Duke on a wire

Originally, Drudge and others breathlessly stated that Time magazine had been wrong when it reported that Duke Cunningham had worn a wire. Implicit in these challenges of the Time story was the usual challenge of liberal media going after Republican politicians for a political end.

First off, Drudge, I wouldn't use Duke Cunningham as your test case; it's not like he's really an innocent victim here. Secondly, you might want to parse this statement a little more closely before you get all excited. (LATimes)

"The press, citing unnamed sources, continues to report that Duke Cunningham wore a tape recording device, or wire, to surreptitiously gather evidence on behalf of the government. This story is false.

"Duke has never worn a body wire during any conversations with his former congressional colleagues or any other public official, and he has not surreptitiously gathered evidence against any public officials."

Blalack, contacted at his Washington, D.C., office, declined to clarify whether Cunningham may have gathered evidence against those who are not public officials, such as lobbyists or military contractors.

One of the few benefits I've found during the Bush administration is that I have gained a much greater understanding of how prosecutors conduct their investigations in corruption and white collar crime cases. (Funny that.)

So when I read this vehement denial that Cunningham did not wear a wire against any of his former colleagues(a strange sense of morals from a man who took 2.1 million in bribes) that does not mean that other elected officials might not be on the hook in this thing. It could very well mean that the prosecutors in the case are simply lining up the smaller fish before going after other elected officials.