« The Monday before Tuesday | Main | Geragos' Intentionally Non-Responsive Subpoena to Lisa Myers »

November 26, 2007


Why would Dick want to miss the Annapolis meeting tomorrow- seeing that he is in the hospital today, from a cough and cold that turned up another heart problem, because I just don't get why this had to happen TODAY. It just seems to me he wanted an excuse NOT to attend.

I would only be surprised by the "lack of a subpoena for Dan Dzwilewski" if he is not on the witness list for the Government. My guess is he is on the list.

The DOJ has to be the leak because Plame violated IIPA of non CIA, excluded, federal employees. Files from DoJ aren't just delivered to CIA operations officers by DoJ. The files have exclusions from CIA on them and they have to be requested. The mistake would be for the CIA operations officer to ask for the file. Counter intelligence laws are designed to work this way. Who accessed the file and who got the file? Prouty was an example of it's okay, especially when it's someone not in intelligence getting cleared overseas by a Dipo's hubby(CIA), like Plame in Iraq or Prouty in wherever. The exculsion to CIA would be on the DoJ clearance(overseas Prouty cleared)/file and, if a CIA operations officer wanted the file; the question would be why? Plame followed up here on Ames. Who is following up on Prouty? Ames was a setup from years back. Prouty's clearances are out there, blowing in the wind, ready to be used by CIA or other intelligence and sold off when their done. Prouty really isn't in trouble. Plame really wasn't in trouble. Ames really did nothing wrong.


I'm confused.

Geragos is requesting the subpoenas in the Wilkes case on the Michael/Wade side--not the Foggo side, so it's for the appeal, not the actual trial that is forthcoming with Foggo.

Thanks for the update, Marcy. I couldn't find any new info in SDUT. The NCT has a small article.
Strange how they have these leaks and then the case barely got any national coverage.
Where were you Lisa Myers?

What surprised me most about the leaks is that they really didn't involve local reporters. (Although Seth is from San Diego.)
The whole Randy Duke Cunningham case first started when Marcus Stern broke the story in the SDUT about Cunningham's shady real estate deals. It hit a nerve right from the start- San Diegans were very interested. NCT and SDUT were both trying to be the first to add any new bits to the story. Reporters from the local papers and even the San Diego USAs discussed the case on the local KPBS nightly new roundtable from time to time.

So either the local reporters didn't know about the grand jury leaks or they withheld publishing any info until after WSJ printed a story on the imminent indictments. Definitely seems like Main DOJ had a hand in this for some reason other than getting info to the public.

There is another thing I remember- although I am a little fuzzy on the details. I think Kontogiannis had a copy of a plea agreement and he was "discussing" it with the lawyer for his nephew John T Michael. Judge Burns expressed some concern about that since the indictment was still sealed. I think one of the San Diego USAs told the judge not to worry about it because they had something that would keep Michael from not being co-operative. Well, that didn't work out as planned. Its just possible that someone from the Michael household may have blabbed to the press but they are not on the witness list either.

IANAL, but Wilkes and Geragos just seem to be fishing around for a culprit. There is an admitted leak, but can he keep compelling testimony until he finds someone to blame? Doesn't he need some specific evidence against someone?


I think it's the new graymail. Everyone he subpoenaed has some kind of privilege to protect them. So if the judge permits, it'll go into litigation long enough for Wilkes to retire comfortably, kind of. If he really wanted the information, he'd start with the investigation and he'd include people like Dzwilewski and he'd subpoena the DOJ, since he knows there was a leak from there. But he didn't.

Oh, I wasn't paying attention then. Well, there is nothing against the rules for it, but wtf is he subpoenaing for after the trial? Not technically for any appeal, because appeals are on the record from the trial court, you don't introduce newly acquired evidence in the appeal. You could subpoena for sentencing purposes, or for certain purposes of post trial relief motions, but normally only upon acquiescence of the court.

Does this help?

It is only through the combined testimony of all the following witnesses that the defense can finally uncover who, in fact, leaked the secret grand jury information to the media and, if necessary, to establish the extent of prejudice the leaks actually caused Mr. Wilkes. The testimony of each witness is relevant and necessary to prove the defense theory that these illegal disclosures were politically motivated and were part of a deliberate campaign by the government to use Mr. Wilkes and the other defendants as pawns in the government’s political squabbles.

Maybe I am missing something in translation; but no, that doesn't explain much. Is there a document reference or something (link)? That is normally the type of inquiry and discovery made pre-trial. If that language is part of a motion to the trial court to permit the inquiry for pre-trial motion practice, then I see it; otherwise, still strikes me as goofy. There must be something that I am densely not seeing....

Nope, this is post-trial:

11/21/2007 160 MOTION For Application for Issuance of Subpoena Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Prcedure 17 (b) and (c) by Brent Roger Wilkes (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Geragos, Mark) Modified on 11/26/2007. Contacted atty via email re: filing Motions and Proposed Orders (vrp). (Entered: 11/21/2007)

11/21/2007 161 Proposed Order re160 Motion for Subpoena by Brent Roger Wilkes. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Geragos, Mark) Modified description of document on 11/26/2007 (vrp). (Entered: 11/21/2007)

There's a hearing on December 11 for this stuff. I think Burns punted on the issue earlier, is now reviewing to see if it would affect the case (though honestly, Geragos doesn't seem to know if he's arguing publicity ruined Wilkes' chances, or just that there was an evil conspiracy).

Damn, what a muddy, mucky mess, everything so obscured by detritus. It's as if they are resigned to somebody getting time, but they're trying to both limit the time and prevent anybody from looking too deeply at the same time. Icky.

Well, there you go, that makes sense. All I saw before was subpoena, when in fact you said "motion for subpoena" right in your post. The economy sucks so bad I apparently can't even pay attention... At least I didn't inform on bad law, what I said is exactly what is occurring, I just didn't realize it. Still, as seems to be a recurring theme, you just have to chuckle and scratch your head at Geragos' um, ahem, curious motion practice.


It gets more curious. Geragos has written his proposed order to Myers in such a way that guarantees he won't get what he claims he wants. That, in an order which for everyone else is laughably broad.

Did Geragos just leak the leak? That's bizarre behavior...I never heard that part of the story, 'that Main DOJ could no longer exercise oversight over the San Diego investigation because of the earlier leaks.'

Prouty worked for CIA and FBI. 'DOJ can no longer practice oversight.' Plame.

This whole document is non-legal nonsense. The trophy for the most absurd asserting in this goes to the writer's comments about NBC News' most unbiased and most formidable correspondent -- NBC senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers. There is no reporter anywhere, in print or broadcast, who has less of a political agenda in the way she investigates her stories. It doesn't matter what political party you're in. That's irrelevant in her stories. But if you're up to wrongdoing, you don't want Lisa Myers broadcasting that story. She'll find you out!! She has won just about every top journalism award in the country, some multiple times, as I suspected. I just found her bio online. Don't mess with Lisa Myers' reputation. We need 10,000 more journalists in this country and our democracy would be fair and balanced and secure!!

By the way, I remember Lisa's report on the Clinton library releasing documents. Lisa's closing line said it all -- that the Clinton library is known for being more open with information to the public than are other Presidential libraries! Now, that's going the extra mile to be fair -- and certainly was not biased against the Clintons in any way, as this document's writer ignorantly asserts. Lisa Myers loves the facts and finds them. Period. Lisa never makes caddy comments and never ever mixes news with opinion. This document's writer just doesn't have a clue about the reality of the news world. Start watching Lisa Myers and you'll see what the rest of us already know. She's just the best.

Rob Martena

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad