The Dusty Foggo story has never reflected well on Porter Goss -- the man who, as CIA director, gave Foggo the number 3 job at the agency. But it looks like we didn't know the half of it.

Congressional Quarterly has a juicy scoop:

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo's CIA dossier included allegations that he was sharing a woman with a suspected Russian mole, according to a top former spy agency official and other sources.

CIA Director Porter J. Goss knew about the allegation when he hired Foggo to be the agency's executive director, its third highest official, an aide said today.

But Merrell Moorhead, an aide to Goss at the CIA from 2004 to 2006, said CIA security officials later withdrew that and other serious allegations about Foggo's record and "gave him a clean bill of health."

One former senior CIA official told CQ:

Everybody knew about him and Felix," said a former senior CIA official, who talked about Foggo on condition of anonymity. "It's scandalous that Goss hired him.

This news jibes with a report yesterday by the national security reporter Laura Rozen that Goss was aware of problems in Foggo's counter-intelligence file when he hired him.

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.

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.

Indicted CIA spook Kyle "Dusty" Foggo wants to get away for a little while, to travel with his wife and two kids on a five-week vacation to Austria this summer.

Unfortunately for the former CIA executive director, he has a couple dozen felony charges against him that remain unresolved, accusing him of fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and making false statements.

So when Foggo asked U.S. District Judge James Cacheris of Virginia to give him back his passport and let him leave the country, the judge last week flat-out rejected him.

Not that Foggo's attorneys didn't try to make the case:

"Mr. Foggo has served the U.S. government with distinction for 23 years in the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") and prior to his indictment had no criminal record."

(They added in a footnote, however, that "the details of nearly all aspects of Mr. Foggo's distinguished service to this country are classified, including honors and awards received.")

Prosecutors in the case opposed Foggo's request, noting the risk that the former spy could simply not return to stand trial in the U.S. He's currently out of jail on a $200,000 bond.

"There is no family emergency that necessitates his travel. ... Foggo acknowledges that the European vacation he wishes to take is strictly elective."

They also said the request seemed pricey, considering Foggo had claimed he was too poor to stand trial in the initial venue on the West Coast.

A five-week European vacation for Foggo and his entire family - especially given current foreign exchange rates - also seems inconsistent with Foggo's prior argument in favor of transferring this case from the Southern District of California, where Foggo maintained that he was too impoverished to try this (three-week) case.

A lot has changed since Foggo used to allegedly get free trips to Scotland and Hawaii, compliments of Brent Wilkes, the friend and contractor who got multimillion-dollar Iraq-related contracts with Foogo's help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and Brent Wilkes head to federal court today where they will likely plead not guilty to new conspiracy and money laundering charges.

Indictments against the pair came Friday that expand the charges filed against them in February.

In addition to the old charges, in the new indictment, Foggo, former executive director of the CIA, is accused of slipping his lifelong friend, Wilkes, a $132 million federal contract to “provide commercial cover for CIA air operations.”

You can see the portion of Foggo’s indictment describing the scam here.

The indictment says Wilkes was patently unqualified to handle the task, seeing that he had no prior air-support experience.

How, then, did Wilkes get such a contract?

According to the indictment, Foggo had been funneling Wilkes classified government documents, despite Wilkes’ lack of security authorization, that seemed to prepare him for the pitch.

In exchange for Foggo’s cooperation, Wilkes took his pal on vacation to exotic locations like Hawaii and Scotland, offered Foggo rides in a private jet and treated him to fancy dinners at such restaurants as the Capital Grille (which recently won Consumer Reports’ award for the best hamburger in America). Judging by the $344.78 bill rang up by Foggo, he probably ordered something else.

Behold! The new and improved Grand Ole Docket, featuring a Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham investigation scorecard. Let it serve as your cheat sheet as the guilty pleas and convictions continue to pile up.

Here's the story told by Mark Geragos, Brent Wilkes' lawyer: then-U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam was so determined to bring an indictment against Wilkes before she was forced from office in February that she leaked details of the case to reporters to force the Justice Department's hand.

You can read the motion to dismiss that he filed in the case yesterday here. Geragos argues that the leaks prejudiced members of the grand jury investigating Wilkes, and that the case should be thrown out.

Wilkes, remember, is one of the defense contractors who allegedly bribed Duke Cunnigham. Lam's office filed two indictments two days before she left office, indicting Wilkes for his dealings with Cunningham and for his dealings with Dusty Foggo, formerly the executive director of the CIA.

Last month, Geragos claimed in court that Lam was "meeting resistance from bosses in the Justice Department, who had rejected drafts of indictments against Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, saying they needed revisions." It wasn't clear what Geragos' source for those claims were, and he didn't expand on them in his filing yesterday. Though, as TPM has reported, those bosses did drag their feet on the Cunningham investigation, delaying the approval of indictments for sometimes months.

There's no doubt that leaks did occur. Geragos quotes one of the prosecutors as saying that the leaks were "embarrassing... reprehensible and inexcusable." Whether those leaks were part of "a deliberate campaign by the former United States Attorney, Carol Lam, to use Mr. Wilkes and the other defendants here in her political squabble with the Justice Department’s main office in Washington D.C." and "a gesture of defiance by Carol Lam as she was forced out of office," as Geragos argues, is another matter.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for May 14.

From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Prosecutors in the corruption case against Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo asked a judge yesterday to limit dissemination of intelligence secrets that, if made public at trial, could damage national security...

Prosecutors noted that they were concerned about “the specter of gray mail,” a defendant's practice of trying to derail his prosecution by threatening to disclose classified information in court.

To keep that from happening, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act in 1980. Under CIPA, the two sides argue before a judge in secret on whether the information is needed for a full defense. If a judge, in this case U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, decides that the defendant is entitled to the information, the government has to decide whether to risk disclosure and proceed, or drop the prosecution....

In the Foggo case, after a joint request by the prosecution and defense, Burns appointed court security officers as custodians of classified information.

From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

When Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes heard that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq, he was ecstatic, say several former colleagues.

“He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war,” said a former employee of his now-defunct firm ADCS Inc. “Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East.”

One can only imagine that Wilkes let fly a "boom shaka-laka," maybe even a "yeah, baby!"

Dusty Foggo, while he was a contracting officer at the CIA, helped his best friend Brent Wilkes land multimillion dollar contracts with the agency, and in return....?

Well, Foggo had a job waiting for him at Wilkes' headquarters. But that wasn't all.

Here's our preliminary accounting of all the goodies Brent Wilkes threw Dusty Foggo's way, while he was a contracting officer at the CIA, all culled from the indictment:

August 3, 2003 - Wilkes paid for Foggo and family to join Wilkes and family on a vacation to Scotland - $12,000 in private jets, $4,000 in helicopter ride to a round of golf at Carnoustie, $44,000 for a stay at Pitcastle estate, which included trout fishing on hill lochs, salmon fishing on the River Tay, clay-pigeon shooting, archery, and a seven-person staff

December 27, 2003 - Foggo joined Wilkes on a vacation to the "Sullivan Estates" in Haleiwa, Hawaii, for which Wilkes paid approximately $32,000

January 28, 2004 - Wilkes treated Foggo to a dinner at the Capital Grille, for which Wilkes paid $1,195.96, of which Foggo's pro-rata share was approximately $398.65

November 20, 2004 - Wilkes treated Foggo to a meal at the Serbian crown restaurant, for which Wilkes paid $773.65, of which Foggo's pro rate share was approximately $257,88

November 20,2004 - Wilkes gave Foggo an Ellie Bleu cigar humidor, which Wilkes Subordinate X had purchased for $2,307.38 at Wilkes' direction

November 21, 2004 - Wilkes treated Foggo to a meal at the Capital Grille in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, for which Wilkes paid $712.15, of which Foggo's pro rata share was approximately $237.38

November 22, 2004 - Wilkes treated Foggo to a meal at Ruth's Chris Steak House in Fairfax, Virginia, for which Wilkes paid $902.33, of which Foggo's pro rata share was approximately $225.58

Boy, I bet the prosecutors' eyes just lit up when they saw this email.

It's from Dusty Foggo to a person called Wilkes Subordinate X in the indictment (he matches the description of Brent Wilkes' nephew Joel Combs). At the time, Foggo was helping Wilkes, through his nephew, land a subcontract for procurement services for the CIA. He sent the email just after Wilkes had hosted Foggo at a Hawaiian resort -- and can barely contain his giddiness at their scheme to land a contract for Wilkes' front company, the name of which Foggo apparently didn't even know.

From the indictment:

On or about January 7, 2004, immediately after his Hawaiian vacation with Wilkes, Foggo sent Wilkes Subordinate X an email with a subject line of "Re: Aloha," stating: "Had a great time - no diving, but still fun. I would like the 'President' or 'CEO' of '[entity]' to come visit. Brent told me that was you (smile), so lets [sic] get to it. I'll need to brief you a bit on how we need to play this, but that needs to be face to face, before you meet my people."

Twenty days later, the indictment notes, Foggo met with Wilkes, Wilkes' nephew, and the CIA contractor through which Wilkes was getting the subcontract at CIA headquarters.

Wow. Indictments can sometimes make for boring affairs, but this one is just popping with details.

The underlying allegation is that Foggo, while he was perched atop a key contracting position at the CIA, made repeated efforts to throw his best friend Brent Wilkes business. In return, Wilkes paid for swanky vacations to Scotland and other locales, dinners, and other perks, and kept open a post at his company for when Foggo retired. And the two concealed the whole thing from Foggo's CIA associates and ethics officials by using shell companies and flat out lying about their relationship.

The indictment is chock full of emails and other details that reveal the nature of Wilkes and Foggo's relationship. A selection:

As has been reported before, Wilkes "reserved an office for Foggo near Wilkes's own office in the executive suite" of his headquarters, "an offer which remained open and under consideration by Foggo," according to the indictment.

Accordingly, in December, 2003, Wilkes "introduced Foggo to a group of employees as a future executive in Wilkes' companies."

In September, 2004, Foggo wrote Wilkes after a CIA contractor had raised concerns about doing business with Wilkes: "I am now, have been in the past, and will continue to as long as I breath [sic] - be your partner... so what do you want me to do?"

And finally, In March, 2005, Foggo revealed to a bank loan officer that he already had a road map for cashing out. He wrote: "I plan to retire in circa 3 years... I have a big offer from a company in California...."

More details soon....

Indictments came down today from the U.S. Attorney for San Diego for Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes on counts of conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, and money laundering.

We'll have a copy of the indictment up for you in a moment.

Update: The AP reports:

The CIA’s former No. 3 official and a defense contractor were charged Tuesday with fraud and other offenses in the corruption investigation that sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison.

The indictment named Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, executive director of the CIA until he resigned in May, and his close friend, San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes, both 52, according to two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because grand jury proceedings are secret.

In a separate indictment, Wilkes was charged with conspiring to bribe Cunningham in return for government contracts. A man who was described as a co-conspirator in Cunningham’s 2005 plea agreement, John T. Michael, was also charged.

Update: Here's the indictment.