Here's why I think Wilkes' team is subpoenaing congress critters. To force removal of the coverup!

[cascadiance]

Now, you might say you don't trust what Wilkes does, nor his legal team, as they are bastards. I agree! But sometimes when the bastard is under the gun, they can be a key to opening up the bigger can of worms that needs to be exposed. I think Wilkes is feeling the pressure of being the fall guy for this administration, and wants to find a way out.

Many have asked why Wilkes' team is doing this. What's the point of issuing all of these subpoenas at once:

1) Grandstanding? - This might be partly it, as it does draw attention to his case by having so many called at once. But ultimately I don't think that's the only reason. Doesn't solve anything JUST to get attention.

2) Make the Dems and Republicans equally look bad? - This might be partly it, as the Dems are looking to investigate this administration, having a rejection of these subpoenas at the same time makes them look bad to the public. There may be more nuance here that is actually trying to help the administration in this regard, but part of me thinks not. A lot will depend on how his case progresses and how they subsequently move on it.

3) He really needs all of their testimony in his case? - Maybe. And yet maybe a lot of them are just trying to reach in broader terms than he really needs for his case for other reasons. The House members are permitted to reject subpoenas unless it can be shown that there are material reasons that they should respond to them. I think that Wilkes' team is trying to force those "material reasons" to the fore to force their hand.

4) Claim that if he can't have certain testimonies that he can't have a fair trial and ask it to be dismissed - I think this is getting closer to the source of it. From the following article, this is speculated...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20070918-1624-cnssubpoenas.html

... Washington attorney Stan Brand, who was House counsel from 1976 to 1984, said Geragos's strategy appears to be to assert that the information he is seeking from the congressmen is vital to Wilkes' defense.

“He could say to the judge, 'If you bar me from getting the testimony– then I can't defend my client and you have to dismiss the case.'” Brand said that under such a scenario, Geragos would likely claim that Wilkes' relationship with Cunningham was not out of the ordinary on Capitol Hill.

Brand said Geragos strategy appears to be to argue that the congressmen can help establish that Wilkes' relationship with Cunningham was “part and parcel of what was going on” between congressmen and contractors.
...

5) Using "gray mail" defense - Asserting that certain data, if kept secret, keeps him from having a fair trial, and therefore seek to have it dismissed. This along with point 4 is likely what he's trying to tie together. They or the government are probably not able to use the 'State Secrets Privilege" to dismiss a criminal case for this like has been done in many civil cases like Sibel Edmonds, Maher Arar, etc. as there are other laws governing criminal cases that need to be used instead to block a case. Scooter Libby's lawyers for a long time tried unsuccessfully to have his case dismissed for "gray mail" reasons too. When you see that Wilkes' team had access to the sealed transcripts of the Kontogiannis case just a short time ago, it is likely that he's trying to assemble all of the "secret" issues that he needs to make a "gray mail" defense.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004200.php

I would contend that Geragos and his team are trying to say that either the court needs to dismiss his case (or delay it heavily) for "gray mail" reasons as noted in item 5, or that all of the secrecy that has him at the backroom boys' mercy needs to be exposed to allow him to get those congressmen to testify and not have resolution of his case hidden from the public like Kontogiannis's is/was. Perhaps he doesn't like the prospect of being made the fall guy, which he might be being set up for, unless the secrecy is pulled away. He's forcing the Democrats hand to not "look bad" that they might have to sacrifice some of their own and bring out the secrets of this growing conspiracy he was a part of.

I think we should talk to all of our congress people and tell them if they don't want to have a "black mark" over their shoulder that makes them ALL look corrupt, they need to make sure that Wilkes' team is allowed to explain in each of these subpoenas why those congress people are to be called to speak at his trial. If they can make public that there is every effort to be made to expose what is truly NOT national intelligence secrets to the public, then perhaps we can force Wilkes' hand, and the administrations' hand in many other areas too!

[Warpy]

1. I think #5 is the likeliest

What it appears that Wilkes was doing was a money laundering operation, turning DOD taxpayer dollars directly into contributions to the RNC, right wing PACs and favorite Congressmen.

If this backfires and the whole scam is uncovered, I will be delighted. I'm sure Wilkes is one of many.

I'm just not holding my breath.

This guy is why Carol Lam was fired. This case is pure dynamite unless somebody manages to get it shut down. Point #5 above is the best way to do that.

[cascadiance]

3. I think that #5 is the likely one too...

All of the other reasons play into it, but I think that the Wilkes' team wants to get either two outcomes to happen:

1) They can successfully have a "gray mail" case made and have their case dismissed, basically letting Wilkes (and all of the other associated criminals he's tied to) off the hook.

or

2) Force the exposure of the secrecy that is shrouding his case, Cunningham's, Kontogiannis, etc. so that he's able to have a more fair trial if it has to come to that.

What he's trying to avoid is to have his case go to trial, but be "under wraps" and most of the secret goings on aren't exposed and he is made the fall guy for all of the problems out there. I think he senses that he's not going to be allowed to vacation in Greece like Kontogiannis was, and that he doesn't want that outcome.

Ideally I think we want to have outcome #2 happen. That is why we need to pressure congress into opening up the secrecy that would prevent such a gray mail defense.

[L. Coyote]

10. NOT "a money laundering operation," but a corruption with kickbacks scheme.

The idea was to fill pockets using defense contracts, essentialy taking money from public coffers. Undoubtedly, it involved kickbacks, giving a percentage to the co-conspirators in government. That's not money laundering. Money laundering is turning ill-gotten money into clean money, like selling illicit goods and reporting extra cash sales at your fancy DC restaurant (ring any bells). Wilkes would not need to launder defense contract money. Look to those who got the kickbacks for money laundering.

[cascadiance]

12. I still wonder if laundering might have been a part of it...

Certainly Kontogiannis did plead guilty to money laundering in his "secret plea" deal.

I also wonder if the rumors of CIA counterfeiting U.S. dollars might have a need to find "lieutenants" like Kontogiannis and Wilkes with businesses around the world to help launder this money that would be exchanged for real money that is used to do the kickbacks, etc. too. The fact that folks like Dusty Foggo and others in the CIA are linked into this crowd and the investigations of them would have me all the more suspicious of something like this happening. Certainly some of the black ops we hear rumors of today sound to be a heck of a lot larger than those of the Iran/Contra days that we might expect a country like Iran to fund through hidden arms sales.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/46471

[PRETZEL]

2. my own personal opinion is that

it's more 4 than 5. That's only because I think (and the real possibility of being wrong) was that in the Libby Trial the "grey mail" issue was resolved through a series of CIPA hearings which determined what could and couldn't be presented at trial with respects to secret/classified information.

I think Geragos is doing this to make sure he's fully representing his client to the best of his ability.

[cascadiance]

5. But to have it dismissed, he'll need to show materially why they should testify...

which will be needed to allow his case to be dismissed in item 4. If he does, and they don't respond to the subpoena, then yes, it doesn't need to go to #5. But if he really wants to put the congress in a tight spot, it is forcing the gray mail defense of #5, so that they have a tough choice of exposing some information in order to publicly state why they should or shouldn't have to testify, or have a shroud hanging over them that they are ALL part of the coverup conspiracy, and he gets off for gray mail defense reasons. The latter is great for him and the administration, and sucks for the Dems and the rest of us.

This case could be what hopefully forces the Democrats realize that at some point they really need to make the appropriate sacrifices and pursue the truth EVERYWHERE, even if it means that some Democrats are going to have to answer for being a part of the conspiracy, or have some of their life exposed that they wouldn't want otherwise. If they don't, then ALL will be tainted, and any pursuit of exposing the conspiracy will also be tainted too.

[PRETZEL]

17. your second paragraph I'm absolutely totally in agreement with

but that would also be true for the entire Congress. Transparency in government is essential for us to have the confidence in our leadership that we all wish for.

But I guess I'm still somewhat confused as to why a grey mail defense? Granted I have limited knowledge of it and it's application as a defense, save for Libby trying to get an exhorbitant amount of "classified" information to be ruled germain to his stated defense as to possibly confuse the jury and cast doubt on his illegal activities.

I guess I'm still confused as to the whole concept of "grey mail". Wilkes should have every right to discover all relevant facts to support his defense. If that includes classified information then so be it. If those members of Congress he's subpoenaed have information material to his defense strategy then the judge should compel them to testify under penalty of contempt of court. If the subpoenas are a fishing expedition to expose the backroom deals that have been made in Congress since it's inception then the judge should squash the subpoenas. The deals may stink to high heaven but if their not relevant to the case then they shouldn't be allowed in.

[cascadiance]

18. Up until this administration, "State Secrets Privilege" was only being used to block evidence

... that was ruled threatening to national security from being presented in civil trials. But the courts during Bush's term have taken it a step further and have routinely dismissed entire cases when this "privilege" is exercised.

Though the laws for criminal cases are more defined than they are for civil cases in this arena, I think the same effort is going on to try and dismiss entire cases instead of just the evidence pieces in the case of evidence that is protected for "national security" reasons. As many have said here, this administration has been using "State Secrets Privilege" and other "gray mail" defenses to really cover up their wrong doing and not protect national security. Their regard for national security is probably not high on their list of priorities, as exemplified by their exposing Brewster Jennings when they outed Valerie Plame. It's been harder for them to do with criminal cases. As I noted earlier, they TRIED to do this with Scooter Libby, but probably folks like Reggie Walton, who coincidentally was the same judge that dismissed two of Sibel Edmonds' cases for "State Secrets Privilege" reasons, felt that the case was too high profile for them to be able to get away with just "dismissing" it. So they did what they did, and let Bush take care of things by commuting his sentence.

Perhaps they are hoping that Brent Wilkes' case is lower profile than Scooter's was and therefore they could get away with a "gray mail" dismissal to the public. We need to make sure that it ISN'T low profile and that they can't get away with this.

[PRETZEL]

19. It's not that I disagree that this administration is using every imaginable

excuse to maintain it's secrecy but I'm not sure this is a comparable situation to the Sibel Edwards case. I'll admit I only know as much as I've read on DU as to her case and from what I have read she most certainly deserves her day in court. The same is true for the Wilson's and I hope one day they do get their day in court.

I don't think that this is a situation where the visability in the media detemines the judges rulings as to materiality of evidence. I would like to think that federal judges are more concerned about the legality of their decisions and whether or not their rulings would be overturned in an appeals court. That, at to me, would matter more than whether or not they carried the water for an administration. (note: but then again there's Judge Bates)

I actually think using the Plame case would be the same argument I use in saying that right now I don't think the "grey mail" defense is viable. The indictments brought down by Patrick Fitzgerald (on behalf of the US government) were unfortunately not directly related to the actual work done by Valerie Plame. If there were those charges then I think Libby would have had more success in using grey mail as a defense. But those decision were made by and those charges weren't brought so it becomes rather moot at this stage. Please hope that the Wilson civil suit goes forward and her (along with Sibel Edmonds) get their stories out and into the public vein.

I will say this though. If at some point during the trial the nature and foundation of Wilkes and his company's work leads directly back to the CIA (or some other government agency)then the situation changes drastically. We may have to wait and see what the true relationship was between Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo/etal to see just how bad things were. That may be my tin foil hat.

[cascadiance]

20. I actually do think the Plame situation is an example of this...

Scooter Libby didn't have enough "secure" evidence he could show that would be necessarily be exposed to protect his claims for innocence to dismiss the case.

I have a feeling one big reason that Patrick Fitzgerald isn't going to pursue this further at this time is that the administration and others are pointing to Richard Armitage as the guilty party of "the leak", that he could be charged with the original crime he was to investigate, even though arguably there were many more in the Bush administration one argue colluded with him on this.

The problem is that many signs point to Richard Armitage having a lot of roles in the CIA, many of which are probably secret. So if Fitzgerald were to go after Armitage, I think the fear is that Armitage WOULD use a "gray mail" defense successfully to have the case dismissed. And that is probably why the administration is pointing all fingers at him now, since they know he's as close to "immune" as anyone in this incident is.

Sibel Edmonds case IS different, as have been many other civil cases made against this administration where the "State Secrets Privilege" was used to dismiss those cases. The administration arguably was able to get away with this in civil cases, since there are statutes for criminal cases that aren't available with civil cases that trump the State Secrets Privilege. Anne Beeson, Sibel's ACLU lawyer, in the speech she gave before the ACLU in their supreme court cases review where Sibel also spoke noted this distinction when speaking about Sibel's case.

[hang a left]

4. Question:

I thought Geragos subbed out due to a security clearance and a PD was subbing in. That is the last I read a few weeks ago.

[cascadiance]

6. Yeah, I did too. I missed any announcement that said he came back to his team...

Might be interesting to find any press announcements that showed him to have joined back with Wilkes' team. It would be interesting to see the rationale given for that after his earlier announcement of rejecting the security background check.

The reason for the PD being used also was that Wilkes was broke too. It would be interesting to see if Geragos is doing this pro bono, or who's footing the bill for him being on the defense as well.

[hang a left]

8. He could have been hired by the Feds to represent Wilkes.

Private counsel is paid for under certain circumstances ie the case is too complicated ect...

I still don't understand how they got around the security clearance though.

[hang a left]

7. I have nothing on the sources that you are linking to, and they are much smarter than me and

would always provide a better analysis but...

Yesterday, when I read this story, the first thing that came to mind was: "Don't force me to make a deal, because If I go down your coming with me". That would be Wilkes speaking by the way.

I think the reason that at least two of the dems, save for Murtha, are being subpoenaed because the are the Chairs of the respective committees that Wilkes is requesting documents.

Just a gut feeling:

I think it is a shot over the bow for Hunter and Lewis. If they don't call off the dogs then they are gonna get some fleas.

FWIW

[cascadiance]

9. Silvestre Reyes contributed to the coverup by trying to block FBI document on Cunningham

So I suspect that is why he's a part of this subpoena. Evidently even Dem Reyes feels the need to "cover something up".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/critics-slam-in.html

[cascadiance]

21. Reyes just now has commented on why he was subpoenaed...

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6942517

Reyes says subpoenas are only to get intel documents
By Chris Roberts / El Paso Times
Article Launched: 09/20/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes said Wednesday that the only reason he was subpoenaed in a corruption case involving former San Diego-area U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is that he now controls a committee in possession of documents that might be relevant to the case.

Cunningham, a California Republican who formerly belonged to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is serving an eight-year prison term after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor Brent Wilkes. Wilkes is scheduled for trial Oct. 2.

The subpoenas were requested by Wilkes' lawyer, Mark Geragos. Geragos has defended such high-profile clients as singer Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his pregnant wife.

Geragos could not be reached by phone at his Los Angeles office for comment Wednesday.

Reyes said the alleged wrongdoing took place before he was selected chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is among 12 other lawmakers -- mostly current or former committee chairmen -- who have been subpoenaed.
...

[L. Coyote]

11. OR #6, he wants their testimony about their activities with Cunningham to

demonstrate a point he is making. What is the score on the Congress persons subpoened, regarding interactions with Cunningham and committee assignment with regard to the contracts in question?

[Blackhatjack]

13. There is a message in those subpoenoes --I will reveal wrongdoing of others....

And if there is one thing a member of Congress wants to avoid at all costs it is being placed under oath and asked questions which they did not receive in advance.

The entire Cunningham and Abramoff investigations have been operating under a cloak of secrecy. I would imagine that the corruption reaches far into lives of many inside and outside government.

IMHO the 'gray mail' defense won't work here. THere is no legitimate 'national security' argument to be made.

Right now we are waiting to see who will blink first....

[cascadiance]

14. 'Gray mail' defense might work if the Dems with skeletons in their closets let it..

I think you are right that there is no LEGITIMATE "national security" reason for gray mail defense to work. But that doesn't stop those in the mix from allowing it to be used as a rationale to dismiss a case that will open pandora's box. That's the fundamental problem.

That's why we need to pressure the Dems, ESPECIALLY those that we think are trustworthy, to push hard on exposing these false claims of national security that would let this sort of scam to happen. Because if they don't, it will be THEY who have to pay the price of being labeled as part of the corruption if and when it later gets exposed to us.

[L. Coyote]

15. There's flame bait, and then there is tin-foil hat bait. This has shades of the latter.

You raise interesting points, but they also bring out some tin-foil speculations like Dem involvement.

Some days it seems DU is 2/3 freeper trolls! :rofl:

[cascadiance]

16. I think Republicans have FAR MORE to worry about than Dems...

... but nevertheless, there is something hanging over Washington that is stopping the Dems from doing the right things. I don't want to speculate too much on what that is, because it would be guessing on my part, but when you have:

1) Dems still keeping "impeachment off the table"
2) Henry Waxman quietly refusing to have Sibel Edmonds testify before the government oversight committee
3) Silvestre Reyes trying to keep secret that FBI report on Duke Cunningham that revealed a lot more of the crap he was involved with.
4) Dems knuckling under and passing that stupid FISA law.

and many other things that we who believe in having the truth given to us everyplace without secrecy say "WTF?" when we hear them. Even the 9th district court, which normally is a pretty liberal court, worked under unprecedented secrecy when it heard Tom Kontogiannis's case too. I get the feeling many on that court didn't like it, but there was some axe hanging over their head too I think to keep things quiet.

You can call that having a tin foil hat, but I still feel those things amongst others show that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. And it isn't just a Republican thing either.

I think for me, I see a cornered rat in Brent Wilkes. I see a cornered rat that has nothing to lose by trying to push the levers to expose this, or "get taken care of" by those afraid if he has the power to expose things, so that he won't be "the fall guy".

That's an opportunity for us that want the truth to go after. To make sure that it is the truth which is what happens and not to allow him to "get taken care of" by the increasing coverup.