A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 28, 2005"Duke" Cunningham Cops A PleaCalif. Congressman Admits Taking Bribes Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges and tearfully resigned from office, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to conspirators. I just love it when the crooks are stupid enough to get caught. (P.S.--Can we throw away that "Vietnam vets in Congress are beyond reproach" meme now?) Comments
Prosecutors said Cunningham had taken bribes from contractors, which enabled him to buy a mansion, a suburban Washington condominium, a yacht and a Rolls Royce.There is a scene in the Goodfellas in which, despite DeNiro's warning about laying low, the other participants in the heist can't help themselves. Life imitates art. Posted by: Todd Pearson at November 28, 2005 11:34 PM I prosecuted a case once where the bribes were paid with personal checks, from the briber (who could almost be seen as the victim of extortion) to the government official. The only way the case could have been stronger was if they had written "bribe" in the memo field, instead of "loan". White collar criminals are not necessarily any smarter than your garden variety bank robber. I will never truly understand how someone can reach the heights of political power, accept that awesome public trust, and betray it all for petty pecuniary gain. He should be ashamed of himself. And I also hope that every executive branch bureaucrat (political appointee or otherwise) who helped him steer these contracts is disciplined or fired for letting political influences shape contract award decisions. Posted by: PatHMV at November 29, 2005 12:14 AMI will never truly understand how someone can reach the heights of political power, accept that awesome public trust, and betray it all for petty pecuniary gain. He should be ashamed of himself. I often dream of running for office so I can get that six-figure salary and lifetime six-figure retirement package and best health-insurance money can buy. Then I'd quit after one term of voting from my office chair while watching soap-operas all day. I would certainly be ashamed of myself, but all that money would help assuage the guilt. : ) And he's a republican! This just goes to show how much more greedy and venal the GOP is! :-) "welcome down the trollhole, we got fun and games....troll, troll...hole...tr-tr-tr-tr-troll, hole...I'm gonna bring you downnnnnnn." Posted by: bk at November 29, 2005 09:36 AMYou'd be disappointed in the Congressional retirement package if you just did one term in the House, Ryan. It takes five years to vest. It's pretty generous compared to private plans but nowhere near what rumors claim. In fact, it's almost the same as the retirement package for all federal employees. Congresscritters pay into SS and Medicare like everyone else, participate in the FERS like other federal employees, and belong to (and pay premiums for) the FEHB program like other federal employees. All nice plans for the beneficiaries, to be sure, subsidized by us taxpayers in part and better than those of us in private industry can expect, but hardly the riches of fable. It takes a "lifer" like Kennedy or Byrd with 30+ years of service to break into the 6-figure pensions. A "20 year" Critter could expect a pension of about $50k. Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2005 09:38 AMPersonal checks, Pat? Wow. That's so dumb that it rises to the level of evolution in action. Sounds like at least one of them wanted to be caught. Yeah, if I were the briber I'd have pled extortion. "He put the squeeze on me, and it was pay or be ruined. I wrote a check so I had proof." Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2005 02:32 PMIf the briber had stopped with the first check, Tully, he probably could have done just that. But instead he kept feeding the checks (10 or 20 by the end, as I recall) to the official and spending the hefty personal service contract fees (for investment advice, while his company was already being paid by a separate contract to handle the investments) as fast as the government paid him. The official gave him a sob story about his wife needing a hysterectomy and wanting to get a tummy-tuck while under the knife, only the insurance wouldn't pay for the tummy-tuck and he was having cash-flow problems, so couldn't he please "borrow" the money... Then it just became a monthly sort of payment. The guy was smart enough in the end, though, to hide a tape recorder on himself as the two of them drove through town looking for an Office Depot to buy blank promissory notes and different types of pens to create back-dated "loan" agreements... the different types of pens to make it look like they weren't all created at the same time. Turning over the tape of the entire car ride discussing that plan helped keep him in a federal half-way house instead of a state jail. Posted by: PatHMV at November 29, 2005 03:06 PMLOL. Sure beats the "I really needed the money!" defense. Hard to plead extortion when you keep writing the checks. Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2005 03:08 PM(P.S.--Can we throw away that "Vietnam vets in Congress are beyond reproach" meme now?) After this. I and most Americans would be willing to listen to your opinions as to why we should castigate any veteran whether we like or agree with them or not.
tmitch, that's not at all what Tully said, and it's entirely unfair of you to chime in and suggest it. As I read it, the only thing he is disparaging is the people who claimed, for example, that no one should disagree with Rep. Murtha simply because he is a Vietnam Veteran. The fact that these men honorably served our country at often great personal sacrifice entitles them to our honor and our respect. It does not require us to always agree with them or to overlook their (in this case) criminal actions. Posted by: PatHMV at November 29, 2005 07:01 PMPat: PatHMV, That's a great bribery story. I'll be smiling about it for days to come. Tmitch, You're missing the context of the last few weeks on this blog. We've reached a point-- here and elsewhere-- where a politician's military service in Vietnam three decades ago is often used to deflect any questions of character, "moral courage," or simply being wrong today. Thus one can remember things like hearing "Candidate Kerry's defense policies would be bad for American national security," and the reflexive defense was: "I'll give you a choice-- five college deferments or three tours in Vietnam!" It may score some soundbites and political points, but the reality is that three tours in Vietnam don't tell you much about that candidate's policies today (which could very well be disastrous). The consummate example is/was George McGovern, a WWII bomber pilot, and one of the most heroic men to ever run for President-- but his views on Soviet-American competition would have made him a very dangerous candidate for President (at least, on national security issues), and hence his historic landslide defeat at the polls. Tully's point is that whether it is Senator John Kerry, Congressman Jack Murtha, or ex-Congressman Duke Cunningham, their past heroism in Vietnam does not provide lifetime insulation against being wrong or doing wrong today, any more than, say, Paul Hackett's tour in Iraq or my two tours in Afghanistan speak to anything more than what we've done over the last few years-- it certainly does NOT mean we will always have "moral courage" or that we can't be wrong or do wrong in the future. Vietnam was only used because that was the service in which Sen. Kerry, Rep. Murtha, and Rep. Cunningham earned their spurs, so to speak. Posted by: Bobby at November 29, 2005 08:22 PMWhat Bobby and Pat said. Spot on. Tmitch, I've visited the Wall. I took rubbings of the names of a lost uncle. It's on the wall next to me right now, next to a picture of him receiving the Bronze Star for prior service in Korea. I helped fund-raise for the replica wall in the next county. I've visited the Arizona--to pay homage to my father's two cousins who remain at their duty stations, and always will. If you want YOUR opinion to be worth a damn around here, read deeper before knee-jerking. My comment was not in the least unthoughtful. It was in response to the continual cynical political use of a service record as a sword and shield against criticism. Yeah, you're right. You know nothing about my background. Or, apparently, the background of the comment. Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2005 08:43 PMTully: Heh. I didn't denigrate a single veteran. I denigrated the agitprop political practice of using/abusing veteran status to avoid valid criticism in the political arena. Specifically, Vietnam veteran status. If the distinction's beyond your comprehension, that's your bad and your sorrow, not mine. Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2005 10:29 PMTully: Tmitch, you're really missing the point. Posted by: Bobby at November 30, 2005 01:20 AMI believe he's intentionally missing the point, Bobby. Note how he insists on ignoring my clear and specific exposition (and yours, and Pat's) to insist that's not really what I said, then repeatedly misrepresents what I said (though it's been copiously clarified) and proceeds to assign other things to me that I have NEVER said, a form of indirect ad hominem at best. "...your attitude that their past service is no longer consequential." Heh. He's apparently arguing roundabout with straw men and ad hominem in favor of that which I argued against in passing--the agitprop political meme that Vietnam veterans in political service are automatically above reproach or criticism simply by being Vietnam veterans. He may not realize he's doing it. He may have a different point in mind entirely. If so, he's not making that point very well. Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2005 09:44 AMPeople are really bad at admitting any wrong on their part that doesn't allow them to preserve some of the intiial righteousness they initially felt. It's a problem. Tmitch, you dropped into the middle of something and you misunderstood Tully's comment entirely. You're WAY, way, off here. Tully has never disparaged or minimized military service of any type. Far from it. His sole point is the one that several of us have clarified and re-stated, which is that prior military service does not place any politician above reproach. Period. It's a small and obvious point that says NOTHING about whether military service is honorable. Of course it is, and we takes pains to make this clear here, and Tully is usually first. I'm not surprised that once or present soldiers, and vietnam vets especially, might have a chip on their shoulders about armchair critics. But you're barking at the wrong tree here. What you understood Tully comment to mean was simply NOT what he meant. Period. Posted by: bk at November 30, 2005 10:58 AMI get busy for a few days and see what I miss? I think the point has been sufficiently explained. This is just another example of someone coming in with an existing opinion and refusing to listen to anything that might challenge it. Oh, and on a side note, you can't always make an assumption that just because someone had an uncle that served in Vietnam that meant that the individual in question was to young to serve. My father is three years younger than his Aunt. I have a sister who is only four years older than her niece. There's a saying about what assuming does to ya... Posted by: AR at November 30, 2005 11:38 AMBack on topic: Won't the contractors that paid Cunningham get some consequences too?! Posted by: c3 at November 30, 2005 12:05 PMYup, Chris. I think that was the reasoning behind him pleading out...he'll be used to testify those who ponied up the dough. Posted by: AR at November 30, 2005 12:14 PM"Against, against..." Kind of left out a word there...he will be used to testify against... Posted by: AR at November 30, 2005 12:15 PMI confirm that I am too young to have served in Vietnam, though not by very darn much. But yeah, people should be wary of age assumptions based on generational spread. One of my grandfathers was born during the Indian Wars. Cunningham copped a plea for a lighter sentence, I'm sure. Same reason most folks plead guilty. He'll be expected to testify against the others, of course, unless they're all copping pleas as well. The "hook" was so blatant you just have to wonder what the heck Cunningham was thinking, though. The odds that his actions and financial dealings would go unscrutinized by opponents, especially things in the public record like real estate transactions, were non-existent. It's one thing to suppose that investigatory agencies wouldn't notice unless they were given a good reason to look. But he's not just Joe Citizen, he's a Congressman. He had to know that others would be looking. Hubris? Chutzpah? His co-conspirator wasn't even bright enough to "shell" the transaction through more layers by "flipping" the property once or twice before taking that give-away loss. Blatant. And dumb. Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2005 01:34 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
