Duke Cunningham

Cunningham Crony Charged In $92 Million Mortgage Fraud

Zachary Roth | June 4, 2009, 11:09AM

It looks like laundering bribes on behalf of Duke Cunningham may not have been the only shady activity that Thomas Kontogiannis had going on.

The politically connected Greek real-estate developer -- who's already serving jail time for his role in the Cunningham scheme -- has been indicted, along with eight others, for an alleged mortgage fraud scheme, which swindled Washington Mutual and a unit of Credit Suisse out of $92 million.

Read more »

Brent Wilkes

Foggo Sentenced To Over Three Years In Prison

Zachary Roth | February 26, 2009, 2:33PM

The Associated Press reports that Dusty Foggo, the former CIA number 3 who pleaded guilty to steering contracts to his friend the defense contractor Brent Wilkes, has been sentenced to 37 months in prison -- just what prosecutors were recommending.

Foggo received tens of thousands of dollars worth of lavish gifts and vacations, in exchange for helping Wilkes get no-bid contracts, according to prosecutors.

Wilkes has pleaded guilty to bribing then-GOP congressman Duke Cunningham.

Yesterday, we reported on a treasure trove of court documents released in the case, which shed light on Foggo's scheme.

Dusty Foggo

Report: Goss Knew Of Foggo's Shady Past

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 5:23PM

A great nugget from Laura Rozen...

Source said that Goss lied in his testimony, that he was not aware about the problems with Foggo when he hired him for executive director. He said that a major fight had broken out between Goss staffer Patrick Murray and then associate deputy director of operations Michael Sulick about the Foggo hiring. "Murray told ADDO/Counterintelligence Mary Margaret that if Dusty's background got out to the press, they would know who to come looking for. Mary Margaret tried to warn them that Dusty Foggo had a problematic counterintelligence file. Sulick defended Mary Margaret. Goss told deputy director of operations Steve] Kappes he had to fire Sulick." After that, Kappes and Sulick quit. "Goss bears major responsibility here," source says. It was finally the "White House tht demanded that Goss fire Dusty and he refused." So they both got fired.

It's not clear whether the fight that the source refers to occurred before or after Foggo's actual hiring. Though the context -- and the source's claim that Goss lied in his testimony -- suggest it was before.

Earlier, we posted Goss's explanation of the circumstances under which he hired Foggo, in which Goss gives the clear impression he believed Foggo to have a clean record when he hired him.

Porter Goss

Goss: Not My Fault -- Foggo Assured Me He Was Clean!

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 3:31PM

Also in the appendix to the Dusty Foggo sentencing memo: former CIA director Porter Goss offers a pretty lame justification for how he came to appoint a crook like Foggo to the agency's number 3 post:

Says Goss:

Due to public criticism of the CIA after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and criticism of my office after the prior candidate for the Executive Director's position was withdrawn, it was imperative to me that the selection of the Executive Director position be someone whose personal and professional conduct was beyond reproach. When Mr. Foggo came to speak with me about the Executive Director position in late 2004, I conveyed this requirement to him. I asked him directly whether there was anything I needed to know about his candidacy that would reflect poorly upon the Director's office or upon the CIA. He denied that there was anything. In reliance upon Mr. Foggo's assurances, and upon his having cleared the inter-agency vetting process, I selected him to be my Executive Director in 2004.

Had I known at the time that I was considering Mr. Foggo to be my Executive Director that he had engaged in the conduct he has admitted in his Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts, I absolutely would not have selected him to be my Executive Director nor would I have approved him for the Employee Performance Award that he received in August 2005."

CIA

Former Counter-Intel Chief "Flabbergasted" By Goss's Choice Of Foggo For Number 3 Post

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 2:55PM

I was flabbergasted when Mr. Foggo was selected as the Executive Director. I found Director Goss's selection to be quite revealing, that Mr. Goss would be taken in by a "con man" like Mr. Foggo.

That's the view, as reflected in the appendix to the government's sentencing memo, of Jim Olson, a former CIA chief of counter-intelligence, who also served as CIA's chief of station at several different overseas locations, and supervised Foggo. (Olson is identified only as "John Doe #2", but details of his career and current employment make clear that it's him.)

That sounds like an indictment of Porter Goss, who has already taken his fair share of lumps in the Foggo matter, after appointing Foggo to be the agency's number 3 man.

But it's also worth considering that Olson admits in the memo that he too was impressed by Foggo, recommending him for continued employment -- even though he knew about the incident in which Foggo assaulted a pedestrian, and about the fact that Foggo had failed to report contacts with numerous foreign women, as CIA rules require (for good reason.)

Says Olson:

As a result of his police encounter and his failure to report contacts with foreign nationals as required, I considered Mr. Foggo to be morally suspect at that point. Despite my misgivings, I recognized that Mr. Foggo was talented at his job as a Chief of Support, and I recommended him for continued employment with the Agency.

Sounds like either Foggo was exceptionally good at winning people over, or his supervisors were a little to easy-going.

Olson, who now teaches at Texas A&M's Bush School of Government and Public Service as a "CIA-Officer-in-Residence" didn't immediately respond to TPMmuckraker's request for comment.

Brent Wilkes

Foggo's Plan To Succeed Cunningham In Congress

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 2:23PM

The appendix to the Dusty Foggo sentencing memo also contains some fascinating information abut Foggo's plans to run for Duke Cunningham's congressional seat (when the Dukester stepped down) -- and to commit immigration fraud as a favor for a potential political supporter...

Foggo maintained these ambitions after becoming Executive Director, and was very specific that he was considering running for Congress only in San Diego, for Cunningham's seat, and not in Virginia or anywhere else in California. Nowhere else, of course, could Foggo tap into the network and funding that his best friend Wilkes offered in San Diego. As Foggo admitted to a confidant, Wilkes was to be a "key partner" in Foggo's Congressional plans. Motivated by money, Foggo wrote to Wilkes from the Overseas Location:

"I met a very interesting guy here a few months ago. Major money. He has a son that ran into problems with INS. Absolutly [sic] no crime stuff, just stupid 20-year old stuff. We need someone up high in the INS food chain or it will not get fixed for 5-6 years. If Ben is not with INS anymore, then maybe we can get [Congressman] Duke [Cunningham] to write a joint letter with Cong. Bono. They have contacts with Bono and we could get a letter from her no question. Do you think Duke would join? It would be worth a little campaign help, I'm sure."

Dusty Foggo

Foggo Claimed Credit For Getting Mistress's Boss Fired

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 1:59PM

In addition to his penchant for road rage, Dusty Foggo certainly seems to have known how to treat a lady.

The sentencing memo tells how, after Foggo moved from overseas to the CIA's headquarters -- leaving his wife and family behind -- he managed to get a Langley job for his mistress too. Then, when the mistress's performance was criticized by a highly-decorated supervisor, Foggo got the supervisor fired, telling his mistress she could "thank him later."

Since at least mid-2004, Foggo had had his eyes on ER, a woman he met at the Overseas Location. When Foggo returned to Headquarters in November 2004, his family remained overseas. With his family far away, he moved quickly to bring ER much closer by recruiting her to the CIA. Foggo brought ER to headquarters in November 2004 and introduced her to several officials, effectively endorsing her as a candidate for employment. Shortly thereafter, ER applied for a position with the CIA's Office of General Counsel ("OGC"). She was interviewed later that month.

As CIA hiring officials began to investigate ER's background, however, they learned of problems in her previous government employment that precluded her from employment with the CIA: she had engaged in improper conduct with a superior and had impeded the Inspector General's investigation of the conduct by destroying evidence. As a result, on or about February 28, 2005, a CIA official sent ER a rejection letter.

In the meantime, Foggo had arranged for his family to remain overseas - at the public's expense - and his relationship with ER had become sexual in nature. The rejection of her employment application infuriated Foggo. He summoned the Managing Associate General Counsel (the "MAGC"), to his office, where Foggo insisted that ER was vital to TK. When the MAGC raised his concerns about the Inspector General's report regarding ER's conduct, Foggo twice warned him to be careful how he referred to ER.

Far from debunking the IG's report of ER's conduct, Foggo was actively engaged in the same type of relationship with her. Nevertheless, Foggo forced OGC to hire ER. After OGC relented, Foggo pressured CIA employees to expedite the completion of ER's vetting, including having her paperwork tagged as an "ExDir Interest."

ER began her employment with the OGC's Administrative Law Division in July 2005. Although she was new to the Agency, ER made very little effort to perform the work required of her at an acceptable level. She resisted her supervisor's feedback and outright refused requests that she redo work that was sub-par. Instead of being receptive to her supervisor's critiques and suggestions, ER made it clear that she had influence with Foggo. Indeed, she did. Her supervisor had been an attorney with the OGC for 20 years, during which time she received numerous performance awards and even the Career Intelligence Medal, which rewards "exceptional achievements that substantially contributed to the mission of the Agency" over the course of a career. Within a month of crossing Foggo's mistress, however, she suffered a humiliating firing by Foggo. Foggo took credit, reminding ER that she could thank him later.

As Henry Kissinger may or may not have put it: Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Duke Cunningham

Foggo's Road Rage ... Plus: Your Help Needed!

Zachary Roth | February 25, 2009, 11:33AM

There are certainly more important revelations contained in the trove of court documents filed yesterday in connection with the sentencing of former CIA Number 3 Dusty Foggo, who pleaded guilty in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. Indeed, Pro Publica's Marcus Stern has already picked out some key ones.

But this excerpt from the government's sentencing memo certainly sheds some light on what kind of a guy Foggo was:

In 1989, while stationed overseas, Foggo stopped his car in front of a bicycle bypass. One frustrated passing cyclist slapped the trunk of Foggo's car. After the two exchanged words, Foggo responded by knocking him off his bike and punching him in the face. Then, much as he would later lie to others at the CIA about the "cigar bar" cover story for him and JC, Foggo concocted a story that local police officers had fabricated the entire incident as payback for Foggo's having spurned their efforts to solicit a bribe from him. Foggo's superiors and the local officials considered his explanation to be "unrealistic and implausible." Foggo's chief of station was convinced that Foggo was lying to him. Foggo's assault on one of its citizens so outraged that nation that officials there filed a Diplomatic Protest with the U.S. Ambassador.

We've got a feeling there's plenty more like that out there. But as always with this stuff, we could use your help. So take a look through the court documents, and let us know, in comments or emails, what else is in there...

The government's sentencing memo and its appendix are here and here. Prosecutors' response to Foggo's sentencing memo is here.

Happy hunting!

Brent Wilkes

Foggo Prosecutors Want Secret Testimony Revealed

Zachary Roth | January 9, 2009, 4:29PM

Prosecutors in the Dusty Foggo case are urging the judge to make public secret grand jury testimony, saying that the American people has a right to know the extent of Foggo's misconduct, the AP reports.

They also argued that the testimony should be considered by the judge at Foggo's sentencing hearing, which is scheduled for next month.

Prosecutors won't say what the specific information that they want released from the transcripts is.

Foggo, the former number three official at the CIA, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with a scheme to help his old friend Brent Wilkes to obtain agency contracts at inflated contracts. Former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is serving a jail sentence for taking bribes from Wilkes.

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes Expected To Leave Prison Today, Pending Appeal

Zachary Roth | January 6, 2009, 6:53PM

Brent Wilkes, the former defense contractor who's serving a jail sentence for bribing former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, is expected to leave prison today, reports the San Diego-area North County Times .

Says the paper:

On Monday, a federal judge signed the order allowing Wilkes to leave prison on bail while he appeals his conviction for the bribery of the ex-North County Republican lawmaker. As of this morning, however, the 54-year-old remained behind bars at Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in Los Angeles County.

This has been in the works for a while. Back in March, an appeals court ruled, in the words of the North County Times, "that his appeal raises such a substantial question of law or fact that it could lead the appeals court to overturn his conviction, force a new trial or order a punishment that would include no jail time."

As a result, the court ruled that Wilkes could leave jail while conducting his appeal -- as long as he could make bail.

For a while, he couldn't. Wilkes' properties depreciated in value thanks to the housing slump, which hit southern California hard. But on Monday, a judge ruled that properties' value was enough to ensure that he would show up for future hearings, and that he doesn't pose a flight risk.

His lawyer said in an email to the paper that she hopes Wilkes will be home with his family by tonight.

Wilkes is currently serving 12 years in federal prison for bribery, conspiracy, fraud, and wiretapping. Prosecutors argued he bribed Cunningham with prostitutes and lavish vacations, among other items of value.

Duke Cunningham

Wade Gets 30 Months For Bribing Cunningham

Zachary Roth | December 15, 2008, 12:58PM

Mitchell Wade, the contractor who in 2006 pleaded guilty to bribing Duke Cunningham to the tune of over $1 million, was sentenced moments ago to 30 months in federal prison, and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

The relative leniency of the sentence suggests that Wade may have provided prosecutors with valuable information as they seek to build cases against others involved in the scandal.

A memo filed by Wade's lawyers two weeks ago claimed that he had helped prosecutors look into five other members of Congress.

Cunningham is currently serving an eight-year sentence in connection with the scandal.

Duke Cunningham

Who Did Mitchell Wade Finger? And How Much Does It Matter?

Zachary Roth | December 4, 2008, 11:35AM

On Monday we noted a court filing made recently by defense lawyers for Mitchell Wade, the Duke Cunningham crony who's about to be sentenced in connection with his role in bribery scandal that felled the GOP congressman.

In arguing for a lenient sentence, Wade's lawyers claimed that their client had helped prosecutors' probe "at least five other members of Congress" who were under investigation for "corruption similar to that of Mr. Cunningham."

The blogger and Cunningham expert Seth Hettena named Katherine Harris, the former Florida congresswoman, and Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode as two of those members.

And now Hettena says he's identified the other three: Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI), Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA).

Hettena told Marcus Stern, the former San Diego Union-Tribune reporter who broke much of the Duke Cunningham story and now writes for Pro Publica, that those identifications are based on "information I developed and confirmed with two sources with knowledge of the investigation."

But what does all this amount to? According to Stern, perhaps not much. He writes:

No charges have been filed against any of the five lawmakers, and there is no evidence of any current criminal investigations against any of them. Lewis, Goode, Mollohan and Harris have all come up in the case before and have all denied wrongdoing. As for Inouye, we have called his office for comment. (We'll update the post as soon as we hear back.)

Stern also give us a rundown on what we already know about the alleged involvement of all of these lawmakers:

Lewis, former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, had been under investigation beginning in 2006 by the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles. That case, which focused on Lewis' role in helping lobbyist Bill Lowery get earmarks for his clients (including Cunningham co-conspirator Brent Wilkes), is cold without any charges being filed.

Goode and Harris both were beneficiaries of a combined $78,000 in illegal campaign contributions from Wade and helped Wade in his efforts to get multimillion-dollar military intelligence contracts through earmarks.

But prosecutors have repeatedly said there was no evidence the two lawmakers knew the contributions were illegal and they are not the targets of any current investigations. Harris left the House to pursue a quixotic and failed bid in 2006 to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. Goode is awaiting a recount in his 2008 House race, with the initial tally showing he narrowly lost.

Mollohan received $23,000 in campaign contributions and gifts to a family foundation from Wade's company, MZM Inc., and another firm that did business with MZM, Hettena wrote in his blog on Monday, adding that in October 2002, MZM gave $20,000 to Mollohan's Summit PAC. The legality of those contributions has never been challenged.

The link to Inouye, set to take over the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, is less clear but appears to involve the activities of one of Wade's co-conspirators, defense contractor Brent Wilkes, according to Hettena. There are no known allegations of misconduct against Inouye in connection with the Cunningham scandal.

But don't despair, fellow scandal junkies. Stern notes that a memo filed by prosecutors in the Wade case said that Wade had provided information for a "large an important corruption investigation" unrelated to the Cunningham matter.

Worth keeping an eye on...

Duke Cunningham

Lawyers: Wade Helped Prosecutors Probe Five Other Members Of Congress

Zachary Roth | December 1, 2008, 1:50PM

Could we see more members of Congress charged in connection with the investigation into the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal?

Lawyers for Mitchell Wade, the former defense contractor who pleaded guilty in 2006 to bribing his friend Cunningham, filed a "sentencing memo" last week claiming that Wade had helped prosecutors' efforts to look into "at least five other members of Congress" who were under investigation for "corruption similar to that of Mr. Cunningham."

The Washington Post adds:

Although none of those members is named, two are under investigation, according to the memorandum, and "three others have come under scrutiny for their receipt of straw contributions" from former Wade employees and one for the possible receipt of undisclosed gifts.

The existence of the memo -- which argued for a more lenient sentence for Wade -- was first reported on the blog of the investigative reporter Seth Hettena, who has published a book on the Cunningham scandal.

Hettena writes that former GOP Florida congresswoman Katherine Harris (yes, that Katherine Harris), and Virginia Republican Rep. Virgil Goode -- who has apparently lost his Virginia seat -- are likely on that list of five. (We told you about Harris' and Goode's connections to the scandal back in 2006).

Hettena adds: "Wade wanted to open facilities in their districts and made $78,000 in "straw" contributions to grease the wheels. Neither Harris nor Goode has been charged with wrongdoing."

Duke Cunningham

Petition Seeking Pardon For Cunningham Has Just 13 Signatures After Three Years

Natalie Sherman | November 25, 2008, 2:30PM

The clock's running out on the Bush administration, which leaves just 56 days for the president to wipe criminal slates clean. Former California GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham officially filed for a presidential pardon back in July, but sympathy for the man one author dubbed the "most corrupt congressman in history" appears pretty lackluster.

We noticed that there are only 13 signatures on an online petition designed to demonstrate public support for a pardon, even though it was posted nearly three years ago -- just two days after Cunningham pleaded guilty to accepting more than $2.4 million in bribes.

The 66-year-old, who has a history of prostate cancer, was later sentenced to 100 months in prison.

Fred Johnson III is listed as the organizer of the petition. Mr. Johnson did not respond to an e-mail, sent through the petition site, asking for his thoughts on Cunningham's odds. We'll settle for yours.

Thomas Kontogiannis

More Trouble For Cunningham Buddy

Zachary Roth | November 20, 2008, 9:19AM

Looks like Thomas Kontogiannis -- who's now in jail for helping launder bribes for his friend, former GOP Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- has more legal woes. He's been accused in a newly filed lawsuit of participating in a scheme to steal more than $50 million, reports Newsday.

The lawsuit, filed by Manhattan-based DLJ Mortgage Capital, alleges that Kontogiannis and others drew up false loan applications on residential properties in Brooklyn and Queens, which they either owned or planned to develop.

Newsday goes on:

The applications were approved by one of Kontogiannis' mortgage funding firms, which then obtained the money from DLJ and the other institutions, according to court papers.

DLJ and the other lenders eventually discovered that the mortgages were never recorded, the complaint stated, adding that the scheme was only uncovered when monthly mortgage payments ended. A further investigation revealed that many of the properties were then sold by Kontogiannis and the other defendants, DLJ said in its complaint.

Kontogiannis' wife Georgia, and other relatives, are also named as defendants.

Cunningham pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to commit bribery and is serving an eight year sentence in federal prison.

During Cunningham's recent sentencing, a prosecutor told the judge that there was an ongoing criminal investigation into Kontogiannis' alleged mortgage fraud.

Alberto Gonzales

The OIG Report: Tying Up Loose Ends

Kate Klonick | October 1, 2008, 3:00PM

In the almost two years that TPMmuckraker has been covering the scandal over the removal of the U.S. attorneys, there have been many questions raised over the reasons behind the firings. On Monday, the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General's report answered some of those, but raised others. While it concluded that only three of the firings were carried out for political reasons or to interfere with active prosecutions, it could not gather sufficient evidence to conclude the rest of the firings were politically based. Regardless, the report strongly condemned the DOJs overall mishandling of the firings, calling the process "fundamentally flawed . . unsystematic and arbitrary."

As we wrote earlier this week, the report reveals that Todd Graves, David Iglesias and Bud Cummins were fired for reasons of politics, not performance.

The report lays out the investigations into each of the remaining U.S. attorney firings, but repeatedly states that its analysis and investigation were "hindered" due to many witnesses' "lack of recall"; the refusal of many witnesses to cooperate with the investigation or give testimony; and the administration's stonewalling in disclosing documents. Citing these obstacles, the report hedges its findings, requesting a prosecutor to continue the investigation with the power to compel testimony.

In the case of Margaret Chiara, the former Western Michigan U.S. attorney, the report could find no evidence that the rumors that Chiara was in a lesbian relationship with one of her subordinates were behind her removal.

Chiara has stated publicly that she believes the rumors -- which she called "false and malicious" in a statement yesterday from her attorney -- were the reason for the loss of her position.

Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California, was believed to have been asked to resign over her prosecution of former Executive Director of the CIA, Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who bribed former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham and Foggo. But the report "found no evidence" to support those claims, stating that "the investigation and prosecution of Cunningham and Foggo were aggressively pursued by career prosecutors in Lam's office, both during and after her tenure."

Instead, the report supports the Department's previous claims that Lam was removed because of her poor statistics on gun and immigration prosecution statistics -- but blames the DOJ for poor handling of her removal.

In the case of Daniel Bogden of Nevada, little was known about his removal, except that he had not been diligent in prosecution of obscenity cases. The report found the claim to be behind Bogden's removal, but added some color to the removal. Interestingly, the report found that the complaints of Bodgen's dalliance in obscenity prosecutions were made by Brent Ward, the head of the DOJ Obscenity Prosecution Task Force -- who was friends with Attorney General Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson's brother and had direct conversations with Sampson regularly.

When questioned by the DOJ, Sampson stated he "did not recall whether those complaints played a role in the decision to remove Bogden," a response the report found "particularly suspect, given his role in the removal process."

In Arizona, Paul Charlton's termination was believed to be connected to his investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, but the report states that it could find no evidence to support that claim. Charlton had previously clashed with Main Justice on a decision he made to not seek the death penalty on a case involving a murder that transpired during a drug deal. Charlton believed it was this death penalty case as well as his policy of tape recording interrogations that led to his removal -- theories the IG report confirmed as the primary reasons for his dismissal.

Lastly, there is Seattle's John McKay who was believed to have been fired over his failure to prosecute voter fraud related to the 2004 Washington governor's election.

McKay famously received a call from Ed Cassidy, chief of staff to Washington Rep. Richard Hastings (R) asking about his prosecution, to which McKay responded, "Ed, I'm sure you're not about to start talking to me about the future direction of this case," after which Cassidy quickly ended the call.

Hastings claimed ignorance and told investigators that "he could not remember telling Cassidy to call McKay. . . or whether Cassidy had told him he had done so."

The report also mentions a meeting in Washington between McKay and White House Counsel Harriet Miers in which Miers reportedly asked McKay "why Republicans in the state of Washington were angry with him."

The report concludes that the "evidence suggests" that the primary reason for McKay's removal was an argument with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty over an information sharing program -- not because of failure to prosecute voter fraud as McKay conjectured.

The OIG report, though nearly 400 pages long, is far from comprehensive. The investigation lacked the power to compel testimony or documents outside of the Justice Department and were consequently limited in their investigation. As a result, the report is forced to reserve judgment on whether many of the firings were inappropriately political, though it recommends that a prosecutor be appointed to look into whether crimes were committed.

Nora Dannehy, appointed on Monday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey will take up that mantle. It remains to be seen if that will be enough to ferret the truth out of unwilling witnesses and departments.

Dusty Foggo

Foggo Pleads Guilty in CIA Bribery Case

Zachary Roth | September 29, 2008, 12:43PM

The Duke Cunningham case continues to bear fruit.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, formerly third from the top at the CIA, has pleaded guilty to wire fraud, admitting that he helped his old friend Brent Wilkes obtain CIA contracts at inflated prices.

Cunningham, the now-jailed former California GOP Congressman, had also admitted to taking bribes from Wilkes.

Though Foggo faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, prosecutors agreed that they will seek no more than three.

Dusty Foggo

Foggo Threatens To Expose CIA Secrets As Part of Own Criminal Case

Kate Klonick | September 10, 2008, 2:40PM

In court documents filed late last week, prosecutors in the trial of former executive director of the CIA Dusty Foggo allege that the defendant is attempting to "twist a straightforward case into a referendum on the global war on terror" by taking the spotlight off his charges of corruption and fraud.

In going down this irrelevant path, the government argues, Foggo will expose dozens of confidential programs and people still active in the CIA.

From the government's motion:

Foggo's desire portray himself to the public as a patriotic hero stands in stark contrast to his Section 5 Notice, in which he expresses (albeit in a sealed filing) a desire to expose the cover of virtually every CIA employee with whom he interacted and to divulge to the world some of our country's most sensitive programs - even though this information has absolutely nothing to do with the charges he faces.

Foggo's most recent move -- the process of holding the court ransom with threats to expose classified information -- is common in national security cases and is known as "graymail" and is something the prosecution has already been on the look out for. The prosecution has requested an in chambers examination of the material to be submitted by Foggo and determine its admissibility.

The case against Foggo, is tied closely with that of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham who took bribes from defense contractor Brent Wilkes, who is a long-time friend of Foggo. Foggo is alleged to have favored Wilkes for contracts and in turn, accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts.

Duke Cunningham

Brent Wilkes' Anonymous Bondsman Thwarted By Ruling

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 9:30AM

Brent Wilkes' "Secret Benefactor" will have to make himself known if he wants to help the convicted former-defense contractor make bail, a federal judge said Monday.

You might remember that we posted a few weeks back about an anonymous ally's guarantee on the balance of the $1.4 million Wilkes needed to make bail pending appeal. But there was a catch-- the benefactor wouldn't post unless his identity could be kept a secret-- so Wilkes' attorneys went to court to try to hide the man's identity.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The man willing to make up the shortfall could lose his job if his name is linked to Wilkes, said lawyer Robert Rexrode, who is representing Wilkes for free.

"This is it," he said in court. "It's not going to happen if the name is public."

Rexrode wouldn't say what the man does for a living but said that the public attention that Wilkes has drawn "makes it difficult for past business associates to come forward."

Judge Larry Burns said he was willing to keep certain financial details private, but not the man's name.

"This person ... has to step up and stand here with Mr. Wilkes," Burns said.

Duke Cunningham

Cunningham Seeks Presidential Pardon From Bush

Andrew Tilghman | July 21, 2008, 9:51AM

Despite his stint in federal prison, Randy "Duke" Cunningham hasn't lost hope.

The convicted former Republican lawmaker from California has submitted a petition for a presidential pardon, according to the New York Times.

The 66-year-old inmate is about 19 months into a sentence of eight years and four months.

Another thing the Times notes is that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has not filed a petition.

Brent Wilkes

Brent Wilkes' "Secret Benefactor" Wants to Assure Anonymity Before Paying Bail

Kate Klonick | July 15, 2008, 11:05AM

Have no fear, Brent Wilkes! Your secret benefactor is here!

Wilkes, the defense contractor convicted of bribing Duke Cunningham, has been sitting in federal custody unable to meet his $1.4 million bail pending appeal of his case. But now, an anonymous donor has emerged, agreeing to provide "Wilkes's shortfall" in making bail-- but only on the condition that his identity is kept a secret.

From the North County Times:

"Mr. Wilkes' third party surety seeks to keep his identifying information, including his full name, confidential," Wilkes' attorney, Robert Rexrode, wrote in a motion filed Friday. "Revealing this would both be damaging to his livelihood and would reveal his net worth. ..."

Under the deal proposed by Wilkes through his attorney, even though the man's name would be kept from the public, federal prosecutors could be privy to it.

As we previously reported, Wilkes is now broke-- a long fall from the multi-million defense contracts he once held. He and his family have tried to put their homes up for collateral, but falling housing prices have made them worth less than the $1.4 million needed for bail.

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for Bribing Cunningham

Paul Kiel | February 19, 2008, 3:57PM

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.

Brent Wilkes

Prosecutors Seek 25 Years for Duke Briber, "War Profiteer"

Paul Kiel | February 16, 2008, 12:24PM

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.

Brent Wilkes

Prosecutors: Wilkes Faked Poverty to Get Gov-Funded Lawyers

Paul Kiel | February 5, 2008, 11:58AM

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 »

Duke Cunningham

Cunningham Briber Hit with $1 Million Fine for Fake Contribs

Paul Kiel | October 31, 2007, 3:35PM

Mitchell Wade, that other high-profile (alleged) briber of Duke Cunningham, got hit with a $1 million fine from the Federal Election Commission, what the commission calls "the second largest penalty ever paid in the 32-year history of the FEC."

Update: We neglected to mention that the settlement was a result of a complaint from watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The fine is for reimbursing employees at his firm MZM for $78,000 in contributions they made to Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) and ex-Rep. Katharine Harris (R-FL). Another MZM exec, Richard Berglund, got hit with a $42,000 fine. Both of them have already pled guilty to criminal charges for the scheme. Berglund was sentenced earlier this year to a year of probation and $5,000 in fines. Wade continues to cooperate with the government in its ongoing investigation of his bribery activities, recently testifying against fellow contractor Brent Wilkes at his trial.

Although Jim King, formerly an aide to Michael Hayden when the CIA chief ran the National Security Agency, was also under investigation by the FEC for his contributions at MZM, the FEC did not to fine him.

The FEC makes a point of saying that it uncovered no evidence that either Goode or Harris knew about the scheme. Wade wooed both of them in order to get earmarks for MZM facilities. In both cases, he was successful -- only Harris bungled the job and failed to land the $10 million she was seeking. Goode requested a total of $9 million for the Foreign Supplier Assessment Center in his Virginia district, which MZM was hired to run. Unfortunately, the center folded after Wade pled guilty, sticking the town, Martinsville, with the bill.

Duke Cunningham

Alleged Briber: You Got Me All Wrong

Paul Kiel | October 31, 2007, 11:32AM

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 »

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes Takes The Stand

Paul Kiel | October 26, 2007, 9:45PM

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 »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | October 26, 2007, 9:46AM

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.

Duke Cunningham

Duke, In His Own Words

Paul Kiel | October 24, 2007, 12:24PM

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.

Duke Cunningham

I (Duke) Do As I'm Told

Paul Kiel | October 19, 2007, 5:20PM

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.

Duke Cunningham

Prosecution Rests in Wilkes Trial

Paul Kiel | October 18, 2007, 4:30PM

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 »

Duke Cunningham

Admitted Briber Wade Takes The Stand

Paul Kiel | October 15, 2007, 10:09AM

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 »

Duke Cunningham

I'm with Stupid

Paul Kiel | October 11, 2007, 10:12AM

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.”

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | October 10, 2007, 9:53AM

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.

Brent Wilkes

"This Case Is All about Greed."

Paul Kiel | October 4, 2007, 10:03AM

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.

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes: Leave The Hookers out of It

Paul Kiel | October 1, 2007, 1:22PM

Will Brent Wilkes beat the rap? Or has he said his last Boom Shaka Laka?

We'll soon find out. The trial for one of Duke Cunningham's favorite defense contractors is set to begin Wednesday, when Wilkes will try to convince a jury that the hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and payments that he gave Cunningham weren't bribes.

But Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos had a number of requests today before the trial gets started. Among them was a motion to preclude any evidence that Wilkes had provided Cunningham with prostitutes.

Geragos reasons that prosecutors are just out to dirty his client:

There is little probative value in presenting the testimony of professional call girls, persons admittedly in the business of regularly breaking the law and making a living through illegal vice. The real purpose of presenting that evidence is to sully Mr. Wilkes in the eyes of the jury. Mr. Wilkes was married during the alleged incident, and the government seeks to drag out a dirty story of adultery and vice, not to prove any element of the alleged offenses.

Read more »

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes Subpoena Tear Continues! Senators, Admin Officials on Wilkes' List

Paul Kiel | September 27, 2007, 11:32AM

As if serving subpoenas on twelve members of the House wasn't enough, Brent Wilkes' lawyers apparently issued subpoenas to a number of senators and administration figures as well, it was disclosed today. At least two of those subpoenas, however, have not been served yet.

In a filing today by the House's lawyers seeking to quash the twelve subpoenas, the House's general counsel reveals that he'd been advised by an investigator for Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos earlier this month that subpoenas had also been issued to:

-- Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
-- Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
-- White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten
-- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
-- Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

A spokesperson for Sen. Levin said that he had not been served with a subpoena, and a spokesman for Sen. Rockefeller said the same, adding that the Senate legal counsel had told him that they hadn't received anything. So it may be that Geragos has decided to hold off serving those additional subpoenas, at least for now. (Update: Sen. Craig's spokesman also said that he had not been served. Later Update: Ditto for Sen. Inouye.)

Read more »

Duke Cunningham

House Moves to Block Alleged Briber's Subpoenas

Paul Kiel | September 27, 2007, 10:37AM

As expected, the House of Representatives' general counsel filed a motion yesterday arguing that none of the 12 lawmakers subpoenaed by Brent Wilkes should have to show.

Wilkes, remember, is on the hook for allegedly bribing Duke Cunningham. When pressed by the House's lawyers, his lawyer refused to reveal the method behind the madness, only insisting that all 12 lawmakers show up to testify at Wilkes' trial.

The House's lawyers argued that the information sought by Wilkes is "absolutely privileged" under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Brent Wilkes

Prosecutors Try to Preempt "Duke Made Me Do It" Defense

Paul Kiel | September 25, 2007, 12:07PM

In his first big interview after coming under suspicion for bribing Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes told The New York Times last year that he'd been a victim of the system. "I played by their rules," he said, "and I played to win." If Brent Wilkes is under investigation, he was saying, everyone should be under investigation. It was a system of "transactional lobbying," where lawmakers shook down those who were seeking government contracts.

Not so fast, say prosecutors. In a 13-page filing today, they make a variety of arguments for why Wilkes should not be able to argue at trial that he was coerced into bribing Cunningham. At base, however, is their common sense assertion that nobody put a gun to Wilkes' head -- not back in the 90's when he started bribing Cunningham, not in 2005 when he gave Duke his last bribe, and certainly not in 2003, when the two were relaxing in a hot tub in Hawaii with two prostitutes:

The overt acts in the Superseding Indictment... include a plethora of bribes that defendant Wilkes provided Cunningham over about a decade, including over $100,000 in 2000, and over $500,000 in 2004. The two remained friendly enough throughout this period that they shared numerous vacations, including a vacation in Hawaii in August 2003, during which Wilkes and Cunningham relaxed in a hot tub with prostitutes hired by Wilkes. No reasonable juror could believe that during that long period, despite outward appearances, Wilkes was secretly operating under a imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, or some other harm sufficient to justify bribery, and could never find a way to inform law enforcement of such threats.

Duke Cunningham

Feds Allege Cunningham Conspirator Hid Docs Near Stash of "Embarrassing" Items

Paul Kiel | September 25, 2007, 11:25AM

Yet another stop in the tour of all-around muck that is the Duke Cunningham case.

In a filing today, prosecutors allege that John Michael, who's been indicted for laundering Cunningham's bribes and lying to investigators, hid incriminating documents by keeping them with what prosecutors call "a stash of personal entertainment materials and paraphernalia." You can read the filing here.

The prosecutors don't identify exactly what those items are, but note that "Michael has expressed extreme embarrassment" over them and that "their nature objectively supports his perspective" (read: he has good reason to be embarrassed). They say that they'll identify the materials at a court hearing if need be.

Prosecutors want to introduce evidence of Michael's embarrassing "stash," in order to prove that he knew the Cunningham documents were, in their own way, as embarrassing. That he kept documentation of Cunningham's sketchy mortgage details in a place where he also stored "materials he did not want to anyone else to learn about" proves, they write, that he knew he was up to no good.

Part of the indictment against Michael, the nephew to Greek man of mystery Thomas Kontogiannis -- prosecutors call Michael and Kontogiannis "professional money launderers" -- is that he obstructed justice by forging record of the Cunningham mortgages and hiding others.

Michael is scheduled to go on trial along with Brent Wilkes in October, but a later trial date is expected to be set.