Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 1 of 102 1

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 Court Reporter: KEVIN RING,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA --------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. Criminal Case No. 08-274 A.M. SESSION - DAY 8

Defendant ---------------------------X Washington, D.C. Thursday, September 17, 2009. 9:40 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL BEFORE 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 Section Bond Building 1400 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 307-0629 Michael Ferrara, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Criminal Div. Public Integrity Section 1400 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 305-2593

Lisa Walker Griffith, RPR U.S. District Courthouse Room 6507 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 354-3247

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by computer.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 2 of 102 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 OFFICE 36 South Charles Street 4th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 209-4900

For the Defendants:

Andrew Todd Wise, Esq. Timothy Patrick O'Toole, Esq. MILLER CHEVALIER CHTD 655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 626-5818

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 15 of 102 15

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 see that. of it. envelope.

I'm not enthralled with the idea of pushing the Are there going to be more of these that fall into Congressional wife. I

this category beside Istook's wife?

mean, we have to think long and hard because you have to put it someplace. arrows. It's either in your green arrows or red

If it is in your red arrows, it is in one of these If it does not comfortable fit there, we

three subparts.

would like to rethink it. MR. EDMONDS: of the red arrows. We believe it fits comfortably in one

I think there is a Government's Exhibit

Number 167-B which I'm sure we have provided to you yet, where John Albaugh writes to Kevin Ring after -- in the midst of discussions about the various earmarks, "By the way, Judy Istook is going to call you and Jack about the Congressional Spouses Club." Kevin Ring forwards that e-mail to Neil Volz

and Todd Boulanger and replies, "Holy joke getter." THE COURT: You showed that to me yesterday. I did

I believe this is what prompted the whole -- part

You offered this, did you not? MR. EDMONDS: I was going to offer it then, and I

withdrew it.

It does, however, come up in my time line a

little bit later because it is in the midst of responses in regards to the Franks earmark. As Mr. Albaugh noted, the

Franks earmark is one of those which he had never done and would not do for anyone else.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 16 of 102 16

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

THE COURT: MR. EDMONDS:

What was that again?

Remind me.

Because Congressman Franks irritated

the Appropriations Committee. THE COURT: MR. EDMONDS: Which Franks are we talking about? This is Trent Franks from Arizona.

And Congressman Young said no earmark, no appropriation request should go to Trent Franks. THE COURT: MR. EDMONDS: THE COURT: Are you going to offer it this morning? I was planning on it. Let's just hear it two seconds here. I

have to characterize this one way or another anyway at some time. I'm not convinced how to characterize it. necessarily determine this. It does not

I will have to go back after

I've made up my mind, based on giving everybody the fair opportunity. this. So -MR. WISE: I do think that we have gone into the But we keep on developing little facts about Now it is not a charity.

Before it was a charity.

situation where the argument has eaten the facts, because I think what is troubling the Court is not only the initial question that was whether this was a charitable organization, which it may not be, but also the question of which pot you fit this in. This can't be a gratuity. I don't know how it

could be advanced as this material self-interest concealment issue.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 35 of 102 35

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

do the Sheldon Road $300,000. Q Had this request been by any other lobbyist, would this

earmark have been funded? A Q No. Can you give us an example of an experience that you had

when an earmark for a retiring member was not funded? A There was one earmark for a Representative William

Janklow, who had retired, that we had included -- we had an earmark for him during the House passage of the bill, and he retired subsequent to that, which we eliminated as soon as he retired. Q Turn to Government's Exhibit Number 165. Blow up the bottom e-mail, please. What is the date here? A Q A This is November 10. Would you read that into the record. Kevin Ring to me. Subject, "How are we doing?" And he

says, "Conference going?" I respond -Q "Conference going," what does that mean? What is

happening right now? A Q We are finalizing things in conference. Can we blow up the next two e-mails, please. Read those into the record. A I respond, "What are your realistic expectations? By the

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 36 of 102 36

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

way, Franks, Arizona, shot his mouth off against the approps committee, which did not pass without notice from the front office." Ring responds, "You are making me nervous. numbers are starting to drool out. Q Some

When do I get a taste?"

Can you remind the jury what happened with Franks from

Arizona? A Congressman Franks shot his mouth off against the

Appropriations Committee, and the chairman of that committee instructed the staff not to provide any earmarks to him unless they checked with him first. Q A Can we turn to -- what did you do as a result of that? I informed Congressman Istook of this. And he went to

the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and was able to secure this earmark. Q A Q Why did you inform Congressman Istook of this? Because of the relationship with Kevin Ring. I want to turn to Government's Exhibit Number 166. Blow up the bottom two e-mails. Read -- what is the date here? A Q A This is November 10th. Can we -- just read the bottom e-mail, please. This is from Kevin Ring to Duane Gibson, Todd Boulanger, Subject, "Trans

Michael Williams and Diane Blagman. approps."

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 37 of 102 37

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

"Albaugh just called to say that we will need to have realistic expectations for our requests, saying our current idea of keeping all of them intact and increasing Agua is not." Todd Boulanger responds to that group, "Hmm, Albaugh needs to cut some Dem projects to help the team." Q A Q A Did you consider yourself part of the team? I did not, no. Can we go up to the next couple e-mails, please. Kevin Ring then responds, "Trent Franks bad-mouthed the

approps committee and has jeopardized Hopi's funding." Q A The next e-mail? Is Todd Boulanger responding, "Let's pull a million and a

half from them and pass it around to our other guys and blame that." Q A The top two e-mails, please. Kevin responds, "I told him I was fine with that, if we But I can only do it within same pot. Not all

needed to.

projects were in same pot." Q A What is happening in this e-mail? The lobbyists are trying to decide where the earmark

funding should be spent. Q A Is there anything that strikes you about this e-mail? Two things, one of which is that these were all

lobbyists, and they didn't work on the Appropriations

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 38 of 102 38

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

Committee staff, and they were trying determine amongst themselves how to spend -MR. WISE: THE COURT: saying. Objection, Your Honor, speculation. No, overruled. That is not what he is

He is saying why it struck him as odd. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: That none of the people here worked on

the Appropriations Committee or decided themselves how this money, these earmarks, should be spent. And secondly, that

in reading this, I'm convicted that I must have given an impression that they could discuss it this way. MR. WISE: THE COURT: actually. BY MR. EDMONDS: Q A Could you explain the answer? The first part is -THE COURT: The first part I understand, that these I'm not sure I do either. Objection, Your Honor. Yeah, I don't understand the answer,

people are talking about how to allocate, and they're not the decision-makers. THE WITNESS: That I may have given them the

impression in some way, through my conduct and action, that they could determine where the earmarks could go and how to divide them up.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 39 of 102 39

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

BY MR. EDMONDS: Q Did Mr. Ring and the lobbyists have the power to

determine where the earmarks were split? A Q A Q A Q No. Who had that power? The Appropriations Committee. Did you have that power, to some degree? I did. I want to go to Government's Exhibit Number 167. What is

the date on this one? A Q A This is November 11. Where, again, are we in the process? We are still in conference, trying to figure out all of

the projects. Q A If you could read that into the record. This is from Kevin Ring to myself. Subject, "Hopi." Would that

"What if Kolbe went to bat for Hopi? work?" Q A What is going on with this? What is Hopi?

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

going to occur because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had informed the staff not to provide any earmarks for him. Q A What is -- who is Kolbe? Kolbe was another representative. He was on the

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 40 of 102 40

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

Appropriations Committee from Arizona. Q A What is your response? "Ernest talked to someone who I don't want to name, and

there will be something for Franks, about one million." Q I want to go to Government's Exhibit Number 167-B, which

has not been distributed to the jury, but is admitted without objection. I'm sorry. THE COURT: MR. EDMONDS: THE COURT: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q Blow up the bottom two e-mails. Actually, do all three. It was admitted over objection. I'm sorry. 167-B. Admitted over objection.

The bottom three e-mails, please. What is the bottom e-mail? A That is the initial e-mail that Kevin Ring sent to me. Would that work?"

"What if Kolbe went to bat for Hopi? Q A

What do you respond in this e-mail? I respond, "By the way, Judy Istook is going to call you

and Jack about this Congressional Spouses Club." Q A What is the Congressional Spouses Club? My understanding at this time was that it was a

physical -- it was a hobby that Mrs. Istook was involved in that was a physical building and social outlet for Congressional spouses.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 41 of 102 41

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

Q A Q

Did you mention that in an e-mail yesterday? Yes, I did. Can we just go briefly back to that, Government's Exhibit Blow out the middle e-mail from Kevin Ring to

Number 125. John Albaugh.

Would you read that into the record again. A "I am a big deal, ain't I? Pretty funny. I think I can

get some cash for Mrs. I.'s event. Q

Is 1,000 enough?"

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

Blow out those three e-mails again. What does Kevin Ring do with your e-mail that Judy Istook is going to call you and Jack about the Congressional Spouses Club? A He forwards it to Neil Volz and Todd Boulanger and said,

"Holy joke getter." Q A Q Do you know the phrase "get the joke"? I do not, no. Can we turn to Government's Exhibit Number 170, please.

Blow out the top part until we get to "adds." Tell us what is happening here. A In this situation, the initial version we had of the

transportation appropriations bill gave the Republicans more project money than typical. So the Democrats balked at that,

and we were not able to move that bill. So, to be able to remedy that, instead of cutting

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 42 of 102 42

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

some projects, we declared an emergency and increased spending, generally providing the Democrats with extra money. And we received some extra money in that case as well. Q When you guys received the extra money, what did you

propose to do with it? A I proposed these -- "restore cuts from House pass bill Some exceptions like LaHood and Franks, I expect Then I propose

generally.

that this would cost less than $10 million." a list of adds. Q

If we could blow out the adds that are below that. On these adds are some of Kevin Ring's-- I'm sorry,

whose -- what various different projects that we've talked about before are on this? A Well, Chip Pickering's Choctaw roads is on this. Wilson is on this. Bono is on this. Ose is

on this.

That's all

that we've talked about before. Q Does Mr. Ring have any other clients that are listed on

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

What was the other one that we talked about? THE WITNESS: Saginaw. Choctaw. Pickering is Choctaw. Camp is

Let me start at the beginning. Ose is Elk Grove. THE COURT: THE WITNESS:

Pickering is

That's the municipality. Yes. Elk Grove.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 43 of 102 43

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

THE COURT:

Wilson is Sandia.

And Bono is -- I'm

not sure who the client was there. BY MR. EDMONDS: Q How did you make all of the various different

determinations of these adds that you wanted to put in? A Well, Boozman was an endangered Republican. Then And

Reynolds, Blunt and Cantor were members of leadership.

the remaining ones were major donors to Congressman Istook. Q Go to Government's Exhibit Number 171, please. THE COURT: So you are saying the lobbyist for whom Is that the way I

Collins put this in is a major donor? should read it? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q Yes.

So if they weren't leadership -Or endangered Republican.

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

tell us how many of them are Kevin Ring's. MR. WISE: Part of the answer was also that they So I would ask the

were major contributors to Mr. Istook. Court to give the instruction. THE COURT: Right.

Being a contributor is a There is nothing

perfectly fine, as I have told the jury.

improper about Mr. Ring's clients being contributors and receiving benefits because they contribute political

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 44 of 102 44

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

contributions to the campaign. So can you be a little clearer in your question here? MR. EDMONDS: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q I'm just asking: Of these people that you put in the Sure.

"add" category, how many of them are Kevin Ring's clients? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Five. Is the "add" category everybody? Or are

you trying to exclude leadership and endangered? MR. EDMONDS: about here. THE COURT: But how many of them are -- fall within This is everybody that we're talking

the category of leadership or -THE WITNESS: Certainly. Mr. Boozman was an I'm going off

endangered Republican, and Turner of Ohio.

memory now, but I think he may have been endangered. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: in another category? THE WITNESS: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q So to follow up on the Court's question. There are five Then And then -The leadership is Blunt. Who else?

Reynolds, Blunt and Cantor. So there are five on the list that come

that are either leadership or endangered Republicans.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 45 of 102 45

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

there are five also which are Kevin Ring's clients? A Q Uh-huh. Then there are an additional other -- a few others who

are also major donors to Congressman Istook? A Yes. THE COURT: So there are 14 total. So, I'm trying

to understand this a minute. Let's look at this Collins, $500 for Rockdale. is not one of Mr. Ring's clients? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: That is correct. But you are saying that the person for I don't That

whom Collins is sponsoring this is a major donor.

know who the donor is, looking at this, but the person gave money to Istook. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Istook. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: That is correct. Would that be true of the all five here; That's correct. Kevin Ring's clients also gave money to

the projects or the clients had also paid money? THE WITNESS: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q Can you compare the number of projects that Mr. Ring has That is correct.

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

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 46 of 102 46

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

A

Well, Cunningham was Ron Packard.

I don't remember

Lathen.

And Collins and Quinn, and on the following pages,

Gingery, were all Doug Patton. Q A Tell us a little bit about Doug Patton. Doug Patton was a lobbyist who we had initially gotten to

know when Congressman Istook was chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, and had been very helpful to us when he was chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, because Mr. Patton had formally been, like, the vice mayor, and he really understood D.C. when we took over the subcommittee, and we did not. So he was able to explain a

lot of the peculiarities about the District. THE COURT: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q When was the Congressman chair of the D.C. Appropriations That's a nice way to put it.

Subcommittee? A I believe that would have been in 1999 and 2000. THE COURT: we're not a state? THE WITNESS: BY MR. EDMONDS: Q Beginning in 1999 and 2000, you had had a relationship There's a lot of peculiarities. So we're talking about the fact that

with Doug Patton? A Q That is correct. I want to turn to Government's Exhibit Number 171.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 131

Filed 10/20/09 Page 47 of 102 47

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 A A

Blow out the bottom two e-mails here. What is the date here? It begins on November 12. The question is "Still It is helping out your

conferencing?" projects." Q

I respond, "Yes.

Can we blow out the top two e-mails, please. Can you read those into the record. Kevin responds, "Woo-hoo. Tell me when you can.

Thanks." I respond, "Franks is now at 1.25 million, Bono 1 million, Saginaw 1.2 million, Choctaw 1.4 million. man?" Q A Q Franks, Bono, Saginaw, Choctaw, what are those? Those are clients of Kevin Ring's. Again, with Representative -- with the Franks request, Who's the

what one was that, as you've talked about with the jury before? A That is the one that the chairman of the Appropriations

Committee had said that you need to come and talk to him before you do any earmark. Q A With Bono, what did you tell the jury about the Bono one? She had come to Istook on the floor of the House right

before markup. Q What would you typically have done with that type of

request?

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 1 of 138 1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA --------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. KEVIN RING, Defendant ---------------------------X Washington, D.C. Friday, September 18, 2009. 9:30 A.M. TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL BEFORE 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 Section Bond Building 1400 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 307-0629 Michael Ferrara, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Criminal Div. Public Integrity Section 1400 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 305-2593 DAY 9 Criminal Case No. 08-274

Court Reporter:

Lisa Walker Griffith, RPR U.S. District Courthouse Room 6507 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 354-3247

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by computer.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 2 of 138 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 OFFICE 36 South Charles Street 4th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 209-4900

For the Defendants:

Andrew Todd Wise, Esq. Timothy Patrick O'Toole, Esq. MILLER CHEVALIER CHTD 655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 626-5818

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 63 of 138 63

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

the conference report. document. Admitted.

House 2673.

This is a public

(Defense Exhibit Number 19 was received into evidence.) BY MR. WISE: Q A Q Do you recognize what that is? Yes, I do. Okay. This is the conference report that follows

conference, correct? A Q Correct. If we can turn to Page 948 of the document. Do you see the project on the final conference report? page. THE COURT: the rest of us? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: BY MR. WISE: Q Meaning that Mr. McGinnis' project was funded in the I do, yes, I see it. Thank you. You want to blow it up a little bit for And I direct your attention to the middle of the

final conference report, correct? A Q I cannot make that determination and I'll tell you why. You can't make it from seeing it in the final conference

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

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 64 of 138 64

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

Senate has money and the House has money.

And so, this And

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

so, yes, this project is in here, but it could have been that a senator made it a priority and it was funded due to that. Q We'll come back to that. Let's talk about Mr. Ose some

more in 2004. A Q Yes. You said that you didn't cut his projects in '03 because

of Kevin, right? A Q That's correct. Kevin also made four requests to you for Ose projects in

2004? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q That's correct. They were the Grove Street bikeway, right? Yes. Sheldon Road interchange, right? Yes. The Oak Grove I.T.S.? Yes. The Oak Grove Park & Ride? Yes. Okay. Representative Ose had not changed his mind on

retiring, correct? A Q That is correct. And when Kevin submitted those requests to you, he was

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 65 of 138 65

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

actually, was known as a lame duck, right? A Q That's correct. Which means that someone else had already been elected to

replace him and he was filling out his term, right? A I'll take your word for it. I don't remember when

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

funded, correct? A Q A Q A Q A Q Yes. Sheldon Road project was funded? Yes. The Oak Grove project was funded? Yes. And the Oak Grove Park & Ride was funded, correct? Yes. At the time that Mr. Ring is lobbying you and coming to

you on these projects, the Abramoff story has already been in the papers, right? A Q A Q A Q A Yes. Kevin has got no tickets to give you, correct? That's correct. He hasn't taken you to Suites, right? No. He also comes to you on other projects in 2004, right? Yes.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 66 of 138 66

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

Q A Q A Q A Q A

One for Mr. Doolittle? Yes. Which is funded? Yes. One for Mr. Rehberg? Yes, that was 323 again. Which was funded? Yes. THE COURT: Three twenty-three, I'm sorry, what's

323? THE WITNESS: BY MR. WISE: Q A Q A Q One for Mr. Franks? Yes. Which is also funded, right? Yes. In 2004, when Mr. Ring had no tickets to give you, he That's the highway in Montana.

brought you seven projects, correct? A Q A Q A Yes. Well, four for Ose, correct? Yes. One for Doolittle, Rehberg and Franks, right? Yes. THE COURT: Were the Ose four projects funded? I

didn't hear the answer.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 67 of 138 67

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

THE WITNESS: THE COURT: BY MR. WISE: Q

Three. Three were funded.

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

right? A Q Yes. When you did your handwritten chart -If we could bring that up one more time. You had ten out of 12 projects funded in the Ring column, correct? A Q Correct. If you did a chart for Ring '04, no tickets, you would

have had six out of seven, right? A Q Yes. Okay. The second thing that you said that you did for

Kevin that you did for no other lobbyist, was that you preserved a request related to Trent Franks, right? A Q A Q A Q A Right. Now, that was a request for the Hopi tribe in Arizona? Yes. And it was called the Turquoise Trail Project? Right. What was the purpose of the project? I don't know. It was just, to me it was a road project.

I don't remember the specifics of the project.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 68 of 138 68

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

Q A Q A Q A Q

To promote economic development, do you recall that? I don't recall that. The Hopi was not a gaming tribe, right? I don't know. They didn't have a casino? I don't know. Okay. The initial request for this project that Kevin

made -And if we can pull up Government 135, and go to the second page, please. The initial request on this project is $3 million, right? A Q Correct. There is then a given change between you and the

subcommittee, right? A Q Yes. And -If we can pull up Defense 275. Do you see the Franks project near the bottom of the page? MR. EDMONDS: MR. WISE: THE COURT: hear. MR. WISE: This is 16. What exhibit number is this?

This is -- can I see your list? What's the exhibit number? I didn't

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 69 of 138 69

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

THE COURT: BY MR. WISE: Q A Q

Defense Exhibit 16.

Do you see the Franks project on the bottom? Yes, I do. So, the initial request was three million. And after the

give and take with you and the subcommittee, we're at 2.533, correct? A Q That's the number down there, yes. Okay. Do you recall that at some point in the process,

you hit a snag because there had been a change in the 60/40 rule? A Q A Q A Q Yes. Because Mr. Istook had wanted to go to 65/35? Yes. And the Democrats pushed back at some point? Yes. And so, at that point, you had to reset some of the

earmarks because of the objections, right? A Ultimately, we did not reset the earmarks. We increased

spending. Q Okay. Let me bring up just for identification 276, which It's another spreadsheet. Is this going into evidence? It may. Well, hold off, don't put it on the

is now 20.

THE COURT: MR. WISE: THE COURT:

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 70 of 138 70

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

screen yet. BY MR. WISE: Q Do you recognize the document that's on your screen as a

document you created titled "Changes due to 60/40?" A Q I recall it, yes. Okay. And is this a document that you prepared during

the appropriations process in 2003? A Yes. MR. WISE: No objection? No objection.

MR. EDMONDS: MR. WISE: THE COURT: Exhibit.

I'd move it in, Your Honor. Twenty will be admitted, Defense

And we can put it on the screen. (Defense Exhibit Number 20 was received into

evidence.) THE COURT: MR. WISE: THE COURT: BY MR. WISE: Q Now, there is a section in this column called new It was done in 2004? 2003. Okay.

changes, correct? A Q Yes. And you've marked on a number of projects, "Move to

$51 million pot," right? A That's correct.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 71 of 138 71

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

Q

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

right? A Q That's correct. Okay. The $51 million pot was some new money that you

found so that you could fully fund projects, right? A Q That's correct. Instead of having to cut based on the move from 65/35

back to 60/40, right? A Q That's correct. There were three projects on this document that you

recommended potentially for cuts though, right? A Q That's correct. And those are the projects that are shown with the number

in the parenthesis on the second to last column on the right, correct? A Q A Q That's correct. One of those projects was Kevin's Franks project, right? That's correct. How many projects are still under consideration

approximately at this point? A Q A Q A Do you know the date that this file was created? I don't know exactly. Thousands. Thousands, right? Yeah.

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 72 of 138 72

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

Q A Q

And you recommend three to be cut? If this was all the changes that were going on. I mean.

If this document is a full picture of what you had

recommended, you recommended three to be cut? A Q Yes. Okay. MR. EDMONDS: this is a full picture. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yeah, right. Right. Objection because we don't know if

Yeah, I mean, it's a snapshot. Right. All you'll know from this

document is that you recommended at least three; is that fair? THE WITNESS: BY MR. WISE: Q A Q Including one of Kevin's, right? Yes. Okay. After the bill was approved by the full House, Yes.

Representative Franks angered the committee, right? A Q A That is correct. Tell the jury how he angered the committee. He shot his mouth off against the appropriations I don't know the specifics of what he did. And

committee.

the full committee chairman instructed the appropriations committee staff to ensure that he would receive no earmarks

Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 132

Filed 10/20/09 Page 73 of 138 73

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

unless they first checked with him. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY MR. WISE: Q Wasn't Representative Franks' complaint that there were The chairman at the time? Bill Young from Florida.

too many earmarks in the bill? A Q A Q I don't know what his complaint was. Mr. Istook was friends with Mr. Franks, correct? Yes. And at some point, Mr. Istook spoke with someone on the

committee staff to urge them not to punish Mr. Franks? A Q A Q That is correct. And you say that that was at your insistence, right? I recommended that he did, yes. Because you wanted to see Kevin's project saved,

according to you? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Yes. It wasn't just Kevin's project that was saved, was it? No. In fact, Mr. Franks had another project in that bill? That's correct. That Kevin had nothing to do with? That's correct. That actually was funded to the tune of $7 million? That's correct.