Ten years after the FBI began its aggressive pursuit of corruption inside Illinois’ halls of power, toppling some of Chicago’s most entrenched old-school politicians, a defense attorney finally uttered five words Tuesday that could turn out to be a game-changer — or a colossal mistake.“The defense calls Mike Madigan.”Moments later, jurors who’d heard from nearly 60 witnesses over three months at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse found themselves finally listening to the Southwest Side Democrat accused of turning his political empire into a criminal enterprise: Michael J. Madigan.The former speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives wore a gray suit, light blue shirt and purple tie as he climbed onto the witness stand inside the 12th-floor courtroom of U.S. District Judge John Blakey.Madigan’s attorney immediately asked him if people had turned to him for help.“Yes,” Madigan testified. He said he heard from “all types of people.”The attorney, Dan Collins, asked if that included “help finding a job” and how Madigan would respond.“When people asked me for help, if possible, I tried to help them,” Madigan said. Trial highlights Trial highlightsAfter testimony from nearly 60 witnesses over three months, jurors in Michael Madigan’s federal corruption trial found themselves finally listening to the Southwest Side Democrat himself.Madigan took the stand for more than three hours — and his testimony is expected to resume on Wednesday morning.While also revealing personal details that had never been disclosed, Madigan insisted he had never traded his public office for private gain. But Madigan insisted he’d never traded his public office for private gain. He said he never demanded or accepted something of value in exchange for an official act. And the famously reserved politician explained how he felt about people such as ex-Ald. Frank Olivo, who allegedly collected thousands from ComEd for do-nothing jobs in an alleged bid to bribe Madigan.Madigan told the jury he was “very angry.”“I knew Frank for years,” Madigan testified. “And Frank knew that I worked all the time. And I expected people associated with me to work all the time. And he knew that. And given that knowledge, he should have worked. He should have done his job.”Revealing and risky gambitMadigan’s surprise move to take the witness stand in his trial is stunning in several respects. For starters, Madigan's first three hours on the witness stand already revealed new details about his private life that he’d never before made public, despite his record-breaking 36-year grip on the speaker’s gavel in Springfield.Madigan testified about his relationship with his parents, how he met his wife Shirley, and how he came to see himself as a father to the daughter Shirley had before they met — former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.Legally, Michael Madigan’s testimony also exposes him to allegations of perjury at sentencing if he’s convicted of the racketeering, bribery and attempted extortion charges filed against him.However, the the famously careful former political powerhouse might see it as his best shot to overcome a mountain of evidence the feds gathered during an investigation that dates back to 2014. Former Ald. Edward M. Burke, another record-breaking, old-school politician like Madigan, is now in prison after being convicted of racketeering a little more than a year ago.Unlike Madigan, Burke chose not to testify in his own defense.Madigan’s testimony followed arguments by the lawyers about whether Madigan could avoid having it used by Blakey when the judge rules on forfeiture allegations that he is considering separately as Madigan’s trial moves forward.The ruling could lead to a financial judgment.Ultimately, Blakey said he’d be “pushing the pause button” on the forfeiture issue during Madigan’s testimony.Madigan came across on the witness stand as folksy and disarming. He gestured often with his right hand, palm up. More than once, he told jurors “that’s an interesting story” as Collins asked him about his youth. And when asked his age, he said, “I’m 82 years old … A young 82.”He talked about the “tough job” he had after the election of former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner in 2014, and how the earlier administration of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich — who famously went to prison for corruption — was a its own “memorable experience.”Still, fielding questions from his own defense attorney for three hours amounts to the easy part for Madigan. He’ll eventually face cross-examination from the team of prosecutors who called 50 witnesses and played around 200 secret FBI recordings in their bid to prove Madigan guilty.Trial could stretch into late JanuaryThe cross-examination will likely be handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu, who delivered objections during Madigan’s testimony Tuesday.However, it’s not clear when that cross-examination will begin. Collins said he’s not likely to finish questioning Madigan until late Wednesday morning, and attorneys for Madigan co-defendant Michael McClain will likely question him next.But jurors are expected to head home for the week early Wednesday afternoon. The federal courthouse is closed Thursday to honor the late President Jimmy Carter. And Blakey does not conduct the trial on Fridays.All told, the jury might not begin deliberating in the case until late January. Madigan’s trial was originally expected to end in mid-December. Why the Madigan trial matters Why the Madigan trial mattersMichael J. Madigan was the longest-serving state House speaker in the United States. That position made him the leader of the Illinois House of Representatives for nearly four decades, where he shepherded legislation that affected everyday life in Illinois. He also served for more than 20 years as the head of the Democratic Party of Illinois. Ultimately, he rose to become one of the most dominant politicians in Illinois since the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.What to expect in the trialWho was caught up in the investigationWho is Judge John Blakey?The documents behind the caseRead all our coverage of the historic trial here. Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise made up of his public and political offices, as well as his private law firm, designed to enhance his political power and enrich himself and his allies. McClain, Madigan’s long-time friend and ally, is accused of acting as his agent.McClain’s attorneys predicted last summer, before the trial began, that Madigan’s defense attorneys would ultimately point the finger at McClain, despite the pair’s lengthy and well-known friendship.‘He should have worked’Madigan testified Tuesday about his early days in the Legislature, when McClain was also a lawmaker and they purportedly met, but references to McClain in Madigan’s testimony have been noticeably sparse, so far.However, Collins did appear to try to make key points with Madigan’s initial testimony. One example was Madigan’s testimony about how he vouched for people such as Olivo and former campaign worker Raymond Nice — only to find out later they allegedly did no work despite being paid by ComEd.“I knew Nice,” Madigan said. “He knew me. He knew my work ethic, and what is expected from people associated with me. And he should, he should have worked. Just like everybody else is supposed to work.”Madigan testified about ComEd’s conduct in Springfield decades ago that he found deceitful, leading to his distrust of the utility.“I told our chief counsel to not trust ComEd, to be suspicious, and to work to draft legislation that would guarantee they’d do what they said they’re going to do,” Madigan testified.Similar to ComEd, AT&T Illinois is accused of paying $22,500 to former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo in a bid to get Madigan to look favorably at its legislation in 2017.Prosecutors say Acevedo, a veteran Latino lawmaker and assistant House majority leader under Madigan, was valuable because of the growing Latino population in Madigan’s district. Acevedo testified last month in a testy exchange with prosecutors.‘When he was sober, he did just fine’Madigan testified Tuesday that he chose Acevedo for a leadership position at the recommendation of the Latino caucus. But he acknowledged that “Eddie had a drinking problem.”“When he was sober, he did just fine,” Madigan said. “Didn’t do so well when he was drinking.”Madigan acknowledged that Acevedo asked him for help finding work when Acevedo left the Legislature in 2017 and moved to the world of lobbying. Madigan said he passed Acevedo’s name on to McClain.Then Collins asked Madigan when he learned that Acevedo wound up being hired by AT&T.“As part of this case,” Madigan said.Meanwhile, Collins’ questions about Madigan’s personal life also seemed to hearken back to opening statements, when defense attorneys told the jury Madigan had an aversion to confrontation.Madigan told jurors about one of his early jobs working for his alcoholic father for the Streets and Sanitation Department, and how “there would be a nightly interrogation as to the events of the day,” and Madigan would “be the subject of his displeasure.”Madigan told the jury he learned about “hard work” and “attention to detail” from his father.And, he said, he learned to “avoid confrontation.”“That,” he said, “carried over to my years in the Legislature.”Contributing: Dave McKinney