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 »

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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!

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, 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.

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.

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...

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.