House moves to quash subpoenas in defense contractor's trial (Brent Wilkes)

ap on Daily Comet ^ | 9/26/07 | Allison Hoffman - ap

[NormsRevenge]

SAN DIEGO - Attorneys for the House of Representatives asked a federal judge Wednesday to quash subpoenas for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 10 other members of Congress in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The subpoenas were sent by attorneys for Brent Wilkes, whose trial begins Tuesday on charges that he paid Cunningham $700,000 in exchange for government contracts. The contractor has pleaded not guilty to 25 counts of bribery, fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

Cunningham, an eight-term Republican from San Diego, is serving eight years and four months in federal prison after pleading guilty in 2005 to accepting $2.4 million in cash, fancy cars and other gifts from Wilkes and other contractors.

House lawyers argued that the information sought by Wilkes' attorneys is constitutionally protected.

Wilkes' attorneys want details of targeted spending items, known as "earmarks," that Cunningham requested for Wilkes and any evidence of bribes offered or paid to Cunningham or other members of Congress by Wilkes and others.

Wilkes' attorneys also asked for internal investigative documents and correspondence from the House Intelligence Committee and a subcommittee that handles defense appropriations.

According to court documents filed by the House general counsel, Wilkes attorney Mark Geragos refused to specify what questions he would ask lawmakers on the witness stand on grounds that it would compromise the right to a fair trial.

Geragos did not immediately respond to phone messages Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns will consider the subpoenas during a pretrial hearing Monday.

The subpoenas were sent Aug. 13 to Blunt, R-Mo., and Hastert, R-Ill., as well as to:

-Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

-Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill.

-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

-House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha, D-Pa.

-California Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle, and Jerry Lewis. Hunter chaired the Armed Services Committee and Lewis chaired the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress.

-Republicans Reps. Peter Hoekstra and Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Hoekstra chaired the House Intelligence Committee in the last Congress and Knollenberg chaired the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee.

-House Appropriations interior subcommittee chairman Norm Dicks, D-Wash.

Hunter, Lewis, Reyes and Murtha were asked to testify and supply documents. The others were asked only to testify.

An additional subpoena served on House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo, was subsequently withdrawn, according to court documents. The subpoenas weren't disclosed until Sept. 17, when they were read into the public record in accordance with House rules.

[Perdogg]

The House is correct as stated in United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169

I thought liberals loved precedents.

[El Gato]

Funny too how things in the Constitution are taken literally and interpreted broadly when the effect is to protect members of government, in this case CongressCritters. But let a provision protect the peons people, such as "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", why that clearly requires a very narrow interpretation, indicating that it really protects government (the states) or if it does protect some right of individual members of "the people", that the right so protected can be infringed for "legitimate" *government* purposes. Such as *attempting* to keep arms out of the "wrong hands" (anyone the government thinks should not have them), when government fails to keep convicted dangerous people locked up for the full sentence the judge or jury gave them. Or "For the Children".

Bastids.

[basil]

So-—what is this all about. Is this guy accusing all these guys of taking bribes from Wilkes? That’s quite an impressive list of names.

[60Gunner]

I don’t care if the person has a D or an R behind his or her name. If a congressman accepted a bribe, then that congressman should be run out of Congress and sent to prison. Period.

[Perdogg]

Bribes or no bribes, the SCOTUS has ruled that legislative activity cannot be submitted as evidence in corruption trails.

[60Gunner]

I won’t argue with that. However, I would respectfully point out that the SCOTUS ruling should not be construed to mean that the Constitution offers any protection for members of Congress who are suspected of committing either a felony or treason. Furthermore, the Constitution does not protect members of Congress from having their offices searched if probable cause for suspicion exists.

[Perdogg]

Here was the key ruling in the case United States V Johnson:

1. The Speech or Debate Clause precludes judicial inquiry into the motivation for a Congressman's speech and prevents such a speech from being made the basis of a criminal charge against a Congressman for conspiracy to defraud the Government by impeding the due discharge of its functions. Pp. 173-185

Any action on the floor by a Congressman cannot be used against him in a corruption case.

However, I previously posted (I guess people didn't read it) and stated that I agreed with what the majority said in United States V Brewster

2. The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 185, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since in this case prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 507-529.

[mewzilla]

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.

Mark Twain