« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Alleged Briber: You Got Me All Wrong
You really can't blame Brent Wilkes. After all, it can be such a drag getting a refund.
During his second day of cross-examination yesterday, Wilkes testified that he hadn't sought to reclaim $100,000 he'd paid Duke Cunningham -- the money was supposedly to buy Duke's yacht, but the congressman kept both the cash and the boat --, because it was, well, awkward. He needed Duke's help up there on the Hill, and he didn't want to needlessly upset his crucial friend. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. And when the prosecutor asked Wilkes if he'd ever asked any of his lawyers or accountants to get involved, Wilkes testified: "The consensus advice was that it was better not to pursue it." I bet it was.
But there was even more awkwardness ahead for Wilkes. When Cunningham asked him to wire $525,000 to a New York firm (run by Thomas Kontagiannis), Wilkes jumped at the chance. But not simply because Duke asked him to -- because he was told it was a great investment opportunity: 9% return short-term! Did he ask for an investment prospectus? Assessments? Any information at all? Nope, he received adequate assurances about the investment over the phone.
But the money disappeared (well, it actually went towards paying off Cunningham's mortgage). Did Wilkes seek to recoup the money? "Wilkes said he tried to get the money returned but was unsuccessful, and did not know where the money went." Well, you win some, you lose some.
During the cross, prosecutors endeavored to show that Wilkes had made all these investment blunders (not to mention the long, long list of gifts) while he was seeking help from Cunningham on government contracts (which he delivered).
It sounds like a pretty persuasive case. But Seth Hettena, author of Feasting on The Spoils, came away none too impressed with the prosecutors' performance, saying that they seem to have been caught off guard when Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos called his client to the stand. And Wilkes apparently did a fine job charming the jury.
Closing statements wrap up today and then the case is off to the jury. Geragos made the best pitch he could:
A very animated Mark Geragos told jurors that the only lies they have heard were ones the government had been telling them, based on the testimony of admitted felons like Mitch Wade. The prosecutors had been misleading them. They didn’t want to hear the truth, namely that Washington isn’t a “pristine place.” Wilkes had struggled for years to succeed in government contracting and for a reward, he got indicted, paid $2 million bail and have the government say in essence we’re going to crush you. And why had jurors never heard from Cunningham? The reason, according to Geragos, was Duke was never, ever going to say that what Wilkes was doing wasn’t good for the country.
Comments (13)
chrisc wrote on October 31, 2007 11:58 AM:Um, I think Wilkes degree from SDSU was in something like accounting. And he didn't know that a 9% short term investment was, shall we say, risky?
bmaz wrote on October 31, 2007 12:03 PM:Hey chrisc, have you been continuing to attend? What is your take on things so far?
nellieh wrote on October 31, 2007 1:05 PM:Now we know why Carol Lam was fired.
psnyder wrote on October 31, 2007 1:11 PM:Funny. The picture above comes from a publication called "Inside Business." Yes, yes it was.
michael valentne wrote on October 31, 2007 1:12 PM:Wilkes says it's just business and I did nothing wrong.
They didn't call Cunningham because he would agree that what Wilkes did was "Good" for the country?
Is this guy threw the looking glass or what?
heh wrote on October 31, 2007 1:23 PM:The defense as a whole has been offensive to law abiding citizens. That they did it too excuse confirms the culture of corruption in the Republican Tom Delay Congress. Is Jerry Lewis next? I bet Wilkes flips for shorter time and turn states witness against him if he's convicted. He has gained nor stature or ethical conduct so it wouldn't be a surprise.
Is that the values Wilkes teaches his kids?
I notice his kids were not in the courtroom when the hookers were testifying,which he denied having used.
Seems to Me wrote on October 31, 2007 2:04 PM:"But the money disappeared (well, it actually went towards paying off Cunningham's mortgage). Did Wilkes seek to recoup the money? "Wilkes said he tried to get the money returned but was unsuccessful, and did not know where the money went."
Guys.. I love what you do but come on now... Paul, do you really beleive that Wilkes money went to pay anything off other than Cunningham? I think back over the summer, we all got a glimpse including Wilkes, of "where the money went"... Kontogiannis' kid... Where is he and why didn't he testify??? There is a question.
chrisc wrote on October 31, 2007 2:24 PM:bmaz,
I haven't attended the trial. But I am following it and any info that is posted. Last week the blogs seemed to be questioning Geragos strategy. This week, it is the prosecution that seems weak.
Since IANAL, I can only guess that the outcome will depend quite a bit on the instructions to the jury. What exactly is the legal difference between a bribe and regular business shmoozing? In fact, everything Wilkes did for Cunningham would have been OK in the business world although in the business world, I doubt Wilkes would have gotten such a generous contract for what amounted to digital photocopying. And, only a fool would invest money in a risky scheme without a paper trail. So, I expect the prosecution will remind the jury that Cunningham and Wilkes were wining, dining and popping grapes into the mouths of hookers with the people's money.
Wilkes seemed to hit it off with the jury. They were more alert and laughed at some of the things he said. He had to buy a box at Coors Amphitheater so his daughter could get Spice Girl tickets- oh my- that's funny - but not in the "I've done that too" connection to the common person. I think they were also laughing at Wilkes' arrogance.
chrisc wrote on October 31, 2007 3:31 PM:Wilkes former employees weigh in (reader comments).
Austin Cooper wrote on October 31, 2007 3:50 PM:http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20071031-9999-1m31wilkes.html
Brent Wilkes and MZM Fined $1M by the FEC -- breaking as of twenty minutes ago.
The main story on CNN's website?
"Sex offenders in Anderson, South Carolina, will be corralled for Halloween tonight... Other states are taking similar action..."
Maybe it's been buried below the fold:
"Latest News:
>> CNNMoney: Fed cuts key interest rate
>> Space station troubles delay spacewalks
>> 48 die in Tropical Storm Noel
>> Some Christian pastors embrace Scientology
>> Dunkin' Donuts gunman who shot officer hunted
>> 'Don't Tase me' guy said lots in cop car
>> Dobbs: Governor risking his state's safety
>> Halloween 'Ugly Teeth' recalled over lead levels 42 min
>> Ticker: Prez candidate: I saw a UFO
>> Oprah's sex, med fess-ups keep her human
>> Widow, cancer survivor looks for love
>> Whoops! Designer spills J.Lo's secret
>> Buy house, get $500,000 when sellers die
>> Comedian Colbert to run as Dem, GOP too costly 13 min
>> Skimpier, sexier costumes turn heads
"Make CNN Your Home Page"
Guess not. Your liberal media conspiracy at work.
Austin Cooper wrote on October 31, 2007 3:52 PM:Whoops; I meant *Mitchell Wade*, not Wilkes. Apologies for the confusion.
David wrote on October 31, 2007 4:42 PM:What's funny is that I worked at that company for over 2 years, and had almost daily interaction with Wilkes. I think people read about this trial thinking ADCS was this huge company when in fact it was very small. That building in Poway is huge, and it was never even close to even 50% capacity...but it was loaded with lots of techno toys, bells and whistles (such as the movie theatre) =)
Tempest wrote on November 5, 2007 11:53 PM:I still want to see pictures of the hookers.
Anyone?
TIA