posted April 30, 2006 02:12 PM              

By Jo Becker and Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 29, 2006; Page A01

Federal authorities are investigating allegations that a California defense contractor arranged for a Washington area limousine company to provide prostitutes to convicted former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and possibly other lawmakers, sources familiar with the probe said yesterday.

In recent weeks, investigators have focused on possible dealings between Christopher D. Baker, president of Shirlington Limousine and Transportation Inc., and Brent R. Wilkes, a San Diego businessman who is under investigation for bribing Cunningham in return for millions of dollars in federal contracts, said one source, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Baker has a criminal record and has experienced financial difficulties, public records show. Last fall, his company was awarded a $21 million contract with the Department of Homeland Security to provide transportation, including limo service for senior officials. Baker and his lawyer declined to comment yesterday.

The Cunningham investigation's latest twist came after Mitchell J. Wade, a defense contractor who has admitted bribing the former congressman, told prosecutors that Wilkes had an arrangement with Shirlington Limousine, which in turn had an arrangement with at least one escort service, one source said. Wade said limos would pick up Cunningham and a prostitute and bring them to suites Wilkes maintained at the Watergate Hotel and the Westin Grand in Washington, the source said.

Cunningham resigned from Congress after pleading guilty last November to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from four co-conspirators, including Wilkes and Wade. The former lawmaker was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. Wade pleaded guilty to his part in the scheme in February and is cooperating with investigators. Wilkes has not been charged.

The allegations about prostitutes were reported this week by the Wall Street Journal. Asked yesterday about the allegations, Wilkes's attorney, Michael Lipman of San Diego, said: "My client denies any involvement in that conduct." Cunningham's lawyer, K. Lee Blalack II, declined to comment.

The San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday cited a letter from Baker's lawyer, Bobby Stafford, saying that Baker "provided limousine services for Mr. Wilkes for whatever entertainment he had in the Watergate" from the company's founding in 1990 through the early 2000s. The letter also stated that Baker was "never in attendance in any party where any women were being used for prostitution purposes." Reached by telephone yesterday, Stafford would not comment on the letter.

Before starting Shirlington Limousine, public records show, Baker compiled a lengthy criminal record. Between 1979 and 1989, he was convicted on several misdemeanor charges, including drug possession and attempted petty larceny, as well as two felony charges for attempted robbery and car theft, according to D.C. Superior Court records.

The Internal Revenue Service filed a tax lien against Baker in 1996. He lost his house in 1998, and he filed for personal bankruptcy protection in 1998 and again in 1999.

Although Baker's company began receiving small federal contracts in 1998, it also fell into debt, records show. In early 2002, Arlington County Circuit Court ordered Shirlington Limousine to pay American Express Travel Related Services Co. $55,292.

That summer, Howard University terminated a contract with Shirlington Limousine to supply shuttle bus service, citing poor service and other problems.

In 2003 and again in 2004, the company received eviction notices for an office it maintained in a luxury D.C. apartment building. And in September 2004, the company was sued in D.C. Superior Court for $1.8 million, for failing to make payments on buses it bought for the Howard contract. The case was settled last month, with Shirlington Limousine agreeing to pay $300,000.

During these financial troubles, Baker's company won a contract worth $3.8 million with the Department of Homeland Security in April 2004. It appears from federal records that Shirlington Limousine was the only bidder. The contract was awarded under a program that limited competition to businesses in poor neighborhoods.

Baker was able to close his bankruptcy case last April after he made nearly $125,000 in payments to creditors, according to court records.

The Homeland Security Department said it awarded Shirlington Limousine, one of three bidders, another one-year contract for $21.2 million in October.

Homeland Security spokesman Larry Orluskie said the department does not routinely conduct background checks on its contractors. Instead, it relies on a list the government keeps of vendors who have had serious problems with federal contracts, he said.

In Shirlington Limousine's case, only the drivers were subject to criminal background checks, he said.

Past performance is one key factor the government weighs in awarding a contract, Orluskie said. But he said he did not know whether contract officers checked with Howard University before awarding Shirlington Limousine its first contract.

He stressed that Shirlington Limousine has performed well, saying: "We have not had any problems with this service -- we don't question whether they can deliver because they are delivering."

Steven L. Schooner, an associate professor and contracting expert at George Washington University Law School, said that although there is no explicit prohibition against giving contracts to felons or people with poor business histories, the government is obligated to ensure that potential vendors have a satisfactory record of business ethics and integrity, and that they have the financial resources to meet contractual obligations.

"There's a fundamental government responsibility to investigate," he said.

Researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Cunningham's Enablers

By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; Page A15

It is tempting, and certainly convenient for his former colleagues in Congress, to dismiss Randy "Duke" Cunningham as an aberration. He is, in a sense: As prosecutors told the judge who is to sentence Cunningham this week, the California Republican engaged in "unparalleled corruption." The ordinary lawmaker can't be bought for the price of an antique armoire -- or, in Cunningham's case, nine armoires, six Persian carpets, three antique oak doors, two candelabras and a china hutch.

A fighter-pilot-turned-congressman-turned-felon, Cunningham took the gold in brazenness and gluttony. He extorted a Rolls-Royce from a defense contractor and parked it in the congressional garage. He had the contractor buy his California house for a hugely inflated price and then demanded extra money to cover capital gains taxes and moving expenses. He offered volume discounts for frequent bribers, helpfully writing out the fee schedule on his congressional letterhead. In all, he raked in an astonishing $2.4 million in graft.

But if Cunningham is unparalleled, he is also symptomatic. The corruption scheme he was at the center of exposes systemic flaws that will persist well after he is behind bars: the seductive availability of millions in earmarked funds, the corrosive combination of money and politics, the easy slide into an egomaniacal sense of entitlement for lawmakers surrounded by staff and sycophants. The system didn't cause Cunningham's corruption, but it undoubtedly facilitated it.

Last week's guilty plea by Cunningham's co-conspirator, defense contractor Mitchell Wade, illuminates the way easy access to earmarks can corrupt even without bribes -- or, to be a bit more blunt, with the legal bribes known as campaign contributions. The plea agreement describes how Wade wanted his company, MZM Inc., to open a facility in the district of Virginia Republican Virgil Goode (Representative A, in the language of the plea). MZM employees contributed $46,000 to Goode's campaign from 2003 to 2005, making the company his single largest source of campaign cash. Unbeknownst to Goode, but also unsurprisingly, Wade illegally reimbursed his employees and their spouses for their contributions.

And then -- surprise -- Wade asked for federal funding for the facility he wanted to build in the district. As described in the matter-of-fact language of the plea agreement, "In June 2005, Representative A's staff confirmed to Wade that an appropriations bill would include $9 million for the facility and a related program. Wade thanked Representative A and his staff for their assistance." You bet he thanked them: a $9 million contract for a mere $46,000 in contributions -- in comparison with Cunningham's prices, a real bargain.

The link between campaign contributions and legislative favors wasn't exactly understated. The plea agreement describes Wade's dinner with "Representative B" -- Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) -- at which they discussed "the possibility of MZM's hosting a fundraiser for Representative B later in the year, and the possibility of obtaining funding and approval for a Navy counterintelligence program in Representative B's district and locating an MZM office in that district." Subtle, huh? Wade didn't get his funding, but that doesn't make the seamy intersection between campaign cash and legislative favor-seeking much less distasteful.

Prosecutors said Harris, like Goode, wasn't aware that the $32,000 she received from MZM employees and spouses was secretly underwritten by Wade -- though he turned up with the checks in hand to deliver them to her personally. Did she and Goode think that all these MZM employees from outside their districts had spontaneously come to the realization that they were the best two members of Congress? When someone who has never given campaign donations suddenly decides -- along with a spouse -- to write out checks for the maximum donation, something fishy is up. When you need the cash, though, there's not much incentive to sniff too hard to discern precisely how odoriferous it is.

If the system discourages politicians from questioning the sources of their campaign cash, it also encourages them to behave like potentates, cosseted by fawning staff. An analysis by UCLA psychiatrist Saul J. Faerstein, submitted to the court by Cunningham's lawyers, concludes that the fighter pilot's "sense of grandiosity" and "mantle of invulnerability," while "adaptive and life-preserving in Vietnam," were "maladaptive" in the Washington culture. With all due respect to the doctor, if he thinks an "outsized sense of ego" is unique to Cunningham among members of Congress, he probably hasn't met too many.

Indeed, the sentencing memo -- prosecutors are asking for 10 years -- illustrates how Cunningham's staff enabled his corruption. When Cunningham bought a Chevy Suburban from Wade for well below the market price, his staff altered the title registration application to increase the sales price -- though Cunningham never paid the higher amount. A top aide delivered a cash-stuffed envelope from Wade to Cunningham. When the aide finally confronted Cunningham about these shady dealings and asked him to resign, or at least not seek reelection, the congressman pondered the matter and decided to stay on.

And here's a tale of what passes for principle in Washington: The staffer didn't turn him in -- he quit. He's now a lobbyist, specializing in -- you guessed it -- defense and appropriations.

Prosecutors Opt for Wide Probe of Rep. Ney

By Susan Schmidt and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 29, 2006; Page A04

Federal prosecutors signaled this week that they have decided to pursue a wide range of allegations about dealings between Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, rather than bringing a narrowly focused bribery case against the congressman.

Ney faces a primary challenge in his eastern Ohio district Tuesday, as his ties to Abramoff have become national news. It is the first time since his 1994 election to Congress that Ney has had to compete for his party's nomination.

Ney has been under investigation by federal authorities in Florida and the District for actions that helped Abramoff and two partners buy a Fort Lauderdale-based casino cruise line. The deal that Ney promoted in the Congressional Record hinged on the Abramoff group's creation of a counterfeit $23 million wire transfer.

The Miami U.S. Attorney's office has vied with the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section over who would have primary jurisdiction in the Ney investigation. Last month, the Justice Department decided that any case would be brought in the District. Under the statute of limitations, Thursday was the deadline for bringing bribery charges against Ney focused solely on his actions related to the Florida casino boat transaction.

Ney's lawyer, Mark Tuohey, said he has been in talks with Justice Department officials and expects to know within a month or two whether Ney will face criminal charges. He said the department asked for another extension of the statute of limitations in recent days, but this time Ney declined.

"We're going through the facts with the government. I don't think there's a crime here," Tuohey said. "Nothing's decided."

Court papers filed in recent months show that prosecutors have lined up at least four cooperating witnesses against the Ohio congressman: Abramoff, former congressional aides Michael Scanlon and Tony C. Rudy, and businessman Adam Kidan. All have pleaded guilty to various conspiracy, fraud or public corruption charges.

The court filings that accompanied the plea agreements of Abramoff, Scanlon and Rudy accused Ney of accepting "a stream of things of value" in exchange for official actions.

Prosecutors signaled their intentions with Ney by identifying him as "Representative #1" in pleadings filed with the court. In October, Ney was formally notified that he was under criminal investigation, and at the prosecutors' request he agreed to extend the five-year statute of limitations for six months while they investigated possible bribery charges.

Ney's actions involving the cruise line could still expose him to criminal liability if the government brings a conspiracy case against him, legal analysts said. In that instance, the statute of limitations is pegged to the date of the last alleged criminal act in a chain, not the first.

Ney's involvement with the cruise line took place in 2000, when Abramoff and partners Kidan and Ben Waldman were in difficult negotiations to buy SunCruz Casinos from Fort Lauderdale businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis. Ney placed comments in the Congressional Record that year that first put pressure on Boulis to sell to the Abramoff group, and later praised the new owners as Boulis was complaining he had been cheated in the sale.

Boulis was killed in a gangland-style hit in early 2001. Three men with ties to Kidan and to the Gambino crime family face murder charges in the slaying.

Ney was also involved with Abramoff and his lobbying team on other issues under federal investigation. In 2002, Ney sponsored legislation at the team's request to reopen a casino for a Texas Indian tribe that Abramoff represented, and approved a 2002 license for an Abramoff client to wire the House of Representatives for mobile phone service.

At the same time, Ney accepted many favors from Abramoff, among them campaign contributions, dinners at the lobbyist's downtown restaurant, skybox fundraisers -- including one at his then-MCI Center box the month after Boulis's murder -- and a lavish golf junket to Scotland in August 2002.

Ney was directly implicated by three of the four who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and bribery charges: Abramoff, Scanlon and Rudy. Kidan's attorney said his client also would testify against Ney if asked.

The allegations against Ney have taken a toll on his political career and his prospects for reelection.

Ney will face off against financial analyst James Harris in next week's Republican primary in Ohio's 18th District. Despite his travails, Ney has won the uniform backing of district Republican officials and is favored to win.

The November general election may be more difficult, as internal Republican polling conducted this year showed Ney trailing both Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer and lawyer Zack Space -- the two Democrats given the best chance of winning their party's nod on Tuesday.

posted April 30, 2006 02:45 PM            

Mollohan's decision comes in an election year when his party is accusing majority Republicans of allowing a "culture of corruption" in Congress.

Mollohan, of West Virginia, will be replaced by Rep. Howard Berman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the panel. Mollohan has denied any wrongdoing.

The only evenly divided panel in the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been divided along partisan lines for the past 16 months and unable to launch any major new investigations. If Mollohan had stayed while under his own ethics cloud, the chances for the stalemate to end would have been almost impossible.

The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that Mollohan steered millions of dollars to nonprofit groups in his district - with much of the money going to organizations run by people who contribute to the lawmaker's campaigns.

Also, a conservative group filed a complaint with federal prosecutors this year questioning whether Mollohan correctly reported his assets on financial disclosure forms.

While Mollohan's troubles threaten to become a major campaign problem for Democrats, Pelosi, of California, said in a statement that Mollohan decided on his own to step down and that she accepted his decision.

"The allegations against Congressman Mollohan originate from the National Legal and Policy Center, which engages in highly partisan attacks on Democrats," Pelosi said.

"The attacks are an attempt to deflect attention from the long list of Republican criminal investigations, indictments, plea agreements and resignations which have resulted from the reported long-term and extensive criminal enterprise run out of House Republican leadership offices," she said.

Using a phrase that has become a Democratic refrain, Pelosi said, "The Republican culture of corruption has been ignored by the ethics committee for a year and a half following the decision of the Republican leadership to fire their own chairman and committee members for doing their job."

While Mollohan and committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., had 16 months of friction, Berman had a good working relationship with former ethics chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo.

Hefley sought to have his term as chairman extended at the start of 2005, but he and two other Republicans were forced off the 10-member committee after having voted to admonish then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

posted April 30, 2006 06:39 PM              

It still doesn't take away from all the indictments and hypocrises of a party that ran on a moral value platform. The Dems never made the claim of being holier than thou as the Republicans have.

Besides I never said there were not corrupt Democrats. I think there is a lot of courruption in Wash. D.C. politics in general and the whole mess needs to be cleaned up.

posted April 30, 2006 11:08 PM            

Prostitution Alleged In Cunningham Case
Investigators Focus on Limo Company

Sometimes it actually pays to read what you post and comment on...first.

I see no hypocrisy in democrats screeching, whining and wetting themselves over a culture of corruption.

posted May 01, 2006 02:00 AM              

the Bohemiam Grove?

Or

U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Michael Aquino and his satanic Temple of Set?