Burns Unimpressed with Geragos' Lawyering

by emptywheel

I've been meaning to update this all day and got a little distracted with Comey's testimony and whatnot. But the judge in the Wilkes-Foggo case is rather unimpressed with Geragos' argument about the leaks prior to their first indictments. There will be a DOJ investigation--and a report--but no outright dismissal (as bmaz told us would happen).

Also on Monday, Burns addressed several motions filed by defense lawyers in the two cases.

Wilkes' attorney, Mark Geragos, recently asked the court to open a full-scale investigation into who leaked secret grand jury information to news media outlets.

Days before the grand jury issued indictments against Foggo, Wilkes, and another alleged co-conspirator in the Cunningham case, newspapers ran stories citing anonymous sources who said that indictments were close. Wilkes has alleged "outrageous" conduct on the part of the government and has asked that the entire case against his client be dismissed.

In responding to the motion, Burns said that he would not order the investigation, after assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Forge told him that such an investigation has already begun. Burns asked that the investigation be completed and a written report presented to him "as soon as possible."

"This is a serious breach of the rules," Burns said, adding that the person who leaked such information to the media could be held in contempt of court.

"Everyone associated with the grand jury process knows that process is secret," Burns said.

I'm just hoping someone at Main DOJ--like Monica Goodling, perhaps--is among those cited with contempt. Burns also denied Foggo's request for a change of venue.

He also denied another motion filed recently by Foggo's attorney requesting that Foggo's case be separated from that of Wilkes and that it be tried on the East Coast.

Of course, both of these motions were largely moot given the superseding indictment--Geragos can no longer argue that the indictment stemmed from Lam's efforts to game the DOJ , and with the charges related to the Air Service contract, Foggo could hardly argue his fate remains separate from Wilkes. Heck, we now know that Wilkes had made Foggo the trustee of his life insurance trust!! So I guess now we sit back while Foggo mounts his greymail attempt.

Comments

[lukery]

EW - JMM has mentioned a couple of times that he thinks this case also extends to appointed officials at the Pentagon. Do we have any idea what/who JMM is talking about?

[tekel]

Wouldn't Comey's testimony be valuable here as well? I would think that AGAG would have implemented some kind of checkpoint for indictments, especially indictments of CIA people (and their Republican bribers). So I have to imagine that the flowchart would look like this:

1. develop case at local office (Lam's associate AGs)
2. approve indictment at local (Carol Lam and other USAs)
3. request approval from Main DOJ to go forward ( ??? )
4. if request is approved, bring indictment

So it's obviously stage 3 we're worried about. Did AGAG know of or grant approval for the Foggo indictment? If he didn't, who did? Monica? Kyle? McNulty? Who else did that person talk to? Rove? Cheney? Barbara Comstock? Did any of those people take action?

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I see Big Time's dirty fingerprints all over this one too.

[ab initio]

Does Wilkes-Foggo lead to others or is this the end of the Cunningham investigation?

[tekel]

ab: of course this leads to others. How did Foggo get the job in the first place? (obvious answer: Cheney put him there). Why did Foggo have the job? (oa: to steer contracts to folks like Wilkes, who would understand that implicit in the contract award was an expectation of kickbacks for Republican pols). Did Foggo have hire/fire authority, like Monica did at DOJ?

Every answer just provokes more questions. McNulty's resignation won't stop the flood. AG's resignation won't stop the flood. As this year goes on, there will be more and more criminal prosecutions at the highest levels of the administration.

[lukery]

Tekel, re your flowchart, there are actually potential break-points (and early-warnings) all thru the process.

Fmr USA Elizabeth De La Vega recently wrote:

"For cases involving public figures, the US Attorney's Manual requires that "appropriate officials, including the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, the associate attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the attorney general" be advised of the initiation of any case "in which public figures or entities are subjects of the investigation." Bottom line? The attorney general is notified immediately, not just when charges are brought in a public corruption case, but when the file is opened and every time that any activity, even procedural, occurs in the case."

[emptywheel]

lukery and tekel

At this point, it sort of pays to distinguish between the Wilkes/Michael/(Cunningham/Wade/soon to be Kontogiannis) scandal and the Wilkes/Foggo scandal.

The former will undoubtedly lead into DOD and possibly to more COngressman. DOD, because a number of the contracting programs (including the CIFA one I'm so concerned about) were DOD. In addition, the programs are tied closely to the Appropriations Committees and subcommittees (which is, AFAIK, where Jerry Lewis comes in.

The latter is, as far as we know, limited to CIA and largely limited by Foggo's key position and ability to influence contracting.

[lukery]

thnx EW.

Any sense of which appointed folks at DoD this might touch?

re the CIA side of the scandal - the penny that appears to be suspended in mid-air, hopefully pre-'dropping' - is Goss' role in promoting Foggo to EXDIR from obscurity.

re CIFA - i was surprised that we havent heard anything (?) since the resignations there, months ago. They managed to turn that into a one-day story, somehow.

(i finally read Anatomy... - great job, and thnx for the shoutout)

[emptywheel]

There are several appointees named in the indictment, but they all seem to have been beat up by Cunningham. Otherwise, I'd say those CIFA guys, though I suspect they may be cooperation.

[tekel]

lukery and EW: I'm not even thinking about which other congressmen are involved- taking that for granted I guess. In that "unanswered questions" post I was thinking primarily about other folks at CIA who must have been involved.

Yes, Foggo's indictment implicates Goss, or at least suggests that Goss might be called as a witness in Foggo's criminal trial. (Can't you just see Goss's testimony? "No, your honor, I was in charge of the most-feared secret police organization in the United States, charged with kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals at the whim of the president, but I had no idea that my #2 guy was heavy into hookers, blow, and steering bribes. I was as surprised as anyone. Sometimes these things happen right under your nose.") But what about the other so-called "Gosslings?" Do we know who they are, or where they are now?

From Ken Silverstein at Harper's last year:

Goss, according to Hayes, came to the agency with two goals, “stemming the flow of leaks from the Agency and reforming the directorate of operations”—only to be shot down by a recalcitrant old guard. But Goss's “agents of change” were less interested in plugging leaks than they were in settling scores. (And never mind that many of the leaks Goss sought to plug came from employees troubled about secret prisons, renditions, and related matters.) They reportedly came in with a lengthy list of names of people to be purged and went about removing them. One of those who was effectively forced out by the Gosslings was Stephen Kappes, who will likely return now as Hayden's number-two.

"They reportedly came in with a lengthy list of names of people to be purged and went about removing them."

Tell me now- what does that sentence remind you of?

All together now:

• 0. Please provide copies of all documents, emails, discussions, etc associated with the list to the house/senate intelligence committees.


• 1. Who created the list?


• 2. What criteria were used to put people on the list? If you plan to claim it was "performance issues" please provide documentation of the issues and evidence that the issue was discussed with the employee prior to termination.


• 3. Did the White House originate the list or have sign-off on the removals? Did Cheney? Did Negroponte?


• 4. How were the people on the list fired?


• 5. How were the people on the list replaced? Were there interviews? What was the substance of those interviews? Who participated in the hiring process? Were 'loyalty oaths' required of new employees?

[tekel]

hmm. link to harper's didn't work. try again?

or this:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/05/sb-gosslings-23887238