trent franks in k ring trial

8/14/2019 Trent Franks in K Ring Trial

1/30

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--------------------------X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal Case No. 08-274Plaintiff

v. A.M. SESSION - DAY 8

KEVIN RING,

Defendant

---------------------------X Washington, D.C.

Thursday, September 17, 2009.9:40 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIALBEFORE THE HONORABLE ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Government: Nathaniel B. Edmonds, Esq.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Division, Fraud SectionBond Building1400 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 307-0629

Michael Ferrara, Esq.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICECriminal Div.Public Integrity Section1400 New York Ave. NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 305-2593

Court Reporter: Lisa Walker Griffith, RPRU.S. District CourthouseRoom 6507Washington, D.C. 20001(202) 354-3247

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcriptproduced by computer.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131 Filed 10/20/09 Page 1 of 102


2/30

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)

For the Government: Michael J. Leotta, Esq.U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE36 South Charles Street4th FloorBaltimore, MD 21201(410) 209-4900

For the Defendants: Andrew Todd Wise, Esq.Timothy Patrick O'Toole, Esq.MILLER CHEVALIER CHTD655 15th Street, N.W.Suite 900Washington, DC 20005(202) 626-5818



3/30

15

1 I'm not enthralled with the idea of pushing the

2 envelope. Are there going to be more of these that fall into

3 this category beside Istook's wife? Congressional wife. I

4 mean, we have to think long and hard because you have to put

5 it someplace. It's either in your green arrows or red

6 arrows. If it is in your red arrows, it is in one of these

7 three subparts. If it does not comfortable fit there, we

8 would like to rethink it.

9 MR. EDMONDS: We believe it fits comfortably in one

10 of the red arrows. I think there is a Government's Exhibit

11 Number 167-B which I'm sure we have provided to you yet,

12 where John Albaugh writes to Kevin Ring after -- in the midst

13 of discussions about the various earmarks, "By the way, Judy

14 Istook is going to call you and Jack about the Congressional

15 Spouses Club." Kevin Ring forwards that e-mail to Neil Volz

16 and Todd Boulanger and replies, "Holy joke getter."

17 THE COURT: You showed that to me yesterday. I did

18 see that. I believe this is what prompted the whole -- part

19 of it. You offered this, did you not?

20 MR. EDMONDS: I was going to offer it then, and I

21 withdrew it. It does, however, come up in my time line a

22 little bit later because it is in the midst of responses in

23 regards to the Franks earmark. As Mr. Albaugh noted, the

24 Franks earmark is one of those which he had never done and

25 would not do for anyone else.



4/30

16

1 THE COURT: What was that again? Remind me.

2 MR. EDMONDS: Because Congressman Franks irritated

3 the Appropriations Committee.

4 THE COURT: Which Franks are we talking about?

5 MR. EDMONDS: This is Trent Franks from Arizona.

6 And Congressman Young said no earmark, no appropriation

7 request should go to Trent Franks.

8 THE COURT: Are you going to offer it this morning?

9 MR. EDMONDS: I was planning on it.

10 THE COURT: Let's just hear it two seconds here. I

11 have to characterize this one way or another anyway at some

12 time. I'm not convinced how to characterize it. It does not

13 necessarily determine this. I will have to go back after

14 I've made up my mind, based on giving everybody the fair

15 opportunity. But we keep on developing little facts about

16 this. Before it was a charity. Now it is not a charity.

17 So --

18 MR. WISE: I do think that we have gone into the

19 situation where the argument has eaten the facts, because I

20 think what is troubling the Court is not only the initial

21 question that was whether this was a charitable organization,

22 which it may not be, but also the question of which pot you

23 fit this in. This can't be a gratuity. I don't know how it

24 could be advanced as this material self-interest concealment

25 issue.



5/30

35

1 do the Sheldon Road $300,000.

2 Q Had this request been by any other lobbyist, would this

3 earmark have been funded?

4 A No.

5 Q Can you give us an example of an experience that you had

6 when an earmark for a retiring member was not funded?

7 A There was one earmark for a Representative William

8 Janklow, who had retired, that we had included -- we had an

9 earmark for him during the House passage of the bill, and he

10 retired subsequent to that, which we eliminated as soon as he

11 retired.

12 Q Turn to Government's Exhibit Number 165.

13 Blow up the bottom e-mail, please.

14 What is the date here?

15 A This is November 10.

16 Q Would you read that into the record.

17 A Kevin Ring to me. Subject, "How are we doing?" And he

18 says, "Conference going?"

19 I respond --

20 Q "Conference going," what does that mean? What is

21 happening right now?

22 A We are finalizing things in conference.

23 Q Can we blow up the next two e-mails, please.

24 Read those into the record.

25 A I respond, "What are your realistic expectations? By the



6/30

36

1 way, Franks, Arizona, shot his mouth off against the approps

2 committee, which did not pass without notice from the front

3 office."

4 Ring responds, "You are making me nervous. Some

5 numbers are starting to drool out. When do I get a taste?"

6 Q Can you remind the jury what happened with Franks from

7 Arizona?

8 A Congressman Franks shot his mouth off against the

9 Appropriations Committee, and the chairman of that committee

10 instructed the staff not to provide any earmarks to him

11 unless they checked with him first.

12 Q Can we turn to -- what did you do as a result of that?

13 A I informed Congressman Istook of this. And he went to

14 the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and was able

15 to secure this earmark.

16 Q Why did you inform Congressman Istook of this?

17 A Because of the relationship with Kevin Ring.

18 Q I want to turn to Government's Exhibit Number 166.

19 Blow up the bottom two e-mails.

20 Read -- what is the date here?

21 A This is November 10 th .

22 Q Can we -- just read the bottom e-mail, please.

23 A This is from Kevin Ring to Duane Gibson, Todd Boulanger,

24 Michael Williams and Diane Blagman. Subject, "Trans

25 approps."



7/30

37

1 "Albaugh just called to say that we will need to

2 have realistic expectations for our requests, saying our

3 current idea of keeping all of them intact and increasing

4 Agua is not."

5 Todd Boulanger responds to that group, "Hmm, Albaugh

6 needs to cut some Dem projects to help the team."

7 Q Did you consider yourself part of the team?

8 A I did not, no.

9 Q Can we go up to the next couple e-mails, please.

10 A Kevin Ring then responds, "Trent Franks bad-mouthed the

11 approps committee and has jeopardized Hopi's funding."

12 Q The next e-mail?

13 A Is Todd Boulanger responding, "Let's pull a million and a

14 half from them and pass it around to our other guys and blame

15 that."

16 Q The top two e-mails, please.

17 A Kevin responds, "I told him I was fine with that, if we

18 needed to. But I can only do it within same pot. Not all

19 projects were in same pot."

20 Q What is happening in this e-mail?

21 A The lobbyists are trying to decide where the earmark

22 funding should be spent.

23 Q Is there anything that strikes you about this e-mail?

24 A Two things, one of which is that these were all

25 lobbyists, and they didn't work on the Appropriations



8/30

38

1 Committee staff, and they were trying determine amongst

2 themselves how to spend --

3 MR. WISE: Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

4 THE COURT: No, overruled. That is not what he is

5 saying. He is saying why it struck him as odd.

6 Go ahead.

7 THE WITNESS: That none of the people here worked on

8 the Appropriations Committee or decided themselves how this

9 money, these earmarks, should be spent. And secondly, that

10 in reading this, I'm convicted that I must have given an

11 impression that they could discuss it this way.

12 MR. WISE: Objection, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Yeah, I don't understand the answer,

14 actually.

15 BY MR. EDMONDS:

16 Q Could you explain the answer? I'm not sure I do either.

17 A The first part is --

18 THE COURT: The first part I understand, that these

19 people are talking about how to allocate, and they're not the

20 decision-makers.

21 THE WITNESS: That I may have given them the

22 impression in some way, through my conduct and action, that

23 they could determine where the earmarks could go and how to

24 divide them up.

25



9/30

39

1 BY MR. EDMONDS:

2 Q Did Mr. Ring and the lobbyists have the power to

3 determine where the earmarks were split?

4 A No.

5 Q Who had that power?

6 A The Appropriations Committee.

7 Q Did you have that power, to some degree?

8 A I did.

9 Q I want to go to Government's Exhibit Number 167. What is

10 the date on this one?

11 A This is November 11.

12 Q Where, again, are we in the process?

13 A We are still in conference, trying to figure out all of

14 the projects.

15 Q If you could read that into the record.

16 A This is from Kevin Ring to myself. Subject, "Hopi."

17 "What if Kolbe went to bat for Hopi? Would that

18 work?"

19 Q What is going on with this? What is Hopi?

20 A Hopi would be the -- Trent Frank's project that was not

21 going to occur because the chairman of the Appropriations

22 Committee had informed the staff not to provide any earmarks

23 for him.

24 Q What is -- who is Kolbe?

25 A Kolbe was another representative. He was on the



10/30

40

1 Appropriations Committee from Arizona.

2 Q What is your response?

3 A "Ernest talked to someone who I don't want to name, and

4 there will be something for Franks, about one million."

5 Q I want to go to Government's Exhibit Number 167-B, which

6 has not been distributed to the jury, but is admitted without

7 objection.

8 I'm sorry.

9 THE COURT: It was admitted over objection.

10 MR. EDMONDS: I'm sorry. Admitted over objection.

11 THE COURT: 167-B.

12 BY MR. EDMONDS:

13 Q Blow up the bottom two e-mails. Actually, do all three.

14 The bottom three e-mails, please.

15 What is the bottom e-mail?

16 A That is the initial e-mail that Kevin Ring sent to me.

17 "What if Kolbe went to bat for Hopi? Would that work?"

18 Q What do you respond in this e-mail?

19 A I respond, "By the way, Judy Istook is going to call you

20 and Jack about this Congressional Spouses Club."

21 Q What is the Congressional Spouses Club?

22 A My understanding at this time was that it was a

23 physical -- it was a hobby that Mrs. Istook was involved in

24 that was a physical building and social outlet for

25 Congressional spouses.



11/30

41

1 Q Did you mention that in an e-mail yesterday?

2 A Yes, I did.

3 Q Can we just go briefly back to that, Government's Exhibit

4 Number 125. Blow out the middle e-mail from Kevin Ring to

5 John Albaugh.

6 Would you read that into the record again.

7 A "I am a big deal, ain't I? Pretty funny. I think I can

8 get some cash for Mrs. I.'s event. Is 1,000 enough?"

9 Q Can we go back to Government's Exhibit Number 167-B.

10 Blow out those three e-mails again.

11 What does Kevin Ring do with your e-mail that Judy

12 Istook is going to call you and Jack about the Congressional

13 Spouses Club?

14 A He forwards it to Neil Volz and Todd Boulanger and said,

15 "Holy joke getter."

16 Q Do you know the phrase "get the joke"?

17 A I do not, no.

18 Q Can we turn to Government's Exhibit Number 170, please.

19 Blow out the top part until we get to "adds."

20 Tell us what is happening here.

21 A In this situation, the initial version we had of the

22 transportation appropriations bill gave the Republicans more

23 project money than typical. So the Democrats balked at that,

24 and we were not able to move that bill.

25 So, to be able to remedy that, instead of cutting



12/30

42

1 some projects, we declared an emergency and increased

2 spending, generally providing the Democrats with extra money.

3 And we received some extra money in that case as well.

4 Q When you guys received the extra money, what did you

5 propose to do with it?

6 A I proposed these -- "restore cuts from House pass bill

7 generally. Some exceptions like LaHood and Franks, I expect

8 that this would cost less than $10 million." Then I propose

9 a list of adds.

10 Q If we could blow out the adds that are below that.

11 On these adds are some of Kevin Ring's-- I'm sorry,

12 whose -- what various different projects that we've talked

13 about before are on this?

14 A Well, Chip Pickering's Choctaw roads is on this. Ose is

15 on this. Wilson is on this. Bono is on this. That's all

16 that we've talked about before.

17 Q Does Mr. Ring have any other clients that are listed on

18 this?

19 THE COURT: You are saying Pickering, Ose and Bono.

20 What was the other one that we talked about?

21 THE WITNESS: Pickering is Choctaw. Camp is

22 Saginaw. Let me start at the beginning. Pickering is

23 Choctaw. Ose is Elk Grove.

24 THE COURT: That's the municipality.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Elk Grove.



13/30

43

1 THE COURT: Wilson is Sandia. And Bono is -- I'm

2 not sure who the client was there.

3 BY MR. EDMONDS:

4 Q How did you make all of the various different

5 determinations of these adds that you wanted to put in?

6 A Well, Boozman was an endangered Republican. Then

7 Reynolds, Blunt and Cantor were members of leadership. And

8 the remaining ones were major donors to Congressman Istook.

9 Q Go to Government's Exhibit Number 171, please.

10 THE COURT: So you are saying the lobbyist for whom

11 Collins put this in is a major donor? Is that the way I

12 should read it?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 THE COURT: So if they weren't leadership --

15 THE WITNESS: Or endangered Republican.

16 BY MR. EDMONDS:

17 Q Can you count out how many of these adds there are and

18 tell us how many of them are Kevin Ring's.

19 MR. WISE: Part of the answer was also that they

20 were major contributors to Mr. Istook. So I would ask the

21 Court to give the instruction.

22 THE COURT: Right. Being a contributor is a

23 perfectly fine, as I have told the jury. There is nothing

24 improper about Mr. Ring's clients being contributors and

25 receiving benefits because they contribute political



14/30

44

1 contributions to the campaign.

2 So can you be a little clearer in your question

3 here?

4 MR. EDMONDS: Sure.

5 BY MR. EDMONDS:

6 Q I'm just asking: Of these people that you put in the

7 "add" category, how many of them are Kevin Ring's clients?

8 THE WITNESS: Five.

9 THE COURT: Is the "add" category everybody? Or are

10 you trying to exclude leadership and endangered?

11 MR. EDMONDS: This is everybody that we're talking

12 about here.

13 THE COURT: But how many of them are -- fall within

14 the category of leadership or --

15 THE WITNESS: Certainly. Mr. Boozman was an

16 endangered Republican, and Turner of Ohio. I'm going off

17 memory now, but I think he may have been endangered.

18 THE COURT: The leadership is Blunt. Who else?

19 THE WITNESS: Reynolds, Blunt and Cantor.

20 THE COURT: So there are five on the list that come

21 in another category?

22 THE WITNESS: And then --

23 BY MR. EDMONDS:

24 Q So to follow up on the Court's question. There are five

25 that are either leadership or endangered Republicans. Then



15/30

45

1 there are five also which are Kevin Ring's clients?

2 A Uh-huh.

3 Q Then there are an additional other -- a few others who

4 are also major donors to Congressman Istook?

5 A Yes.

6 THE COURT: So there are 14 total. So, I'm trying

7 to understand this a minute.

8 Let's look at this Collins, $500 for Rockdale. That

9 is not one of Mr. Ring's clients?

10 THE WITNESS: That is correct.

11 THE COURT: But you are saying that the person for

12 whom Collins is sponsoring this is a major donor. I don't

13 know who the donor is, looking at this, but the person gave

14 money to Istook.

15 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

16 THE COURT: Kevin Ring's clients also gave money to

17 Istook.


19 THE COURT: Would that be true of the all five here;

20 the projects or the clients had also paid money?


22 BY MR. EDMONDS:

23 Q Can you compare the number of projects that Mr. Ring has

24 on this add list to the number of projects any other lobbyist

25 has on this list?



16/30

46

1 A Well, Cunningham was Ron Packard. I don't remember

2 Lathen. And Collins and Quinn, and on the following pages,

3 Gingery, were all Doug Patton.

4 Q Tell us a little bit about Doug Patton.

5 A Doug Patton was a lobbyist who we had initially gotten to

6 know when Congressman Istook was chairman of the D.C.

7 Appropriations Subcommittee, and had been very helpful to us

8 when he was chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee,

9 because Mr. Patton had formally been, like, the vice mayor,

10 and he really understood D.C. when we took over the

11 subcommittee, and we did not. So he was able to explain a

12 lot of the peculiarities about the District.

13 THE COURT: That's a nice way to put it.

14 BY MR. EDMONDS:

15 Q When was the Congressman chair of the D.C. Appropriations

16 Subcommittee?

17 A I believe that would have been in 1999 and 2000.

18 THE COURT: So we're talking about the fact that

19 we're not a state?

20 THE WITNESS: There's a lot of peculiarities.

21 BY MR. EDMONDS:

22 Q Beginning in 1999 and 2000, you had had a relationship

23 with Doug Patton?

24 A That is correct.

25 Q I want to turn to Government's Exhibit Number 171.



17/30

47

1 Blow out the bottom two e-mails here.

2 What is the date here?

3 A It begins on November 12. The question is "Still

4 conferencing?" I respond, "Yes. It is helping out your

5 projects."

6 Q Can we blow out the top two e-mails, please.

7 Can you read those into the record.

8 A Kevin responds, "Woo-hoo. Tell me when you can.

9 Thanks."

10 I respond, "Franks is now at 1.25 million, Bono 1

11 million, Saginaw 1.2 million, Choctaw 1.4 million. Who's the

12 man?"

13 Q Franks, Bono, Saginaw, Choctaw, what are those?

14 A Those are clients of Kevin Ring's.

15 Q Again, with Representative -- with the Franks request,

16 what one was that, as you've talked about with the jury

17 before?

18 A That is the one that the chairman of the Appropriations

19 Committee had said that you need to come and talk to him

20 before you do any earmark.

21 Q With Bono, what did you tell the jury about the Bono one?

22 A She had come to Istook on the floor of the House right

23 before markup.

24 Q What would you typically have done with that type of

25 request?



18/30

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--------------------------X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal Case No. 08-274

Plaintiff

v. DAY 9

KEVIN RING,

Defendant

---------------------------X Washington, D.C.

Friday, September 18, 2009.9:30 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIALBEFORE THE HONORABLE ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Government: Nathaniel B. Edmonds, Esq.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Division, Fraud SectionBond Building1400 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 307-0629

Michael Ferrara, Esq.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICECriminal Div.Public Integrity Section1400 New York Ave. NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 305-2593

Court Reporter: Lisa Walker Griffith, RPRU.S. District CourthouseRoom 6507Washington, D.C. 20001(202) 354-3247

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcriptproduced by computer.



19/30

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)

For the Government: Michael J. Leotta, Esq.U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE36 South Charles Street4th FloorBaltimore, MD 21201(410) 209-4900

For the Defendants: Andrew Todd Wise, Esq.Timothy Patrick O'Toole, Esq.

MILLER CHEVALIER CHTD655 15th Street, N.W.Suite 900Washington, DC 20005(202) 626-5818



20/30

63

1 the conference report. House 2673. This is a public

2 document. Admitted.

3 (Defense Exhibit Number 19 was received into

4 evidence.)

5 BY MR. WISE:

6 Q Do you recognize what that is?

7 A Yes, I do.

8 Q Okay. This is the conference report that follows

9 conference, correct?

10 A Correct.

11 Q If we can turn to Page 948 of the document.

12 Do you see the project on the final conference

13 report? And I direct your attention to the middle of the

14 page.

15 THE COURT: You want to blow it up a little bit for

16 the rest of us?

17 THE WITNESS: I do, yes, I see it.

18 THE COURT: Thank you.

19 BY MR. WISE:

20 Q Meaning that Mr. McGinnis' project was funded in the

21 final conference report, correct?

22 A I cannot make that determination and I'll tell you why.

23 Q You can't make it from seeing it in the final conference

24 report?

25 A I can't make it because when you go to conference, the



21/30

64

1 Senate has money and the House has money. And so, this

2 doesn't tell me if this is House money or Senate money. And

3 so, yes, this project is in here, but it could have been that

4 a senator made it a priority and it was funded due to that.

5 Q We'll come back to that. Let's talk about Mr. Ose some

6 more in 2004.

7 A Yes.

8 Q You said that you didn't cut his projects in '03 because

9 of Kevin, right?

10 A That's correct.

11 Q Kevin also made four requests to you for Ose projects in

12 2004?


14 Q They were the Grove Street bikeway, right?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Sheldon Road interchange, right?

17 A Yes.

18 Q The Oak Grove I.T.S.?

19 A Yes.

20 Q The Oak Grove Park & Ride?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Okay. Representative Ose had not changed his mind on

23 retiring, correct?


25 Q And when Kevin submitted those requests to you, he was



22/30

65

1 actually, was known as a lame duck, right?

2 A That's correct.

3 Q Which means that someone else had already been elected to

4 replace him and he was filling out his term, right?

5 A I'll take your word for it. I don't remember when

6 that --

7 Q In 2004, three out of four of Mr. Ose's projects are

8 funded, correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Sheldon Road project was funded?

11 A Yes.

12 Q The Oak Grove project was funded?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And the Oak Grove Park & Ride was funded, correct?

15 A Yes.

16 Q At the time that Mr. Ring is lobbying you and coming to

17 you on these projects, the Abramoff story has already been in

18 the papers, right?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Kevin has got no tickets to give you, correct?


22 Q He hasn't taken you to Suites, right?

23 A No.

24 Q He also comes to you on other projects in 2004, right?

25 A Yes.



23/30


24/30

67

1 THE WITNESS: Three.

2 THE COURT: Three were funded.

3 BY MR. WISE:

4 Q So six out of his seven projects where funded in 2004,

5 right?

6 A Yes.

7 Q When you did your handwritten chart --

8 If we could bring that up one more time.

9 You had ten out of 12 projects funded in the Ring

10 column, correct?

11 A Correct.

12 Q If you did a chart for Ring '04, no tickets, you would

13 have had six out of seven, right?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Okay. The second thing that you said that you did for

16 Kevin that you did for no other lobbyist, was that you

17 preserved a request related to Trent Franks, right?

18 A Right.

19 Q Now, that was a request for the Hopi tribe in Arizona?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And it was called the Turquoise Trail Project?

22 A Right.

23 Q What was the purpose of the project?

24 A I don't know. It was just, to me it was a road project.

25 I don't remember the specifics of the project.



25/30

68

1 Q To promote economic development, do you recall that?

2 A I don't recall that.

3 Q The Hopi was not a gaming tribe, right?

4 A I don't know.

5 Q They didn't have a casino?

6 A I don't know.

7 Q Okay. The initial request for this project that Kevin

8 made --

9 And if we can pull up Government 135, and go to the

10 second page, please.

11 The initial request on this project is $3 million,

12 right?

13 A Correct.

14 Q There is then a given change between you and the

15 subcommittee, right?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And --

18 If we can pull up Defense 275.

19 Do you see the Franks project near the bottom of the

20 page?

21 MR. EDMONDS: What exhibit number is this?

22 MR. WISE: This is -- can I see your list?

23 THE COURT: What's the exhibit number? I didn't

24 hear.

25 MR. WISE: This is 16.



26/30

69

1 THE COURT: Defense Exhibit 16.

2 BY MR. WISE:

3 Q Do you see the Franks project on the bottom?

4 A Yes, I do.

5 Q So, the initial request was three million. And after the

6 give and take with you and the subcommittee, we're at 2.533,

7 correct?

8 A That's the number down there, yes.

9 Q Okay. Do you recall that at some point in the process,

10 you hit a snag because there had been a change in the 60/40

11 rule?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Because Mr. Istook had wanted to go to 65/35?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And the Democrats pushed back at some point?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And so, at that point, you had to reset some of the

18 earmarks because of the objections, right?

19 A Ultimately, we did not reset the earmarks. We increased

20 spending.

21 Q Okay. Let me bring up just for identification 276, which

22 is now 20. It's another spreadsheet.

23 THE COURT: Is this going into evidence?

24 MR. WISE: It may.

25 THE COURT: Well, hold off, don't put it on the



27/30

70

1 screen yet.

2 BY MR. WISE:

3 Q Do you recognize the document that's on your screen as a

4 document you created titled "Changes due to 60/40?"

5 A I recall it, yes.

6 Q Okay. And is this a document that you prepared during

7 the appropriations process in 2003?

8 A Yes.

9 MR. WISE: No objection?

10 MR. EDMONDS: No objection.

11 MR. WISE: I'd move it in, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Twenty will be admitted, Defense

13 Exhibit. And we can put it on the screen.

14 (Defense Exhibit Number 20 was received into

15 evidence.)

16 THE COURT: It was done in 2004?

17 MR. WISE: 2003.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 BY MR. WISE:

20 Q Now, there is a section in this column called new

21 changes, correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And you've marked on a number of projects, "Move to

24 $51 million pot," right?




28/30

71

1 Q And just so we're clear, this is a document you created,

2 right?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q Okay. The $51 million pot was some new money that you

5 found so that you could fully fund projects, right?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q Instead of having to cut based on the move from 65/35

8 back to 60/40, right?

9 A That's correct.

10 Q There were three projects on this document that you

11 recommended potentially for cuts though, right?


13 Q And those are the projects that are shown with the number

14 in the parenthesis on the second to last column on the right,

15 correct?


17 Q One of those projects was Kevin's Franks project, right?


19 Q How many projects are still under consideration

20 approximately at this point?

21 A Do you know the date that this file was created?

22 Q I don't know exactly.

23 A Thousands.

24 Q Thousands, right?

25 A Yeah.



29/30

72

1 Q And you recommend three to be cut?

2 A If this was all the changes that were going on. I mean.

3 Q If this document is a full picture of what you had

4 recommended, you recommended three to be cut?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Okay.

7 MR. EDMONDS: Objection because we don't know if

8 this is a full picture.

9 THE COURT: Yeah, right. Right.

10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I mean, it's a snapshot.

11 THE COURT: Right. All you'll know from this

12 document is that you recommended at least three; is that

13 fair?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 BY MR. WISE:

16 Q Including one of Kevin's, right?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Okay. After the bill was approved by the full House,

19 Representative Franks angered the committee, right?


21 Q Tell the jury how he angered the committee.

22 A He shot his mouth off against the appropriations

23 committee. I don't know the specifics of what he did. And

24 the full committee chairman instructed the appropriations

25 committee staff to ensure that he would receive no earmarks



30/30

73

1 unless they first checked with him.

2 THE COURT: The chairman at the time?

3 THE WITNESS: Bill Young from Florida.

4 BY MR. WISE:

5 Q Wasn't Representative Franks' complaint that there were

6 too many earmarks in the bill?

7 A I don't know what his complaint was.

8 Q Mr. Istook was friends with Mr. Franks, correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And at some point, Mr. Istook spoke with someone on the

11 committee staff to urge them not to punish Mr. Franks?


13 Q And you say that that was at your insistence, right?

14 A I recommended that he did, yes.

15 Q Because you wanted to see Kevin's project saved,

16 according to you?

17 A Yes.

18 Q It wasn't just Kevin's project that was saved, was it?

19 A No.

20 Q In fact, Mr. Franks had another project in that bill?


22 Q That Kevin had nothing to do with?



trent franks in k ring trial

Documents