After a steady string of legal defeats, including conviction on all counts for bribing Duke Cunningham, Wilkes finally caught a break last month when an appeals court ruled that he could be released on bail pending his appeal of the case. Wilkes had been sent immediately to prison after his conviction because the judge simply thought Wilkes was such a crook and liar that he'd be sure to skip bail.

But it seems that Wilkes, once flush with multi-million dollar defense contracts, won't be able to seize his second chance:

A federal judge said Friday that [Wilkes] hasn't raised enough money to get out of jail while he appeals his case.

Wilkes sighed as U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns said roughly $400,000 in retirement accounts pledged by family members couldn't be used as part of his bail....

Burns said he wants to be sure the government can collect on Wilkes' bail if necessary. He said he doesn't trust that a "stubborn" Wilkes will be able to stick to bail conditions "if it's not consistent with his agenda."

It appears that Wilkes is yet another victim of the burst housing bubble: real estate pledged by himself and his family as collateral for bail was sufficient to get him free in February of 2007 when he was indicted, but dropping property values have left him well short of the needed $1.4 million.

Even if Brent Wilkes can breathe a sigh of relief that he did not get the 25-year sentence that prosecutors were gunning for, it was far from a good day.

The judge sent Wilkes to prison immediately, because he could not be trusted to remain free while his appeal of the verdict was pending. That's because, Judge Larry Burns wrote in his order (which you can read here), he "doubts Mr. Wilkes trustworthiness."

For one thing, he lied on the stand when he said he didn't bribe Cunningham, the judge wrote. And when he claimed not to have had anything to do with getting Cunningham a prostitute in Hawaii, "his testimony was utterly unbelievable and thoroughly contradicted by the weight of the evidence."

What's more, Judge Burns concluded that Wilkes had lied when he'd claimed that he was too broke to be able to afford a lawyer. Based on that representation, Burns had assigned him public defenders. "The Court finds Mr. Wilkes materially misrepresented his financial condition in an improper effort to obtain legal representation at the expense of the taxpayer."

So it's off to jail Brent Wilkes goes.

So it appears that Brent Wilkes will get only a slightly more severe sentence than Duke Cunningham. Wilkes, convicted last year on all counts, was reportedly sentenced to 12 years in prison today -- prosecutors had asked for as much as 25 years and no fewer than 15. The probation officials had recommended as much as 60.

But Judge Larry Burns, for whatever reason, decided on 12. Cunningham himself was sentenced to a little more than 8 years after pleading guilty. We'll have more information when it's available.

Update: The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that "the judge disagreed with prosecutors who contended Wilkes masterminded the scheme." As the prosecutors had put it in their sentencing recommendation, “There can be little doubt Wilkes was the spider, and Cunningham the fly, in this web of corruption.”

Apparently Judge Burns thought Duke was at least part-spider. He may have been really dumb, but he knew what he was doing.

Remember that Wilkes had contended that he was just playing Cunningham's game -- a system he termed "transactional lobbying."

Update: It's worth mentioning that though this sentence is well below what prosecutors requested, it's the most severe sentence meted out for political corruption in the last several years (see update below). Even Jack Abramoff himself is likely to finally be sentenced to fewer than ten years in prison.

Update: Ask and you shall receive. A TPM Reader writes in to flag a more severe sentence meted out to the former mayor of Lynwood, California -- he got about 16 years. There very well might be other examples of less widely known cases with similarly severe sentences. But certainly, when it comes to the flurry of congerssional corruption cases in D.C., Wilkes has received the most severe sentence so far.

Update: More from The San Diego Union-Tribune:

The judge disagreed with prosecutors who contended Wilkes masterminded the scheme, yet said he was troubled by Wilkes' demeanor in court.

“Mr. Wilkes, you have not indicated any sense of contrition to this day,” he said.

“I'm not big on sending a message, but I do think people will pay attention to what happened here,” Burns said.

Update: More here.

From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Federal prosecutors say Brent Wilkes is a war profiteer, a lecher and a liar whose decade-long bribery of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham netted him $46 million.

For that, and for orchestrating the largest congressional bribery scheme in history, they say the Poway defense contractor should be sentenced to 25 years in prison....

They blasted his once-high-flying lifestyle, belittled his claims of innocence and branded him an “overgrown frat boy” fueled by greed and avarice.

At minimum, Wilkes should receive no less than 16 years and eight months in prison, prosecutors said. That would be exactly twice the length of the sentence Cunningham received after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion.

Wilkes should get a longer sentence because he was the “architect” of the scheme and his profit was fatter and lack of remorse far greater than Cunningham's, prosecutors said. They describe the disgraced former Republican congressman from Rancho Santa Fe as “a broken old soldier” and Wilkes as an “unrepentant war profiteer.”

Prosecutors said Cunningham should be blamed for his role, but in a footnote said, “There can be little doubt Wilkes was the spider, and Cunningham the fly, in this web of corruption.”

The metaphors abound. Cunningham the broken old fly, Wilkes the unrepentant spider.

Earlier, probation officials had recommended a 60-year sentence for Wilkes. But it will be up to the judge on Tuesday.

Good news for Brent Wilkes! Well, sort of. On Tuesday, he's due to be sentenced for bribing Duke Cunningham, where he could face up to 60 years in prison.

But Wilkes was also on the hook for bribing his old buddy Dusty Foggo, then the executive director of the CIA. But no more. Prosecutors, apparently figuring that Wilkes has gotten his due, are dropping him from that case (though they say they could re-indict later) and have agreed to move the case to Virginia, as Foggo's lawyers had requested. From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

For the past several months, Foggo's Washington, D.C.-based lawyers have asked [Judge Larry] Burns to transfer the case out of California. They said it made sense because 90 percent of the actions alleged in the complaint took place in that area and not in Southern California, and virtually all the witnesses and documents are based there.

While Burns agreed the case should be moved, both prosecutors and Wilkes balked. But on Feb. 1, Wilkes dropped his objections to the move.

The government followed suit Thursday. In a brief court filing they said that “the government has recently uncovered evidence to support additional charges” against Foggo.

And if you need some refreshing on the Foggo case, see here ("I am now, have been in the past, and will continue to as long as I breath [sic] - be your partner... so what do you want me to do?"), here, and here.

When it rains, it pours.

Brent Wilkes was convicted in November on all counts for bribing Duke Cunningham. And a probation officer has advised the court that he should get 60 years in prison for it.

But he's still got another trial to go -- one for bribing his longtime buddy Dusty Foggo when he was executive director of the CIA. For that trial, he's represented by a couple of public defenders, because his very expensive celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos refused to undergo the necessary security clearance and so was tossed off the case. Wilkes, once flush with government contracts, pleaded poverty and so the court assigned him public defenders.

But prosecutors say it was all an act by a man who's already been convicted once of thieving from taxpayers:

Read more »

Ouch. Federal probation officers have taken a look at Brent Wilkes' case and decided that he deserves a 60 year sentence. And that's not even the prosecutors' recommendation. It's hard to believe they could ask for more. It would be far and away the most severe sentence to be handed down in the recent spate of bribery prosecutions. Come to think of it, can any readers think of a more severe sentence ever handed down for government corruption?

Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos knows this is bad news, and so has asked for extra time to prepare a counter-argument. Among the things he objects to: the recommendation was based on the assumption that all $90 million of Wilkes' federal contracts were the result of bribing Duke Cunningham. Not so, says he (even though the jury convicted him on all thirteen counts). At least some of that he got fair and square. We look forward to him fighting that out.

The Brent Wilkes quest for vindication continues!

A judge refused Monday to grant a new trial for an ex-Poway defense contractor convicted of bribing disgraced ex-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham in order to land more than $80 million in government contracts.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns told the attorney for Brent Wilkes that even though someone from the prosecution team leaked a grand jury indictment to reporters two weeks before it was issued, there was no prejudice to the defendant during his trial....

Burns told defense attorney Mark Geragos that only four of the 15 sworn jurors had read anything about the case, and all of it was after Wilkes was indicted....

"You've been bamboozled. I've been bamboozled. Mr. Wilkes has been bamboozled," Geragos told the judge.

The bamboozling is far from over. Wilkes will appeal, he says, and will face trial in the new year for allegedy bribing his buddy Dusty Foggo, the former #3 at the CIA.

Considering the fallout from Monday's Brent Wilkes verdict, Josh wondered whether Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) might feel a bit unsettled. After all, no other lawmaker besides Duke Cunningham had a closer relationship to Wilkes than Lewis.

During the trial, Wilkes actually tried this tack as a self-defense, pointing to his relationship with Lewis, who for most of the relevant time period held the powerful position of chairman of the appropriations defense subcommittee, as far more important than his relationship with Cunningham. Sure, Cunningham was helpful, he said, but Lewis held the power. Lewis, of course, remains on the committee as its highest ranking Republican.

It was for that reason that Wilkes hired former GOP congressman Bill Lowery as a lobbyist. Lowery was old friends with Lewis and had set himself up as his "gatekeeper" after Lowery himself had left Congress. If you wanted Lewis to back your project, Lowery was the guy who made it happen (The San Diego Union-Tribune first laid out the extent of the entanglement in this excellent piece). So Wilkes paid Lowery up to $25,000 per month. And it was Lowery, unsurprisingly, who taught Wilkes the ropes in Washington back in the early 90's. Lowery's lobbying firm, Copeland Lowery (now called Innovative Federal Strategies), became a big player.

Read more »

You can't stop Brent Wilkes; you can only hope to imprison him.

OK, so twelve people didn't believe him during his turn on the stand. Or as the jury forewoman told reporters: “I really didn't believe anything he had to say.”

But not to worry, an appeal is in the works. Wilkes' attorney Mark Geragos (who was shocked by the verdict) said that he'll soon be arguing that media leaks before Wilkes' indictment prejudiced the jury. The judge, however, all but said that Geragos should save his energy, because such an appeal would have little chance. The sentencing is set for January 28th, and the judge said that Wilkes will likely go straight to jail.

Meanwhile, Wilkes has another trial to prepare for -- this time for his alleged bribes of CIA executive director Dusty Foggo. So stay tuned. Vindication is on its way.

Reports The San Diego Union-Tribune's News Blog:

A U.S. District Court jury has convicted Brent Wilkes on all 13 counts in his corruption trial. The Poway defense contractor had been accused by prosecutors of leveraging more than $600,000 in cash bribes and thousands more in gifts to ousted Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham in exchange for Cunningham's influence in securing more than $80 million in government contracts.

More soon.

Update: Wilkes faces up to 20 years for his conviction here, but keep in mind that this is just the first of two trials that Wilkes will face. The second deals with Wilkes' alleged bribes of former CIA executive director Dusty Foggo.

Later Update: Here's more from the AP. Wilkes was shocked!

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."

The jury storms into its fourth day of indecision today. Did Brent Wilkes give bribes? Or will they believe his story of a generous contractor who just had bad luck with investments? Stay tuned.

Day three of deliberations for the jury in Brent Wilkes' trial begins today.

Did Wilkes' performance on the stand give them something to think about? Or are they just laboring their way through the two dozen counts in the indictment?

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.

Read more »

Surprise, surprise! From the AP:

Defense contractor Brent Wilkes emphatically denied bribing former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Friday as he took the stand in his trial, which had been suspended while wildfires ravaged San Diego County.

Wilkes' attorney, Mark Geragos, surprised prosecutors by calling Wilkes on the first day of trial in a week. The lawyer had not warned them he would be calling his client to the stand, and had not hinted in earlier hearings that Wilkes would testify in his own defense.

"Did you ever bribe him?" Geragos asked Wilkes, who took the stand in a gray suit.

"No, I didn't," Wilkes replied.

Presumably Geragos' direct examination was a little more elaborate than that. We're eager to hear more.

Update: The updated AP story has a lot more detail. Wilkes denied ever paying for or having sex with the prostitute who testified against him earlier in the trial. Flatly denied it. And there was this precious exchange:

Read more »

If you're a corrupt pol looking for lessons in the Duke Cunningham story, you've found dozens. Don't make a bribe menu, first and foremost. But it's also probably not a good idea to shoot a video of your Hawaii vacation with your (alleged) briber.

Prosecutors entered the following 90-second video into evidence last week during the trial of Brent Wilkes. In it, you can see Wilkes, his nephew Joel Combs (who's testifying against his uncle), and Duke himself silently weaving in and out of coral reefs. And one diver, just to drive home who the trip was all about, is swimming around with a large rock with "DUKE" on it. You can see him in the image above handing it to the man himself.

Ah, the memories. Seth Hettena, the author of a book on Cunningham, Feasting on The Spoils, posted the video on his blog, where he's been covering the trial:

Duke lumbers into view at about the fifty second mark. And of course that's Wilkes at the end there, suddenly bursting out with "Bali Hai!" on the deck of the boat. This is the same guy known at his company for suddenly yelling "Boom shaka laka!" and "Yeah, baby!" when he got good news (like, say, Duke had delivered millions in earmarks). Not so hard to imagine.

This is the same 2003 trip, of course, where Wilkes treated Duke to prostitutes on two consecutive nights. At least they had the good sense not to add a "Goofing Around in A Hot Tub" section to the vacation video.

The trial of Brent Wilkes is on temporary hiatus due to the wildfires, but we've got your Duke Cunningham fix anyway.

Unfortunately, it seems a sure thing now that Cunningham himself won't testify at the trial. As a kind of substitute, here's (mp3) audio of the phone conversation that ended his Congressional career. It's available through the website for The Wrong Stuff, the book on Cunningham by the Copley News team that broke the story.

In early June of 2005, Copley reporter Marcus Stern came across records for Cunningham's now-infamous way-above-market house sale to defense contractor Mitch Wade (Wade himself sold the house months later for a loss of $700,000). And during that phone call, Stern got the other half of the quid pro quo he was looking for: Cunningham's admission that he'd written letters to help Wade's company MZM score contracts (that's at about the five minute mark). Four days later, Stern's story came out; five months later, Cunningham pleaded guilty.

It's a little bit of journalistic history and a lesson (if you needed one) that just because someone keeps his cool, it doesn't mean he's not lying. Take a listen.

If there's a burning question that's arisen from Brent Wilkes' trial, it's not whether Wilkes is guilty. It's: 'Just how stupid is Duke Cunningham?'

According to testimony, Cunningham's (alleged) bribers were in agreement: his stupidity made him an easy mark. Wilkes' former employee testified that Wilkes told her Duke was "not the brightest congressman up there. We can work with him.”

And Mitchell Wade told jurors that Wilkes and Wade considered him to be “of below-average intelligence.” So while the unending stream of bribes kept Cunningham willing to do whatever the defense contractors wanted, you couldn't just tell him to go harass Pentagon officials because they weren't paying the bills. Wade said that the lawmaker was so thick that they had to "spell out for Duke exactly what he had to say."

He wasn't kidding. Earlier this week, prosecutors entered into evidence a set of talking points that Wade had prepared for Cunningham in 2004 for a call to a Pentagon official. We've posted a copy here, courtesy of Seth Hettena, the author of the recent book on Cunningham, Feasting on The Spoils, who's been blogging the trial. In the talking points, Wade made sure Duke's mind wasn't upset by any ambiguity. A sample:

Certainly Wade knew what he was doing. After all, look what happens when Cunningham is left to his own devices.

Of course, they closed with the hookers.

Two of the prostitutes who serviced Duke Cunningham and Brent Wilkes during their 2003 trip to Hawaii wrapped up the prosecution's case, and now it's Wilkes' turn. How much of a case he'll put on is entirely unclear. His lawyer Mark Geragos has threatened to call Cunningham himself to testify, but who knows if he'll follow through? It's also unclear whether Geragos will try to get other lawmakers to testify about their relationship with Wilkes -- as part of his defense that his gifts to Cunningham were just the way Washington worked for a defense contractor.

Both of the prostitutes told the same story: Wilkes' nephew brought them into the hotel suite. And from there:

"They asked us if we wanted to get naked and get into the Jacuzzi," [Donna] Rozetta said.

"What did you do," prosecutor [Phillip] Halpern asked.

"We got naked and got in the Jacuzzi," Rozetta replied.

The Jacuzzi calls to mind another hot tub moment in the Cunningham saga.

After Cunningham fed Rozetta some grapes, there was an argument over who got which hooker. Wilkes, much to Cunningham's dismay, claimed the blond, named Tammy McFadden. Or as McFadden testified, "The one I ended up with was the one who was running the show."

And even though he wasn't paying, Cunningham apparently felt that he'd "got the short end of the straw." And indeed, Cunningham did ask for a different prostitute the next night. But Rozetta seems to have been none too impressed with Cunningham herself -- she identified him in the courtroom as the one with "heavy jowls and a puffy face."

But the real star yesterday for prosecutors was Wilkes' nephew Joel Combs, who was Wilkes' right hand man. Combs and Mitchell Wade, Wilkes' onetime colleague and then competitor, really comprise the foundation of the government's case. Earlier this week, Wade detailed about how all those gifts he gave to Cunningham really were bribes.

Read more »

Now we're getting somewhere. On Friday, Mitchell Wade took the stand.

He's the government's star witness in its case against Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who says that the hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he gave to Cunningham weren't bribes: Wade's an admittedly dirty defense contractor who admits that all those gifts were intended as bribes.

It was a simple set-up, Wade testified. Once he found out that the secret to Wilkes' success as a contractor was Cunningham, he decided to get himself a piece. And sure enough, it worked. The downside? Keeping a congressman on the hook meant you had to spend time with the guy. From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Read more »

For a contractor, what's the best kind of congressman? The dumb and powerful variety.

The San Diego Union-Tribune on yesterday's proceedings in Brent Wilkes' trial for bribing Duke Cunningham:

Randal Kerley, a former Wilkes employee in the early days of ADCS, testified Wednesday morning that Wilkes was pleased when Cunningham was appointed to the appropriations committee.

“He thought it would be beneficial to us,” Kerley said about Wilkes.

When he asked why, Kerley said Wilkes responded, “He's not the brightest congressman up there. We can work with him.”

The $525,000 payment on Duke Cunningham's mortgage, the Sea-Doo Speedsters, the thousands of dollars of meals, the prostitutes, $12,000 worth of furniture... there's an "innocent explanation" for all of this, Brent Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos told a jury in his opening statement yesterday. Or as he put it himself: "Every single one of these transactions they're alleging is a bribe has an innocent explanation they don't want you to hear." By our count, that would be at least a couple dozen innocent explanations. And, boy, do we want to hear.

So it seems that Geragos is really going for the gold. Wilkes was just another defense contractor trying to make a living, he'll argue, and prosecutors have arbitrarily focused on him. Why? As Geragos argued: "You're going to find that everyone's got a little ax to grind here, not least the government, who seem to want to make this a referendum on how Washington works." More than $700,000 worth of gifts and payments in, $90 million in defense contracts out. That's how Washington works. And Geragos aims to prove it. Don't forget that he's already issued subpoenas to a dozen members of Congress, with special focus on five sitting lawmakers in particular.

From the opening statement, it's evident that another strategy of Geragos' will be to cast Mitchell Wade as the real bad guy here, relying, it seems, on Cunningham's semi-literate letter from prison to Marcus Stern, the reporter who broke the story. In that letter, other than complaining that Stern always focused on the bribery and not on the good things that Cunningham had achieved in his career (like "Library Man of the Year"), Cunningham announced that "truth will come out and you will find out how liablist [sic] you have & will be." It was a stirring example of denial. And the root for how it all went wrong, Cunningham argued, was that "absolute devil" Mitch Wade.

Of course, Cunningham's anger might have had a lot to do with the fact that Wade had been the first to go to the feds. And in a subsequent interview with the FBI, Cunningham gave a different story, detailing how he and Wilkes had hid various bribes in order not to arouse suspicion.

But that's Wilkes' story, and he's sticking to it. And he says that if prosecutors don't haul Cunningham out of jail to testify, then he's going to do it himself.

Let the show begin.

Finally, Brent Wilkes' trial is under way:

"Lies, deceit, greed. Most of all greed. This case is all about greed," Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern told jurors as he laid out the government's case in his opening statements....

"The evidence will show the politician was bought by the defendant lock, stock and barrel," Halpern said, adding that the bribes include "the truly astonishing," such as machine gun lessons and the services of prostitutes.

Among the expected witnesses are Duke Cunningham's former staffers, former Pentagon officials, and Wilkes' nephew, who's expected to give the most detail about how his uncle kept Cunningham in pocket. Cunningham is on the prosecutors' witness list, but apparently is not likely to be called.

Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos will make his opening statement next Tuesday -- when we'll finally hear how he plans to get his client off the hook.