Comments (17)

jd8 wrote on September 18, 2007 11:49 AM:

Wow. The Fox Republican officials and politicians have been tossed out of majority rule in large part for their corruption and they STILL are 80% of the worst, most slimeball corrupt politicians in Congress. Man you've got to give those frops credit - it's really hard work to keep up all those bribes and abuses of power when you're not even in power!

A+ on keeping up the corruption you vile sleezebucket frops. That's almost as admirable as you covering for our rudderless, more of the same, lamo surge strategy that keeps killing more and more Americans each month. More corruption. No achievable plan for success in Iraq. Let's see what happens to all you frops next election. You'll get my vote over my dead body.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30131

Slippery Slope wrote on September 18, 2007 11:58 AM:

It is brilliant...

I'm not a bad guy. I'm just a poor businessman trying to support our troops in America’s Global War on Terror. It's those crooked congressman that set up this shake-down system.

Oh, and by the why, if we dig deep enough, Clinton had something to do with this too.

Jokes aside, this is meant to cast dispersions on ALL of Congress. This, after all, business as usual. It has an added benefit of linking Dems in with the corrupt, no oversight, rubber-stamp, line your pocket at the expense of the taxpayers, throw out the Constitution, former Republican lead Congress.

Next WH meme will be; see Congress ignores subpoenas too.

GeorgeBush43 wrote on September 18, 2007 1:13 PM:

I have just issued a new executiv order that says that Republicans don't have to answer supeanas.

--GWB

slb wrote on September 18, 2007 1:15 PM:

Aspersions. The word is aspersions.

slb wrote on September 18, 2007 1:20 PM:

Damn, I thought the one good thing about this new comment format was that it allowed HTML and hot links. Nope.

So in exchange for a "Remember personal info" option that has the memory of Alberto Gonzales, what do we get that is positive?

SkippyFlipjack wrote on September 18, 2007 1:24 PM:

How can it be "against House rules" to comply with subpoenas in criminal trials? Does the rule of law stop at Congress's front door? Can it really be true that there are laws that apply to every single citizen except politicians??

(ps: at least for the time being, with this new comments format we don't get the inane post postscripts like "Secret Code: Jail! Like where Bush is going!")

Andrew Foland wrote on September 18, 2007 1:25 PM:

Or is this really intended to lead to the argument, "Your honor, we'd sure like to mount a defense, but it's really not possible given the Government's refusal to allow testimony from these members. Move to dismiss."

cowboyx wrote on September 18, 2007 1:27 PM:

Maybe Wilkes is counting on the GOP to ignore and the Dems to comply...so then his lawyers get the Dems on the stand and ask them "did my client bribe you?", to which the Dems (hopefully...) say "No, he did not" "I rest my case!"

Of course, this theory only works if the Dems are clean and nobody from the GOP complies with the subpoena.

don de drain wrote on September 18, 2007 1:31 PM:

The issuance of the subpoenas illustrates (in a backhanded way) why "true reform" in Congress is so difficult and why the treatment received by Cunningham is the exception and not the rule. There are skeletons in many different closets, some of them Republicans and some of them Democrats. The D's with skeletons in their closets are likely afraid of corrupt R's (and other corrupt D's) being treated like Cunningham because they fear that such treatment increases their own exposure. The reverse is also true (i.e., corrupt R's have a similar fear). The result is that we have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to improper/illegal conduct in Congress. Unless, of course, there is an independent Department of Justice capable of conducting a thorough investigation while withstanding political pressure.

Those on the outside who are parties to (or enable) Congressional corruption have no desire to expose the situation. In fact, they have an interest in making sure that some members of both political parties are corrupt. This helps prevent bad things from happening when there is a change in political control in DC.

A prime example of how this works is what happened to Rep. Foley. There is very likely lots of stuff that never came out that should have come out. But both political parties likely feared the results of the fallout if everything became public. The end result is that Foley walks, due to statute of limitations.

Cunningham is an exception to this rule. We are all thankful that the Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office in San Diego was able to achieve a measure of justice, particularly given the politicization of the Department of Justice. But consider how long Cunningham's activities went on without anything happening and why he was not brought to justice sooner. Without some good investigative journalism by a San Diego newspaper, Cunningham would probably still be in Congress today.

That thought is much scarier than any Stephen King novel.

KeithL wrote on September 18, 2007 1:35 PM:

So how can a sitting President be compelled to testify in a civil suit and Congress Critters can ignore subpoenas for a criminal bribery case in which they are likely to have personal knowledge (and guilt)?

I guess the rule of law died an unnoticed and apparently, unloved death.

Juble wrote on September 18, 2007 2:16 PM:

Who are the 4 Dems ?Think Jane Harman is one of them.If they are on the take we must get rid of 'em big time.

Rick B wrote on September 18, 2007 2:32 PM:

These subpoenas are about as close at Brent Wilkes could come to saying "I paid all these Representatives for favors." without being charged with Libel.

Mike Mid City wrote on September 18, 2007 2:40 PM:

A shotgun strategy will eat up a few months. If you can't baffle them with brilliance, paper them over with bull-spit and hope an noncompliance will work.

For the money Wilkes is shelling out for legal fees he should get all the action he can.

BEFORE THEY SHIP HIM TO HIS BUDDY DUKE'S CELL. Duchy Cunningham should still be in the joint by the time this Republican weasel goes to the big house. Heck he should have a Bridge Club and need new members by the time Wilkes gets there.

dee illuminati wrote on September 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

I think the real issue is a clear example of quid-pro-quo coupled with malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance. In addition there has to be a pattern of deception and obfuscation surrounding the act that meets racketeering.

Dec. 12, 1991
Cunningham announces he will seek election in the new 51st Congressional District, running against fellow Republican Rep. Bill Lowery. Later that month, Cunningham moves from a condominium in Mission Valley to a house in Del Mar. April 18, 1995ADCS Inc. is incorporated.

September 1996Defense contractor and campaign contributor Brent Wilkes begins purchasing thousands of dollars in meals for Cunningham at Washington-area restaurants such as The Capital Grille, The Palm, Ozio and Mr. K's.

Nov. 26, 1996
Cunningham, on being named to the House Appropriations Committee, says in a news release: “I'm going to work hard to balance the budget and prioritize federal spending to better reflect the desires of San Diegans and the American people.”

Dec. 15, 1997
Questioned about his support for Poway's ADCS Inc., founded by Wilkes, Cunningham says: “I'm on the side of angels here” and anyone who says otherwise can “go to hell.”

May 1, 2000
Cunningham receives $100,000 in two checks from Wilkes and deposits them into personal bank accounts.

Oct. 23, 2000
Wilkes begins paying the mortgage on Cunningham's boat, the “Kelly C.”

Jan. 23, 2001
Cunningham is named to the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Dec. 3, 2001
Thomas Kontogiannis, a New York businessman, has $200,000 sent into an escrow account for the purchase of a condominium for Cunningham in Arlington, Va.

Dec. 4, 2001
Cunningham buys the condominium, with views of the Potomac, for $350,000.

Nov. 5, 2002
Cunningham wins election to the newly reapportioned 50th District seat.

Nov. 5, 2003
Cunningham agrees to sell his Del Mar-area house for $1.5 million to defense contractor Mitchell Wade.

Nov. 6, 2003
Cunningham asks for an additional $175,000 for the house.

Nov. 7, 2003
Cunningham signs an agreement to sell the house for $1.675 million, but Wade's name is taken off the papers and replaced with the name of a corporation he controls. Wade quickly puts the house on the market, but it sits unsold for eight months.

Dec. 3, 2003
Cunningham purchases a Rancho Santa Fe house for $2.55 million. $1 million of the purchase is financed with mortgages.

March 8, 2004
Cunningham sells the condominium in Arlington, Va., for $500,000.

May 13, 2004
After getting a $6 million contract, Wilkes sends $525,000 to a company controlled by Kontogiannis to pay off the second mortgage on Cunningham's Rancho Santa Fe home. Kontogiannis takes over the payments.

Nov. 2, 2004
Cunningham wins re-election in the 50th District.

AND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The businessman further acknowledged that a mortgage company owned by his daughter and nephew provided Cunningham with two loans totaling $1.1 million so the congressman could buy his home in Rancho Santa Fe. The businessman said he eventually paid off one of those loans in partial payment for the yacht.

Cunningham bought the 65-foot flat-bottom riverboat Kelly C from then-Rep. Sonny Callahan, R-Ala., for $200,000 in 1997. Five years later, he sold the boat for $600,000 to Thomas Kontogiannis, the Long Island businessman said yesterday.

Kontogiannis defended the $600,000 price tag as "a steal," saying that he had received an appraisal for twice that amount.

The Kontogiannis family is a frequent contributor to Republican causes, including a $300 contribution to Cunningham in July 2002, the year of the sale.

Cunningham's financial dealings in recent weeks have embroiled him in a multitiered federal investigation and cast a shadow over his Washington career.

In a series of interviews with Copley News Service yesterday, Kontogiannis confirmed that he bought Cunningham's boat and that the congressman offered to help him explore the possibility of seeking a pardon from President Bush and the Justice Department. Cunningham then put him in touch with a Washington law firm and recommended "two or three" lawyers to talk to, said the businessman.

Wordster wrote on September 18, 2007 5:07 PM:

Another story from the Twilight Zone where lobbying, bribery, legislative extortion, and campaign finance merge into one... Why expect that they can be disentangled?

Mellifluous wrote on September 19, 2007 6:28 AM:

I'm not a lawyer, nor does my daughter play one on TV in the Holiday Express commercial.

I see graymail. Call me cynical. The defense will be that, since the CongressCritters won't testify, I can't put on a defense. Therefore, the case cannot go forward.

Oscar wrote on September 19, 2007 2:19 PM:

Note that only the SITTING members of Congress who has to disclose the subpoenas. Given that this groups includes every sitting member who has been linked to Wilkes, my educated guess is that Tom DeLay has been subpoenad as well. He just keeps popping up in these things...