Six Questions, Washington Babylon — July 12, 2007, 9:29 am

Six Questions for Seth Hettena on the Brent Wilkes Trials

Seth Hettena spent nine years with the Associated Press, where he broke stories about a terrorist suspect who was tortured to death by the CIA, revealed photos of Navy SEALs mistreating Iraqi prisoners, and exposed how the military secretly contracted planes for CIA rendition flights. He also reported extensively on the intimate ties defense contractor Brent Wilkes maintained with Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (now a federal inmate) and CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. He tells that story in his new book, Feasting on the Spoils. With Wilkes soon to go to trial on charges that he bribed Cunningham and Foggo, I recently asked Hettena six questions about the upcoming court cases.

1. The evidence against Wilkes as laid out in the press appears to be pretty strong. What is his defense likely to be?
Wilkes is facing trial in two separate cases that are tangentially related. The first, which will be tried in September, involves bribes he allegedly paid to Congressman Duke Cunningham. Prosecutors claim a variety of bribes were paid, including time with prostitutes. Prosecutors have to show a quid pro quo to win a conviction, and I think showing that Wilkes bought Cunningham a dinner and then got a defense contract won’t be enough. One of the biggest hurdles for Wilkes is a series of checks he wrote to Cunningham to pay for a yacht, though in the end he never bought it. The prosecutors’ version is that afterwards, Wilkes told Cunningham to simply keep the money he gave him for the yacht. Wilkes claims he asked for the money back, Cunningham refused, and there was nothing he could do about it. The second case involves mortgage payments of about $500,000 that Wilkes made on Cunningham’s mansion. Wilkes can’t deny that he made the payments because there’s a paper trail, but he claims Cunningham demanded the money in exchange for arranging federal contracts for Wilkes, that he was shaken down. Prosecutors say that Wilkes demanded the government contracts and pushed the money on Cunningham.

2. What about the second trial?
That one will probably get underway next year and involves bribes Wilkes allegedly paid to Dusty Foggo, the former CIA executive director, in order to win contracts from the agency. The big problem for Wilkes in this case is that his nephew Joel Combs is cooperating with prosecutors. Foggo reportedly lined up several deals for Wilkes, including a $132 million contract to provide commercial cover for a CIA air transport operation. He also is said to have pushed a CIA contractor to hire Wilkes as a lobbyist. The alleged quid pro quos that Foggo received from Wilkes were lavish vacations in Scotland and Hawaii, along with numerous $1,000 meals at restaurants around the world. I’m not sure how Wilkes is going to explain those. I suspect he’ll say Dusty was a lifelong friend and he wanted him along on those vacations independently of anything to do with the contracts.

3. And what is Foggo’s defense likely to be?
I’ve heard that part of his defense will be that some of the contracts he arranged for Wilkes involved the CIA’s preparations for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He may argue that the CIA was woefully unprepared for war and he was scrambling to equip agency personnel as quickly as possible.

4. Foggo at one point asked that his trial be moved from San Diego to Virginia. What happened with that request?
He told the court that a trial in San Diego would create hardship for him and his family because they live in Virginia, and that his wife wouldn’t be able to attend the trial and provide support to him. The prosecutors came back and said that Foggo was seeking to paint “a picture of a warm, loving, and supportive married life” but that this was “not necessarily an entirely accurate depiction.” They left it at that but they were apparently referring to reports that Dusty had a hearty appetite for women, including prostitutes. In the end, the trial was kept in San Diego.

5. What are some of the lesser-known revelations from the court papers and your book?
One interesting item was that Foggo apparently mentioned to a number of CIA associates that he was considering running for Duke Cunningham’s seat in congress after Cunningham retired. Also, and this is one of my favorite stories in the book, Wilkes in the early-1990s was working for a defense contractor in San Diego who was having problems with a procurement official at the Pentagon. So Wilkes and Foggo cooked up a plot whereby they recruited a couple of off-duty cops, one who was a very attractive woman. She struck up a flirty conversation with the procurement official and basically induced him to come to Florida. Foggo had arranged a hotel room and they taped the official getting drunk and making threatening comments about Wilkes’s boss. Wilkes went back to San Diego and played the tape for his boss–he also asked for $20,000 to cover his expenses–and his boss said, this is great, I’ll take it to the authorities. Wilkes said, don’t do that, the procurement official will just get fired and his replacement could be just as much trouble. Just hold on to the tape, with this you own the guy.

6. Why was Wilkes’s attorney thrown off the Foggo case earlier this week?
Wilkes was being represented by celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, who has represented people like Winona Ryder, Michael Jackson, Roger Clinton, and Gary Condit. Geragos refused to undergo a background check so he could get a security clearance to view classified material, of which there were at least 50,000 pages. He said it was akin to a Soviet tactic where the government can tell an attorney what he can and can’t look at. The judge initially went along this but then he saw some of the classified material that the prosecutors had. Whatever was there convinced the judge that Geragos needed to see it–he hinted that it might even be exculpatory. But Geragos still refused to get a background check so the judge had no choice but to remove him from the case. That leaves Wilkes without an attorney, with his trials only months away.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Amount American Airlines saved in 1987 by eliminating one olive from each salad served in first class:

$40,000

A daddy longlegs preserved in amber 99 million years ago was found to have an erection.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today