Comments (28)

powkat wrote on April 24, 2007 12:52 PM:

Typical Republican behavior: accuse people who oppose you of doing what you have done. And isn't Geragos the lawyer who defended Scott Whatsit, the guy who murdered his pregnant wife?

Anonymous wrote on April 24, 2007 12:53 PM:

I know that Geragos isn’t a witness, but isn’t he required to have some support for his claims? A leak does not necessarily mean Lam leaked.

This line reminds me of Gonzo claiming it was right to fire or not rehire Iglesias because Iglesias didn’t report the call from Domenici. Gonzales ignores it was Domenici who had Inglesias fired, meaning Inglesias was damned either way, if you believe Gonzo that is.

klh wrote on April 24, 2007 12:59 PM:

Actually, it was Geragos who leaked the info and then blamed Lam.

Anonymous wrote on April 24, 2007 1:04 PM:

"Actually, it was Geragos who leaked the info and then blamed Lam."

Great theory, I wonder if there is anything to it.

What would journalistic ethics require in this circumstance? If Geragos leaked the information and slanders Lam with his accusation that she did it, isn’t there an obligation on the part of the reporter who printed the story to at least vindicate Lam? Arguably, the reporter’s duty extends further than that, since the leak was not for the purpose of the public’s right to know, rather it was to impugn a professional reputation.

rebecca wrote on April 24, 2007 1:11 PM:

It's a wonderful theory, but Geragos is saying Lam leaked the info before she ever indicted Wilkes. Geragos, to my knowledge, wasn't his attorney then.

Don wrote on April 24, 2007 1:11 PM:

Please don't take this motion seriously.

It's absurd on its face and nothing more than a desperate attempt at making some heat.

If this is the best Wilkes can do, as an attorney, I conclude that he is seriously screwed.

cevrero wrote on April 24, 2007 1:15 PM:

If a Judge sweeps this bogus claim under the rug,...then I will believe that this Justice system is a crooked as their bosses. But on the other hand, how can you claim that she leaked without pointing to the spot where it was leaked. I'm sure gonzo will appoint a special prosecuter to get to the bottom of this dilemna,...but Wilkes is 10lbs of shit in a 5lb shitbag,...you can't hide the stench of corruption.

Yellow Dog wrote on April 24, 2007 1:22 PM:

I hope it was Lam who leaked it, and I hope she did it as a pure and blatant Fuck You to Gonzales, Rove and Bush.

I also hope she did it in such a way as to make Geragos' motion unsupportable.

Live by the dirty leak tactic, die by the dirty leak tactic.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 24, 2007 1:26 PM:

Predictable as a CEO's bonus, a defense lawyer is arguing that the DOJ's [intentional?] mismanagement of its US Attorneys is "evidence" that the prosecution against his client is politically motivated rather than legally sound. Even a Harvard-trained lawyer like Mr. Gonzales should have seen that one coming.

Mr. Geragos, however, is likely to have it exactly backwards. The political motives behind the leaks about his client are more likely to be an attempt to derail the prosecution than an attempt to force an unworthy prosecution to be brought. BTW, Mr. Bush is famous for hating those who talk; so, where is the FBI task force investigating those leaks, which threaten the validity of a high-profile political corruption/white collar crime case, and which are presumably coming from his DOJ?

This is only one aspect of the DOJ debacle. It threatens to spread throughout the federal prosecutorial service like septicaemia. This should be a promiinent issue in the upcoming debate in the Senate about censoring Mr. Gonzales, and at least impliedly, his fawning President.

Anonymous wrote on April 24, 2007 1:29 PM:

"It's a wonderful theory, but Geragos is saying Lam leaked the info before she ever indicted Wilkes. Geragos, to my knowledge, wasn't his attorney then."

Who was Wilkes attorney then?

calipendence wrote on April 24, 2007 1:53 PM:

So in other words, Geragos would have to agree that Clinton should not have been impeached and have had investigations on him thrown out way early since there was so many leaks in that investigation too! R-i-g-h-t M-a-r-k!???

freepatriot wrote on April 24, 2007 2:04 PM:

kill your parents and then ask for mercy because you are an orphan

isn't there a name for that ???

i mean besides "repuglican family values"

Mary wrote on April 24, 2007 2:19 PM:

What at DOJ has been talking to Geragos about the draft indictments for both his client, Wilkes, AND Foggo?

Without reading the motions, it sounds like his claim is that somehow the GJ indictments were tainted bc there were leaks that the GJ would be asked to indict? No one should be leaking GJ proceedings - but I'm not sure I follow the theory that leaking them (or is he talking about non-GJ proceedings leaks?) then influenced the GJ to take actions they wouldn't have taken if no one had known that the GJ was investigating. How, exactly, would that work?

You are looking at blue prom dresses. Sally leaks that you are looking at blue prom dresses, therefore you feel compelled to get a blue prom dress?

Etchastretch.

sponson wrote on April 24, 2007 2:26 PM:

"anonymous" above is right; this is exactly the same tactic that Gonzales' used in the hearing, saying that Iglesias had made a "major transgression" and "had to be terminated" because he did not report that Domenici had called and pressed him. Gonzales, having met with Domenici, Bush and Rove about Iglesias, was fully aware that Domenici was after this US Attorney. Then when caught, Gonzales tries to say the sequence of events "began" when Iglesias did not report prior wrongdoing. In this case, Geragos is trying to get benefit for his client from the wrongdoing in the Justice department, wrongdoing that was directed against Lam.

Anonymous wrote on April 24, 2007 2:57 PM:

It you take the next step in Gonzo’s reasoning then DOJ must have already launched an investigation into Domenici"s attempted improper influence.

Iglesias was not swayed by Domenici, whether or not he should have reported the call.

What Dom attempted was a major transgression of the illegal kind.

Alana wrote on April 24, 2007 3:00 PM:

this is a bullshit charge from Garagos based on inferences although I don't think it was Lam who leaked but the Berto office. I mean, with all the people who are aware of the goings on and 3rd rate lawyering going on in Main Justice its reasonable to assume one of THEM leaked the GJ info. I didn't read that Lam's office leaked specifically it just said government, to which Garagos might have a claim afterall.

Garagos was Scott Peterson's lawyer. He's not that great a lawyer, IMO, he lost that case. He also represented Winona Ryder on a shoplifting charge and didn't get her off either(hey, not THAT off) :-)

GREYDOG wrote on April 24, 2007 3:08 PM:

Carol Lam for Attorney General!

I hear she is available.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 24, 2007 3:12 PM:

Maybe Carol Lam is smarter than Mark Geragos. Lam knew about Wilkes's phony foundation (link below) but didn't mention it in the indictment.

So Mr. Geragos, keep your shit up and Wilkes will be charged with fraud in connection with his bullshit Tribute to Heroes Gala. Ask Wilkes about it.

The folks at the San Diego Union-Tribune have been on top of this one for months. I know because someone from the SDUT wrote to me. Months ago.

KatHart wrote on April 24, 2007 3:36 PM:

All they have to say is, I don't recall leaking any details of the investigation and all will be forgiven. I mean it was for the AG.

XYZ wrote on April 24, 2007 5:18 PM:

My theory is that DOJ proper was PO'd that Carol Lam was issuing indictments and they leaked the info to derail her.

Either that or someone on the Hill leaked it for the same reason. (They leak like rusty buckets.)

Sounds like Geragos has an inside contact at DOJ who was in touch with him. Of course, Karl Rove is buddies with these guys so I'm sure he was looking out for them also.

XYZ wrote on April 24, 2007 5:24 PM:

forgot to add to my last comments that if the GJ was tainted against these guys, its probably because of the sickening testimony details regarding Brent & Dusty that they were forced to listen to for the past year!! imagine having to listen to the details about that recent Dusty-giving-hooker-oral-sex story -- ewwwwww!! not something that would make it to Pay-Per-View -- too gross.

RBW wrote on April 24, 2007 8:25 PM:

If you read the memo Geragos is the source for the so-called "facts" of the leak, which implies that he was Wilkes' lawyer during the time the grand jury was considering the indictment. More importantly, the substance of the motion is lacking ANY evidence that the leaks prejudiced the defendant. There is only one conclusory paragraph that even addresses this issue. Although there is the quote from the judge, though it is difficult to tell the context of the statement.
IMO the motion is weak on its face.

dee illominati wrote on April 24, 2007 9:09 PM:

If I have this correct, the motion states that the federal prosecutor was being obstructed by the attorney general and the whitehouse. And because of that the leaks occured. I do hope that they can prove that in court. LOL!!! I bet a jury confronted with an obstruction of justice charge by the POTUS or a crooked kickback will indict Gonzales instead, after all... somebody is guilty according to the affidavit. It states, we're guilty alright but because the whitehouse obstructed justice we walk on a technicality, I hope they prevail.

lex wrote on April 24, 2007 9:38 PM:

previous post, "Actually, it was Geragos who leaked the info and then blamed Lam."

sooo true, anyone following the Lacy Peterson Murder knows Geragos as one sleazy, lying, corrupt, defense attorney. i believe he's Rove's guru.

The Oracle wrote on April 25, 2007 12:18 AM:

Even if this indictment is thrown out, Wilkes can always be reindicted, although I doubt if the reindictment will occur during the remainder of George W. Bush's corrupt time in office.

However, once a Democrat is in the White House in 2009, and all the "loyal Bushie" U.S. Attorneys have been canned, and honest, reputable U.S. Attorneys have taken their place, then a new federal grand jury under a new U.S. Attorney can bring indictments and reindictments against all the "culture of corruption" Republicans, like Brent Wilkes, who have done so much harm to our democracy.

parrot wrote on April 25, 2007 1:47 AM:

Excuse me. Wouldn't it mean that someone at DOJ had leaked this information to the lawyers of someone under investigation?

Further, how could a grand jury be tainted by this leak?

And, as to whether or not Carol Lam did leak this info, which I highly doubt, wouldn't that have been because...DOJ was obstructing for partisan reason? And wouldn't that mean that there were felonies (Hatch, obstruction, perjury) committed by Carol Lam's bosses at DOJ?

steambomb wrote on April 25, 2007 11:03 AM:

Carol Lam not only didn't "play ball". She spanked em hard! God bless Carol Lam. A patriot to not only her nation but to justice for ALL.

Alice Weiss wrote on April 25, 2007 7:00 PM:

I don't think that constitutes a reason to dismiss the indictments. Leaks?!? are you kidding. Most grand juries on high profile cases already know what they are looking at before they walk in. Well maybe not. But the issue is whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and what crime. That is a very low standard. The grand jury is traditionally a creature of the district attorney. witnesses are not even allowed to have their attorneys with them. It's an investigative tool, and it is often waived. and it has no impact on the trial as I have never known a grand jury to decide differently from what the DA or AUSA wants them to decide.