Republican NeoCon(victs) Indictments/Investigation

[Feltan]

I hope someone can help me understand this whole situation a bit better.

OK, Abramhoff is a lobbyist. He has plead guilt to conspiricy, fraud and tax evasion. How, exactly, does that affect members of congress? I am assuming the fraud and tax evasion are his personal sins, and the conspiricy charge involves others too. What did he conspire to do that involves others?

I heard on the radio driving home something about illegal influence peddling. I had to laugh. The guy is professional influence peddler -- that is what lobbyists do! Is DeLay, or any other politician, going to take this guy's money (which he can hand out like candy within certain limitations), and then vote against what the lobbyist is peddling? Does any politician do that, ever?

I must be missing something here.

Regards,
Feltan

[jeff]

Get a copy of today's Wall Street Journal and read the editorial.

[Philistine]

I hope someone can help me understand this whole situation a bit better.

OK, Abramhoff is a lobbyist. He has plead guilt to conspiricy, fraud and tax evasion. How, exactly, does that affect members of congress?

Well--it doesn't directly effect members of Congress, as none of them were indicted along with Abramoff. The only one actually mentioned (though he was called "Representative #1") was Rob Ney of Ohio.

It indirectly affects them as he will now testify against (supposedly) six members of Congress, and their staffs.

I am assuming the fraud and tax evasion are his personal sins, and the conspiricy charge involves others too. What did he conspire to do that involves others?

Among other things, bribery and honest service fraud of public officials (which is pretty much the same thing as bribery). The fraud count was also a substantive honest service fraud count.

I heard on the radio driving home something about illegal influence peddling. I had to laugh. The guy is professional influence peddler -- that is what lobbyists do! Is DeLay, or any other politician, going to take this guy's money (which he can hand out like candy within certain limitations), and then vote against what the lobbyist is peddling? Does any politician do that, ever?

I must be missing something here.

It's not really the votes, per se, that are going to be the problems for Congress members in this case (though it is illegal to promise to give a vote in exchange for money--or anything). It's all the other stuff they did. For instance, the allegations about Ney are:

33. As part of this course of conduct, Abramoff, Scanlon and others provided things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts and influence, and agreements to provide official acts and influence, including, but not limited to, agreements to support and pass legislation, agreements to place statements in the Conmessional Record, agreements to contact personnel in United States Executive Branch agencies and offices to influence decisions of those agencies and office$ meetings with Abramoff and CCS's clients, and awarding contracts for services with CCS and Abramoff s law firms. As one part of this course of conduct, Representative #1 and members of his staff agreed to use and did use their official positions and influence, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Travel by a senior staff member of Representative #1 with others in January 2000 to CNMI for the purpose of assisting Abramoff, his firm and others in obtaining and maintaining lobbying clients;

b. Representative #Its agreement in March 2000 to place a statement drafted by Scanlon into the Conmessional Record that was critical of the then-owner of a Florida gaming company, and was calculated to pressure the then-owner to sell on terms favorable to Abramoff and his partners;

c. Representative #l's agreement in October 2000 with Scanlon to insert a statement into the Conmessional Record which praised the new owner of the Florida gaming company, Abramoff s business partner;

d. Representative #Its agreement in approximately August 2001 to use his position as Chairman of a Committee of the House to endorse and support a client of Abramoff as the provider of wireless telephone infrastructure to the House of Representatives;

e. Representative #l's agreement in approximately March 2002 that, as the Co-Chairman of a Conference Committee of House and Senate Members of Congress, he would introduce and seek passage of legislation that would lift an existing federal ban against commercial gaming in order to benefit a client of Abramoff and CCS, Texas Tribe #l;

f. Representative #l's agreement in approximately June 2002 that, as the Co-Chairman of a Conference Committee of House and Senate Members of Congress, he would introduce and seek passage of legislation that would lift an existing federal ban against commercial gaming for another Native American
Tribe in Texas ("Texas Tribe #2") at Abramoff s request;

g. Representative #1 met in August 2002 with representatives of Texas Tribe #1 to assure them that they were effectively represented by Abramoff and that he continued to agree to work to pass the legislation they wanted;

h. Representative #l's agreement in December 2002 tb seek support from a Member of another Committee of the House of Representatives for passage of legislation to lift the federal gaming ban for Texas Tribe #l;

I. Representative #1 met in 2002 with a Native American Tribal client of CCS and Abrarnoff from California ("California Tribe") to discuss Representative #l's agreement to assist in passing legislation regarding taxation of certain payments received by members of the California Tribe, and to assist in an issue relating to a post office of interest to the California Tribe;

j. Representative #1 agreed to meet with some of Abramoffs clients and others in Russia while Representative #I was there on official business in August 2003 to, among other things, influence the process of obtaining a visa for travel to the United States for the relative of one of Abramoffs clients; and

k. Representative #1 at various times, directly and indirectly, contacted public officials at additional government agencies and offices on behalf of clients of Abramoff and CCS in an effort to influence decisions and actions by those officials.

34. As one part of the same course of conduct outlined in paragraphs 32 and 33 above, in June 2002, Abramoff informed Representative #I that Texas Tribe #1 was raising funds to pay for a golfing trip to Scotland that Representative #1 and members of his staff were to, and did, attend. In August 2002, Texas Tribe #2, at the request of Abramoff and Texas Tribe #1, sent a $50,000 check made out to CAE via private interstate mail delivery to Abramoff at 1101 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C.

35. As one part of the same conduct outlined in paragraphs 32 and 33 above, beginning at least in 1999 through January 2001, Abramoff and others sought Staffer A's agreement to perform a series of official acts, including assisting in stopping legislation regarding internet gambling and opposing postal rate increases. With the intent to influence those official acts, Abramoff provided things of value including, but not limited to, from June 2000 through February 2001, ten equal monthly payments totaling $50,000 through a non-profit entity to the wife of Staffer A. The total amount paid to the wife of Staffer A was obtained from clients that would and did benefit from Staffer A's official actions regarding the legislation on internet gambling or opposing postal rate increases.

36. As one part of the same course of conduct outlined in paragraphs 32 and 33 above, beginning in March 2002, Abramoff and a former staffer to Representative #1 ("Staffer B") contacted Representative #1, officials employed by the Office of Representative #1, and officials employed by a House Committee ("Committee") of which Representative #1 was the chairman. These contacts occurred within one year of Staffer B having served as the Chief of Staff for Representative #1 and Staff Director of the committee. Abramoff intended that Staffer B communicate with Representative #1, his staff, and the Committee staff for the purpose of influencing official action on behalf of Abramoff s and Staffer B's clients, including Texas Tribe #I and Wireless Company.

Factual Basis of Plea Agreement

Without someone to testify--it's very difficult to prove the quid pro quo for this type of case--with testimony, they become much easier.

--Philistine

[Feltan]

Thanks!

That was quite helpful.

Regards,
Feltan

[esskreemr]

I hope someone can help me understand this whole situation a bit better.

OK, Abramhoff is a lobbyist. He has plead guilt to conspiricy, fraud and tax evasion. How, exactly, does that affect members of congress? I am assuming the fraud and tax evasion are his personal sins, and the conspiricy charge involves others too. What did he conspire to do that involves others?

'Abramoff is linked to several Congressman' is just a polite way of saying that money and favors changed hands, perhaps illegally, between Abramoff and several members of Congress. Mostly Republicans, but there are some Dems in the mix, apparently Hillary Clinton has given a sum to charity as a result.

I heard on the radio driving home something about illegal influence peddling. I had to laugh. The guy is professional influence peddler -- that is what lobbyists do! Is DeLay, or any other politician, going to take this guy's money (which he can hand out like candy within certain limitations), and then vote against what the lobbyist is peddling?

As you have hinted, there is already generous allowance legally presented to lobbyists and their 'candy'. Are you suggesting that issues of bribery should be ignored just because it is assumed that everybody does it?

Does any politician do that, ever?

Perhaps a few that still retain a modicum of ethics.

[esskreemr]

In my continual attempt to be objective and impartial:

"Brett Pfeffer , a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson , D-La., entered his plea deal in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. Pfeffer faces up to 20 years in prison when sentenced March 31 and a fine of up to $500,000."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181333,00.html

Of course we all realize that this particular case of alleged misconduct is merely another witchhunt by the fuming Right who have been blistered by case after case of scandal, corruption and moral degradation. Good try guys, lets move back to DeLay...

[esskreemr]

WASHINGTON: The lobbying scandal threatening to loosen the Republicans' once iron grip on Congress claimed its second major casualty after Bob Ney stepped down as chairman of a powerful house committee.

The move by Mr Ney, whose previous claim to fame had been ordering the house cafeteria to replace french fries with "freedom fries" over France's opposition to the war in Iraq, follows intense pressure from Republican party leaders who fear that the Jack Abramoff bribery case may cost them seats in mid-term elections this November.

Earlier this month, Tom DeLay quit as majority leader in the House of Representatives when one of his former aides was linked to the corruption charges against Mr Abramoff.

Mr Ney's decision to go at the weekend became all but inevitable after it emerged that he and a former chief of staff were caught up in the Justice Department's investigation into Mr Abramoff's attempts to bribe members of Congress, rob Native American tribal clients and evade taxation. Mr Abramoff is said to have diverted lobbying fees to pay for a golf trip for Mr Ney in Scotland.

Mr Ney is now known as representative No1 in court documents relating to the Abramoff case and is considered the politician most likely to be charged over the affair.

The Ohio Republican's position on the Administration Committee was powerful because it allowed him to hand out favours or win personal allegiances by controlling the distribution of office equipment and access to congressional facilities.

But the committee also has jurisdiction over election fundraising and lobbying rules. These are the subject of post-Abramoff reform proposals being drawn up by Dennis Hastert, the house Speaker, who has had to repay $US69,000 ($91,530) in campaign contributions received from the Republican lobbyist and his Native American clients.

Mr Abramoff spent millions of dollars buying influence on Capitol Hill and although about a third was spent on Democrats, it is the Republicans who have most to fear. They have controlled the House of Representatives for a decade and the loss of 15 seats in November would leave George Bush having to share power with the Democrats.

The Abramoff investigation has unearthed nuggets of political sleaze such as the $US1.38million that was put into the transportation bill by Californian Republican Gary Miller to improve streets in front of a 28.3ha development that he and his largest campaign contributors co-own.

Mr DeLay was the architect of the "K Street Project" in which lobbyists whose offices inhabit that Washington district were encouraged to employ Republicans for their mutual benefit.

The frontrunners to replace him as house majority leader say they are in favour of tightening the rules.

But Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, is reported to have flown on no fewer than 30 corporate jets provided for him by lobbyists and special interest groups in the past four years.

His chief rival, Ohio's John Boehner, once distributed pay cheques from tobacco lobbyists on the floor of the House.

[esskreemr]

A federal judge in New Hampshire sentenced the former president of an Alexandria political consulting firm on Tuesday to five months in prison, the first jail term handed out in connection with the jamming of state Democratic Party phone lines on Election Day in 2002.

Allen Raymond, who headed the now-defunct company GOP Marketplace, which was hired by New Hampshire Republicans for election-related telemarketing services, pleaded guilty last summer to one count of conspiring to make harassing phone calls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb8.html

[esskreemr]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Prosecutors charged a prominent GOP fundraiser Monday with theft and money laundering in an investigation of a controversial state investment in rare coins that has embroiled Republicans in scandal during an election year.

The 53 charges against coin dealer Tom Noe conclude a 10-month investigation by state and federal prosecutors into the $50 million rare coin investment Noe managed for the state insurance fund for injured workers.

Heh heh, guess this Repugnican won't be the one to bring 'change' to the GOP...

[Slim]

I felt that with all these indictments of Repubs surfacing, we should have a thread to keep track. So now we know that NeoCon actually stands for "New Convicts". This should get even more interesting as we see who rolls over on who.

So let's see:

Tom DeLay - (R-Texas, Senator, former Majority Leader)
2 indictments
1) Conspiracy
2) Money Laundering

Bill Frist - (R- Tennessee)
under Formal SEC investigations (gives investigators power to subpoena) for possible insider trading.


David H. Safavian - (R-former chief procurement official for White House under Bush Admin.)
Indicted under 5 felony counts

Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R- California)
Under Investigation for alleged financial favors for a defense contractor

Jack Abramoff (Repub, Lobbyist, heavy ties to DeLay)
five counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy

Rove et al. (Repub, Bush Admin)
Under Investigation for leaking classified information

Now that those already convicted by the media are starting to get their cases heard and resolved, I thought it fitting to revive this and continue to keep track of the outcomes.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/13/D8I7C7N00.html

Say it aint so!!!


Not surprising, this has got very little coverage in the mainstream media.

[jeff]

Not surprising, this has got very little coverage in the mainstream media.

Oh really? I just saw this on CNN

[Philistine]

Oh really? I just saw this on CNN

And the New York Times....

--Philistine

[davesaint]

Karl Rove - Very powerful in the dark side of the force he is.


This really doesn't suprise me. This man beats corruption charges better than Teflon Jon Gotti ever did.


Dave

[Slim]

Karl Rove - Very powerful in the dark side of the force he is.


This really doesn't suprise me. This man beats corruption charges better than Teflon Jon Gotti ever did.


Dave

So he beat charges that were never made against him? Doesnt sound very hard to do.

[Slim]

Oh really? I just saw this on CNN

What, was it during the "Around the World in 60 seconds" piece?

[Inquartata]

Probably the little scrolling headlines at the bottom of the screen, which none of us elders can read without bifocals.

More to the point, the Rove story is a one-off. The various media outlets report it once and then consign it to oblivion, trusting to a fickle public to forget it quickly---whereas when Rove was still "under investigation" that fact was apparently worth a story every other day or so, for months. Just to keep people aware of it. You know, 'cause that was important. Unlike this.

[jeff]

So he beat charges that were never made against him? Doesnt sound very hard to do.

Did he beat on the top 1/3 of the blade, or at the forte?

[Philistine]

Well--it's in the New York Times again today. Front page.

Damn liberal media, burying the story.....

--Philistine

[jeff]

What, was it during the "Around the World in 60 seconds" piece?

No, it was a regular news item, just like any other.

Also on front page of New York Times this morning, the first print edition after the news came out. And on their www.nytimes.com home page.

If it makes you feel better to believe there's some mainstream news media conspiracy to not cover this story, go ahead, but front-page coverage shows that it's not the case.

[Inquartata]

I don't want to say that things have been a bit quiet in this forum lately...but the only sounds have been those of crickets chirping and tumbleweeds rolling though the deserted streets.

Anyway, I revive this old thread in order to note the apparent collapse of yet another of the left's cherished conspiracy theories:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/wa...ref=washington

New Questions About Inquiry in C.I.A. Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: September 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald’s effort to find out who besides Mr. Armitage had spoken to reporters provoked a fierce battle over whether reporters could withhold the identities of their sources from prosecutors and resulted in one reporter, Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, spending 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify to a grand jury.

Since this week’s disclosures about Mr. Armitage’s role, Bush administration officials have argued that because the original leak came from a State Department official, it was clear there had been no concerted White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson’s identity.

But Mr. Fitzgerald’s defenders point out that the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because officials like Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists. Even so, the Fitzgerald critics say, the prosecutor behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980’s and 1990’s who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up.

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

Mr. Armitage has not publicly commented on the matter. The people who spoke about Mr. Armitage’s thoughts and action did so seeking anonymity on the grounds that the criminal case was still open and that their remarks were not authorized by the prosecutor. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

Mr. Fitzgerald, who has spoken infrequently in public, came close to providing a defense for his actions at a news conference in October 2005, when Mr. Libby was indicted. Mr. Fitzgerald said that apart from the issue of whether any crime had been committed, the justice system depended on the ability of prosecutors to obtain truthful information from witnesses during any investigation.

The information about Mr. Armitage’s role may help Mr. Libby convince a jury that his actions were relatively inconsequential, because even Mr. Armitage, not regarded as an ally of Mr. Cheney, was talking to journalists about Ms. Wilson’s role.

But the trial, scheduled for early next year, may be focused on the narrow questions of whether Mr. Libby’s accounts to the grand jury and the F.B.I. were true. Judge Reggie M. Walton of Federal District Court, who is presiding, has resisted efforts by Mr. Libby’s lawyers to give the case a wider political scope.

Mr. Fitzgerald may also point out that Mr. Armitage knew about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. role only because of a memorandum that Mr. Libby had commissioned as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the White House by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Mr. Fitzgerald was named as a special counsel to investigate whether the leaking of Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer was part of an administration effort to violate the law prohibiting the willful disclosure of undercover employees.

Some administration critics asserted that her identity had been disclosed in the Novak column as part of a campaign to undermine her husband. Mr. Wilson was sent by the C.I.A. in 2002 to Africa to investigate whether the Iraqi government had obtained uranium ore for its nuclear weapons program.

On July 6, 2003, a week before the Novak column, Mr. Wilson wrote a commentary in The New York Times saying his investigation in Africa had led him to believe that it was highly doubtful that any uranium deal had ever taken place and that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Mr. Armitage spoke with Mr. Novak on July 8, 2003, those familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Armitage did not know Mr. Novak, but agreed to meet with the columnist as a favor for a mutual friend, Kenneth M. Duberstein, a White House chief of staff during Ronald Reagan’s administration. At the conclusion of a general foreign policy discussion, Mr. Armitage said in reply to a question that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.

At the time of the offhand conversation about the Niger trip, Mr. Armitage was not aware of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status, those familiar with his actions said. The mention of Ms. Wilson was brief. Mr. Armitage did not believe he used her name, those aware of his actions said.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as “no partisan gunslinger.” Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know.

One day later, Justice Department investigators interviewed Mr. Armitage at his office. He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until this February when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged.

But Mr. Fitzgerald did obtain the indictment of Mr. Libby on charges that he had untruthfully testified to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he learned about Ms. Wilson’s role at the C.I.A. from reporters rather than from several officials, including Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and his lawyers have signaled he will mount a defense based on the notion that he did not willfully lie.

So...Armitage. Not Cheney. Not Rove. And not Bush. No skulking scheme to discredit Wilson orchestrated from the White House.

Waiting for the sound of apologies, of rash words being eaten, of backpedaling? Expect only more crickets and tumbleweeds.