When former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan got on the witness stand earlier this month to tell his side of the story, he said things to jurors that were “just not plausible,” a federal prosecutor argued Wednesday.Key parts of Madigan’s testimony amounted to a “facade,” she said. The laughter heard from Madigan on a notorious recorded call — in which he joked about certain ComEd contractors making out “like bandits” — is “entirely inconsistent” with what he told the jury, she argued.And as closing arguments got underway in Madigan’s historic racketeering conspiracy trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz told the jury that “legislation should not be bought.”“Power and profit,” she said. “Michael Madigan and Michael McClain conspired to enhance and preserve Madigan’s power and line Madigan’s pockets.”Schwartz spent more than two hours arguing to the jury Wednesday as Madigan’s lengthy trial began to draw to a close. She said McClain was Madigan’s “right-hand man” who helped Madigan’s other “cronies” pocket $1.3 million from ComEd through “sham” contracts.“Time and again, Madigan abused the tremendous power he wielded,” Schwartz said. Trial highlights Trial highlightsWith closing arguments underway in Madigan’s historic racketeering conspiracy trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz argued to the jury that “legislation should not be bought.”Schwartz said Michael McClain was Madigan’s “right-hand man” who helped Madigan’s other “cronies” pocket $1.3 million from ComEd through “sham” contracts.After jurors left the courtroom, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu told U.S. District Judge John Blakey that the feds’ initial closing argument would likely continue through the end of the day Thursday. The closing arguments mean jurors might finally see a light at the end of a very long tunnel. Madigan’s trial has lasted nearly four months. It featured more than 60 witnesses. And now, attorneys have predicted closing arguments could last days.After jurors left the courtroom to head home Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu told U.S. District Judge John Blakey that the feds’ initial closing argument would likely continue through the end of the day Thursday.In an unusual move, that initial argument will be handled by two prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur is expected to take the baton from Schwartz at some point Thursday.When Schwartz and MacArthur are done, jurors will hear from attorneys for Madigan and then McClain. But prosecutors have the burden of proof, so they will also make a rebuttal argument — giving them the last word.Prosecutors say Madigan led a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and reward his associates, with longtime ally McClain acting as his agent. A 117-page indictment leveled against the pair alleges five separate schemes.Before Schwartz’s argument began Wednesday, Blakey spent two hours instructing jurors on the law in the case. In doing so, he told them how they should define the word “corruptly.” It’s a controversial question in the case, tied to U.S. Supreme Court arguments last spring.The justices considered a corruption case out of Northwest Indiana that revolved around a federal bribery law aimed at state and local officials. Madigan’s case involves the same law, and the Supreme Court arguments delayed his trial by six months.Though the justices argued at length last April about the definition of the word “corruptly,” they failed to define it in their final opinion.Blakey told the jury Wednesday that someone acts corruptly if they “understood the conspiracy involved a ‘this for that’ exchange of a ‘thing of value’ for an ‘official action.’” He also said “the government need not prove … that the defendant knew that the law prohibited his conduct.”Schwartz told jurors Wednesday that she would focus her argument on two of the schemes alleged in the indictment, in which prosecutors say ComEd and AT&T Illinois paid Madigan’s allies for do-nothing jobs so he would look favorably at their legislation in Springfield. McClain has already been convicted for his role in the scheme.“There’s no legal requirement that the money go directly into Madigan’s pocket,” Schwartz said. “Instead the bribes in this case were paid to Madigan’s allies.”Prosecutors say five Madigan allies were paid $1.3 million by ComEd over eight years, through intermediaries. They were former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael R. Zalewski, former Cook County Recorder of Deeds Edward Moody, longtime Madigan campaign worker Raymond Nice and ex-state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo.AT&T Illinois paid an additional $22,500 to Acevedo, though Schwartz’s argument ended for the day before she had an opportunity to discuss it.“What do they all have in common?” Schwartz asked. “[It] wasn’t the skills these people brought to bear. It wasn’t their qualifications. It was their connection to Michael Madigan. … These hires were paid to bribe Madigan.”And to highlight Madigan’s knowledge of the scheme, she pointed to a series of five calls on May 16, 2018. In an initial call between Madigan and McClain that morning, Madigan asks McClain to speak with then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore about Zalewski, who was leaving the Chicago City Council.McClain goes on to have conversations with Pramaggiore and then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez. Pramaggiore told McClain, “I told Fidel to hire [Zalewski],” and Marquez asks, “What were you thinking numbers wise,” regarding Zalewski’s pay.Eventually, that same day, McClain follows up and tells Madigan “you can call Mike Zalewski and say that they’re gonna get in touch with him.” Zalewski wound up collecting $45,000 from ComEd, starting in August 2018. He is not accused of wrongdoing.“Madigan is following up,” Schwartz told jurors in court Wednesday. “He’s making sure it gets done. And he’s making the job offer. These are not disinterested job recommendations.”Rather, she said, “this whole set-up is designed around Madigan.” She told jurors to use their common sense.“Of course he knows what’s going on here,” Schwartz said. “Of course he knows why his people are being paid.”Continuing to make her point, Schwartz played an infamous February 2019 video of McClain and Marquez at Saputo’s restaurant in Springfield. Jurors again heard McClain and Marquez discussing how to explain the arrangement with Madigan's allies to ComEd’s new CEO at the time, Joe Dominguez, who was a former federal prosecutor.Marquez recorded the conversation, having agreed to wear a wire for the FBI one month earlier.“I would say to you, don’t put anything in writing,” McClain told Marquez. Later in the conversation, McClain added, “I think all that can do is hurt ya’.” 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. Schwartz emphasized the “code” words used by McClain and other members of the conspiracy. She pointed to McClain saying “it looks raw” and a comment he made about Dominguez’s “ex-prosecutor hat.”“Legitimate lobbying doesn’t require the use of a code,” the prosecutor said. “Plain old job recommendations don’t require someone who knows how to be discreet.“They’re talking about bribes here,” Schwartz said.“Concealment is the hallmark of this conspiracy,” she said. “And it shows that the conspirators were hiding something. They know what they’re doing is wrong.”