Brent Wilkes Lawyers Up

Via TPM, Brent Wilkes, the multi-millionaire defense contractor whom former Congressman Randy Cunningham named as one of those who bribed him, has added firepower to his legal team by hiring former Scott Peterson defender Mark Geragos. Wilkes is represented in D.C. by Nancy Luque.

Here's a long NYT profile of Wilkes in which he opened up to the paper.

Mr. Wilkes acknowledged that he was a willing participant in what he characterized as a “cutthroat” system in which campaign contributions were a prerequisite for federal contracts. “I attempted to get help and advice from people who could show me the way to do it right,” Mr. Wilkes said. “I played by their rules, and I played to win.”

Mr. Wilkes said he was speaking now to rebut false assertions about him by prosecutors and the news media. While it is unknown whether his account is complete and it is impossible to verify his recollections of certain conversations, many aspects of his story were confirmed by federal records, other documents and interviews with people involved in the events he described.

More on Wilkes is available at the Sunlight Foundation.

If Geragos is now on the case, I think it means a federal indictment in California is looming. It's either time for a pre-indictment deal or gearing up the war chest.

< An Argument for Drug Legalization | Contagious Cop Shooting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    jim........................ (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    i know you're not stupid, you just play a stupid person on tv. sadly, you just can't fix stupid.

    let's review, shall we: civil war, lincoln president, the first republican president. sc fires shots at ft. sumter, starting a shooting war. lincoln calls up 75k troops, who need to be equipped and supplied. this is left to the army quartermaster corp and, unfortunately for mr. lincoln, congress.

    i didn't suggest that mr. lincoln was responsible for the endemic corruption in the system, far from it. no, that was pretty much the doing of congress and the "spoils" system of appointing govt officials.

    afterwards, in large part because of the brazen corruption uncovered during the war, the "spoils" system is done away with, and replaced by the modern, professional, non-political civil service. for the most part, it works pretty well.

    wwII, fdr, a democrat, is president. again, we're at war, troops called up, needing equipment and supplies. industrialists are drafted by fdr, to get the country on a war footing. there is some corruption in contract letting, but on nowhere near the scale that prevailed during mr. lincoln's administration.

    again, it is investigated, led by democrats, and the corrupt parties rooted out; dem, rep., it doesn't matter. again, no hint that the prez is involved at all.

    6 years into the bush administration, plenty of time to recognize and root out corruption, with a republican congress too. and yet...........nothing.

    i think it speaks for itself jim.

    Two logical fallacies immediately ... (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:56:59 PM EST
    ...leap to mind:
    a one:)
    Description of Appeal to Common Practice

    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

    X is a common action.
    Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

    And a two:
    Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

    Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

    It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
    It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

    relevant Geragos experience NOT Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#1)
    by teacherken on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    But Susan McDougal.   He handled her case before the Starr inquisition.  Thus he has some experience in handling a Federal corruption investigation on behalf of a client.

    Just thought I'd mention it.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    Yes, Susan McDougal and also Gary Condit.

    yeah, i'm not sure i'd want to mention (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    that i was scott peterson's lawyer. an endorsement from a guy doing life probably shouldn't be at the top of the pile.

    so, essentially mr. wilkes' defense is that the corruption is systemic, and he was just following those rules in his method of acquiring contracts?

    why am i reminded of the contracting experience of another republican administration, during another war? the president then was a mr. a. lincoln. the war was the american civil war; paper shoes, boots that fell apart, cannon that exploded, rotted tinned beef, etc, were pawned off on the union army, the result of corrupt politicians, and political appointee procurement officers.

    the present day civil service came about, largely as a consequence of the endemic corruption of the civil war, replacing appointees with people who gained their positions by merit. it was supposed to eliminate the influence of politics in the process.

    it would appear that the current republican administration has hijacked the system, for the benefit of their buddies.

    we seem to have come full circle.

    Sad (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    Never miss a chance, eh?

    While your at it, you might also mention that a guy by the name of Harry Truman got famous as a Senator investigating various "problems" during WWII..

    Now who was Pres?????

    Wait. A Demo! FDR! That can't be right....can it?

    And while your slinging mud, don't miss these.

    Murtha and Abscam

    And this one.

    Corruption is an equal opportunity practice, cpinva. And when you try to ignore some of it, all you do is approve of the part that is on your side.

    Sad, cp. Sad.


    that's all you have (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    FDR and Abscam?

    Well, first, Truman was a Democrat, so I guess it's fair to say democrats police their own quite credibly as opposed to Republicans.

    And Murtha wasn't even charged in Abscam, and he never took a dime.  He wanted investment in his economically hard-hit district, and he let these guys play out.  Should he have reported it?  Yep.  Was he pure as the driven snow?  Of course not.  Is his record more respectable than that of our President or VP or many others?  Without a doubt.      


    It will rub off (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    Dadler - Murtha was named as an un-indicted...
    if you look at the FULL tape you will see why.

    Quit making excuses for him. It will rub off.

    And no. Demos don't do any better than Repubs.

    Neither are acceptable.


    Peterson is on Death Row (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:27:02 PM EST
    Scott Peterson isn't doing life, he's on death row at San Quentin. The jury voted the death penalty for him.

    jeralyn........................... (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    i could be wrong, but that would pretty much be a life sentence. :)