile, testified for prosecutors that the speaker got him a $45,000-a-year contract with McClain but made it clear the deal would disappear if he stopped working on campaigns.

And businessman and former McPier boss Juan Ochoa, a onetime nemesis of Madigan, told the jury he used his clout with then-U.S. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez to win the speaker’s recommendation for a coveted spot on ComEd’s board.

Much of the other evidence presented by prosecutors came from the defendants’ own mouths, through some 100 recorded wiretapped conversations and secretly recorded meetings played for jurors, including many where the defendants talk with startling candor about their mutual interest in keeping Madigan happy.

The indictment alleged the four defendants conspired to illegally reward Madigan in a variety of ways over more than eight years to win his support for ComEd’s legislative agenda in Springfield.

According to the charges, McClain, Pramaggiore and Hooker steered $1.3 million in payments from ComEd to Madigan-approved subcontractors, including several under Doherty.

The scheme to influence the speaker also included appointing Ochoa to the utility’s board of directors, hiring a clout-heavy law firm headed by political operative Victor Reyes, and stacking the utility’s summer internship program with candidates sent from the 13th Ward.

All four defendants have pleaded not guilty. Their lawyers have contended the government is trying to turn legal lobbying and job recommendations into a crime.

Madigan, who turned 81 on Wednesday, and McClain, 75, face a separate racketeering indictment that is set for trial next year.

In July 2020, ComEd agreed to pay a record $200 million fine and cooperate with the investigation as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office in exchange for bribery charges being dropped in three years.

Any word of the agreement was kept out of the ComEd Four trial, with the judge ruling it would be too prejudicial against the defendants.

The jury did, however, hear testimony Wednesday about Hooker’s interview with ComEd’s attorneys in August 2019, before he realized that federal prosecutors had recorded his conversations.

Prosecutors attempted to use his statements in the interview to show that he’d changed his story slightly on the witness stand about his role in assigning work to the Doherty subcontractors.

The defense vehemently objected to the line of questioning, and the episode blew over.

In his testimony earlier Wednesday, Hooker was taken line by line through transcripts of the wiretapped recordings at the center of the case, explaining what he meant down to the word, even why he laughed at certain points in the calls.

[ ‘ComEd Four’ bribery trial: What you need to know ]

In one of the recordings, McClain told Hooker, “We had to hire these guys because Mike Madigan came to us. It’s that simple.”

Hooker testified he didn’t believe it was true that they “had” to hire anyone.

“To me that’s just me and McClain joshing around,” he said.

Hooker’s attorney, Jacqueline Jacobson, also asked about the Jan. 29, 2019, lunch meeting at the Union League Club between Hooker and then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez, who was cooperating with the FBI and secretly video-recorded the conversation.

On the video, when Marquez asked about the Doherty subcontractors, Hooker said, “I was the one that, me and McClain, I was the one who created it. And I had to explain it to Frank (Clark).”

Later, Hooker told Marquez he “oughta have a write-up on each one” to explain to incoming ComEd CEO Joe Dominguez.

Jacobson pointed out that Hooker never tried to end the conversation or looked concerned that they’d be talking about bribery in such a public place. She also asked Hooker whether Marquez ever said in their conversation that the subcontractors didn’t do any work.

“No, he did not,” Hooker answered.

In a series of final questions, Jacobson asked Hooker over and over whether he thought they were illegally influencing Madigan by hiring lobbying subcontractors he’d recommended.

“Did attempt to corruptly influence Madigan?” she repeated.

Each time, Hooker shook his head and said firmly, “No.”

[ ‘ComEd Four’ trial: Evidence seen and heard by the jury ]

Through most of his direct testimony, Hooker, 74, cracked jokes and sprinkled in his witty sayings, dubbed “Hookerisms,” as he took the jury through his remarkable life story, including his rise in the ranks at ComEd.

On cross-examination Wednesday, Hooker maintained his folksy style, though his answers seemed more rehearsed. He stuck to his main points when asked about what he knew of the Doherty subcontracts, answering in the same language no matter the specific question.

Each time, Hooker said the subcontractor arrangement with Doherty had created “goodwill” with Madigan because they were able to “respond to a recommendation” from the speaker. He also made sure to say the subcontractors “added value to the company,” and that the arrangement was good for him because he “didn’t have to manage” them.

That included the key February 2019 conversation where McClain told Hooker that they had to hire people that Madigan brought to them. Later in that talk, Hooker and McClain lauded each other for coming up with the subcontractor plan, which Hooker said everyone else thought was “great once they heard it.”

“This was the best way to do it,” Hooker said. “It’s clean for all of us.”

Again, Hooker testified that “clean” meant that he didn’t have to worry about managing the subcontractors himself.

In another recorded call, from March 6, 2019, McClain told Hooker that he’d been able to convince Dominguez to go along with the Doherty contract “in about two minutes,” prompting Hooker to laugh.

Asked why he was laughing, Hooker said, “I laughed just because that’s the way I am.”

Listen to the audio:

When Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz asked about the hiring of former 13th Ward Ald. Frank Olivo in 2011, Hooker said he brought value to ComEd because of his City Hall connections, but acknowledged that he never gave Olivo a specific project to work on.

“I assumed that whatever project Jay was working on, they’d give it to him,” he said.

Hooker denied statements made in the wiretaps that he often talked to Speaker Madigan about the subcontractors.

“No, I have not talked to the speaker about subcontracting,” he said.

Hooker defended Madigan having his House staff’s political point man, Will Cousineau, go out to rally support for the massive 2016 utility legislation dubbed the Future Energy Jobs Act.

Cousineau, who later worked as a contract lobbyist for ComEd after leaving Madigan’s staff, testified under an immunity agreement from prosecutors, providing what they will argue was evidence of Madigan putting his finger on the scale for the utility.

Hooker, however, testified the Future Energy Jobs Act had broad support from a variety of constituencies that were important to the speaker, and that supporting it was simply politically expedient.

Hooker also said that rallying support was just part of Cousineau’s job.

“Nothing wrong with it,” he said.

Madigan did not cast a vote for or against the bill, leaving a publicly available roll call on the bill that would suggest he remained neutral or did not take an active role in the bill’s fate.

Prosecutors have shown the jury Madigan’s voting record in an attempt to portray how power in Springfield often goes unspoken.

It’s something Hooker certainly understood after decades of lobbying in the state legislature and City Hall. In fact, he even had a “Hookerism” for it.

“That which is understood need not be mentioned,” Hooker said on one call with McClain that was played for the jury.

“Right,” McClain replied. “Exactly.”

jmeisner@chicagotribune.com

rlong@chicagotribune.com