REGION — The wife of San Diego-area Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pleaded guilty today to a federal conspiracy charge in a case in which she and her spouse were accused of misusing campaign funds for personal use.
Margaret Hunter, 44, is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 16. Her attorney, Thomas McNamara, declined to say if his client plans to testify against her husband.
McNamara read a brief statement from Margaret Hunter, in which she apologized for her actions.
“Earlier this morning, I entered a guilty plea before the United States District Court,” Margaret Hunter said in the statement. “In doing so, I have fully accepted responsibility for my conduct. I am deeply remorseful and
I apologize. I am saddened for the hurt that I’ve caused my family and others. I understand that there will be more consequences stemming from my actions but as demonstrated this morning with the entry of the plea, I’ve taken the first step to face those consequences.”
Duncan Hunter, 42, and his wife were accused in a 60-count indictment of taking money from campaign coffers as if they were personal bank accounts and falsifying Federal Election Commission campaign finance reports to cover their tracks. Both Hunters were slated to go to trial this fall on charges that
include conspiracy, wire fraud and falsification of records.
Margaret Hunter signed a plea deal with federal prosecutors Wednesday and formally entered her plea before U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan Thursday morning. Under the terms of the deal, she faces up to five years in federal custody and a fine of up to $250,000.
Gregory Vega, a former U.S. attorney who is representing Duncan Hunter, told the San Diego Union-Tribune Wednesday that he was aware of the change-of-plea hearing but declined to comment on whether it signals a decision by Margaret Hunter to testify against her husband.
Another former federal prosecutor said it almost certainly means Margaret Hunter is cooperating with prosecutors.
“What it normally means is that she and her lawyer have cut a deal to cooperate with the government,” Jerry Coughlan told the U-T. “In return for that, the government will agree to only the charges she pleads guilty to
and typically bring to the judge’s attention what she’s done and make a recommendation for leniency. It all depends on what she negotiated. Those are the general parameters, but every case is different.”
The indictment details scores of instances beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2016, in which the Hunters — who have been married since 1998 and have three children — are accused of illegally using campaign money to pay for such things as family vacations to Italy, Hawaii and Boise, Idaho, school tuition, dental work, theater tickets and smaller purchases, including fast food, tequila shots, golf outings and video games.
The indictment alleges that at one point, Hunter used $600 in campaign cash to fly his pet rabbit to a family vacation.
The Hunters allegedly misreported the expenses on FEC filings, using false descriptions such as “campaign travel,” “toy drives,” “dinner with volunteers/contributors” and “gift cards,” according to federal prosecutors.
Hunter’s reelection campaign issued a statement last year condemning the indictment as politically motivated. He later appeared to blame his wife in a television interview, saying she was in charge of the campaign’s finances.
His campaign blasted the timing of the indictment — about two months before the Nov. 6 general election — saying it “appears to be an effort to derail Congressman Hunter’s re-election” bid.
Voters opted to keep him in office despite the allegations. Hunter was first elected to Congress in 2008, when he won the seat his father held for 14 terms.
If the congressman is convicted, there is no constitutional provision or House rule that explicitly requires him to lose his seat, even if he is sent to prison or unable to vote on behalf of his district.
1 comment
It is sobering to know that convicted criminals can retain their public office. That seems a low standard for elected officials to adhere to. So as a felon you cannot vote unless you are already holding public office? You would think legislators could come up with some better rules. I guess we can’t let criminal behavior get in the way of a good election. It is surprising how many people vote for criminals.
Comments are closed.