CREW just released their 3rd annual "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" report. They list 22 members of Congress as the most corrupt. And with 5 members, California wins for the most on the list!!!
On behalf of all Golden Staters, I want to thank all of these Representatives for having the wisdom, foresight, and venality to give the state this honor. Sure, the ENTIRE Alaska delegation is on the list, making them slightly mnore corrupt. But 5 out of 22 is not bad. Not bad indeed. Especially when you consider that there are only 19 federal representatives who are Republican, and 5 of them made the list! That's called dedication!
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas.
Those subpoenad include Hunter, Lewis, Doolittle, and as a bonus, Rep. Darrell Issa, who claimed "This subpoena is a mystery." House lawyers have said it would be against House rules to comply.
It looks like Wilkes' team of lawyers is set to argue that the lawmakers asked for the bribes, rather than the other way around. I think giving bribes is a crime, regardless of who asked for them, so I don't know how this will fly. But clearly, this could damage some Congressional reputations. Or in the case of the CREW list, enhance them! Let's go for 6 in 2008!
Bruin Kid lets us know that Jerry Lewis will be seeking re-election next year. He's obviously pretty confident that his legal troubles and investigations into his corrupt earmarking will amount to nothing. I'm thinking this is why:
In Los Angeles, a federal criminal investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, stalled for nearly six months due to a lack of funds, according to former prosecutors. The lead prosecutor on the inquiry and other lawyers departed the office, and vacancies couldn't be filled. George Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, declined to comment on specific cases but confirmed that lack of funds and unfilled vacancies caused delays in some investigations [...]
People with knowledge of the case said that by the time the investigation stalled in December 2006, it had branched out into other areas, including Mr. Lewis's June 2003 role in passing legislation that helped giant hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management. People associated with Cerberus around the same time gave at least $140,000 to a political action committee controlled by Mr. Lewis. Cerberus officials didn't respond to phone calls or emailed questions concerning the Lewis inquiry [...]
After the lead prosecutor in the Lewis case quit, others assigned to the case took time getting up to speed. Brian Hershman, a former deputy chief of the Los Angeles office's public corruption section, declined to comment on specific cases, but confirms that his group's work overall was derailed by the departure of experienced prosecutors. Like several others, he says he left for more money to support his family.
Replacements "are mostly rookies," he says. "It will be some time before they'll be able to restore the section to what it was before."
With additional funds recently made available by Congress, the Los Angeles office has filled 12 of 57 lawyer vacancies and is expecting an additional 12 lawyers to start soon. To jump-start the Lewis investigation, Mr. Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney, in June called on a veteran prosecutor, Michael Emmick, to revive and supervise the investigation, people with knowledge of the investigation say.
Day late and a dollar short on that one, I'd gather. This is approaching criminal conduct by the Justice Department. At a time when the investigation was expanding, Debra Wong Yang (the US Attorney for the region) suddenly jumped ship for the law firm representing Lewis. You can bet they never lacked funds; Yang received nearly $1.5 million. The law firm, Gibson Dunn, took the top assistant off the case as well. So the LA office was thrown into disarray precisely when the investigation was heating up, and the money for the office dried up at the same time. Pathetic. With or without Alberto Gonzales, we still have a DoJ protecting its own and politicized beyond control. And this is the time when Democratic leaders are seeking to call off the dogs in the US Attorney case?
According to the New York Times, Jerry Lewis will NOT retire, contrary to what Bob Novak had been speculating.
GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis of California announced Friday that he'll seek a 16th term, putting to rest speculation that he would retire amid a federal lobbying probe.
....
His talent at securing federal dollars for his inland Southern California district brought him unwanted scrutiny last year when federal prosecutors in Los Angeles began probing his ties to lobbyist Bill Lowery, a former member of Congress whose clients included towns and businesses in Lewis' district.
Lowery's clients benefited from federal dollars approved by Lewis' committee, and Lowery and his lobbying associates and clients donated generously to Lewis' campaigns.
Lewis has denied any wrongdoing, no charges have been filed and there have been no recent public developments in the probe. However, Lewis hired criminal defense attorneys after news of the investigation broke in May 2006. He has paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars, including more than $30,000 in the second quarter of this year.
We have 15 months to go before Election Day, and it's time for another roundup of Congressional races. I am going to continue to focus on the top 10 challenges to Republican incumbents. There is certainly a concern in CA-11 with the Jerry McNerney/Dean Andal race, particularly after McNerney's "I'm a moderate" comment seemed to depress supporters. On the bright side, he did vote against the ridiculous FISA bill. And as we go into September, I would hope he would continue his efforts to end the occupation of Iraq. I will certainly cover the McNerney race in future roundups.
But for now, let's take a look at the top 10 challenges. I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also adding the "Boxer number." Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)
With 16 months to go before Election Day, some Democratic challengers are getting a little more visible in their efforts to unseat Republican incumbents. I see good news at the very top of the target list, and elsewhere we're still waiting to see who will run. Let's focus on the top 10 races where a Republican is currently serving, knowing that we are still going to have a fight in CA-11 to re-elect Jerry McNerney (although that probably won't be against Guy Houston, who may be on trial for fraud at the time).
So let's take a look at the top 10 challenges. I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also adding the "Boxer number." Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)
I want to play a little game. This is somewhat of an easy game, but the fact that you may need to think for a moment before your final answer I think says the world about the current state of California's Republican congressional delegation. And let's face it, corruption doesn't just happen in the swing districts and we need strong challengers in every district because who knows what will be breaking a year from now. Plus, by spreading we can prevent safe members from dumping money into competitive seats.
The one, and perhaps only, hard piece of accountability that has come out of the widening US Attorney scandal is that the Congress passed legislation striking out the provision in the PATRIOT Act that allowed the Justice Department to appoint replacement federal prosecutors without seeking Senate confirmation. The new law passed in both Houses with expansive, veto-proof majorities (94-2 in the Senate, 306-114 in the House). Any veto would be overridden, so the President has no choice but to sign the bill.
Except he hasn't yet, and the hip-pocket veto has enabled Abu G to strike again - right in our own backyard of Los Angeles.
"It's amazing how little we know about the science of our environment and a thing called climate change. Before we automatically throw money into this subject matter we ought to know what we're talking about. Global warming is apparently a problem, but global cooling can be as well."
Yes, believe it or not, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Scandal) actually said that. So why exactly did he say this? And why is anyone taking him seriously? Follow me after the flip for more...
In what I expect to be the first of possibly three Republican retirements in California, Robert Novak is reporting that Jerry Lewis will not seek reelection.
As mentioned a coupletimes on Calitics, Bob Novak is reporting that corrupt con Jerry Lewis may retire in 2008. Novak may be a douchebag of liberty, but he usually has excellent inside information from the GOP (you know, like who's a covert CIA agent and who isn't). It started me wondering why Lewis would retire at this point, when the investigations into his practices have slowed to a crawl. Then I remembered this story I read in yesterday's LA Times:
Last December I took a look at the potential for a Special Election in CA-41. While that scenario would be the best opportunity to pick up the seat, Democrats would have a strong shot against the embattled congressman. Yet there is a third option, an Open Seat. And GOP insiders on the Hill are floating trial balloons to Bob Novak that Jerry Lewis won't be running for re-election. I especially enjoyed the context provided:
Lewis is one of at least six Republican House members from California who have faced ethical scrutiny, beginning when Duke Cunningham was sent to prison. Most recently, Rep. Ken Calvert, who was sponsored by Lewis for a coveted Appropriations Committee seat, is under attack. He replaced Rep. John Doolittle, another Californian who resigned from the committee because the Justice Department was investigating him.
The CA GOP has been running a racket and it is finally catching up. And if last night's blograiser was any indication, the Democratic Party base is pumped.
Any word on potential candidates? Is San Bernardino Mayor Pat Morris interested? I'd expect that there should be a lot of chatter following this story.
Will embattled 15-term Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis (CD 41) retire from the United States House of Representatives at the conclusion of the 110th Congress? Longtime Capitol Hill reporter Bob Novak is reporting in the Washington, D.C.-based publication Human Events that "both on Capitol Hill and in California, Republicans say that Rep. Jerry Lewis (R) is unlikely to seek re-election."
In a telephone interview Thursday morning, [KFBK radio host Tom] Sullivan said a number of Republicans are eying Doolittle's seat, he among them.
"Vultures are circling," Sullivan said. "They are all over the place. There are a number of people who would love to run."
Among those frequently mentioned are Assemblyman Ted Gaines and former state Sen. Rico Oller, whom [Dan] Lungren beat in the Republican primary for Ose's seat.
Grass-roots conservatives are railing against House Republican leaders for tapping Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) for the appropriations seat vacated by fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle after the FBI raided his home in Northern Virginia.
But I will tell you this -- Jerry Lewis SHOULD NOT be in Congress anymore. This is something that I have said to FR readers before -- and I will say it again. The Republican Party need only look in the mirror if we are unable to 'police ourselves' when it comes to understanding how we could have a majority in both Houses of Congress, and hold the Presidency, and still preside over unprecedented growth in federal government spending.
Is it any wonder the GOP is suffering from an excitement gap?
This is a must see video, with special guest appearances by a number of California Republican Congressman. Four in fact (including the former Congressman from CA-50). It is not suprising -- but somewhat shocking -- that when the DCCC puts together a video on GOP corruption it is full of Californians.
Following up on dday's great early look at vulnerable GOP seats, it is clear that California could play a huge role in picking up more seats for Speaker Pelosi. Especially considering that the Culture of Corruption could play a huge role against John Doolittle in CA-04, Jerry Lewis in CA-41, and Gary Miller in CA-42. And who knows who else, corruption doesn't just happen in swing districts.
There are no Senate seats up in California in 2008, and no statewide offices up for election, so the biggest seats outside of the Presidency will be in the House of Representatives. While we're 18 months out, I thought I'd give a snapshot of what races are most inviting for a Democratic pickup.
I'm going to concern myself solely with pickup opportunities, because the only realistic possibility of a GOP pickup is in CA-11, and I'm confident that Jerry McNerney and his grassroots army can handle whatever's thrown at him, plus he'll have the power of incumbency and the focus of the CDP. There may be some retirements that would make things interesting (Lantos, Stark, Woolsey), but those are very blue areas. So let's look at the best opportunities to add to the Democratic majority:
My thoughts on this issue over the flip...One more thing, if you give now to Charlie Brown, who will defeat John Doolittle in 2008, he'll give 10% of every donation to veterans in need:
Click Here to support a real champion for our troops and our veterans-between now and March 31st, 10% of each online contribution to Charlie Brown for Congress will be donated to area outreach programs that help veterans in need get back on their feet.
Kagro X at the great Orange behemoth wrote a great post yesterday about House Appropriations Committee members voting to continue to send our troops over to Iraq without the proper equipment, body armor, rest times, and training. Whatever your feelings about the Iraq supplemental bill (I hate that it doesn't go far enough in enforcement of a deadline, and it's larded up with unrelated pork, but other than that...), any member of Congress dumb enough to let our soldiers go to war without everything they need for battle ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Under instructions from the National Republican Committee, George Allen, Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent and others dutifully complied with their orders: say you support the troops, but vote to kill them.
This cold-blooded political manipulation cost thousands of brave Americans their lives over the course of four years, but only when the truth came to light did it cost these Republican traitors their jobs. Maybe it should have cost them much, much more, but the political system only gives us one option: dump politicians who vote to kill American troops.
We have two California Representatives who voted to put American lives in danger. There are about 10,000 reasons to dump Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle, but this is the most stark one. They both voted against giving our troops the body armor and equipment and rest and training they need before being shipped to Iraq.
The President's remarks on the US Attorney scandal were the same kind of out-of-touch obstructionism and intimidation we've come to expect (he's essentially daring Congress to initiate a Constitutional showdown), so no need to replay it here. But Sen. Feinstein is pulling at another thread of the scandal, one little remarked-upon but potentially significant. It's about a legislator essentially bribing a prosecutor to get her off the trail.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she wants answers about the departure of the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, who resigned last October before the Justice Department's dismissal of eight other U.S. attorneys sparked controversy.
"I have questions about Debra Yang's departure and I can't answer those questions right at this time," Feinstein, D-Calif. and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters in response to a question. "Was she asked to resign, and if so, why? We have to ferret that out."
Here's the real scoop: In May 2006, Debra Wong Yang was beginning work on the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, the former chair of the House Appropriations Committee who was being scrutinized over handing out defense earmarks to political friends. Within a few months, Yang resigned... to work for the law firm representing Lewis.
Over where I normally hang my hat I've been pretty intently following the Case of the Purged Prosecutors, the political firings of 8 US Attorneys by the Justice Department, which will reach a fever pitch tomorrow when many of the fired attorneys testify before Congress. But Laura Rozen has an interesting story about the 9th US Attorney who left her job this year, the one who wasn't fired:
Former Los Angeles US attorney Debra Wong Yang, who had been heading up the investigation into former Appropriations committee chairman Jerry Lewis. And where did Yang go on January 1st? To the law firm representing Lewis.
