The Daily Muck
Duke was even dirtier than you thought.
Gearing up for tomorrow's sentencing, the government has issued their rebuttal to Cunningham's request for a mere 6 years imprisonment. No way, says the government - Duke was looking at life in prison if he'd gone to trial, so 10 years is lenient enough.
Why? Oh, there are plenty of reasons. From Roll Call:In the latest court filing, federal prosecutors declared that Cunningham worked diligently to steer millions of federal dollars to [Mitchell Wade's] MZM and [Brent Wilkes'] ADCS. Justice Department documents say the two firms were his top priority for defense funding requests from the House Appropriations and Armed Services committees during 2003. Those firms, in turn, earned huge profits on those defense contracts, with profit margins exceeding 800 percent for some intelligence-related work, prosecutors charge. Part of that money was then returned to Cunningham in the form of bribes, a cycle that went on for more than five years.When MZM and ADCS did not receive payments promptly from Defense Department officials, Cunningham personally intervened, calling or meeting with DOD officials to “browbeat” them into releasing the funds to MZM and ADCS and threatening to go to their superiors unless they moved quickly, according to the documents. In at least one case, Cunningham sought to have a DOD official fired because that official refused to respond to his demands.
Cunningham even “provided numerous blank sheets of his [C]ongressional letterhead to Wade” to enable Wade to draft letters on his behalf. Several of these blank sheets were seized during the search of MZM’s offices last year by federal agents, according to the latest government filing.
Wow.
The San Diego Union-Tribune adds:
[Prosecutors] included is a script Wilkes gave the legislator on how to talk a skeptical Pentagon official into moving funds into his company's programs.
And as for Duke's supposed charity work his lawyers mentioned as an illustration of his otherwise good character?
The Justice Department said that the only charitable work it could confirm was that Cunningham once gave 100 pounds of beef to a day care center. The prosecutors further suggested Cunningham could have been hit with money laundering charges in addition to the other counts.
Jack Abramoff's Israeli Oil Boondoggle
It was an Abramoff venture that never quite got off the ground: his bid to be an Israeli oil tycoon. The details are shady, but Abramoff's Russians enter the picture - they apparently helped him connect with the Israeli government for exploration rights. He never got the permit, though. Like I said, the details are shady. (Boston Globe)
Burns' Abramoff Problem
The NY Times wonders out loud whether Democrats in Montana can make the corruption label stick to Sen. Burns (R-MT). The polls are showing a dead heat, but the Times notes that Burns is powerful, a senior member on the Appopriations Committee.
So the Dems have to counter the "Yeah, he's dirty, but he's our dirty Senator" mindset.
But Burns might want to fine tune his rebuttal to the Democratic talking point that he received more Abramoff money than any other member of Congress. Says Burns: "What's the difference between one dollar and one thousand? Its all dollars." (NYT)
Jack and George
A while back, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA for access to White House visitor logs to see how often Jack Abramoff came and went. They didn't get a reply, so now they're suing the Secret Service for them. (AP)
Reform
As I noted yesterday, Trent Lott's reform legislation made its way through the House Rules Committee. The NY Times headline gets it right: "Senate Panel Approves Modest Curbs on Lobbyists." Sen. Dodd's (D-CT) tougher proposal, modeled on the Dems' Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, was voted down on party lines.
The Times reports this was always part of the plan: "They calculated that it would be better to vote with Republicans on the rules panel and later press their alternative when the bill reaches the full Senate." (NYT, LAT, AP, The Hill, TPM)
Hotline notices that Santorum made a big show of pushing tougher reform legislation in the meeting yesterday, a bit of theatrics meant to walk the fine line of helping "his re-election chances while not irritating his colleagues too much." (Hotline)
Wilkes' CIA Pal
Newsweek briefly notes that Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor who bribed Duke Cunningham who has not pled guilty, was close to the No. 3 at CIA, Dusty Foggo. Foggo says he hasn't been contacted by anyone in the criminal investigation. (Newsweek)
Texas Redistricting
The Supreme Court hears the Texas Redistricting Case today. (AP, Bloomberg)
Conyers' Ethics Problems
Two former aides of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have filed ethics complaints against him, as well as notifying the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office:
[T]hey allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. They also charge that some aides illegally used Conyers’s congressional offices to enrich themselves.
(The Hill)
DeLay's Audit
Yesterday, CREW filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) for his role in provoking an audit of Texans for Public Justice - a group whose only crime was being critical of Tom DeLay. Read TPM on the dubious process behind the audit here. (CREW)
The GOP Hits the Bong
The Stakeholder caught a majestic bit from yesterday's Roll Call, wherein a lobbyist told Boehner's aide that GOP leaders ought to "lay off the bong" because they were passing a resolution that praised the NAACP. (The Stakeholder)
Did we miss something? Was there local coverage in your area we should know about? Email us at talk@talkingpoin tsmemo.com with the Subject line "Daily Muck" and let us know.












I scoff at prison terms for victimless crimes. Cunningham should be forced to forfeit every dollar he has both in terms of liquid assets as well as the non-liquid variety. But go to prison?
March 1, 2006 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demand the Truth
Democrats need to remember the tactics employed by Steve Atwater and Karl Rove. That is to attack your opponent's strengths, or their preceived strength.
If a Demcratic candidate for office has an opponent that is in office then they must use that against the opponent.
Examples are Senator Burns and Rep. Tom Davis:
Both are in the GOP leadership (not that they are Republicans, but GOP leadership postions) as Committee Chairmen.
Both have used their GOP Committee Chairmen postions for the betterment of the GOP and not for the betterment of the American people.
Both have used the Committee for political positioning and for creating great sound-bites for the media and their own campaigns, but no real actions on the important issues those committees are supposed to do on the behaves of the American people.
Both have use their leadership position to put GOP paritisian politics above the interests of the American public.
The criminal GOP leadership is corrupt to the core. Your neighbor who is a Republican is being lead by the corrput GOP. The GOP is corrupt and not Republicans (the voters).
Or to paraphase it into a one liner, "It is the GOP Stupid".
March 1, 2006 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's victimless about this? Cunningham was effectively stealing taxpayer dollars.
March 1, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many, many criminals go to prison for stealing money...Cunningham not only stole money, he betrayed the trust his constituents had paced in him.
He engaged in his thievery in an egregious and arrogant fashion. Of course he should go to jail.
And so should a whole bunch of the crowd involved with the Abramoff crooks.
March 1, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
This was not a victimless crime. I am a victim of this crime, and any American taxpayer is also a victim. My personal loss is fairly small in this case, perhaps a couple cents. However, several cents multiplied by 100 million taxpayers multiplied by however many other corrupt Republicans (but I repeat myself), and it starts to add up to real money
A victimless crime has no victim: thus no one has suffered a loss. Noted examples are prostitution or drug use. Corruption has many victims.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
March 1, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take that "victimless crime" meme seriously: it's good GOP mindset that the money shouldn't be in the hands of the govt anyway, so no crime to take it. Side by side with the meme that the govt shouldn't be doing job X anyway, so no matter how badly it is done (hello, perscription drugs).
March 1, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demand the Truth
Just in from Justin Rood:
(March 01, 2006 -- 11:27 AM EST // link)
Here's Carnival's version: The Health and Human Services Department first asked the cruise company on Aug. 31 if it could use its ships for Katrina relief efforts, Thornton testified. “This was our first contact with the government with respect to the vessels,” he told the House Government Affairs Committee.
"You didn't seek the government contract. The government came to you, basically, with a solicitation," Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), asked Thornton.
"That's correct," Thornton replied.
Apparently, Mr. Thornton, it's not.
-- Justin RoodMarch 1, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides the issue of stealing taxpayer's dollars, how many soldiers went without proper armor; how much armor was improperly made; how many decisions about what is BEST for our defense were based not on facts, but on who was paying Cunningham the most? Money that should have/could have been spent on proper equipment and arms went to people whose only concern was their own greed. We will never know the full extent of the harm done to the victims of these crimes.
BTW - If someone robs a bank but doesn't shoot anyone in the process, is THAT crime victimless, since the money is insured? Of course not!
I don't want to sound hysterical, but the fact is that one of the biggest victims here is our entire country; our trust in our government; our naive belief that a democracy works on the behalf of its citizens.
Although I would "scoff" at prison terms for jaywalking --I do think it would be kind of over the top (an actual EXAMPLE of a victimless crime) I am glad that as far as I know, we actually don't send people up the river for stuff like that. Cunningham deserves ten years.
Jan Knaus
March 1, 2006 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVILLE DEM
By "victimless" I am insinuating that no one individual has been inherently harmed. By "taxpayers losing money" we are now of the opinion that money is more important than physical safety? I disagree with that. In jail Cunningham will be able to keep his fortune and return to it upon his early release (which is imminent). And, to be technical, is prison not a reformatory? We sometimes forget that the real reason for prisons is to reform inmates so as they refrain from breaking the laws in the future. In certain cases it is for murderers and the like who will never be free again, but in Cunningham's case, we all know he will one day be free again. In my opinin it is a real waste of taxpayers dollars to house him in a jail. Did he break the law? Yes. Should he be punished? Yes. Why not hit him where it hurts most by taking away everything he has gained?
March 1, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and the Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Neo-con aggression in Iraq is the most massive crime of all...but it could hardly be called 'victimless'.
Will a day of reckoning ever come for THOSE criminals? What would 'fitting punishment be?
March 1, 2006 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cunningham was a war profiteer. The prison sentence is for deterrence and punishment (not to somehow "reform" prisoners, although that's also desirable). Just taking away his bribes and setting him free isn't deterrence for other's to the same.
Don't worry about the ill-gotten gains. He'll have to forfeit what's left (and pay back taxes).
March 1, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demand the Truth
Remember every time some one betrays their constituents they betray the American public.
They betray all of us.
March 1, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Victimless? Just because he didn't club someone over the head physically while extorting that money, doesn't mean it was victimless, but I get your point. However, I think his cash and assets gained by this crime should be taken, ALONG WITH his freedom, for a good long time. Taking that ill gotten booty from him could be rationalized as an opportunity cost, but taking his freedom from him, now that would really hit home, and make it at a real prison, not some Federal country club prison. Also, it might have the beneficial side effect of shining a light on the 'correctional', or lack of correctional aspect of our current prison system today.
March 1, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sentencing is not tomorrow, it is Friday March 3, 1pm pst.
March 1, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, although I usually don't cut & paste my own comments, I will do it here because your comments indicate that you didn't read what I said. My point was NOT only about money. I said:
Besides the issue of stealing taxpayer's dollars, how many soldiers went without proper armor; how much armor was improperly made; Translation: How many of our soldiers were killed or maimed because of this?
...how many decisions about what is BEST for our defense were based not on facts, but on who was paying Cunningham the most? Money that should have/could have been spent on proper equipment and arms went to people whose only concern was their own greed. We will never know the full extent of the harm done to the victims of these crimes. Translation: Who knows how much more effective our army could have been? With the right tools at their disposal -- maybe they could have all been home by now.
And what is with your definition of a victim, Gettysburg?
By "victimless" I am insinuating that no one individual has been inherently harmed.
Tell that to one family of the many whose sons or daughters were blown up in poorly armored Humvees. Since when has it been better to harm one person than many? I really don't get your logic at all.
Jan Knaus
March 1, 2006 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reality, I do not think there is anything like a "victimless crime". Every action, be it good or bad, has consequences. It might not be readily apparent in the present or the near future, but somewhere, sometime, somehow.
For a quick example, what GWB has wrought will haunt this planet for generations. It won't end when he is impeached. The lust for power, the disrespect for human life and the world's environment and greed will live on, it is his legacy.
What the "Duke" did was clearly very wrong, similar to the actions of dozens of other scoundrels caught up in the Beltway Money Craze scandal. The dollar amounts involved in all these scandals could easily have been a downpayment on a national health insurance policy instead of plush vacations and gold plated toilet seats.
On the flip side, there is no justice without mercy. So maybe there could be a compromise, an "alternative sentence" as punishment. like sending Duke to the Gulf Coast to help with the reconstruction while spending evenings at a local half-way house.
Paul, I think the Daily Muck should be required reading in every school in the nation. As this series continues, it will become invaluable to the real historians in the future who will want to try to understand what in the hell went wrong here in this country.
March 1, 2006 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Daily Muck as reference for history, Greg777? The Bush operatives will probably find a way to 'classify' ALL Daily Muck material.
They will try to classify these revelations on a basis of 'in perpetuity', so future students will never be apprised of the incredible scope of the mis-deeds of the Bush II administration.
March 2, 2006 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink