Murtha Leads House In ‘No Comment’ Comments
If there’s anything consistent about John Murtha other than his demands to legislate defeat in Iraq, it’s his unwillingness to answer reporters’ questions. I know this from personal experience. This time, Rep. Murtha won’t answer the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s questions:
CREW criticizes Mr. Murtha for being too close to PMA Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former staffer on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which the congressman chairs. The firm has been very successful at winning federal contracts for its clients. PMA Group and some of its clients also are top donors for Mr. Murtha’s campaigns, giving $274,649 in the 2006 election cycle.
Mr. Murtha also faces criticism for directing a $1 million earmark to a subsidiary of Concurrent Technologies Corp., an organization based in the congressman’s district.
Mr. Murtha’s office declined to comment, but the congressman has said it is his duty to bring federal money to Pennsylvania and spur economic development.
If that isn’t bad enough, Rep. Murtha has notified the U.S. District Court of Southern California that he won’t honor their subpoena to testify in the trial of a a defense contractor named Brent Wilkes:
On Monday night, Mr. Murtha released a floor statement about his receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. District Court of Southern California in the trial of Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor.
Mr. Cunningham, the former California lawmaker, is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to accepting more than $2 million in bribes to help Mr. Wilkes and others.
In his statement, Mr. Murtha said he would resist the subpoena, citing advice from the House general counsel that it “is inconsistent with precedents and privileges of the House.”
I’ll ask Rep. Murtha which precedents and privileges he’s referring to but I’m expecting his office to decline comment on the subject.
Here’s more proof that John Murtha isn’t interested in answering anyone’s questions:
It isn’t difficult to make the case that Rep. Murtha is a loudmouth and a bully. It’s easy to make the case that he thinks he can play by his own set of rules. This reinforces my theory that Rep. Murtha believes that he doesn’t serve in the House but that he rules a kingdom:
Ditto their complaints of Democrats’ insensitivity to ethical standards, which follow the indictment on bribery charges of a prominent House Democrat, William Jefferson, and the complaint by an even more prominent Democrat, John Murtha, that ethics reform is “pure crap.”The last thing John Murtha will vote for is genuine ethics reform. It’s a matter of public record that he’s one of the sleaziest, most unethical politicians in our nation’s history. He’s essentially the ruler of his military earmark ‘kingdom’. He’s earmarked funds, which are essentially no-bid contracts, to his friends who comprise the military infrastructure. In return, he’s received millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions.
UPDATE: This Seattle Times article says that all 13 congresscritters have decided to not testify at the trial:
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and 12 House colleagues plan to fight subpoenas issued to them in the federal trial of a defense contractor accused of bribing jailed former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.
The subpoenas for the trial, due to start soon in San Diego, were issued to a bipartisan group of lawmakers by Mark Geragos, an attorney representing contractor Brent Wilkes. An aide to Dicks said the House counsel said the lawmakers were unlikely to be required to testify and the subpoenas were “merely a shotgun, grandstanding legal tactic.” In a statement, Dicks said, “I have never met or spoken to Mr. Wilkes, nor have I had anything to do with any of his companies.”
Stanley Brand, a former House counsel, predicted House members would not be forced to testify, citing the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause, which protects lawmakers while they are performing legislative duties.
Here’s what the Constitution says about the Speech & Debate Clause:
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
It’s a stretch to see how the Speech and Debate clause prevents them from testifying in a trial. It isn’t a stretch to think that this tactic is being used to shield themselves from taking responsibilities for their actions. That would be totally in character of some, though not all, of these representatives. I hope the court slaps Murtha down and tells him that he must live by the same laws that others live by.
At this point, I think he believes he’s beyond that. It’s time he learned otherwise.
Technorati Tags: John Murtha, Corruption, CREW, Norm Dicks, Constitution, Testimony, Defense Contractors, William Jefferson
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
September 20th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Let’s get these bastards to court. Abramoff=Murtha, Feinstein,Reid,Pelosi et al=Cunningham. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Since nothing happens in defense appropriations that Murtha is not aware of, is it any surprise to anyone that Murtha would be called as a witness (witless?) involving Cunningham?
And, if his “privileged” defense is accepted, I would think it would be easy enough to schedule his testimony during one of the multitude of congressional breaks, or better yet, after this session of Congress is adjourned.
It would be interesting to see the mental blob Murtha is try to skirt a really good lawyer’s questions. Murtha was the prototypical idiot soldier the donkeys were disparaging just a couple of weeks ago.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Mayor Has ‘Change Of Heart,’ Signs Gay Marriage Brief
POSTED: 6:33 pm PDT September 19, 2007
UPDATED: 7:18 pm PDT September 19, 2007
SAN DIEGO — An emotional Mayor Jerry Sanders revealed Wednesday that his daughter is gay as he signed a legal brief asking the state’s high court to overturn a prohibition on same-sex marriage, which he had vowed not to do.
The San Diego City Council voted 5-3 Tuesday to join Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose and Oakland in the amicus brief, or so-called “friend-of-the-court” resolution in support of gay marriages.
Through his spokesman, Sanders had pledged Tuesday to veto the council’s decision to join the legal brief on the grounds that he supports civil unions, and not same-sex marriages.
But Sanders, flanked by his wife, told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he had a “change of heart” after some soul-searching.
“I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community,” Sanders said, choking back tears. “Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as my personal staff.”
Mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz said it was the first time Sanders went public about his daughter’s sexual orientation.
“I want for them the same thing we all want for our loved ones — for each of them to find a mate who they love deeply and who loves them back, someone who they can grow old together (with) and share life’s experiences.
“I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law,” the mayor said, fighting to get his words out.
“In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana.”
Earlier this month, the City Council deadlocked on the issue.
On Tuesday, Councilmen Tony Young, Brian Maienschein and Kevin Faulconer cast the dissenting votes against joining the brief. They did not provide a reason for their votes.
Councilwoman Donna Frye cast the deciding vote. She said she always supported same-sex marriage, but originally voted against the proposal because she was concerned about the lack of public notice.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who is gay, said the ability to marry the person of your choosing is a “fundamental constitutional right.”
Hundreds packed the council chamber Tuesday to voice their opinions on both sides of the gay marriage debate.
Proponents argued that the issue is about civil rights.
Others said the issue was settled in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman only.
Councilman Jim Madaffer Wednesday commended Sanders for reversing his stance and “leading with his heart and making a decision based on what he believes and not what politics dictate.”
“This was a difficult decision for many of us on the City Council, and I’m sure it was for the mayor also,” Madaffer said. “We all had to search deep within and stand up for what we believe is the right thing to do, which is protect the civil rights of all people.”
Sanders said vetoing the resolution would have been “inconsistent” with the values he has embraced over the past 30 years.
“For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community,” the former San Diego police chief said.
“As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.”
The mayor, a Republican, acknowledged that not everyone will understand why he changed his position on the issue.
“I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree, or perhaps understand my decision today,” Sanders said. “All I can offer them is I am trying to do what is right.”
Copyright 2007 by City Wire. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Forget the Courts. That time has passed. It’s NOW time for a NOOSE….
September 20th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Face it guys, were on the loosing end of this. The libs control the courts, the legislature, the governor, the cities.
We are the wackos. They are the all wise and knowing. Five our more thousand or more years of moral teaching doesn’t mean a whit.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Just thought you all would like to know what some of our less educated, incompetent, murdering, criminals in our seagoing military have been doing.
You’d porobably play hell trying to find this in the San Francisco fishwrap.
(San Diego, CA) — Following a four-month humanitarian assistance mission in the Western Pacific, the amphibious assault ship Peleliu arrives in San Diego today. The ship and its 12-hundred crew members departed on May 23rd to provide medical and dental care to people in the Philippines, Marshall Islands, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Crew members also repaired and built medical and community facilities during their deployment.
Copyright 2007 Metro Networks Communications Inc., A Westwood One Company
September 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
OK! Guess im the only one writing anything today.
While Gary’s obsessing over Murtha; uh-gain!
And the press has gotten us all hypnotised over yet more OJ rubbish and other mindless crap, the Senate is about to do an end run around us with another amnesty measure, this time with a rider on the defensa funding act.
At latest count only 20 Senators have stated they will vote no. The radio talk guys and bloggers that helped us last time are out to lunch on this one, and we are going to loose unless we get off our butts and raise hell again. Preagar, Hewitt, Gallagher, and the others - silence.
Boxer and Feinstein need to hear from us, NOW!
If we loose this one the gates are open. Bush has a blind eye to this, he might as well be setting next to Reid.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Gosh, Benn, good post. It had a lot to do with the article.
And T.A.? 3 comments? Especially 1 in response to Benn? Granted, the third one needs big, fast wheels and the second is welcome news we won’t hear most places, but the first one?
Sure, anyone who reads more than the MSM knows Murtha is crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and Gary does seem a bit obsessed (although things like this need all the attention they can get until the thieving thug is thrown in jail, but gay marriage and criminal alien invasion don’t really seem to fit here.
Just sayin’.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
My sarcasm gets the best of me sometimes.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
I really think one of the reasons that the average citizen dosen’t care about Dem scandals is the simple fact that it is what we expect from them. We are angry with Republicans for bad behavior for the same reason, we expect good behavior from them.
We have known Murtha was crooked for a long time, hell it is on tape.
A winning party would be one that is against earmarks, for gay rights, willing to brutally defeat America’s enimies and would be willing to close the border and deport the illegals. They would sweep the field.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Why gay rights, southdakataboy? I mean, if you use the logic that group uses, I ought to be in a protected group, too, ’cause I was born and raised in Oregon and had no choice about it. Look at everything I missed out on while being raised, and we are sure discriminated against with all the sneers that shout silently, “Oh, you’re from Oregon. I’m sorry, bumpkin.”