Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s favorite restaurant was The Capital Grille, a high-end steakhouse six blocks from the Capitol. At day two of the trial of alleged Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes in San Diego, jurors were shown a series of photo exhibits of the Grille’s interior with its faux columns and its “wine kiosk,” a gilded monstrosity that looked something like the ark where you find Torah scrolls in synagogue.

Prosecutors called Clifford Horsfall, a Capital Grille waiter. Horsfall was as disheveled a witness as I’ve ever seen. He showed up unshaven with sunglasses perched on his head in blue jeans and a T-shirt with a pinup girl that read “Cocktails.” He wasn’t classy, but he was a good witness.

• In the 13 years that he has waited tables at The Capital Grille, Horsfall said he could never remember a congressman ever picking up the tab while dining with a lobbyist.
• Horsfall never saw anyone take a congressman out to dinner more than defense contractor Brent Wilkes and his ex-compadre, Mitch Wade.
• Duke’s favorite wine was from Silver Oak Cellars in California, which ran $100 to $150 a bottle.
• Duke was a “typical congressman” when it came to tipping on the rare occasions he actually paid for his own meals. That means 15 percent.

Another Washington eatery mentioned at the trial was La Colline, a now-defunct French restaurant on Capitol Hill. In 2004, Duke was invited to dine there along with his defense appropriations staffer, Nancy Lifset. Other guests included Jennifer Thompson, a staffer working on the House Armed Services Committee; Erica Stribel, another appropriations staffer; and Defense Appropriations subcommittee staffer Sarah Young and others.

The La Colline event was organized by NorthPoint Strategies, a lobbying firm whose three principals are all former Cunningham chiefs of staff. In an e-mail, NorthPoint said the event wasn’t a fund-raiser but rather a “fun raiser.” Picking up the dinner tab was Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, a real estate investment trust or REIT. Why an REIT would want to cozy up to defense appropriations staffers wasn’t explained.

The subject of La Colline was very discomfiting to a witness named Frank Collins, Cunningham’s first chief of staff who went on to found NorthPoint. Collins was grilled by Wilkes’ defense attorney, Mark Geragos, about the dinner and he started squirming a bit in the witness box. Things went downhill for him from there. Geragos made him seem like a liar for changing his definition of an earmark.

Before Geragos tore into him, Collins testified that he had warned Duke when the congressman joined the uber-powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that he would suddenly have new best friends show up at his doorstep. One of those new friends was Brent Wilkes. A few weeks after Collins left Duke’s office, Wilkes FedExed him an unsolicited check for $5,000, which Collins mailed back.

In 2001, Collins learned that Duke was selling his yacht Kelly C to Wilkes. Collins said the sale didn’t pass what he called “The Washington Post test.” In other words, it would be bad if the newspaper found out about it. Duke cried when confronted about the sale, which the congressman admitted he knew was the wrong thing to do. What Collins didn’t know was that Cunningham had already pocketed $100,000 for the boat.

Geragos and prosecutor Phil Halpern continued to go at each other as Collins was testifying. Their jousting had Judge Larry Burns wagging his finger at them to behave themselves. Halpern, however, was less shrill than last week. Maybe he’s one of the four people reading this blog?

The trial of Brent Wilkes finally got underway here in San Diego. I thought that by now everyone in San Diego had heard of Wilkes, who’s accused of bribing former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Most people in the jury pool said they had not, and some knew only vaguely of the Duke’s downfall.

As saturated as this city has been by news of Cunningham, I find that hard to believe. I think prospective jurors were chomping at the bit to get at the trial. How many other trials feature a disgraced congressman and his hookers? I thought I saw a winner’s smile cross the face of a few of the lucky seven women and five men.

Representing Wilkes is Mark Geragos (of Michael Jackson/Scott Peterson/Winona Ryder fame). I didn’t really understand why he represents so many celebrities until yesterday. Geragos is a treat to watch in court. He’s engaging, funny, and he’s done this so many times he stays completely relaxed and avoids being rude.

Geragos is facing what he referred to as the “Gang of Four,” a quartet of dark-suited federal prosecutors. What is it with the feds and dark suits? The agents who investigated the case formed a blue wall in the back of the courtroom. Geragos with his lavender ties and grey suits, looks like a peacock by comparison.

Prosecutor Phil Halpern made the opening statement for the government. He began with these words: “Lies. Deceit. Greed. Most of all greed. In many respects, this case is all about greed.” Wilkes, he said, had gotten rich by corrupting Duke. Sitting at the defense table, Wilkes literally got redder and redder as Halpern went on.

It was a strong opening, but then Halpern lost steam. He veered into a civics lesson on the appropriations process followed by a history of Wilkes’ career in the automated document scanning business. Zzzzzzzz.

Worse, Halpern overplayed a strong hand with a PowerPoint presentation littered with tabloid-style bullet points. Wilkes had “a congressman in his pocket.” Members of the House Appropriations Committee have their hands “on the piggy bank.” Getting on the committee is like being the first kid on the block to have a new Nintendo, he said.

He kept putting his little twist on things, insulting the jury’s intelligence. I don’t know why he didn’t just let the evidence speak for itself. He’s got hookers in Hawaii and $700,000 in bribes to buy a yacht and pay off a mortgage on a mansion for a congressman who is as corrupt as you can get. Plus, he’s got an arrogant defendant. No need to overdo it, Phil.

Geragos repeatedly objected that Halpern was not stating the facts like he was supposed to but arguing them, which is what you do at the end of a trial. When the jury went home for the day, Geragos asked for mistrial.

Now, Judge Larry Burns had spent most of the day picking a jury, so there was no way he was going to go for that. I’d bet Geragos himself knew there was no way the judge would say agree. Even so, Halpern lost his cool. He started laying into Geragos for missing filing deadlines and other assorted sins. Judge Burns said it reminded him of arguments he has had with his wife.

Halpern will pick up his opening on Tuesday. We’ll see if he tones things down a bit then.

There’s a piece running in the Talk of the Town section of the Oct. 1 issue of The New Yorker about the unusual linkes between three members of Congress much in the news lately: Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, and Duke Cunningham. Check it out here. Or you can read Wonkette’s colorful take here.

If you happen to be in LA, I’ll be speaking at Dutton’s Brentwood Books at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 27. Hope to see you there.