Archive for the 'Feasting on the Spoils' Category

Page 4 of 5

Duke Cunningham’s Pardon File

I received a response today from the Justice Department to my request under the Freedom of Information Act for former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s petition for clemency from President Bush. I’ve written about this here.

The Office of the Pardon Attorney withheld Cunningham’s clemency application as well as correspondence from his attorney, James B. Craven III. They did, however, provide some letters written on Cunningham’s behalf, which I have posted here. Some of these letters were written before Cunningham asked President Bush to commute his sentence in December 2007.

Cunningham, a Republican who represented the San Diego-area for 15 years, is the most corrupt congressman in history. He is serving a 100-month sentence for taking millions of dollars in bribes from two defense contractors. Cunningham was also the first flying ace of the Vietnam War. As the letters show, he is still a hero to some.

I’d like to hear your thoughts about this. Please leave a comment below.

Former CIA Executive Director pleads guilty (Updated)

CIA Executive Director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo pleaded guilty today to a single count of fraud. As the former No. 3 at the spy agency, he is one of the highest ranking CIA figures charged with a crime, but the sensitivity of his position is sparing him major time in prison. Simply put, Foggo played chicken with the government, and won.

The Justice Department tries to put a brave face on this news in its press release with the true but highly misleading fact that Foggo faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. Under his plea agreement, Foggo will serve no more than three years in prison, and there’s a good chance he will serve even less.

Foggo is quite a character. (Background here). He’s the last person charged in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal to plead guilty, but his was the case one that threatened to transform what was essentially an embarrassing case of congressional bribery involving yachts, antiques and a mansion into “a referendum on the global war on terror.”

That’s the prosecution’s spin, at any rate. A few weeks ago, prosecutors warned that Foggo was threatening to expose details of highly-classified programs and protected “sources and methods.” This is a legal tactic known as “graymail” which is basically a game of chicken involving information that the government doesn’t want to risk disclosing. The defense’s take on this is classified, along with much of the case.

Prosecutors said those secrets were irrelevant to the charges that Foggo was using his influence at the CIA — his executive director “grease,” as he put it in an e-mail — to helping both his mistress and his best friend, a defense contractor named Brent Wilkes, who is serving 12 years in prison.

What were those secrets? No one really knows, which is how the CIA likes it.

There are few clues in court papers, but they are tantalizing ones. Among other things, Foggo was trying to help Wilkes land a multi-million dollar contract providing air support services for the CIA. The government refused to declassify the highly-secret information Foggo passed along to his poker buddy.

CIA air support. Sources and methods. A referendum on the war on terror.  It doesn’t strain credulity to wonder whether the secrets involved the CIA’s rendition program, which involves snatching suspected terrorists and whisking them to secret prisons and has proven to be a major black eye with some of our allies. But those who know aren’t talking. Not to me, at any rate.

Foggo’s plea agreement carries conditions I haven’t seen for anyone else in this case. The government had Foggo sign away his rights to information that was obtained during the government’s investigation of him. Foggo also waived his rights to profit from publicizing the circumstances of his crime.

The Justice Department’s reluctance to proceed is ironic given the other bit of news today involving the former U.S. Attorney in San Diego, Carol Lam. There have been incessant rumors in the liberal blogosphere that Lam was forced to resign because she poked her fingers into the Bush administration’s beehive by prosecuting Foggo. A report today by the Justice Department’s Inspector General Glenn Fine says that ain’t so, but bloggers aren’t letting facts get in the way.

There’s an interesting footnote in Fine’s IG report. Far from trying to hinder Lam’s investigation of Foggo, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty’s office tried to help her prosecutors “to obtain classified documents from the White House or the CIA that were relevant to an investigation.”

In the summer of 2006, as Foggo was being indicted, Lam’s office reached out to McNulty’s staff to obtain classified  information from the CIA on several matters, and “the White House Counsel’s Office was involved in those discussions.” Sensitive stuff indeed.

Who could have imagined that when the FBI drilled the locks and stepped into Cunningham’s mansion, the investigative trail would lead all the way to the White House and the executive offices of the CIA?

P.S. The Washington Post says Foggo is the “highest-ranking member of a federal intelligence or law enforcement agency to be convicted of a crime.” I guess CIA Director Richard Helms‘ 1977 conviction for lying to Congress doesn’t count.

Create Your Own Caption

13081926_o.jpg

On Gen. Wesley Clark

Gen. Wesley Clark got in a lot of trouble for comments he made on Face the Nation about Sen. John McCain’s qualifications for office.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean –

CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

(Transcript here)

Eve though Clark had earlier called McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, a hero for his service as a prisoner of war, his comment above — stripped of its context — became fodder for the crude, overly simplistic tit-for-tat world of American politics today.

Clark is a former Democratic presidential candidate who has endorsed Barack Obama, so he must have been speaking as a politician, not a retired general.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers saw the angle right away and pounced:

“Let’s please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he’s proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain’s military service record.”

The media, smelling blood, dove right in.  CNN’s Rick Sanchez said “Wesley Clark tried to Swiftboat John McCain today.” BANG! The Washington Post’s ubiquitous Howie Kurtz said Clark had used his appearance on Face the Nation to “strafe” McCain. Politico.com called it “one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.” CRACK!

Clark’s remark may be an inartful snap judgment, but it also happens to be true.

Like McCain, Randy “Duke” Cunningham was shot down over North Vietnam in May 10, 1972, the day he became the first fighter ace of the Vietnam War. He avoided capture because U.S. forces came to his rescue.

Cunningham was by no means qualified to be a congressman, let alone president, and yet, he served for 15 years until he was finally revealed as the most corrupt congressman of all time.

It’s what Cunningham and McCain did after they were shot down that proved their mettle as men.

McCain spent six years in a prisoner of war camp. When he was offered release, McCain refused. The son of a Navy admiral would not allow himself to be used for enemy propaganda. As a result, he was routinely tortured and beaten.

And what did Cunningham do? Well, that’s  exactly what my book Feasting on the Spoils is about.

Cunningham became a professional “war hero. He came to resent his commanders when they tried to hold him accountable. He grew envious of other pilots and remained bitter that he never got the Medal of Honor. He believed the rest of his life should be an extended coronation. His ego grew to a monstrous size that always wanted more and more, and Cunningham bullied his way to power.

Getting shot down alone isn’t a qualification. It’s what we make of ourselves and how we respond when tested that matters.

Brent Wilkes’ Secret Admirer

So, a secret admirer of Brent Wilkes wants to help him get out of prison.

The former defense contractor was sentenced in February to 12 years for bribing former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham with hookers, cash, and meals at DC’s Capital Grille. But Wilkes has been eating daily specials at Terminal Island FCI in San Pedro because he can’t come up with $1.4 million in collateral to secure relase.

A few days ago, his attorney said that some unnamed person was willing to bail Wilkes out, but only if he or she can shield their identity from everyone but Judge Larry Burns. Mr. or Mrs. X was concerned that public disclosure would impact his or her ability to make a living.

This seems a bit odd. If you can plunk down the couple hundred Gs Wilkes needs (his family has pledged the rest) your livelihood would seem to be fairly secure, no?

Not surprisingly, prosecutors don’t like this. According to them, Wilkes has misled the court with “false affidavits and questionable dealings” over his assets:

…the government believes that the sealing of traditionally open proceedings, which may prove crucial to securing the defendant’s release, will only raise the specter of undue influence and favoritism being exercised on behalf of a formerly well-heeled, white collar criminal that would not be afforded to his less-advantaged fellow felons.

The government only likes secrecy when it suits its own interests. Prosecutors bent over backward for fellow Cunningham briber Tommy K., who pleaded guilty in a secret hearing and then flew off to stay at a 5-star hotel in Greece.  We still don’t know why that happened because … the government is still keeping secrets!

A hearing is set for later this month. I think Wilkes will be wearing his jumpsuit and plastic sandals for a while longer. Judge Burns doesn’t seem to like Wilkes very much. Burns said he “doubts Mr. Wilkes’ trustworthiness” because Wilkes testified he had never seen the prostitute who screwed him in Hawaii. Twice.

A close call

I spent a bit of time reading over Hizzoner Larry Burns’ order on the subpoenas that weren’t and I now realize that I dodged a bullet.

It turns out that Burns never considered the First Amendment arguments made by The Associated Press and NBC’s Lisa Myers.

He didn’t need to because the jury that convicted Brent Wilkes of supplying Randy “Duke” Cunningham with hookers and cash wasn’t influenced by grand jury leaks. And Burns couldn’t go Matlock on us and investigate the leaks himself. That was the Justice Department’s job, “slipshod” as the judge felt it was.

Good thing too because Burns give a sneak peek at how he might have ruled by citing the case of two San Francisco Chronicle reporters who were leaked grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

The court notes, however, that the very same arguments were recently considered by the United States District Court for Northern California and rejected (emphasis added)

Yikes! I could have wound up in jail!

Good thing I never wrote about how Burns was rushing the Wilkes case along at breakneck speed to avoid postponing an upcoming border bust trial. And I guess it was a good idea to avoid examining the whispers of Burns as “a prosecutor in a robe.”

Ohmigod! I did not just say that! I take that back. Judge Burns is a most wise and benevolent jurist, a very fair judge, and a very nice man.

O yes my precious, very nice.

Mystery Solved

I called Hizzoner Larry Burns’ chambers to learn what happened in the case of the subpoena that wasn’t.

Attorneys for convicted Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes, were chomping at the bit to serve me with my subpoena. Burns had been leaning toward issuing the subpoenas, and, on Friday, Burns told Wilkes’ attorneys to go ahead and serve them.

Only problem with this was Burns was still mulling over the request for subpoenas.

On Monday, when the judge finished his research and issued his order denying the request for subpoenas that had been issued, Burns had a change of heart. There would be no subpoenas. Oops!

So I’m left with a worthless piece of paper, a nice souvenir I’m going to hang on the wall.

Puzzling

Justice isn’t only blind, it’s confusing and silly. Today, Hizzoner Larry Burns decided not to issue the subpoena I received two days ago. I already told you I had no idea what was going on. Now I have gone beyond confusion into a new, uncharted state of unknowingness. It’s a Zen thing.

You’ve been served!

Turns out that the judge did sign the subpoenas late last night, and a nice guy who works as an investigator with the Federal Defenders just knocked on my door and handed me this subpoena.

Still no subpoenas

I don’t know what’s going on anymore. There was some miscommunication yesterday and I was led to believe that the subpoenas were being issued yesterday.

That turned out to be wrong.

As of 3 p.m. Friday, Wilkes’ defense attorney, Shereen Charlick, still didn’t have the subpoenas in hand (and she wasn’t happy about it either). Judge Larry Burns still hadn’t signed off on them, although Charlick has been led to believe he will.

Maybe he signed them in the waning hours of Friday afternoon. If he didn’t, we’re all scrambling to meet a Monday deadline for motions explaining why we shouldn’t have to answer to a hypothetical subpoena that hasn’t been issued.

I’m new to all this. Is this how things usually go?