Foggo’s New Charges

Note: see the update below for issues relating to the accuracy of this post as originally posted. I’ve retained what seems to be supported by other data: mostly that the CIA is trying to spin Foggo’s additional charges as proof of the Agency’s own ability to investigate itself, spin that the timing involved seems to belie.

A number of you have pointed out that Dusty Foggo got some charges slapped onto his existing indictment.

A federal grand jury has accused a former top CIA official of pulling strings to get a high-level CIA job for his mistress, as part of a new indictment against the official in an existing corruption case.

The new indictment against Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a former No. 3 official at the spy agency and a onetime senior CIA ethics officer, alleges that he pressured CIA managers into hiring the woman after she was turned down for a position in the CIA’s general counsel office. He also allegedly made false statements about her qualifications, the indictment states.

Foggo, the CIA’s executive director from 2004 to 2006, specifically told agency officials he had a "special interest" in seeing the woman hired, and he later berated them when they initially rejected her application. "When the ExDir has a special interest, you had better take notice," Foggo told the general counsel’s staff, according to an indictment filed late Tuesday by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria.

[Update: RJ Hillhouse has deleted the post that I linked to substantively here and–at her request, I’m removing the citation of her blogpost. Her note on why she deleted her blogpost is here. The substance of the text–which Hillhouse does not stand by any longer–included some history on earlier events potentially related to these new charges.]

What’s so hilarious about this is that–in Joby Warrick’s article–the CIA is spinning that Foggo’s additional indictments prove how good CIA is at policing itself.

The initial filing of criminal charges against Foggo in 2006 prompted questions about internal security at the CIA, which is supposed to have an elaborate system of checks to limit the risk of malfeasance by agency insiders. But agency officials insisted yesterday that the system works and said that the CIA has played a key role in investigating Foggo.

"It demonstrates a willingness by the CIA to investigate itself," said an official who declined to be identified by name because the charges have not been tried in court.

[text deleted, see above]

But that was, presumably, over two years ago, back before Foggo had to resign from the CIA and back before–over a year ago–Foggo was indicted for bribery.

And it has taken up until now–[text deleted]–to get added to Foggo’s indictment? That’s the CIA’s idea of being willing to investigate itself?

No wonder the CIA never did anything with its OIG conclusion that the CIA’s torture violated the Convention Against Torture. Apparently, none of the guys they tortured had any [someone] who could rat out the CIA.

14 replies
  1. MarieRoget says:

    …the CIA is spinning that Foggo’s additional indictments prove how good CIA is at policing itself.

    Or, could be it’s really all relative in the CIA. Compared to the way they usually “police themselves,” this stacks up as a great job.

    What a liability Foggo was, intel-wise & every other wise, yet they looked the other way for that long? Inexcusable.

  2. Minnesotachuck says:

    Sorry to go OT so early, but I can’t help it.

    EW, either you’ve reached a new plateau of public profile or the Great God Random has just demonstrated s/he has a sense of humor. Moments ago I was checking my email for the first time today and I saw listed a message from Marcy Wheeler! Could this be personal correspondence from the great EW herself? Or more likely a broadcast message of some sort? In either case I didn’t know she had my email address. Then my eyes wandered to the subject line, which read “Longer . . . Harder”. Hmmmm. Sure enough, it was penile enhancement spam. Marcy, I guess you’ve made the big time. So to speak.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        The spammers have a program that randomly picks first and last names (independently) to put in the “From” of emails. The aim is exactly what happened with Minnesotachuck (somewhere a spammer is thinking, “Ha, ha, made you look”)

        • MarkusQ says:

          Actually, some of the spamming programs seem to be using Q or google or something to find / construct names that will hit the “that name sounds familiar but I can’t quite place it” spot.

          Tip-of-the-tongue names like Marcy Wheeler, Jon Johansson, Monica Goodling etc. apparently make people open the mail more than clearly famous names (Al Gore, Paris Hilton, etc.) or the fully random names (Sandy J. Gomez, Bartholomew Jones, etc.)

          Although according to our server logs, someone seems to think that names like “Hillryy Klinton” and “Jon McClane” were worth trying to, so who knows?

          – MarkusQ

  3. Professor Foland says:

    Rumors of these alleged trysts were rampant at Langley and Dusty’s colleagues warned him to give up this high profile habit. But Dusty was a guy who “made Bill Clinton seem like a choirboy,” according to a source familiar with this taste in hookers and strip joints.

    Having sat in no small number of (often coma-inducing) security procedure briefings, I can say that with 100% probability, somebody along the line recognized this and reported it as a security issue. (It would have made Foggo vulnerable to blackmail.) Someone (probably in Waxman’s sphere?) should be tugging on the thread to see what happened as a result of that report.

  4. bmaz says:

    I was going to deadpan that it looks like there is some nine-finger pointing going on here; but I can’t compete with Chuck’s news. I do vote that said email be forwarded to the impotent McCain (from Marcy of course) …..

  5. Petrocelli says:

    Aack … “Bill Clinton” and “Choirboy” in the same sentence … I think I just lost 11 years
    of meditative bliss (and my lunch ) *g*

  6. DeadLast says:

    And the CIA and NSA do extensive background checks? There are used to make sure that the agents don’t have something in their closet that one day could be used by a foreign enemy to blackmail them. How did Foggo pass the agency’s puritan test?

  7. al75 says:

    I still feel that the central issue has stayed out of discussion: Foggo and his fellow hacks were brought in by Porter Goss, the right-wing Congressman installed to “reform” the CIA in (I think) 2005.

    This “reform” was undertaken to bring the CIA to heel, and forge it into a political instrument of the “permanant republican majority”, just like the program underway at the Justice Dept as Alberto Gonzalez came in at almost exactly the same time.

    Porter Goss’ name and role is almost never mentioned. He leaks to the press, and perhaps for that reason has a special status.

    But he was the boss. He hand-picked Foggo.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      The new indictment against Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, a former No. 3 official at the spy agency and a onetime senior CIA ethics officer, alleges that he pressured CIA managers into hiring the woman after she was turned down for a position in the CIA’s general counsel office.

      FOTFLMAO… I don’t remember the last time that I had to wipe away tears of laughter after reading an EW post and comments… Laughing so hard my abdomen is sore.

      OT: bmaz, Dickie Scruggs is highlighted in most recent New Yorker; I only paid attention b/c of EW’s posts and your comments about him.

Comments are closed.