The Congressional Appropriations Process and How It Works

by emptywheel

The House response to the Brent Wilkes subpoena is now online--it's 81 pages long. I'll comment more on the rationale for quashing the subpoenas in an update (I've got a talk to go give shortly, but the short version is speech and debate). But some initial details:

• The subpoena to Ike Skelton has been withdrawn
• Wilkes also subpoenaed: Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller (no doubt in their role as Armed Services and SSCI Chair), Larry Craig, Daniel Inouye (both recipients of Wilkes largesse; here's a question--is Craig sticking around the Senate to retain immunity? And will the Senate let him?), and Josh Bolten, Robert Gates and Gordon Craig

After some back and forth, the General Counsel of the House was able to get Geragos to explain that he was interested in information "concerning the congressional appropriations process and how it works." No, really?

There's more detail on the subpoenas to Hunter and Lewis (big surprise) and Murtha and Reyes, as follows.

Hunter and Lewis

Wilkes comes close to insinuating that these Congressmen were on the bribe train, along with Cunningham. Whatever do you think made him believe that?

Wilkes requests:

• appropriation, authorization and/or earmark requests relating to programs of interest to various parties, including former Congressman Cunningham, Mr. Wilkes and ADCS, Inc.
• documents regarding "Bribery of Duke Cunningham, yourself or other members of congress or government by Brent Wilkes, Mitch Wade or anyone else"
• documents evidencing bribes "offered to you or accepted by you."

The House response says Hunter and Lewis have no bribe documents. Hmmm. Though Hunter does have some documents relating to the first category--Cunningham's earmarks.

Murtha and Reyes

From these two Chairmen, Wilkes is seeking the following committee documents (as I had speculated):

• committee investigative reports relating to interactions between former Congressman Cunningham, Mitch Wade and Brent Wilkes
• supporting documentation for these reports
• correspondance between committee Members and staff and former Congressman Cunningham, Mitch Wade or Brent Wilkes "regarding any attempt to benefit projects owned by or related to Brent R. Wilkes or Mitch Wade"

This stuff will be more fun. The House Counsel argues that this subpoena is improper because it subpoenas Reyes and Murtha as individuals. But I suspect if Geragos subpoenas the HPSCI Committee (appropriations did no investigation), Geragos may get the end product he desires: directly pertinent evidence that will not be turned over because of Congressional privilege.

Update: Oh, this is rich:

Requiring Members to appear at trial in San Diego obviously would interfere with their congressional duties. While we understand this problem might be alleviated, in part, by permitting Members to testify by telephone, that would not eliminate the problem because demands on their time are particularly heavy at this time of year as Congress works long hours to complete its legislative business before adjourning for this session.

[snip]

Accordingly, requiring Members to appear in Court to testify at a time when the House is in session would force them to violate their constitutional responsibilities and effectively disenfranchise their constituents during the period of the Members' absence from the House.

Jerry Lewis and Duncan Hunter represent Orange and San Diego County. I guarantee you they'll be in the neighborhood on Mondays and Fridays during the trial. Unless Hunter is out campaigning for President, which seems to keep him pretty well occupied and away from DC much of the time.

And let me serve notice to Joe Knollenberg. If I bump into you again in First Class on a Tuesday or Friday morning while the House is in session, I will publicly accuse you of "violating your constitutional responsibilities and disenfranchising your constituents." You will not use this bullshit in a legal document and not hear about it on Northwest, not if I have the opportunity to remind you of it.

Update 2: Hmmm. While the House Counsel said the following passage was too vague, he also said that Duncan Hunter and--more significantly--Jerry Lewis had nothing responsive to this request:

Provide documentation of all political contributions, meals, entertainment or other travel, goods or services offered to you or accepted by you in exchange for the performance of your duty as a member of the legislature or in exchange for any special treatment afforded by you to anyone providing any of the above listed items.

So  we are to believe that Jerry Lewis never got anything in exchange for earmarks. Nope. Never. Not once.

I do wonder whether there's a second part of a rabbit regarding this request that Geragos will pull out of his hat. Because I suspect it would not be too hard to prove that Lewis did have such items.

Comments

[chisholm]

Brilliant. Now Congress can't be investigated because of Congressional privilege. Where, then, do they get the moral authority to demand documentation from the White House? They don't, right?

[Frederick]

But we can still vote , right ?

[Minnesotachuck]

Frederick @ 21:01: "But we can still vote, right?"

Maybe not for long, or at not least meaningfully, if Daniel Ellsberg is anywhere close to target.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxorm

[chrisc]

Minnesotachuck,
Thanks for the link. I sent Ellsberg's speech to my Senator, Dianne Feinstein, although I don't know if it will help.

[bmaz]

Now you see why I said I would subpoena their chiefs of staff or other moneybaggers too?

[emptywheel]

bmaz

Nope. Not if the point is akin to graymail.

[Sara]

Well as to Larry Craig.

Hennepin Co. Judge heard the case yesterday, and announced his decision should be expected at the end of next week. Thereafter, Craig issued a press release to the effect that he will stay in the Senate, and await the Judge's deliberations. If he does not get his plea stricken, I suppose he could also spend the next year appealing the court decision...

Interesting stuff actually. The Co. Attorney who handled the case between June and August had fairly extensive phone records with Craig, and these reflect Prosecutor telling Craig to get a Lawyer. In addition, after the plea was entered, and before all this went public, Craig sent the Prosecutor a nice Thank You Note. Now in evidence.

Seems that the Prosecutor's response to Craig's effort to take back his plea was that Political Interests have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, guilt or innocence, and all the rest. Not the function of the Hennepin Co. Courts to service political interests. Records of phone calls, recommendation that Craig seek representation, and the nice little Thank You note (wonder if he included a Smiley?) all go to the conclusion the plea was entered in good faith. I don't think things look too hot for Craig in the Hennnepin Co. Courts.

Craig's attorney apparently attempted to introduce evidence that Craig claims he is not Gay -- ruled inadmissable as irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Phoenix Woman]

RE: The Craig angle --

We'll know you're right, EW, by whether the Republicans still make a big stink to get him gone. If you're right -- and I suspect you are -- then they'll keep schtum about this until the Wilkes case is done and the subpoena threat vanishes, which they're hoping will be well before the 2008 election season begins in earnest. THEN he will leave.