The Congressional Appropriations Process and How It Works

/in /by

The House response to the Brent Wilkes subpoena is now online–it’s 81 pages long. I’ll comment more on the rationale for quashing the subpoenas in an update (I’ve got a talk to go give shortly, but the short version is speech and debate). But some initial details:

  • The subpoena to Ike Skelton has been withdrawn
  • Wilkes also subpoenaed: Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller (no doubt in their role as Armed Services and SSCI Chair), Larry Craig, Daniel Inouye (both recipients of Wilkes largesse; here’s a question–is Craig sticking around the Senate to retain immunity? And will the Senate let him?), and Josh Bolten, Robert Gates and Gordon Craig

After some back and forth, the General Counsel of the House was able to get Geragos to explain that he was interested in information "concerning the congressional appropriations process and how it works." No, really?

There’s more detail on the subpoenas to Hunter and Lewis (big surprise) and Murtha and Reyes, as follows.

image_print
  1. chisholm says:

    Brilliant. Now Congress can’t be investigated because of Congressional privilege. Where, then, do they get the moral authority to demand documentation from the White House? They don’t, right?

  4. chrisc says:

    Minnesotachuck,
    Thanks for the link. I sent Ellsberg’s speech to my Senator, Dianne Feinstein, although I don’t know if it will help.

  7. Sara says:

    Well as to Larry Craig.

    Hennepin Co. Judge heard the case yesterday, and announced his decision should be expected at the end of next week. Thereafter, Craig issued a press release to the effect that he will stay in the Senate, and await the Judge’s deliberations. If he does not get his plea stricken, I suppose he could also spend the next year appealing the court decision…

    Interesting stuff actually. The Co. Attorney who handled the case between June and August had fairly extensive phone records with Craig, and these reflect Prosecutor telling Craig to get a Lawyer. In addition, after the plea was entered, and before all this went public, Craig sent the Prosecutor a nice Thank You Note. Now in evidence.

    Seems that the Prosecutor’s response to Craig’s effort to take back his plea was that Political Interests have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, guilt or innocence, and all the rest. Not the function of the Hennepin Co. Courts to service political interests. Records of phone calls, recommendation that Craig seek representation, and the nice little Thank You note (wonder if he included a Smiley?) all go to the conclusion the plea was entered in good faith. I don’t think things look too hot for Craig in the Hennnepin Co. Courts.

    Craig’s attorney apparently attempted to introduce evidence that Craig claims he is not Gay — ruled inadmissable as irrelevant to the issue at hand.

  8. Anonymous says:

    RE: The Craig angle –

    We’ll know you’re right, EW, by whether the Republicans still make a big stink to get him gone. If you’re right — and I suspect you are — then they’ll keep schtum about this until the Wilkes case is done and the subpoena threat vanishes, which they’re hoping will be well before the 2008 election season begins in earnest. THEN he will leave.