During his closing argument to jurors, defense attorney Mark Geragos asked jurors to keep one question in mind. If the government prosecutors believed Brent Wilkes had plied Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham with more than $600,00 in bribes, why didn’t they put the ex-honorable gentleman on the witness stand?

It’s a good question. As the jury enters its third full day of deliberations, they may be wondering the same thing, and it remains to be seen whether keeping Cunningham off the stand will hurt the government’s case.

In his closing argument, Geragos told jurors the government didn’t call Duke because he would never, ever admit that Brent Wilkes’ contracting work was bad for the country. Prosecutor Jason Forge countered that in rebuttal by saying that he didn’t want to call the most corrupt congressman in history and ask jurors to rely on his testimony.

So why didn’t Geragos call Cunningham ? Geragos said the government had the burden of proof. When I reminded him that he had told jurors he would call Duke, Geragos replied that Wilkes was a better witness. It’s not too hard to believe that he was worried that Duke would admit that Wilkes had bribed him. And that would be something no amount of brutal cross-examination could undo. You might as well send the jury out right then.

The statements from both sides leave a bit to be desired; something’s missing here. We’ll find out someday, but for now, it’s clear that both prosecutors and the defense felt there was more harm than good in calling the Duke to testify. Was anybody really sure what he would say? Cunningham has a history of instability and, more importantly, he’s not the smartest fellow, so there’s no telling what someone as smart as Geragos could get Cunningham to concede. Just look at what he did to other, more intelligent witnesses. And sitting next to Geragos at the defense table was a man who knew Duke better than almost anyone.

In the final analysis, it bears noting that for both sides the least reliable witness wasn’t Mitch Wade, the double-crossing greedy cheat who admitted paying Cunningham $2 million in bribes. Nor was it Brent Wilkes, who is awaiting to hear whether jurors thought he was lying on the witness stand and will convict of bribery, money laundering, fraud and conspiracy.

No, the most unreliable witness happened to be one of the most highly decorated pilots of the Vietnam War, an eight-term congressman from San Diego who never lost an election, the former member of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

Duke shot a 92 at Coeur d’Alene on this day (but still won with a 30 handicap)!

The Federal Election Commission announced today that it will be receiving a check for $1 million from Cunningham briber Mitchell Wade and his former company MZM Inc. It’s the second-largest fine in the agency’s history. Wade broke the law when he used company funds to reimburse $78,000 in contributions that his employees and their spouses made to GOP Reps. Virgil Goode, and Katherine Harris.

The FEC’s investigation found that while some MZM employees felt pressure to contribute the company PAC, the pressure was created by the nature of MZM as a “highly-compartmentalized company run by a tempermental boss,” not any specific actions of Wade. MZM employees were motivated to make contributions “in part because of what they described as their fear of Wade’s volatile personality.”

This is something I drew out in my book. Wade had an unstable, paranoid and manic personality (He read his employee’s mail, among other things). It’s unclear whether keeping everything secret and constantly scheming was the result of this personality defect or the cause.

Also, here’s what former employee Roger Swinford was doing while at MZM, according to a letter his lawyer provided to the FEC:

“Roger was heavily involved with the intelligence planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In January 2003, he learned that he was going to be deployed with the Central Command Deployable Headquarters to Qatar. While in Qatar, General Kimmons placed Roger in charge of the Iraq High Value Targets Cell, which was responsible for executing high value targeting against the Iraqi senior leadership, also known as the “Deck of Cards.”

 

 

 

While the jury deliberates please enjoy this interesting flight manifest:

netjets.pdf

If Brent Wilkes is acquitted, and that’s a big if, it’s because of what happened Tuesday and Friday when he took the witness stand to defend himself from charges of bribing former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

You’ll recall that the government’s lawyers had believed defense attorney Mark Geragos when he assured them that his client would be sitting it out. After Wilkes took the stand Friday, prosecutor Phil Halpern bumbled his way through two hours of cross-examination based on documents he gathered over the lunch break.

When trial resumed at 9 a.m. today, it seemed, at first, that Halpern hadn’t used the time to regroup, as he started out nervous and apprehensive. Halpern must have felt that the entire case, everything he and countless agents had done over the past two years, was in his hands — and in truth, it was. Wilkes, ready as ever, continued making speeches from the witness stand. He refused to let the government impose its narrative upon him.

Less than an hour had gone by before jurors were checking watches, yawning and playing with pens. Wilkes cracked the jurors up when he explained he bought a box at Coors Amphitheater because it was the only way to get Spice Girls tickets for his daughter.

Around 10:15 a.m., Halpern started landing punches. He zeroed in on the bribes, in particular the $100,000 in checks that Wilkes wrote to Cunningham in 2000. Wilkes claimed the money was payment for the Duke’s yacht, a converted shrimp boat named the Kelly C, but the congressman kept both the boat and the money. So why didn’t Wilkes demand his money back?

A: At some point you have have to rely on important people like a congressman to have some instinct for self-preservation….

Wilkes then went on about how it was a “total misrepresentation” to say he relied on the congressman to do everything for him. In fact, Wilkes said, Reps. John Porter of Illinois and Jerry Lewis of California were far more important. Halpern pressed on

Q: At the time you wanted the money back you were seeking Cunningham’s support?
A. Yes, that’s true.

After recess, Wilkes threw some jabs of his own. “Lawyers are sneaky sometimes,” he remarked. (Cue jury laughter) And then later “I’d be happy to go through it. You haven’t been paying attention.” If the last one sounded arrogant to you, it did to me as well.

Then it was back to the government’s best friends in this case, the prostitutes. Wilkes continued, amazingly, to deny it all, and Judge Burns sustained defense objections to these oh so juicy questions:

Q. Didn’t you use the services of prostitutes many times?
Q. Isn’t it true you lied to your about your use of prostitutes?

It was now 11:20 a.m. Wilkes had been on the witness stand for a day and a half, and we returned to the muck. “Cash forecast…difficult cash flow position…steps that would be taken during the unlawful detainer process….small businesses encounter cash flow problems.” My notes at this point indicate that my rear end was hurting. It seemed as germane an observation as anything else that was going on.

But Halpern managed to end strong.

Q. Did you ever pay the mortgage for another congressman?
A. No
Q. Did you ever get in a hot tub with another congressman?
A. No
Q. Isn’t it true that having Cunningham indebted to you was far more valuable than getting your money back?
A. No

Closing arguments began at 2:45 p.m. Prosecutor Sanjay Bhandari gave a very succinct, calm and, I thought, effective closing argument. He said the case boiled down to a question of whether Wilkes gave Cunningham things of value for influence and then tried to hide it. Wilkes friendship with Cunningham, Bhandari said, was a cultivated one, motivated by an attempt to get something back from the congressman. Every time Wilkes wanted something from Cunningham, a bribe changed hands. Wilkes’ defense was a cover story concocted long ago. For him to be telling the truth, a long list of people have to be lying.

A very animated Mark Geragos told jurors that the only lies they have heard were ones the government had been telling them, based on the testimony of admitted felons like Mitch Wade. The prosecutors had been misleading them. According to Geragos, the government didn’t want to hear the truth, namely that Washington isn’t a “pristine place.” Wilkes had struggled for years to succeed in government contracting and for a reward, he got indicted, paid $2 million bail and had the government say in essence we’re going to crush you. And why had jurors never heard from Cunningham? The reason, according to Geragos, was Duke was never, ever going to say that what Wilkes was doing wasn’t good for the country.

Jurors will get the case tomorrow after both sides finish up.

Update: Deliberations are underway. Prosecutor Jason Forge gave a devastating rebuttal this morning. Just brutal. There were so many great lines but my favorite was when Forge said Wilkes’ defense reminded him of a children’s book called David Gets in Trouble. Forge then read the book to the jury. “When David gets in trouble, he always says No! It’s not my fault.”

Ladies and gentlemen, this man was the architect of a multi-million dollar corruption scheme and he has the defense of a 5-year-old.

Ouch.