TPM/Josh Marshall: The Mystery of Duncan and the "Get-Togethers"

[DonViejo]

By Josh Marshall

June 25, 2019 2:11 pm

I note below that the Hunter filing ends with a minor mystery. After listing off multiple instances in which Hunter used campaign funds to pay for his affairs, the filing concludes by noting other non-work or campaign-related activities paid for with campaign funds which are so prejudicial that prosecutors fear disclosing it might taint the jury pool. Since they’ve just listed off numerous extramarital affairs Hunter expensed to his campaign, these other activities must be pretty prejudicial! So what are they?

Let’s start again with the passage in question.



The key here is clearly tainting the jury pool. What could it be? “Clearly non-work related activity during get-togethers with his close personal friends.”

One possibility is that is that it is somehow sexual in nature – not illegal but shocking enough to people’s sensibilities to make it hard to seat a jury that can fairly judge the charges. But one reader on Twitter notes that the first clause seems to distinguish it from the other instances: “In addition to pursuing intimate personal relationships.”

I’m not sure this is really that restrictive. The emphasis seems to be on relationships – paying for expenses tied to the sexual relationships he was pursuing with various women over time. The mystery activity could certainly be something sexual in nature not tied to a relationship or even directly involving Hunter. Still, that’s one possible reading.

The other thing that comes to mind with “get-togthers with his close personal friends” is drugs. But there’s a pretty big problem with that theory: illegal drugs are illegal. Maybe federal prosecutors wouldn’t indict if they found out Hunter took a hit of a joint at a party. But if we were talking about purchasing or somehow facilitating drug use with federal campaign funds it’s hard for me to believe they wouldn’t have charged him with a crime or made a criminal referral.

So what could this possibly be?

###

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-mystery-of-duncan-and-the-get-togethers

[tanyev]

1. His update after that is even more intriguing.

Speculation only, of course, but highly plausible.

We’ve gotten a number of emails making the same basic argument on the Duncan Hunter/Shagfund mystery as TPM Reader TP. And I’m starting to think they are on to something …

I think the more interesting part of the Duncan Hunter mystery get-togethers is likely to be the guest lists.

The government clearly has no problem with publicly embarrassing Hunter, who eminently deserves the public shaming, so if the issue was merely some other tawdry conduct on his part, it’s hard to imagine it not being spelled out. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that “close personal friends” is code for “other members of Congress” and that they were all up to no good. Maybe not criminal shenanigans, but activities both “non-work related” and deeply embarrassing for all involved. If that is the case, it would also explain why Hunter is still considering a stipulation related to those facts. A stipulation could be worded vaguely enough on some details to protect the identities of the “close personal friends” while still giving the government what it needs from a prosecutorial standpoint. You have to imagine he’s in a shitstorm at home and might want to forestall having it spread to D.C. for as long as possible. I’m hoping the discussions on a stipulation fail so that we can get the details on this in writing and soon.

The mystery here is that it has to be a) very sensitive, damaging, potentially tainting and yet b) presumably not illegal in itself, otherwise we’d see charges. In terms of tainting a jury, making people deeply really hostile to the defendant, routinely using campaign funds to cheat on your wife seems pretty close to maxing out. Yes, we could all imagine some pretty crazy but yet non-criminal stuff. But protecting other public figures makes a lot more sense.

[Blue_true]

2. He could have spent campaign money on prostitutes.

After the Robert Kraft fiasco, federal prosecutors are likely double checking the facts before releasing that genie on Hunter.

[More_Cowbell]

3. Would Russians be that prejudicial to a jury? nt