Oct. 7, 2006
As reported in today's New York Times, Pete Hoekstra continues to supress an unclassified report on Duke Cunningham's illicit dealings within the Intelligence Committee--a report with "possibly embarassing conclusions". Is this why Hoekstra is suppressing it?
In a confidential letter to Hoekstra that has been obtained by the NY Times, the ranking member, Jane Harman (D-Ca)also disclosed the disturbing information that Hoekstra had unilaterally been in direct contact with Cunningham in prison, and she expressed the fear that Hoekstra might try to visit him there. What is the substance and intent of this contact?
Harman has been trying since August to get Hoekstra to subpoena Cunningham, but thus far Hoekstra has refused, insisting that Cunningham would cite his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. So why not give him immunity to tell what he knows? He's in jail already and his testimony would not change that.
Cunningham has been on the Intelligence committee since 2001, and for part of this year served as chairman of its subcommittee on terrorism and human intelligence. Thus the underlying issues go far beyond partisan politics. Why is Pete Hoekstra continuing to play partisan politics with our national security?
Read the entire article at this link to the New York Times