Comments (41)

chrisc wrote on November 5, 2007 3:15 PM:

Turned on the local news to get coverage of this. Reporter was at the courthouse talking about the Arellano case (also before Judge Burns) and then they went to the dramatic video of a cow that was rescued from a drainage ditch in Jamul.

pastor agnostic wrote on November 5, 2007 3:16 PM:

boo effin hoo. Let's hold a cookie sale for the crook to pay his legal fees.

Now, to turn him and get a few more corrupt folks indicted. Assuming the DOJ permits it, given their political leadership.

Ben wrote on November 5, 2007 3:27 PM:

boom shakalaka

ihatebeets wrote on November 5, 2007 3:30 PM:

boom shaka laka

Jano wrote on November 5, 2007 3:33 PM:

Now lets go after Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter and the rest of the rat's nest.

jolly ranchero wrote on November 5, 2007 3:34 PM:

Any chance Bush disagrees with this verdict and gives him a pardon?

tekel wrote on November 5, 2007 3:35 PM:

pastor agnostic said: "Now, to turn him and get a few more corrupt folks indicted. Assuming the DOJ permits it, given their political leadership."

But with Mukasey in charge, the DOJ is guaranteed to get more convictions! I'd be shocked if it took even 10 minutes on the waterboard for Wilkes to confess everything. And if that doesn't work, the DOJ has approved other methods.

There can be no greater act of terrorism than subverting the hallowed institutions of American government. Wilkes has already been given far too much due process as it is. If he won't give us the names of everyone who was involved in this scheme, perhaps the Egyptians will be able to convince him to tell us what he knows.

/this post is made with tongue firmly in cheek

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 3:36 PM:

any statement from mark geragos yet?

EH wrote on November 5, 2007 3:46 PM:

I predict we're about to see a lot more news stories about closing Guantanamo.

Jeannie wrote on November 5, 2007 3:51 PM:

Wonder if he will have his sentence commuted as well.

pgs wrote on November 5, 2007 3:59 PM:

chrisc
screw wilkes. how'd the rescued cow make out?

don de drain wrote on November 5, 2007 4:05 PM:

Things are gonna be difficult for Wilkes at the sentencing hearing. Someone commented that he would sing if he was convicted. I doubt that (although I hope I am wrong). The time to sing is before you take the stand and give testimony that is implausible and is likely to cause the government to ask for a longer sentence if you are convicted.

Which makes me wonder why he did not want to sing. Is there someone out there behind the scene sending signals to Wilkes that he will be "helped out" once he gets out of jail?

nellieh wrote on November 5, 2007 4:07 PM:

Bring back Carol Lam!!

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 4:17 PM:

pgs, the cow was fine

Here is an update from channel 10 news station:

Wilkes, 53, wearing a dark gray suit, sat stone faced and then shook his head slightly as jurors return their verdict.
His attorney, Mark Geragos, said he and Wilkes were shocked.
"I don't believe this case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt," Geragos said outside court. "Obviously I'm very disappointed. I think he shares the confidence that we'll get it reversed."

Does this mean an appeal?

JGabriel wrote on November 5, 2007 4:20 PM:

jolly ranchero: "Any chance Bush disagrees with this verdict and gives him [Wilkes] a pardon?"

None. A pardon would confer immunity, preventing Wilkes from taking the Fifth.

Commuting Wilkes's sentence, however...

chrisc wrote on November 5, 2007 4:20 PM:

Channel 10 has this comment from the jury foreperson:

The foreperson of the jury, Aisha Smith-Kruck, said after the verdicts were read that the jury would have liked to heard form Cunningham but reached the guilty verdict by reviewing all the evidence.
Smith-Kruck said Wilkes did not seem honest when he testified in his own defense. She said a $525,000 payment that Wilkes made to a mortgage company could not be explained as anything other than a bribe.

chrisc wrote on November 5, 2007 4:23 PM:

Whoops, that cow rescue has me all unnerved.
They jury foreperson comments were from channel 7
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/14515622/detail.html?dl=mainclick

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 4:23 PM:

Geragos seems to be a worthless attorney, ya think?

don de drain wrote on November 5, 2007 4:43 PM:

Anon at 4:23 pm -- Worthless? Nah. He IS willing to take lots of $$ to try cases that are high profile and, as a practical matter, almost certainly to result in a conviction. The true measure of an attorney is his or her ability to try and win a case where the odds are against the client but the case is potentially winnable.

When someone who is interviewing me to act as their attorney asks me about my "win-loss" record, I respond by asking them whether they want to be represented by an attorney who has never lost a trial. If they answer this question "yes", I tell them to go to a local law school and hire one of their recent graduates, all of whom have never lost a trial.

JWL wrote on November 5, 2007 5:25 PM:

"I think he shares the confidence that we'll get it reversed."

I think it more likely he's downed a fifth of the most expensive scotch in the world by now and is screeching like a stuck pig in his favorite room in his big ol' mansion on the hill.

jon wrote on November 5, 2007 5:30 PM:

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Enjoy your stay in Club Fed.

Toby wrote on November 5, 2007 6:27 PM:

Has Geragos ever WON a case? Whenever I hear he's hired on to one, I always bet against. Doesn't matter what case. I'm counting on him to help me buy my first Mercedes.

Seriously, I think Geragos represents that category of lawyer who feel like they haven't really accomplished anything if the get an innocent man off, but if they get an acquittal for a guy they KNOW is guilty, then that proves what a great lawyer they are. I became aware of this category only when one of my law school professors informed me that he belonged in it. Most actual lawyers, however, won't touch a case unless they think it will be an easy win. So, guys like Geragos have their place.

nofltwlt wrote on November 5, 2007 6:37 PM:

Geragos, like Wilkes, is really striking out.

maxx wrote on November 5, 2007 7:13 PM:

I can't see the White House getting involved, this is to far downstream for them to care.

palm pilot wrote on November 5, 2007 7:23 PM:

don't drop the soap scumbag.

JoeGeneva wrote on November 5, 2007 7:24 PM:

Geragos struck out when he chose to represent, basically for free, Scott Peterson.

reno dem wrote on November 5, 2007 7:25 PM:

Memo to Jano: Yep--Jerry Lewis, THEN Doolittle and wife from that golden land of Republicans by the Truckee, then Hunter, and finally--the very bottom of the rats' ass--er, I mean nest---Jim and Dawn Gibbons.

flex wrote on November 5, 2007 7:39 PM:

Slimy, smarmy, profoundly idiotic defense attorney Mark 'Dumbass' Geragos has just lost another case. What's the word on the street Mark?...

"His attorney, Mark Geragos, said he and Wilkes were shocked.

"I don't believe this case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt," Geragos said outside court. "Obviously I'm very disappointed. I think he shares the confidence that we'll get it reversed."

anon wrote on November 5, 2007 7:39 PM:

Who is this Wilkes guy? You're making all this up, right?

I know this Wilkes guy doesn't exist because I just looked through the home pages of CNN, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, and the BBC and they didn't mention Wilkes once. Not once. So, you may think he exists and that he bribed some old congressman but he doesn't exist.

Paulie wrote on November 5, 2007 8:14 PM:

Geragos is shocked, SHOCKED! Do you think maybe he has his head up his ass? or is he just posturing since he's the archetypal "slimeball" defense attorney.
Wilkes was an idiot for bribing Cunningham but his stupidity may have been surpassed by retaining Geragos.
The chance of getting a reversal, about as likely as Larry Craig!

chrisc wrote on November 5, 2007 8:22 PM:

5pm San Diego news updates:
The prosecution wanted Wilkes to be jailed immediately but the judge said no because of the hearing re the leaks although the judge said he didn't think the leaks affected the outcome of the case.

Wilkes to be sentenced Jan 28

Burns set a hearing re the leaks by the prosecution to news reporters before the grand jury indictments were unsealed. 2 wire service reporters were subpeonaed.

The foreperson on the jury had hoped to hear from Cunningham since "he was at the center of the case" but they just had to do without him and weigh all of the evidence. Geragos said that Cunningham would not have been a "happy witness." He was looking at 8 yrs and nothing they were doing was going to help him (Cunningham) much.

The US Attys did not speak after the case. Probably because of their involvement in the leak, this isn't over for them yet.

anonymouse wrote on November 5, 2007 8:25 PM:

So... we have the $600,000 in bribes.... and $80 million in illegally gotten public funds.

Wouldn't the appropriate action to take include forfeiture of $80 million? Perhaps all property, business assets, outstanding loans given to 3rd parties... etc.

Of course, things are done diffrerently in Washington, where "We the People" will ALWAYS lose... that money will remain in the hands of the crooks... IMHO

Paulie wrote on November 5, 2007 8:47 PM:

Anon isn't kidding!!!
There's not a trace of this story anywhere, not even on NPR.org!!!
There are some very cute stories on CNN.com and ABCNEWS about kitty litter and stuff!!!
MSM is as shameful as the current white house administration.

anon wrote on November 5, 2007 10:15 PM:

Someone named "Paulie" is now making up stuff about someone named "Wilkes" and trying to blame the media for not covering it. Gosh, isn't it obvious? This Wilkes person just doesn't exist and all these posters and the TPM folks are stark raving mad.

Yup. I can't find one MSM story on Wilkes. I'm sure he'll be buried in a two paragraph note on page 17 of a few papers tomorrow and the next day but NO mainstream coverage will assure that none of the little papers/stations will carry anything at all. Amazing. Ya know, Atrios, I think this is right, recently said that he started his blog because he didn't recognize the world he saw on TV and he wanted to make sure he wasn't crazy by documenting, correcting, and commenting what was on TV. Stuff like the missing Wilkes stories throws me for a loop. How could it possibly be important if _no one_ is paying attention? Confusing that.

anon wrote on November 5, 2007 10:20 PM:

Not to mention that the Wilkes-Cunningham story has _everything_. What more do you need to run with a story? You've got prostitutes, hot tubs, cash bribes, yacht bribes, CIA, hot defense contracts, drugs, and on and on and on, even freaking scuba videos. What more do you need to _sell_ this story?

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:47 PM:

What? Ted and Ben Stevens didn't get a cut?
We have hookers in Alaska Corruption just hasn't hit the news yet

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 11:04 PM:

"I can't see the White House getting involved, this is to far downstream for them to care."

I don't know -- Who might Wilkey start singing about tomorrow? Somebody a bit further upstream who could have some worries maybe?

lespool wrote on November 5, 2007 11:46 PM:

Please, stop seeking news from the teevee. They are incapable of providing anything other than entertainment. The sooner we boycott television and radio "news" broadcasting stations, the sooner they will get the message that Americans are sick and tired of their attempts to politicize issues. Nor do we have any intention of wasting our time watching useless anti-intellectual entertainment under the guise that it is news. (--- Yes, you can still watch PBS.)

Its been three years since I've watched television news or listened to the radio. But it is the networks that I hold personally responsible for creating the divisive atmosphere that has infected our country. I think media conglomerations are criminally negligent for broadcasting their subversive insidious attacks at over half of America's electorate for our democratic beliefs and liberal values. --- After all, we have a hell of a lot more morality and higher principles than their intolerant, malevolent, racist, and hateful far right Christian fundamentalist pundits.

Nevertheless, tis far better to seek news information from the Internet. --- And if that is also destroyed then we destroy anti-net neutrality providers by turning off our computers for good. --- Of course, we'll remain un-blissfully ignorant and no longer have the ability to email one another but it is imperative that we do this as individuals. It is the only way America's media oligopoly --- and all corporations will ever understand; that it's not financially feasible to dumb-down the masses. FWIW.

anon wrote on November 6, 2007 1:03 AM:

...They are incapable of providing anything other than entertainment...

Dude, Wilkes is entertainment. I want value for my tax dollar--corruption's expensive--even if it's just trash TV value.

JEP wrote on November 6, 2007 10:49 AM:

This is enough to give Wilkes a bad case of triscadecaphobia...

Just maybe he'll get that many years in the federal pokey.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:17 PM:

If they can do a biopic of Charlie Wilson, can we hope to see the movie version of this too someday?