• Scam Diego alerts

Former North County Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham has sent a letter from prison to blog Talking Points Memo and other media. He says he never had sex with a prostitute "and the [Department of Justice] bastards know it." As to the charge that he had sex with a prostitute provided by his defense industry friend, Cunningham says, "I told the prosecutors I would submit to any doctor or sex therapist etc. to prove it was impossible. I had radical prostate surgery which left me almost impotent even with the use of [erectile dysfunction] medication after a year of recuperation." Cunningham was charged with accepting gifts, including bribes, from defense contractors. Now he says there were no bribes and the only checks he received were reimbursements. He pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud in 2005. Now he says he didn't knowingly and intentionally sign the plea agreement because he "simply trusted my lawyers." In his letter, he refers to "Barack Hussein Obama" and "the vicious Nancy Pelosi. Thanks to Matt Potter for sending this along.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

sd_engineer April 7, 2011 @ 7:02 p.m.

"I had radical prostate surgery which left me almost impotent even with the use of [erectile dysfunction] medication after a year of recuperation."

After screwing the American tax payer, we find out that Randall can screw no more. Sounds like Karma.

0

Don Bauder April 7, 2011 @ 7:37 p.m.

Congrats. I wish I had thought of that. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 7, 2011 @ 9:43 p.m.

1-I hate Cunningham, he is a hypoctire slimeball. He never voted in his life then ran for the Congress. Still can't believe he was elected.

BUT, #2- if the prostate surgery is true and that is easy to verify then I believe what he says 100%, and then the next question is why would the court allow the prosecutors to get away with such flagrant lies??????

This is why our system is so screwed up-prosecutors, unlike ANY OTHER PROFESSION, are allowed to lie and obstruct justice with impunity.

The SCOTUS 2 days ago just handed down another pathetic ruling from the 5 pro gov circus chimps upholding absolute immunity for prosecutors even when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally violate the law.

0

WhatsNewPussycat April 10, 2011 @ 7:25 p.m.

There are plausible, intelligent reasons why a young warrior might choose not vote. The warriors I've known have been a part of special forces. Since I do not know RC's background I do not know if he was a warrior in his youth. People should not be so quick to bag on young warriors who choose not to vote.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 10, 2011 @ 9:14 p.m.

People should not be so quick to bag on young warriors who choose not to vote.

I don't give a rat's patoot if someone votes or not-including "warriors", but when they don't vote and THEN decide they want to run the country by being a member of Congress which REQUIRES VOTING then I do have a problem, a BIG PROBLEM.

If you don't want to vote, don't want a say in who or how our country is governed= no problem. In fact I prefer dumb people (not that you're dumb) don't vote because if they don't know the issues they should not be voting.

BUT DO NOT come crawling into the political arena and ask people to vote for you so YOU can run the countries business when you have done nothing in the past to warrant such a job and position.

BTW-I dig your handle and profile pic, I'm a HUGE Tom Jones fan! Always have been since the late 60's when he had his own TV show.

0

Don Bauder April 11, 2011 @ 1:22 p.m.

I think if a person has not voted, he or she should not run for high office. I concede that some people say they don't vote as a social protest. But they should at least vote in local elections. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 8, 2011 @ 7:40 a.m.

Of course, you are basing your thesis on Cunningham's near-impotence on "if the prostate surgery is true." That's a big IF. Would you believe anything Cunningham says? Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 8, 2011 @ 11 a.m.

Of course, you are basing your thesis on Cunningham's near-impotence on "if the prostate surgery is true."

Don, if he had the surgery that can easily be verified by the hospital records.

If it is true the surgery happened it is well know that this type of surgery severs the nerves, and it can cause impotence in even young men, much less a guy in his 70's.

I am not defending Cunningham in any manner, except his constitutional right to a fair trial.

0

Don Bauder April 8, 2011 @ 12:54 p.m.

OK, you check the hospital records. If you go to the U.S. attorney's office, you may be able to get the records and the government's side of its case. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh April 9, 2011 @ 4:21 p.m.

I know from first-hand experience that in recent years prostate removals can spare the nerves. But even if spared, the result is usually, but not necessarily, impotence. It's just how it goes. But he is just desperate, and has had time to think about what might have been if he had fought and improbably won at trial. How often must we be subjected to these slimeballs claiming that when they pled guilty, "I didn't know what I was signing." For that reason, many judges are now requiring the defendants in these plea deals to give sworn testimony describing their misdeeds. That defuses, or should defuse, these after-the-fact complaints. Merely asking the defendant if he/she understands the plea leaves the door wide open to a jerk like Cunningham coming back with these absurd claims.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 9, 2011 @ 8:22 p.m.

How often must we be subjected to these slimeballs claiming that when they pled guilty, "I didn't know what I was signing." For that reason, many judges are now requiring the defendants in these plea deals to give sworn testimony describing their misdeeds. That defuses, or should defuse, these after-the-fact complaints. Merely asking the defendant if he/she understands the plea leaves the door wide open to a jerk like Cunningham coming back with these absurd claims.

I was an intern for the Federal Defenders office, 95% of the time a plea deal is struck, and a very high % of plea deals are challenged AFTER the perp gets locked up for a few months and it sets in they are going to be spending a long time in the Joint and it isn’t no cake walk. But the fact is a plea deal in most cases is usually a good deal. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure the defendant gets read-on the record- a waiver of the rights being give up, FRCP #11. And these motions to withdraw a plea NEVER work on the federal level, never, and I doubt they work on the state level either. One of the cases I worked on was a guy who got a GREAT deal-just 8 years for double attempted murder, now this is going to crack some of you up, he got 4 years for each charge to run consecutively, and he thought they were to run concurrently-he did not understand the difference between consecutively and concurrently. He was a HS drop out. And to be honest that is a legit beef if it is true, and it could have been. I was shocked because 8 years for a double attempted murder is a ridiculously good deal, a GIFT, he could have faced 50 years in the Joint if he went to trial.

But these are the kinds of problems you run into with plea deals. I would bet 75% try to unwind plea deals after 6 months or more have passed. And if they WERE allowed to challenge the plea the system would just not work, it would fall apart.

So once you go on the record, which is a requirement for a criminal plea in federal court, and you waive those numerous constitutional rights, then there is no going back. NEVER waive your rights until you are ready to face the music. Most of the time it is the best thing, but not always.

0

Don Bauder April 11, 2011 @ 1:25 p.m.

You make a good case that plea deals are lenient on the defendants. I think that's the general consensus. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK April 8, 2011 @ 8:28 a.m.

first off, who cares about his "issue"

if he wants out of the clink, start ratting out his buddies ( if he is brave enough)

0

Don Bauder April 8, 2011 @ 12:55 p.m.

His buddies got into trouble; Cunningham may have already ratted on them. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK April 9, 2011 @ 7:52 a.m.

but I would guess not the ones he is afraid of.

0

Don Bauder April 9, 2011 @ 7:56 a.m.

Yes, Cunningham probably wouldn't rat on those that play rough. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 9, 2011 @ 6:55 p.m.

Answer to Visduh's 4:21 p.m. comment: Yes, but in Cunningham's case, the judge would have been getting sworn statements from a member of Congress. Worthless. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 9, 2011 @ 8:25 p.m.

This blog entry has TMI.

================

LOL......man talk Mindy, man talk!

I can guarantee you one thing, I will NEVER get that surgery-ever, I would rather be dead than finish life with no quality.

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 6:59 a.m.

If being potent is that critical to you, I respect your opinion. There are other pleasurable things in the world, however. For example, my wife dislikes Wagner operas. Recently, she was gone for a week. I listened to Wagner CDs and watched Wagner DVDs all week, while enjoying no physical intimacy. (I'm a faithful husband.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 11, 2011 @ 1:29 p.m.

Well, if SP didn't pay for health insurance, and prefers to croak rather than cease fornication, his decision not to buy health insurance sounds like an intelligent one. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 6:52 a.m.

I assume TMI means Too Much Information. From a cerebral standpoint, I think this particular blog entry probably has TLI, or Too Little Information. But I have no one to blame but myself; I posted the original. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh April 9, 2011 @ 8:57 p.m.

Quality is what you want to make of it. Dying unnecessarily at an early age was a non-choice for me. I made my decision, and I'm still here, fourteen ears later, with no recurrence.

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 7:02 a.m.

I have not had to face that decision, but I think I would choose your path under the circumstances. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 10, 2011 @ 9:24 a.m.

I was being sarcastic....but that is life changing surgery.

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 6:08 p.m.

Sorry to hear you were being sarcastic. I got 193 telephone calls from ladies wanting to know how they can reach a man so dedicated to the pleasure lifestyle. Make that 197 -- 4 more calls just came in. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 10, 2011 @ 9:15 p.m.

Don, that was the funniest post you ever put up here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

Don Bauder April 11, 2011 @ 1:39 p.m.

Don't credit me. You said you would rather be a short-lived Don Juan than a long-lived Wan Juan. That's what got the distaff side excited. Best, Don Bauder

0

NotCee April 9, 2011 @ 9:42 p.m.

Many of these posts indicate a belief that without coitus, sex could not have happened.

Despite his suggested impotence, perhaps the congresssman was not an unsophisicated, one-dimensional, old in-and-out kind of guy and was more than a simple one-trick pony.

A well-rounded guy knows how to think outside of the box...literally.

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 7:05 a.m.

Yes, and many in the world's oldest profession are trained to perform those outside-the-box solutions. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 11, 2011 @ 1:42 p.m.

Mindy may have been one of the 197 callers. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment