On the House floor today, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) announced that he'd just been served with four subpoenas. Not that this is out of an abundance of candor. I think it's a House rule that you've got to disclose it in this way.
But apparently, they're not subpoenas over the House debacle, which the feds are also investigating. They're about something else. A Cunningham spokesman said the subpoenas were related to "constituent casework" but declined to give more details.
Now, as I think we've learned, 'constituent casework' can have a rather expansive meaning for the Duke. But there's another bit of this story that's unclear to me.
Right now I'm looking at an AP story at the New York Times website. The headline reads "Rep. Cunningham Discloses Federal Subpoena." But the article says the subpoenas were issued by the "Imperial County Superior Court." That sounds to me like a state court. And presumably this court is the one they're referring to. Either I'm wrong or they made a mistake. And one way or another it's likely a simple error. But what's also notable is that as near as I can tell, none of the Duke's 50th district falls anywhere in California's Imperial County, which happens to be in Rep. Bob Filner's district. (See page 4 of this pdf.)
I'm not expert on trial court nomenclature or San Diego-area congressional districts, so if I've gotten any of these points wrong, please let me know. But it does make me wonder just what other trouble the Duke's gotten himself into.
Late Update: TPM Reader SS alerts me to this late article on the the subpoenas mentioned above. It seems the case in question is one in which Cunningham is merely a bystander.