“Duke” of Deception
From our February issue: The overlooked security implications of the Cunningham scandal.
By Laura Rozen
Web Exclusive: 01.13.06
But in the Cunningham case nothing is quite what it seems. Two months have passed since he pled guilty to taking more bribes than any other legislator in U.S. history, yet no more indictments have been issued, not even against the four people described as “co-conspirators” in the Cunningham plea agreement. No other shoes have dropped -- until now.
On January 6, 2006, Time magazine reported that in the days before Cunningham’s plea agreement was publicly announced, he had been wearing a concealed recording device. “The identity of those with whom the San Diego congressman met while wearing the wire remains unclear, and is the source of furious -- and nervous -- speculation by congressional Republicans,” Time wrote. To whom had Cunningham led the FBI as part of his cooperation agreement? A recent story in the Los Angeles Times cited Cunningham’s attorney, K. Lee Blalack, as saying Cunningham had not recorded any other “public officials,” but declined to clarify whether he had recorded others. The implication of the two reports is clear: Prosecutors have further targets in their crosshairs beyond Cunningham. In law enforcement, the standard procedure is for prosecutors to haul in the little fish first in order to net the big fish later. So there was something peculiar about the Cunningham case, where such normal logic had seemingly been turned on its head. Here the big fish -- a ranking Representative -- had pled guilty before the businessmen from whom he had admitted taking bribes. What the Time report suggests was that Cunningham might not be the biggest fish in this case after all.
lots more at:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10816