« Gallup Gets a Raise! | Main | NM Program that Trains Women to Run for Office Now Taking Applications »
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Domenici Hires Duke Cunningham's Attorney for Ethics Scandal
So reports a Washington Post article:
Lee Blalack, who recently represented former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who is now serving time in prison for bribery and other offenses, said today that he has signed on as Domenici's attorney in the wake of allegations from fired U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias. Iglesias alleged that Domenici phoned him at his home and asked about a pending public corruption investigation.
The Senate Ethics Committee announced Monday that it has opened a preliminary inquiry into the matter, which will examine Iglesias's and Domenici's differing accounts of the phone call.
... Blalack, a partner in O'Melveny & Myers LLP's Washington office, is an experienced defense lawyer. As attorney for Cunningham, who is serving a sentence of more than eight years, Blalack dealt with one of the federal prosecutors who was later ousted, Carol S. Lam of San Diego.
Is it just me or does defending Domenici seem like a potential conflict of interest for Blalack, considering that it was another fired U.S. Attorney, Carol Lam, who was the prosecutor in the Duke Cunningham case? At the time she was fired, Lam had just finished putting together indictments against Cunningham co-conspirators Brent Wilkes (left in photo), a San Diego defense contractor, and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo (right in photo), executive director of the CIA until this May, on fraud and conspiracy charges. Some speculate that her firing was meant to cripple her expanding investigation of corruption in this vein, as she followed the evidence chain from San Diego to Congress, the Pentagon and the CIA. Wilkes and Foggo were indicted on February 13, 2007, two days before Lam's termination date.
Maybe it's just that Domenici will feel at home with Blalack because the attorney is obviously well versed in the layers of dirt that lurk behind the surface of certain elements of the Republican Congressional caucus. Whatever the reason, the cast of characters in this scandal is getting curiouser and curiouser. (Tip 'o the hat to TPMmuckraker, once again.)
March 7, 2007 at 03:34 PM in Crime, Ethics & Campaign Reform, Local Politics, U.S. Attorney Iglesias | Permalink
Comments
Hiring an Attorney to defend because St Pete doesn't know what Iglesias is talking about, or doesn't remember violating any rules? Well, thanks for playing I am a "Party hack" Pete, hope you enjoy your lovely parting gifts!
Posted by: VP | Mar 7, 2007 4:18:04 PM
This lawyer also defended Sen Bill Frist when he was in trouble with some kind of stock deal. Domenici must believe he's in serious trouble to hire a big time lawyer like this guy.
Posted by: I Vote | Mar 7, 2007 5:09:00 PM
This will cost Pete a shitload of money. He must be very scared to hire a big gun like this guy for some little old ethics complaint! I wonder what else will be coming out in these hearings.
Posted by: El Norte | Mar 7, 2007 7:11:26 PM
The Senate committee is gonna subpoena people who work for Alberto Gonzales tomorrow and ask them about reports from a couple of the fired attorneys that they were told they were being let go so "plums" could be given to other favorites. In other words political reasons. Which Gonzales specifically said under oath before the senate back in January that he WOULD NEVER DO.
They are gonna go after Alberto next on lying to the Senate, I swear.
Posted by: Demoman | Mar 7, 2007 7:18:58 PM
The memory defense, not so good. Scooter paid a high price for trying it. Or maybe he didn't try hard enough.
"He can't remember sh*t, you must acquit," good luck on that one Pete.
Bad memory, that'll cost ya.
Posted by: bg | Mar 7, 2007 8:34:50 PM
Why would Blalack have a conflict of interest in this case? That makes no sense. He hasn't represented the Iglesias or the U.S. Gov't (and least that hasn't been stated in any publication) so where would his conflict be?
There is enough wrongdoing in this matter without having to grasp at straws.
Posted by: Morgan | Mar 9, 2007 3:25:52 PM
I don't know exactly whats the writer of the post meant but I do see what you mean. In both cases Blalack is defending the filthy politician as opposed to the ones seeking justice. Since he was on the other side of the law from Lam and now is trying to say defend Domenici, he is consistently on the side of the bad guy. So I agree there's no conflict of interest.
Maybe the comment would better be made that there are odd coincidences related to this case rather than conflicts.
Posted by: esq. | Mar 9, 2007 4:01:46 PM
