Stupid is as stupid does

Can't we just give them a test BEFORE they take office? A personality test to check IQ, whether they believe in the Rapture and would attempt to facilitate its arrival, and if they like to take bribes?:

If there's a burning question that's arisen from Brent Wilkes' trial, it's not whether Wilkes is guilty. It's: 'Just how stupid is Duke Cunningham?'

According to testimony, Cunningham's (alleged) bribers were in agreement: his stupidity made him an easy mark. Wilkes' former employee testified that Wilkes told her Duke was "not the brightest congressman up there. We can work with him.”

And just think of how many more unchecked Congresspeople are running about with money and power going to their little pointy heads....

Does that mean we all can ignore subpoenas?

Because ... I kinda thought... ignoring subpoenas was against the law. Are these Republicans and Democrats showing their love for the rule of law?

This is over the Duke Cunningham's briber Brent Wilkes:

In addition to Issa, Blunt, R-Mo., and Hastert, R-Ill., Wilkes' attorneys are seeking testimony from:

_Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill.

_House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

_House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

_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.

_Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington.

The subpoenas from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California were read on the House floor late Monday in accordance with House rules requiring lawmakers to inform the House speaker if they've been subpoenaed.

All the lawmakers said in notifications to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that after consulting with House attorneys they had decided not to comply with the subpoenas.

Good to know that we don't have to take these thing seriously....

Update: Steve Bates of Yellow Doggerel Democrat reminds me in comments what it says in the Constitution:

Members of Congress probably do have a leg to stand on in this case. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, first paragraph:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Emphasis mine. This may not apply directly, but the principle that one cannot interfere with members' activities while Congress is in session is pretty clear.

Standard reminder: I am not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on the web.

Is this why Carol Lam was ousted?

TPM Muckraker:

When Duke Cunningham went down in one of the largest congressional bribery scandals in history, he tried to take his main bribers with him: Mitchell Wade, who quickly confessed to the charge and has been cooperating with authorities; and Brent Wilkes, who's rebuffed Duke's accusation and maintained a stony silence to the Feds.

Now, the Wall Street Journal says that federal prosecutors are under orders to deliver a grand jury indictment against Wilkes by Feb. 15.

A note of caution: a Wilkes indictment has been rumored for months. But this has a ring of truth to it. Why? Because according to WSJ the order comes directly from just-ousted U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who's been overseeing the case -- and who gave the order to take Wilkes down before she leaves on -- you guessed it -- February 15.

Wilkes is involved -- some say centrally -- in more than the Duke Cunningham scandal: prosecutors chasing Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) also think he holds secrets that would help make a case against the former House Approprations Committee chairman, WSJ says. One of his companies was also the recipient of a questionable earmark courtesy of Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), who is also under scrutiny by federal investigators.

Obviously we need to focus intently on what Duke Cunningham knew and when he knew it....

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo:

"The top FBI official for San Diego, on the firing of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam: "I guarantee politics is involved."

It's just stunning to have a FBI agent blast the Department of Justice and the White House like this.

Lam prosecuted the Duke Cunningham case and is in charge of other high-profile public corruption cases involving Republicans."

Update: Wonderful reference information about the greedy Duke and all his cohorts.

Update: Suggestion was made in comments that this company: Titan Group may have major backers still seated on Capitol Hill.

CIA not cooperating with the Cunningham investigation

TPM Muckraker:
"The CIA is refusing to cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating the Duke Cunningham scandal, the Wall Street Journal's Scott Paltrow reports today."
[snip]

Of course, prosecutors haven't received much help from Congress with their investigation, either. Last month they were forced to serve subpoenas to several powerful committees in an effort to force them to turn over documents.

Foggo's indictment -- and possible plea bargain -- would be a notable triumph for the Feds. For many months the case has stagnated, and observers have wondered if the investigation was hopelessly compromised. Nailing Foggo would also be important for prosecutors, as it would give them leverage to go after alleged Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes. Wilkes, who ran a government contracting business, was close with Foggo and is said to have worked closely with him. Despite being identified by Cunningham as a major briber, Wilkes has refused to plead guilty or cooperate with prosecutors."