Doolittle subpoened in Wilkes case

[seafan]

Source: Sacramento Bee

WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Doolittle has been subpoenaed to testify next month in the bribery trial of San Diego-area businessman Brent Wilkes, raising the profile of the congressman's dealings with his longtime friend and political supporter at a time when a federal grand jury has been meeting about Doolittle's involvement with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Wilkes goes on trial for conspiracy and other charges in connection with the bribery of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Oct. 2. Doolittle was among 13 House members reporting late Monday night on the House floor, as required by House rules, that they had received subpoenas from Wilkes' attorney, Mark Geragos.

All of the House members said they had been urged by the general counsel's office in the House to refuse to comply with the subpoenas. The general counsel's office expects to file a motion to quash the subpoenas next week, citing constitutional protections of members from being compelled to answer questions about legislative matters and House procedures.

.....

Also subpoenaed by Wilkes are former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, and other former and current House committee chairmen and members, including four Democrats.
The list includes from California Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, former House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, former chairman and now senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/385817.html

[OnyxCollie]

1. Who's prosecuting this case?

Apparently not a loyal Bushie, because they're striking pretty close to home.

[BrotherBuzz]

2. Hoot!

Hunter, Lewis, and Issa, all pubs from California got the invitation, too. I like.

[AlCzervik]

4. Hi Buzz!

[BrotherBuzz]

5. LOL, I like

[kestrel91316]

3. Prediction: they will ALL defy the subpoenas and NOTHING will happen to them.

We are no longer a nation of laws.

Call me cynical. I call 'em as I see 'em.

[Orsino]

6. We could start an "I can't recall" pool.

I'm thinking that they will all comply with the subpoenas, and that nothing will happen to them.

[loudsue]

7. House counsel is telling them NOT to comply with the subpoenas.

Now that is rich.

:kick:

[cascadiance]

8. Here's an idea of why Wilkes' lawyers are doing this "shotgun" set of subpoenas...

Many are questioning why this is happening, and if they are just trying to grandstand to get attention, or to paint Democrats and Republicans as "both bad" with this brush of subpoenas. Or to somehow force a delay in his trial by claiming they can't get adequate defense without these subpoenas.

Maybe there's one other effort going on here. Maybe they are trying to expose some coverups! Wilkes and his people probably know now that with the secrecy being mandated around his and other folks' trials like Thomas Kontogiannis (who's "sealed" court notes THEY were able to see while the rest of us haven't earlier this week), that they are at the mercy of those behind the scenes as to how their rights will be protected, since so much of their trials will be held back from the public. So it is how much they serve the administration that will govern what happens to them.

Perhaps Geragos is thinking that by subpoenaing this many congress people, he can force the issue of some of these issues being brought out to the public. House rule force those issuing subpoenas to show "material reasons" why these congress people should respond to the subpoenas before they are required to do so. Of course them not responding to subpoenas (especially the Democrats), makes them look bad to the public, since many of them, especially the Dems are trying to issue subpoenas at the same time to the administration on other issues. Now equally as bad would be if Wilkes' team says that they can show why a certain congressman in the list needs to be subpoenaed, but that the current secrecy gags on those issues prevent them from presenting it publicly. If the congress doesn't hear those issues publicly or if they dismiss them after hearing it privately, then that also makes the congress people and the system look bad.

Ultimately, I think Geragos and Wilkes' team know that if a big chunk of this case is kept secret (like it was with Kontogiannis), that Wilkes might not be treated as nicely as Kontogiannis, and will be SCREWED if they aren't made public. They want to get rid of the secrecy over parts of this case. And perhaps that could help us if they do, even if Wilkes is likely a bastard!

So either they can force a "gray mail" to dismiss the case against Wilkes, or force certain issues out to the public before the trial can be had.

[donkeyotay]

9. Too bad DeLay's name isn't on that list

Seems like he's just going to slither away.

Today a state appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling, the AP reports. To give you a sense of how fast they move down there in Texas, it took a whole year for the appeals court to deliver its ruling.

DeLay was indicted in September of 2005 by Austin District Attorney Ronnie Earle -- since then, both camps have been battling over the charges. A trial date has still not been set.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/tom_delay/

[bobthedrummer]

10. .

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST