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)
1) CA-04 (Doolittle). Last month: 1. Boxer number: 40. Charlie Brown got some amazing news this week. Mike Holmes, an Auburn city councilman and a Republican, announced he was running in the primary to unseat ethically challenged Rep. John Doolittle. Holmes ran a primary race last year and got around 30% of the vote. This gives Doolittle two challengers next June (Eric Egland has already announced), which is a lot better for Doolittle than one challenger to which anti-Doolittle forces can focus their energies. This makes it more likely that a wounded Doolittle will survive the primaries (if he’s not indicted by then) and face Brown, who’s flush with cash and unopposed in his primary. Brown also made a great impression at the Yearly Kos Convention, so there will be plenty of online support for him.
2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. Another candidate who made a big impression at Yearly Kos was Russ Warner. At the California caucus he gave a version of this speech:
Warner’s fundraising stats were already impressive for the district, and now we’re starting to see some grassroots support. If he can tap into what Hilda Solis has been doing online (Solis has endorsed him), there could be a groundswell. Meanwhile, Dreier is whining that local Democrats blocked funding for expanding the Gold Line light-rail service to “focus on projects in their districts rather than regional priorities.” Right, because the Gold Line doesn’t mainly go through Pasadena, in Adam Schiff’s district. Dreier is such a tool.
3) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 47. The August recess is retirement season for GOP Congresscritters. We’ve already seen three of them go this week alone. So naturally thoughts turn to who’s next, and Gallegly, who tried to get out in 2006, is a prime candidate. There certainly must be some talk about it in the district: he’s got four declared candidates already: Jill Martinez, Brett Wagner, James “Chip” Fraser, and Mary Pallant.
4) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 4. Boxer number: 48. Michael Wray has dropped out of the primary in CA-50, leaving John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham to contest for the right to battle Brian Bilbray next November. The best way to attack Bilbray, who doesn’t get off that illegal immigration message for a second, is to highlight his pro-Bush, anti-progress voting record, including denying health care to 6 million American children with his vote against SCHIP last month. Leibham apparently raised $89,000 last quarter, and Bilbray has a paltry $213,000 CoH, which is interesting.
5) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 7. Boxer number: 41. The big news here is that we have a candidate, and it’s blogger Ron Shepston. You’ve undoubtedly read a little about him on Calitics. LA City Beat has a nice article about Ron and the netroots movement behind him in this race. It’s not going to be easy. But Ron has raised about $7,200 on ActBlue alone, and his offline fundraising is progressing. And Miller is still taking heat from the DCCC, who sent out a notice to reporters attacking his vote against SCHIP.
6) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 43. Like with Gallegly, we’re waiting to see if the rumors about Lewis’ impending retirement are true. We do know that Lewis has continued to bring home the bacon (a little questionable earmarking isn’t going to stop him) to his district, and then there’s this:
A lobby firm connected to a federal investigation has seen business boom this year for its clients, many of whose projects are in a powerful House appropriator’s district.
The House Appropriations Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), has sponsored or co-sponsored $55 million worth of earmarks in this year’s defense spending bill – close to half of the funds won by the California Republican in the legislation – for clients represented by one firm.
A former appropriations aide to Lewis, Letitia White, and former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), who is friendly with Lewis, work at the company, Innovative Federal Strategies (IFS).
Tim Prince is all but in this race. I met him a few weeks back and he seems like a nice guy.
7) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 45. Last month’s ruling that a city government agency illegally sold Ken Calvert a bunch of land hasn’t gotten a ton of traction yet. He has been targeted by MoveOn in a Riverside-area protest where protestors presented him with a report on how much money district taxpayers have spent on the war in Iraq. Calvert is dug in on Iraq, which is of course going to be a major issue in 2008. Bill Hedrick will be Calvert’s opponent, and, um, check out the blog!
8) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. Still no opponent named, and I’m flirting with the idea of dropping any race out of the top 10 unless there’s a named candidate. This is really a missed opportunity right now.
9) CA-46 (Rohrabacher). Last month: unranked. Boxer number: 45. I’m adding nutcase Dana Rohrabacher to the list for a couple reasons. One, he has an announced opponent (Jim Brandt, who ran against him last year) UPDATE: sorry, I read something wrong, he has no announced opponent yet. Two, it gives me an opportunity to print this quote.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/ Long Beach, was baffled when asked recently about his use of the popular online gathering site Facebook.
“Faith book?” the befuddled congressman replied.
Hilarious.
10) CA-52 (open seat). Last month: 10. Boxer number: 44. Duncan Hunter was unable to beat people who weren’t running in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. He’s gone from this seat, but his son is running and it’s a safe bet that the Republicans will retain it.
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)
1) CA-04 (Doolittle). Last month: 1. Boxer number: 40. Everyone that Rep. John Doolittle has ever known or worked with is currently talking to the FBI. The sense is that it’s just a matter of time. His newfound antiwar stance didn’t translate into a vote for responsible redeployment yesterday; it was all talk. Charlie Brown (who has a spiffy new website) has released a comprehensive national security plan that is a good read. I have not seen him release any full Q2 fundraising numbers just yet, but given that he’s one of only two spotlighted candidates on Blue Majority, I’m sure they’ll be solid. We do know that he raised over $45,000 on ActBlue with almost 1,000 contributors. That’s significant.
2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. The more I hear about this race, the more I like it. I think this should be the number one target for Southern California progressives. Dreier is lashed to Bush (and in his case Giuliani) like everybody else in the California caucus; but he’s got a swing district and a real challenger. Russ Warner, who ran last time, announced that he raised around $100,000 in the 2nd quarter, and has over $150,000 cash on hand. According to the press release, “Warner has more money on hand at this early stage of the campaign than all but one Democratic nominee has ever raised and spent against David Dreier in the entire general election since he was first elected to Congress in 1980.” This account of Warner shows that he is getting local coverage, and the fact that he has the endorsement of Hilda Solis is a major coup. That his son is serving a tour in Iraq right now adds an emotional appeal.
There is at least one other challenger who’s raising money at a decent clip. Hoyt Hilsman also has $150,000 CoH after having loaned his campaign $100,000 personally. Hilsman is an author and a professor.
3) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 47. It’s still retirement watch for Elton Gallegly. He has $800,000 in the bank, which would presume a run. But he had $1.1 million in the bank two years ago, when he retired and then clumsily returned to the race. We know at least 3 people are mounting a run against him; 2006 opponent Jill Martinez, 2004 opponent Brett Wagner, and my friend and fellow delegate Mary Pallant. Richard Francis, a prominent lawyer, has also made a little noise about running. So the sharks are circling and waiting to see what Gallegly will do.
4) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 48. The fact that there are three legitimate challengers to Brian Bilbray shows that there is some Democratic activism within the district. Our San Diego correspondent Lucas O’Connor has given us this account of Michael Wray’s efforts at outreach to Democrats. John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham are also making the rounds in the district. As for Brian Bilbray, we do know that he hates brown people and he bottles his own beer. I don’t know if he’s committed a firing offense, though certainly there’s a pro-Bush voting record opponents can highlight.
5) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 43. There’s also a retirement watch of sorts here, as we all wait and see if Robert Novak’s report that Lewis won’t seek re-election is true. We also learned this week that Lewis is dedicated to helping his constituents in Washington, DC, where he requested a $500,000 earmark for a Metro station that would be three blocks from his Capitol-area home. That could be turned into a defining issue in an election. There are rumblings that it would be best for Republicans to urge Lewis to retire, so of course they won’t do it. There is still no word on whether attorney Tim Prince will jump into this race, at least that I’ve heard.
6) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 45. The next of the “corruption boys” of the GOP, Calvert is in trouble over a recent grand jury ruling that showed a city government agency illegally sold him and other investors a four-acre parcel of land a few years back. He doesn’t seem deterred by it, and really the grand jury ruled against the government agency and not him. This is absolutely a district where we should run someone strong. A recent report showed that Riverside County is poised to become the second-largest in the state, behind only Los Angeles County. Democrats need visibility there in a big way. Defenders of Wildlife is running ads against Calvert, so they obviously see some vulnerabilities there.
7) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 41. Gary Miller rounds out the GOP corruption boys. It’s such a Republican seat that just making him spend money will be a win. Not much to report this month.
8) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. I would love to have more to say about this race, but sadly, I don’t. She is apparently one of Washington’s most eligible bachelorettes. That’s all I’ve got for ya.
9) CA-25 (McKeon). Last month: 9. Boxer number: 45. McKeon, the ranking Democrat Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, railed against the recent passage of an increase in the Pell Grant to make college more affordable for our best an brightest. Yeah, because that would be terrible. I would love to see someone challenge this guy.
10) CA-52 (open seat). Last month: 10. Boxer number: 44. Despite it being an open seat, I still don’t expect to see anyone beating Duncan Hunter’s son while he’s serving in Iraq.
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.
In a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting Thursday morning, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once again used an interim appointment authority at the heart of the US Attorneys controversy that Congress banned in a bill sent to the President for signature on June 4 […]
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Senator Leahy, clarified the situation in an e-mail to RAW STORY.
“It just so happens the committee got notice yesterday, that on June 16, George Cardona’s 210 days as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California will have run out and the Attorney General will appoint him as an interim U.S. Attorney at that time. (i.e. still using the end-run authority because Bush has slow-walked signing the bill),” she wrote.
The Cardona appointment is interesting, to say the least. It was reported in the LA Times just two weeks ago that a new hire for Cardona’s position was imminent. The Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley called the pick, Thomas O’Brien, “the most apolitical person selected to that job in quite some time.” Remember that the vacancy here was made by Debra Wong Yang’s departure to Republican law firm Gibson Dunn, the same firm whose client was Rep. Jerry Lewis, who Yang was investigating at the time.
So Lewis’ team had already bought out Yang (allegedly!), and now they were faced with the prospect of a hard-charging independent former DA in the role. That must not have sat well with him. So did Lewis tell the Justice Department to keep their handpicked loyalist in place until he made his way out of Congress (he’s rumored to be retiring)?
Finally, the move is especially curious because Gerry Parsky, a bigwig Republican who heads a Commission that picks judicial appointees in CA, has been particularly cranky about being left out of the process of naming USAs. And DOJ already went around him on this position specifically.
Once Yang resigned in November to pursue private law practice, it was up to the commission to make recommendations to the White House and the Justice Department. But Sampson and Goodling tried to generate candidates of their own. Interviews were scheduled with half a dozen people, many of whom had held political appointments in the department.
Parsky did not respond to e-mailed questions about his role in the process.
After word of the interview schedule leaked, Parsky called the White House and the Justice Department to complain, according to a person familiar with the process who requested anonymity because it involves a personnel matter. Goodling was allowed to proceed with the interviews, but was told she had to tell the candidates that they would have to reapply through the commission.
Ultimately, the commission is believed to have recommended two candidates; the only one interviewed by the Justice officials in Washington was a career prosecutor who has headed the criminal division of the Los Angeles office. The White House has not said whom it will nominate for the post.
Some people close to the selection process suspect Goodling and Sampson were attempting an end-run around the commission to install a politically connected Washington insider, possibly by using a law that permitted the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate oversight.
Indeed, Parsky was on board with the Thomas O’Brien appointment, according to the recent LA Times article. Until it all fell through.
What the hell’s going on here? Why is it so important to keep George Cardona in the Los Angeles USA seat, in defiance of a law passed by over 85% of Congress? Does this have to do with investigations of members of Congress like Lewis (and, potentially, Ken Calvert)? Will there be an effort to suppress the vote in the extremely ethnically diverse region, and must Cardona be the point person for that? It’s very, very curious.
“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…
So why did Jerry Lewis start talking about “global cooling” and throwing money into a subject matter that one doesn’t know about? Why did he start talking about an obsolete climatological theory? Why did Jerry Lewis say all that s**t?
Oh yeah, that’s right! He doesn’t want to “throw money” to the NOAA’s climate program! And why should our government actually throw money toward such junk as this?
NOAA’s Climate goal is to: “Understand and describe climate variability and change to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond”.
NOAA’s Climate Goal is an end-to-end endeavor focused on providing decision makers a predictive understanding of the global climate system and to “translate” this information so the public can incorporate the information and products into their decisions. These outcomes are achieved through implementation of a global observing system, focused research to understand key climate processes, improved modeling capabilities, and the development and delivery of climate information services.
“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.”
[…] We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well. And what happened when the CO2 was greater since then and now? There have been many cycles of up and down warming. So with that said, I think that we’ve had a great discussion today.
I guess it is funny how these Republicans claim that they can’t support taking action on the real scientific problem that’s global climate change because there supposedly isn’t “enough hard science” backing up this “theory”… However when federal agencies like NOAA are doing all the important research and finding the “hard science” that’s backing up this theory, they don’t want to fund the research. It would be so hilarious if it weren’t so real and so dangerous. Climate change is a serious problem, and we’ll face some real, frightening consequences if we don’t act soon. However, these science-doubting Republicans don’t want to take any action on this real global security crisis. And no, they don’t even want to fund any research that would help us find real solutions to this real crisis.
So why again are these science-doubters allowed to say these things in Congress? Shouldn’t our representatives in Washington be working on solutions to our climate crisis? Oh wait, the House now has that select committee on global warming! Apparently, the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill is taking the climate crisis seriously. However, the Republicans would rather continue denying reality. And so long as science-doubting Republicans as Jerry Lewis continue to disregard scientific reality, they are doing a real disservice to their nation and to their communities.
Jerry Lewis obviously knows little about science, and he knows even less about how best to serve his constituents.
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.
(Cross-posted on Daily Kos)
Republican sources on Capitol Hill and in California say Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee who has been criticized on ethical grounds, will not seek a 16th term next year.
Lewis came under fire last year for pouring millions of dollars worth of earmarks into his heavily Republican southern California district. He has not apologized and vigorously defended himself behind closed doors in the House Republican Conference.
Before we celebrate I should note that this is a pretty red district and we won’t have an embattled Lewis to run againt, but with California likely to go blue for President next year, perhaps we can score sn upset with a strong candidate. The trick now, is to find the candidate. Any suggestions for that candidate?
