Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Larry Craig Sticking Around for Immunity from Subpoena?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 08:35 PM
Original message
Is Larry Craig Sticking Around for Immunity from Subpoena?
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/09/is-larry-craig-.html

Is Larry Craig Sticking Around for Immunity from Subpoena?

by emptywheel

Larry Craig's not gonna go, he says. At least not yet.

That's not that big a surprise--he had been threatening to un-resign since early in September. Though his decisions to resign and then un-resign correlate curiously with his receipt of a subpoena in the Brent Wilkes trial.

August 13: Subpoenas issued (to House members)
August 27: Roll Call busts Craig's bust
August 28: "I am not gay and I have never been gay."
September 1: Craig resigns, effective September 30
September 4: Craig says he may un-resign
September 5: Subpoenas served (to House members)
September 26: Craig says he's staying put, for now
October 2: Scheduled subpoena date for all House members subpoenaed (and probably Craig too)

Now, Craig was still in Idaho the first week of the month, so I assume he was officially served his subpoena after the House members. Though word of the Wilkes subpoenas may have surfaced by the time Craig did his resignation headfake.

Craig called himself an old friend of Duke Cunningham and claims that he was ignorant to Duke's bribing ways. But Craig also appears to have been a clear recipient of a quid pro quo--where he supported an earmark for Wilkes in exchange for at least $43,500 in donations from Wilkes' employees. So Craig may well have some insight into "the Congressional appropriations process and how it works" that he'd rather not share under oath.

And frankly, I suspect Craig's colleagues probably don't want him to share it under oath, either. From the House Counsel's response to the subpoena, it appears that a Congressman has a good deal of immunity from subpoena (though I'm not sure if the Senate, too, has a rule that prohibits him from testifying). But it's not clear that that immunity extends to disgraced former Senators.

By prolonging his resignation, Craig may well be outlasting his Wilkes subpoena, until such a time as it gets quashed because Senator Larry Craig enjoys immunity for such things. This week, at least.

Airport Update: Paul Kiel says that the Senators haven't gotten their subpoenas yet.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004308.php#more

Note that Kiel misses one key detail about why Inouye and Rockefeller (as well as Craig) would be subpoenaed. All three appear on a list of people whose re-election Mitch Wade believed would help MZM. So the ties between Inouye and Rockefeller and this bribery ring may well pre-date their chairmanship of Defense Appropriations and SSCI respectively.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/mzms-republican.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC