Cunningham, Again
According to Slate, "The scale of the bribery scheme that sent Rep. Duke Cunningham, R.-Calif., to jail exceeded any other in recorded congressional history." This is their prelim to the current controversy.
Tuesday saw the release of a five-page summary of a 59-page report given to the House Intelligence Committee in May. The report and summary was prepared by outside Special Counsel Michael Stern; the finalized five-page summary was released to the Committee on Friday, 13 October. (pdf)
According to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking committee member, Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) agreed that the five-page summary should be released to the public and that he would work with her “to facilitate its release as soon as possible.” (statement)
She waited four days -- and then released the report unilaterally. Hoekstra, predictably, objected. (pdf)
Is there politics at work here? Sure there is. Hoekstra doesn't want the report released, because it's yet another black eye for Republicans, just before the election. Slate says it gives Hoekstra a black eye, too.
Harman wants it released because the details of this extensive report criticize Republican leadership. From Slate: "[T]he investigation concluded that staff members were well aware that Cunningham's earmarks were a waste of taxpayer money."
The report concludes that over a five year period, Cunningham secured $70-80 million from the Committee, earmarks for his two co-conspirators. No competitive bid process. Despite "red flags," staff continued to "accept and support" Cunningham's requests. And the Committee failed to exercise oversight on one of these projects, either because it couldn't or wouldn't.
Related:
- Bilbray To Face Busby In Race For Cunningham Seat - 15 April 2006
- Fallout From Cunningham Bribery Case - 25 March 2006
- Behind the Cunningham Scandal - 7 December 2005
- California Republican Admits to Taking Bribes, Resigns - 28 November 2005
- Cunningham Resigns - 15 July 2005