Tweet
I found this bouncing around the net and thought I would share. Upon investigation it seems this story originated at the Daily Kos so it is suspect but still the facts should be easy to verify even if the original source is highly partisan.
It is impossible to deny that Foggo and his lawyers are threatening violence against individiuals in order to coerce and intimidate the government. So far they have been successful. But there is more going on here.
Treason:
[/quote]
Suppose you represented the US Government.
Suppose you had me cornered on serious criminal charges.
Suppose I had a list of active CIA agents and operations.
Suppose I threatened to expose all of them if you touched me.
Would my threat intimidate you?
Would you let me walk rather than risk millions of lives?
===============
This is not a hypothetical situation. While everyone is focused on the market meltdown, a quiet drama is unfolding in a US District Court in Alexandria.
Nothing about this criminal administration astonishes me anymore, but there is good reason to be horrified...
* 8ackgr0und N015e's diary :: ::
*
It was recently reported that Kyle Foggo, Bush's former Executive director of the CIA, is pleading guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud. Foggo's plea exposes him to a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in custody, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.
HOWEVER, in return for this plea, prosecutors are dropping 27 other counts and recommending a sentence of no more than 37 months.
That is pretty stunning. After all, wire fraud is pretty damn easy to prove. All you need is to show that some used a phone, fax machine, Internet connection or bank transfer to commit fraud. These transactions are easy to document. The hard part is finding the transaction. They had almost thirty that they were using for charges. Something happened here and it is ugly.
To show you how outlandish Foggo's deal is, consider this recently reported case from Florida. It is pretty typical:
You catch that? One count can net you as much as 20 years and a fine. No mention of plea bargaining, or deals. It's cut and dried. BOOM. You are screwed.
That makes sense. Any lawyer who abuses their position of trust and privilege to defraud people of millions of dollars should go away for a looooong time. It's not just that lawyer who needs to get the message this is wrong. Every lawyer needs to know this behavior is not tolerated and there are severe penalties for acting this way. Otherwise you are giving scoundrels license to behave badly because they can do a risk/benefit analysis and decide a few years in prison is worth several million dollars when you get out.
This brings us back to the former Executive Director of the CIA, Kyle Foggo. He got tagged as part of the investigation into bribery of Rep. "Duke" Cunningham. The connection was his long-time friend, Brent Wilkes. Wilkes was your typical beltway bandit, paying people off to get no-bid contracts where he could inflate costs and pocket the difference. Nothing arcane or unusual or difficult to document here. That's one reason Cunningham was sentenced to 10 years and a fine after pleading guilty. The only reason Cunningham got such a light sentence was his advanced age. Wilkes was sentenced to 12 years and fined.
So why are they dropping 96% of the charges against Foggo and asking for a maximum of 3 years without any fines? He did a lot more than merely introduce scoundrels to each other. Foggo's relationship with Wilkes goes back years. He helped Wilkes overcharge the CIA for WATER (by 60%) in Afghanistan and Iraq. He even set up shell corporations to hide their relationship. He also worked with Wilkes when he was stationed in Europe. He actively participated in a criminal enterprise to defraud the government during a time of war while serving as the number three guy at the CIA!
I realize this is a plea bargain, but it is important to note that if you enter a guilty plea, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, Rule 11, you are accepting the sentence based, in part, on:
That's why prosecutors are recommending 37 months maximum. They got it from the advisory guideline table for federal sentencing.
Based on his crime, it fell under Chapter 2, part B 1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AND OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD OR DECEIT
That gives him a base offense worth 7 points. Apparently, he agreed to accept responsibility for a minimum of $200,000 in fraud. That adds another 12 points. With no prior convictions, that puts him at 19 points.
When you go to the advisory guideline table for federal sentencing, you see in the first column that 19 points nets you 30-37 months. That means if he agrees to the sentence and gets that or less he waives his right to appeal. Note: HE COULD GET LESS!
How? Well according to Chapter 3, part E., section 1.1 you can get 3 points knocked off for accepting responsibility. That drops him to a 16 which gets him 21-27 months. Drop another 15% discount for good behavior and you could have him down to 18 months.
In essence, the guy is caught red-handed running a criminal enterprise to defraud the government during a time of war while he was the number three guy at the CIA. Yet, he is looking at serving just one month (18-21) for every year (20) he could have served. The Washington Post reports
When the brother of Plato Cacheris, a legendary Washington defense attorney, says your lawyers did a good job.... they did a great job.
What could have prompted such a good deal? Cooperation is worth something, but this is beyond generous. He must have something more. Well it turns out that Bush's former Executive Director of the CIA resorted to "graymail" and, through his attorneys:
That's right, he threatened to expose active undercover operatives if they didn't cut him a deal. Let's review a couple of definitions here.
Terrorism:
[q]Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Suppose you had me cornered on serious criminal charges.
Suppose I had a list of active CIA agents and operations.
Suppose I threatened to expose all of them if you touched me.
Would my threat intimidate you?
Would you let me walk rather than risk millions of lives?
===============
This is not a hypothetical situation. While everyone is focused on the market meltdown, a quiet drama is unfolding in a US District Court in Alexandria.
Current and former agency officials have followed the case with a mixture of astonishment and horror.
Nothing about this criminal administration astonishes me anymore, but there is good reason to be horrified...
* 8ackgr0und N015e's diary :: ::
*
It was recently reported that Kyle Foggo, Bush's former Executive director of the CIA, is pleading guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud. Foggo's plea exposes him to a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in custody, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.
HOWEVER, in return for this plea, prosecutors are dropping 27 other counts and recommending a sentence of no more than 37 months.
That is pretty stunning. After all, wire fraud is pretty damn easy to prove. All you need is to show that some used a phone, fax machine, Internet connection or bank transfer to commit fraud. These transactions are easy to document. The hard part is finding the transaction. They had almost thirty that they were using for charges. Something happened here and it is ugly.
To show you how outlandish Foggo's deal is, consider this recently reported case from Florida. It is pretty typical:
R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Jonathan I. Solomon, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced today that defendant Joseph J. Weisenfeld, a local real estate attorney, pled guilty to a one-count Information charging him with wire fraud in connection with a scheme to misappropriate almost $3 million in client funds purportedly held in escrow for authorized real estate transactions and related expenses. The wire fraud charge carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine. Sentencing is scheduled for December 4, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
You catch that? One count can net you as much as 20 years and a fine. No mention of plea bargaining, or deals. It's cut and dried. BOOM. You are screwed.
That makes sense. Any lawyer who abuses their position of trust and privilege to defraud people of millions of dollars should go away for a looooong time. It's not just that lawyer who needs to get the message this is wrong. Every lawyer needs to know this behavior is not tolerated and there are severe penalties for acting this way. Otherwise you are giving scoundrels license to behave badly because they can do a risk/benefit analysis and decide a few years in prison is worth several million dollars when you get out.
This brings us back to the former Executive Director of the CIA, Kyle Foggo. He got tagged as part of the investigation into bribery of Rep. "Duke" Cunningham. The connection was his long-time friend, Brent Wilkes. Wilkes was your typical beltway bandit, paying people off to get no-bid contracts where he could inflate costs and pocket the difference. Nothing arcane or unusual or difficult to document here. That's one reason Cunningham was sentenced to 10 years and a fine after pleading guilty. The only reason Cunningham got such a light sentence was his advanced age. Wilkes was sentenced to 12 years and fined.
So why are they dropping 96% of the charges against Foggo and asking for a maximum of 3 years without any fines? He did a lot more than merely introduce scoundrels to each other. Foggo's relationship with Wilkes goes back years. He helped Wilkes overcharge the CIA for WATER (by 60%) in Afghanistan and Iraq. He even set up shell corporations to hide their relationship. He also worked with Wilkes when he was stationed in Europe. He actively participated in a criminal enterprise to defraud the government during a time of war while serving as the number three guy at the CIA!
I realize this is a plea bargain, but it is important to note that if you enter a guilty plea, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, Rule 11, you are accepting the sentence based, in part, on:
the court's obligation to calculate the applicable sentencing-guideline range and to consider that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
That's why prosecutors are recommending 37 months maximum. They got it from the advisory guideline table for federal sentencing.
Based on his crime, it fell under Chapter 2, part B 1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AND OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD OR DECEIT
That gives him a base offense worth 7 points. Apparently, he agreed to accept responsibility for a minimum of $200,000 in fraud. That adds another 12 points. With no prior convictions, that puts him at 19 points.
When you go to the advisory guideline table for federal sentencing, you see in the first column that 19 points nets you 30-37 months. That means if he agrees to the sentence and gets that or less he waives his right to appeal. Note: HE COULD GET LESS!
How? Well according to Chapter 3, part E., section 1.1 you can get 3 points knocked off for accepting responsibility. That drops him to a 16 which gets him 21-27 months. Drop another 15% discount for good behavior and you could have him down to 18 months.
In essence, the guy is caught red-handed running a criminal enterprise to defraud the government during a time of war while he was the number three guy at the CIA. Yet, he is looking at serving just one month (18-21) for every year (20) he could have served. The Washington Post reports
Judge James C. Cacheris, after accepting Foggo's plea, took the unusual step of telling Foggo that his attorneys "have done a good job for you in this case."
When the brother of Plato Cacheris, a legendary Washington defense attorney, says your lawyers did a good job.... they did a great job.
What could have prompted such a good deal? Cooperation is worth something, but this is beyond generous. He must have something more. Well it turns out that Bush's former Executive Director of the CIA resorted to "graymail" and, through his attorneys:
had threatened in a secret court filing to expose highly sensitive intelligence programs and the covers of undercover operatives as part of Foggo's defense.
That's right, he threatened to expose active undercover operatives if they didn't cut him a deal. Let's review a couple of definitions here.
Terrorism:
[q]Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Treason:
Treason is the crime of betraying one’s government; Providing aid and comfort to the enemy
[/quote]
Comment