Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Another Bush crony another scandal

Page 4 of 4

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Another Bush crony another scandal (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/96966-another-bush-crony-another-scandal.html)

alpha phi

12-14-2005 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Deep Throat said to follow the money. The Washington Post has done just that with Abramoff and shows who gave and who got the money in the following link. There are several Dems on the list for the equal opportunity corruption folks. (Pattie, you've got some 'splanin' to do).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121200286.html

PS: Could someone teach me how you do those neat descriptive links vs. the url?

url=http.yourlinkhere]your words[/url

I left out the beginning [ and end ] so the code will show

Elphaba

12-14-2005 06:39 PM

Thank you, Alpha :)

Elphaba

12-17-2005 04:34 PM

Sheesh. Abramoff corrupted journalists in his schemes, as well. And it seems some politicians are returning his money.

Link

Quote:

Columnist Resigns His Post, Admitting Lobbyist Paid Him
By Anne E. Kornblut and Philip Shenon
The New York Times

Saturday 17 December 2005

Washington - A senior scholar at the Cato Institute, the respected libertarian research organization, has resigned after revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients.

The scholar, Doug Bandow, who wrote a column for the Copley News Service in addition to serving as a Cato fellow, acknowledged to executives at the organization that he had taken money from Mr. Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online.

"He acknowledges he made a lapse in judgment," said Jamie Dettmer, director of communications at Cato. "There's a lot of sadness here."

Copley suspended Mr. Bandow's column.

Efforts to reach Mr. Bandow through the Cato Institute and at home were unsuccessful.

The revelation caps a year of disclosures about partisan payments to seemingly independent writers, including Armstrong Williams, the conservative columnist and television host, who received payments from the federal Education Department at a time when he was promoting the Bush administration's education policies in his columns. The administration has been under mounting pressure to become more transparent in its communications after accounts that it paid for and printed articles in Iraqi periodicals as part of its overseas propaganda effort.

Mr. Bandow did not take government money, but the source of his payments - around $2,000 an article - is no less controversial. His sometime sponsor, Mr. Abramoff, is at the center of a far-reaching criminal corruption investigation involving several members of Congress, with prosecutors examining whether he sought to bribe lawmakers in exchange for legislative help.

A second scholar, Peter Ferrara, of the Institute for Policy Innovation, acknowledged in the same BusinessWeek Online piece that he had also taken money from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for writing certain opinion articles. But Mr. Ferrara did not apologize for doing so. "I do that all the time," Mr. Ferrara was quoted as saying. He did not reply to an e-mail message seeking comment on Friday.

At Cato and similar institutions, adjunct scholars are not always prohibited from accepting outside consulting roles. But at Cato, said Mr. Dettmer, and at the American Enterprise Institute, said a spokeswoman there, rules require scholars to make public all their affiliations, and there is an expectation that scholars will not embarrass the institution.

"Our scholarship is not for sale," Mr. Dettmer said.

Glenda Winders, the vice president and editor of the Copley News Service, said in a statement that the company was immediately suspending Mr. Bandow's column pending further review.

Mr. Abramoff, who built a powerful lobbying business largely through his affluent Indian tribe clients in the late 1990's, paid Mr. Bandow during those years to advance the causes of such clients as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

In one column in 2001, Mr. Bandow extolled the free-market system that had allowed the Marianas to thrive, saying that fighting terrorism was no excuse for "economic meddling" - the same position that Mr. Abramoff was being paid to advance.

The federal government "should respect the commonwealth's independent policies, which have allowed the islands to rise above the poverty evident elsewhere throughout Micronesia," Mr. Bandow wrote.

In an earlier column, in 1997, Mr. Bandow defended the gambling enterprise of the Choctaws. "There's certainly no evidence that Indian gambling operations harm the local community," he wrote.

Mr. Abramoff, whose work has already been the subject of Senate hearings, is suspected of misleading the tribes about the way he used tens of millions of dollars in payments. He has been indicted in a separate case in Florida, where he is scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 9 on charges of defrauding a lender as he tried to buy a fleet of gambling boats.

Although Mr. Abramoff has not yet been charged in connection with any lobbying case, his money is considered so tainted that on Friday, for a second time this week, a member of the Senate who had received large political contributions from Mr. Abramoff's clients and partners announced that he was returning the money.

The latest announcement came from Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, who is up for re-election next year and who said he would return about $150,000 in contributions from Mr. Abramoff, his clients and his associates. Earlier in the week, Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said he was returning $66,000 in contributions from Mr. Abramoff's partners and Indian tribe clients.

"The contributions given to my political committees by Jack Abramoff and his clients, while legally and fully disclosed, have served to undermine the public's confidence in its government," Mr. Burns said in a statement. "From what I've read about Jack Abramoff and the charges which are pending or about to be brought against him, he massively deceived and betrayed his clients."

Elphaba

12-21-2005 07:28 PM

Host predicted the outcome, and Abramoff's pending plea deal is in the works. More heads will fall, regardless of party.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105L.shtml

Quote:

Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony
By Anne E. Kornblut
The New York Times

Wednesday 21 December 2005

Washington - Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.

Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."

Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.

What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.

Prominent party officials, including the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, are under scrutiny involving trips and other gifts from Mr. Abramoff and his clients. The case has shaken the Republican establishment, with the threat of testimony from Mr. Abramoff, once a ubiquitous and well-connected Republican star, sowing anxiety throughout the party ranks.

At issue is the complicated structure of the case against Mr. Abramoff. In August, he was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami on charges of fraud stemming from his purchase of a fleet of casino boats in 2000. He pleaded not guilty in that case, and his lawyers say they are preparing him to stand trial. Mr. Abramoff has also been under investigation here in connection with his lobbying. No charges have been brought against him in that inquiry. The existence of what amounts to two separate but overlapping investigations partly explains why the plea negotiations for Mr. Abramoff have been so protracted and tough, said people with inside knowledge of the case.

With the trial in Miami fast approaching, and coming on the heels of plea agreements from Mr. Scanlon and another close associate of Mr. Abramoff, pressure has mounted to reach his own agreement. Mr. Abramoff has also told associates that he is broke, making the prospect of an extended jury trial even less appealing.

Mr. Abramoff's lead defense lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, said he would not comment.

Several people involved in various aspects of the case agreed to be interviewed as long as their names and affiliations were not made public. Justice Department officials are prohibited from discussing continuing cases as a matter of course. A spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, declined to comment.

Although the Miami case is ostensibly separate from the Washington inquiry, the overlapping elements include occasions when Mr. Abramoff flexed his political muscle to enhance his business deal in Florida.

While he and a partner, Adam Kidan, were angling to buy the SunCruz boat fleet in 2000, Mr. Abramoff had Mr. Scanlon persuade Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, to insert negative comments about a business rival of Mr. Abramoff into The Congressional Record, under a scheme outlined in documents filed in Mr. Scanlon's criminal case.

The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.

Florida prosecutors are also investigating corruption in that case, focusing on Mr. Ney and his chief of staff at the time, Neil Volz, according to people involved in the case. Mr. Volz reportedly agreed to put negative remarks about Mr. Boulis in The Congressional Record, even though Mr. Ney had no obvious reason to comment on Mr. Boulis.

Mr. Volz went on to work for Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist.

Mr. Ney has said he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into participating, and no charges have been brought against him.

In his financial paperwork in the Miami deal, Mr. Abramoff listed Tony C. Rudy, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. DeLay at the time, as a reference.

He also listed Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who has since defended the decision to support the lobbyist.

Lawyers for Mr. Volz, Mr. Ney and Mr. Rudy did not return calls for comment. A lawyer for Mr. DeLay declined to comment, but spokesmen for Mr. DeLay have repeatedly said he had done nothing improper.

Such ties are only at the periphery of the investigations, according to people briefed on the case. Mr. Scanlon, who worked on public affairs for the SunCruz casinos and is familiar with the inner workings of many of Mr. Abramoff's deals, is cooperating in the Miami case as well as in Washington, his lawyer has said.

Prosecutors are also looking at how some former Congressional staff members landed their lucrative lobbying positions and at the role the wives of several lobbyists and lawmakers may have had in any influence scheme, a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the "wives' club."

host	12-31-2005 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Host predicted the outcome, and Abramoff's pending plea deal is in the works. More heads will fall, regardless of party.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105L.shtml

For those who are interested in the background of the complicated Abramoff "story", his name was first posted on a TFP politics thread on April 16, 2005:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/search....7&pp=40&page=2

I started a thread with a more appropriate title to post my Abramoff related Indictments "fuckpoints" in. It was located at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97643

I was advised to post here, instead........
In the second report here, (posted below....) hours ago by the AP, it sez:

Quote:

.......Abramoff's cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to 20 lawmakers and their staff members.............

Bush and his staff members, Karl Rove and his assistant, Susan Ralston (she was formerly Abramoff's key assistant), and already indicted Bush admin. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html">Procurement chief David H. Safavian</a>, along with former Abramoff colleague <a href="www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Pizzella">Patrick Pizzella</a> , appointed by Bush as assistant Labor Dept. Secretary , have enough reason for concern, due to their close ties to Abramoff, for Bush to make these erroneous, televised statements on Dec. 14:

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...JUbSI&refer=us
Lobbyist Abramoff's `Equal Money' Went Mostly to Republicans

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff ``an equal money dispenser'' who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a ``culture of corruption'' to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that ``Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans,'' said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

``It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist,'' Noble said.

Bush wants us to believe that this is not the biggest scandal in many years that will result in the convictions of nearly exclusively republican elected officials, their political appointees, and their aids, that it actually will be exposed as.

Bush won't want you to know this:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...000753_pf.html
.......Abramoff's White House Connections

In addition to Safavian, Abramoff is known to have close ties to at least one other key White House official: Susan B. Ralston, Karl Rove's omnipresent assistant and gatekeeper.

Here's Peter H. Stone writing in the National Journal last year: "As presidential adviser Karl Rove set up shop in the West Wing in 2001, he was looking for an assistant to serve as the trusted gatekeeper of his new fiefdom. Superlobbyist and Republican fundraiser Jack Abramoff was happy to lend a hand. Abramoff knew just the right person for the job: his own assistant, Susan Ralston. She interviewed with Rove and got the position."

Ralston told Filipinas magazine last year: "Working for Karl Rove is like being at the center of the Bush universe -- I am fortunate to be where I am, and be involved in much of what goes on at the White House.".....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...san_B._Ralston
Susan Bonzon Ralston, Special Assistant to the President & Assistant to the Senior Advisor Karl Rove, was Jack Abramoff's executive assistant at Preston Gates and Ellis and later at the Greenberg Traurig law and lobbying firm, where "she served as the assistant director of governmental affairs.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/politics/27aide.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102705A.shtml
Ms. Ralston's portfolio expanded at the White House this year, accompanied by an elevated job title and a significant raise. In 2003, she held the position of executive assistant to the senior adviser and earned $64,700, which was bumped to $67,600 in 2004. This year, as Mr. Rove took on new duties as the deputy chief of staff, Ms. Ralston was promoted to special assistant to the president and assistant to the senior adviser, earning $92,100.

Now, people familiar with Ms. Ralston's work said, she functions as Mr. Rove's own chief of staff, coordinating the five groups within the West Wing that he oversees.

or this:

Quote:

http://www.philippinenews.com/news/v...67368a1a27ee84
Ralston still 'at her desk working:' White House
Cristina DC Pastor, Dec 07, 2005
SUSAN RALSTON, according to the White House, remains a deputy assistant to President George W. Bush and a deputy of top presidential adviser Karl Rove..........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001480_pf.html
The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's [Delay's]former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.

Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.

Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.

In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.

But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.

They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.
'Red Flags' on Tax Returns

Nine months before the June 25, 1998, payment of $1 million by the London law firm James & Sarch Co., as recorded in the tax forms, Buckham and DeLay were the dinner guests in Moscow of Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky of the oil firm Naftasib, which in promotional literature counted as its principal clients the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior.

Buckham, a graduate of the University of Tennessee, had worked for DeLay since 1995, after serving in other congressional offices and then as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative House members.

Their other dining companions were Abramoff and Washington lawyer Julius "Jay" Kaplan, whose lobbying firms collected $440,000 in 1997 and 1998 from an obscure Bahamian firm that helped organize and indirectly pay for the DeLay trip, in conjunction with the Russians. In disclosure forms, the stated purpose of the lobbying was to promote the policies of the Russian government.

Kaplan and British lawyer David Sarch had worked together previously. (Sarch died a month before the $1 million was paid.) Buckham's trip with DeLay was his second to Moscow that year for meetings with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky; on the earlier one, the DeLay aide attracted media attention by returning through Paris aboard the Concorde, a $5,500 flight.

Former Abramoff associates and documents in the hands of federal prosecutors state that Nevskaya and Koulakovsky sought Abramoff's help at the time in securing various favors from the U.S. government, including congressional earmarks or federal grants for their modular-home construction firm near Moscow and the construction of a fossil-fuel plant in Israel. None appears to have been obtained by their firm.

Former DeLay employees say Koulakovsky and Nevskaya met with him on multiple occasions. The Russians also frequently used Abramoff's skyboxes at local sports stadiums -- as did Kaplan, according to sources and a 2001 e-mail Abramoff wrote to another client.

Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say that the two Russians -- who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm -- partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent American politician as a way of bolstering their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping threats. The anxieties of Nevskaya and Koulakovsky were not hidden; like many other business people, they traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns.

During the DeLays' visit on Aug. 5 to 11, 1997, the congressman met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by Koulakovsky, Naftasib's general manager. DeLay told the House clerk that the trip's sponsor was the National Center for Public Policy Research, but multiple sources told The Post that his expenses were indirectly reimbursed by the Russian-connected Bahamian company.

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the principal reason for his Moscow trip was "to meet with religious leaders there." Nevskaya, in a letter this spring, said Naftasib's involvement in such trips was meant "to foster better understanding between our country and the United States" and denied that the firm was seeking protection through its U.S. contacts.

Nevskaya added in an e-mail yesterday that Naftasib and its officials were not representing the ministries of defense and interior or any other government agencies "in connection with meetings or other lobbying activities in Washington D.C. or Moscow."

A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail."

The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch co." The Washington Post checked with the listed executives of Texas and Florida firms that have names similar to Nations Corp, and they said they had no connection to any such payment.

James & Sarch Co. was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell," but later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because confidentiality practices prevent him "from disclosing any information regarding the affairs of a client (or former client)."

Nevskaya said in the e-mail yesterday, however, that "neither Naftasib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said that Naftasib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm, and denied knowing about the transaction.

Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 -- just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm -- that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate" because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That's just outrageous," DeLay said.

In the end, the Russian legislature refused to raise taxes, the IMF agreed to lend the money anyway, and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." He added: "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them."

Kaplan did not respond to repeated messages, and through a spokesman for lawyer Abbe Lowell, Abramoff declined to comment.

No legal bar exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, according to Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who directed the IRS's office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network.

But "a million dollars is a staggering amount of money to come from a foreign source" because such a donor would not be entitled to claim the tax deduction allowed for U.S. citizens, Owens said. "Giving large donations to an organization whose purposes are as ambiguous as these . . . is extraordinary. I haven't seen that before. It suggests something else is going on.

"There are any number of red flags on these returns."
Hailing Indian Tribe's Hiring of Lobbyists

Buckham and Tony Rudy were the first DeLay staff members to visit the Choctaw Reservation near Meridian, Miss., where the tribe built a 500-room hotel and a 90,000-square-foot gambling casino. Their trip from March 25 to 27, 1997, cost the Choctaws $3,000, according to statements filed with the House clerk.

DeLay, his wife and Susan Hirschman -- Buckham's successor in 1998 as chief of staff -- were the next to go. Their trip from July 31 to Aug. 2, 1998, was described on House disclosure forms as a "site review and reservation tour for charitable event," and the forms said it cost the Choctaws $6,935.

Buckham, who was then a lobbyist, arranged DeLay's trip, which included a visit to the tribe's golf course to assess it as a possible location for the lawmaker's annual charity tournament, according to a tribal source. Abramoff told the tribe he could not accompany DeLay because of a prior commitment, the source said.

One day after the DeLays departed for Washington, the U.S. Family Network registered an initial $150,000 payment made by the Choctaws, according to its tax return. The tribe made additional payments to the group totaling $100,000 on "various" dates the following year, the returns state. The Choctaws separately paid Abramoff $4.5 million for his lobbying work on their behalf in 1998 and 1999. Abramoff and his wife contributed $22,000 to DeLay's political campaigns from 1997 to 2000, according to public records.

A former Abramoff associate who is aware of the payments, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his clients, said the tribe made contributions to entities associated with DeLay because DeLay was crucial to the tribe's continuing fight against legislation to allow the taxation of Indians' gambling revenue.

An attorney for the tribe, Bryant Rogers, said the funds were meant not only to "get the message out" about the adverse tax law proposals but also to finance a campaign by Buckham's group within "the conservative base" against legislation to strip tribes of their control over Indian adoptions. "This was a group connected to the right-wing Christian movement," Rogers said. "This is Ed Buckham's connection."

In March 1999, after the tribe had paid a substantial sum directly to the U.S. Family Network, Buckham expressed his general gratitude to Abramoff in an e-mail. "I really appreciate you going to bat for us. Remember it is the first bit of money that is always the hardest, but means the most," Buckham said, according to a copy. He added: "Pray for God's wisdom. I really believe this is supposed to be what we are doing to save our team."

During this period, a fundraising letter on the U.S. Family Network stationery was sent to residents of Alabama, announcing a petition drive to promote a cause of interest to Abramoff's Indian gambling clients in Mississippi and Louisiana, including the Choctaw casino that drew many customers from Alabama: the blocking of a rival casino proposed by the Poarch Creek Indians on their land in Alabama.

"The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive -- gambling," said the group's letter, which was signed by then-Rep. Bob Riley (R), now the Alabama governor. "We need your help today . . . to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama."

Asked about the letter, Rogers said "none of us have seen" it and "the tribe's contributions have nothing to do with it." A spokesman for Riley said that he could not recall the circumstances behind the letter, but that he has long opposed any expansion of gambling in Alabama.

DeLay, meanwhile, saluted Choctaw chief Philip Martin in the Congressional Record on Jan. 3, 2001, citing "all he has done to further the cause of freedom." DeLay also attached to his remarks an editorial that hailed the tribe's gambling income and its "hiring [of] quality lobbyists."

Throughout this period, the U.S. Family Network was paying a monthly fee of at least $10,000 to Buckham and Alexander Strategy Group for general "consulting," according to a former Buckham associate and a copy of the contract. While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates.

Neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages.

"Anytime you [as a congressman] hire your child or spouse, it raises questions as to whether this is a throwback to the time when people used campaigns and government jobs to enrich their families," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group, and a former general counsel of the FEC.

Quote:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13519000.htm
Posted on Sat, Dec. 31, 2005
Lobbyist, prosecutors said close to deal
TONI LOCY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff are putting the finishing touches on a plea deal that could be announced as early as Tuesday, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

The plea agreement would secure the lobbyist's testimony against several members of Congress who received favors from him or his clients.

Abramoff and a former partner were indicted in Miami in August on charges of conspiracy and fraud for allegedly lying about their assets to help secure financing to purchase a fleet of gambling boats.

For the past two weeks, pressure has been intensifying on Abramoff to strike a deal with prosecutors since his former business partner, Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with the 2000 SunCruz deal.

Abramoff's cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to 20 lawmakers and their staff members.

Requesting anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks, people said the lawyers spoke by phone with U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, giving him an update on the plea negotiations. Huck scheduled another status conference for 3:30 p.m. Tuesday.

The deal could be completed before then, the people said. Abramoff could sign the plea agreement and exchange it with prosecutors via fax over the weekend, they said.

Details of where Abramoff will enter his plea are still being worked out. Abramoff's lawyers have indicated that they want the plea to be made in U.S. District Court in Washington, one of the people said.

If that happens, Abramoff would plead guilty to charges contained in what is known as a criminal information - a filing made by a federal prosecutor with a defendant's permission that bypasses action by a grand jury.

The lawyers could then apprise Huck about the plea and its effect on the case in Miami.

Abramoff and Kidan were indicted for allegedly concocting a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they were putting their own money into the SunCruz deal. Two lenders agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the SunCruz purchase based on that false wire transfer, according to prosecutors.

For months, prosecutors in Washington have focused on whether Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients of millions of dollars and used improper influence on members of Congress.

In a five-year span ending in early 2004, Indian tribes represented by the lobbyist contributed millions of dollars in casino income to congressional campaigns, often routing the money through political action committees for conservative members of Congress who opposed gambling.

Abramoff also provided trips, skybox fundraisers, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment and jobs for lawmakers' relatives and aides.

Kidan and Abramoff bought SunCruz from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, who was slain in 2001 in a gangland-style hit in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Investigators say Boulis and Kidan were fighting for control of SunCruz; Kidan has denied any involvement in Boulis' death.

Three men were arrested in September on murder charges in Boulis' killing and are awaiting trial.

Michael Scanlon, another former Abramoff associate, pleaded guilty in November in a separate case in Washington.

Scanlon said he helped Abramoff and Kidan buy SunCruz by persuading Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, to insert comments into the Congressional Record that were "calculated to pressure the then-owner to sell on terms favorable" to Abramoff and Kidan.

Michael Scanlon turned $19 million in lobbying commissions over to the government, that he had received from Indian tribes during the period that he and Abramoff collected $82 million from the tribes in lobbying fees.
Michael Scanlon has agreed to testify for prosecutors in exchange for a maximum 60 month prison sentence and a $250,000 fine. Scanlon was formerly Tom Delay's press secretary.
The Washington Post has graduated to openly reporting circumstances that will bring down Tom Delay and possibly some folks in the white house, too, along with possibly 19 other elected republicans in congress, if Jack Abramoff does cooperate with prosecutors as a result of his reported plea deal.

We aren't done yet.....read on!

host	12-31-2005 02:52 AM

Remember the guilty plea last month from former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), who admitted to accepting $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for his political influence in defense dept. procurement of defense contracts?

One of the two defense contractors who bribed Cunningham, Brett Wilkes, paid Ed Buckman and his "Alexander Group", mentioned in our large article in the preceding post, a lot of money......

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n14delay.html
Case vs. DeLay extends to Poway

Subpoenas issued to businessman

By Dean Calbreath
STAFF WRITER

December 14, 2005

Brent Wilkes Tom DeLay
Texas authorities have issued subpoenas to Poway businessman Brent Wilkes, identified as a co-conspirator in the corruption case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, in connection with the investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

In addition to Wilkes, subpoenas were issued for his longtime business associate, Max Gelwix, as well as ADCS Inc. and PerfectWave Technologies, Poway companies owned by Wilkes.

Wilkes has been identified as "co-conspirator No. 1" in the Cunningham case, accused of giving $630,000 in cash and favors to the former Rancho Santa Fe congressman. Cunningham sat on the influential House defense appropriations subcommittee, which helped create programs that resulted in at least $95 million in contracts for ADCS.

Cunningham pleaded guilty last month to tax evasion and conspiracy and resigned after admitting he had taken more than $2.4 million in bribes from Wilkes and three other co-conspirators – former Wilkes consultant Mitchell Wade, New York businessman Thomas Kontogiannis and Long Island financier John T. Michael.

Wilkes and his associates have a history of donating to influential politicians as they sought to gain government contracts for ADCS and its affiliated companies.

PerfectWave Technologies donated $15,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a group that DeLay founded in his campaign to redraw Texas congressional districts to create more seats for Republicans in the 2002 election. ..........

....The same month that Wilkes launched PerfectWave, he hired Alexander Strategy Group – composed of DeLay insiders – as his lobbying group on Capitol Hill.

The group, which is headed by DeLay's former chief of staff Ed Buckham, staffed with former DeLay employees and included DeLay's wife as a consultant, has a reputation in Washington as a conduit to DeLay's office.

Over the next three years, Wilkes paid about $630,000 in lobbying fees to the group. Although Wilkes' own two-man lobbying group – Group W Advisors – officially represented PerfectWave in Washington, Group W Advisors was represented by the Alexander Strategy Group.

During 2003 and 2004, as Wilkes pushed for contracts for PerfectWave and his other companies, DeLay was a frequent flier on a corporate jet partly owned by Wilkes and was often seen in his company at Southern California golf courses.

In the post linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=36

I had spent several hours researching (half a night....) and then posting about Wilke's ties to high government officials, in the post linked above.

If you have gotten this far and are curious as to why the posted research related to Wilkes was deleted, especially since it was related to Elphaba's report about CIFA and the contracts that Randy Cunningham's congressional committee had awarded to the other defense contractor who had bribed Cunningham....Mitchell Wade, explore the post linked above and make your own inquiry as to where the rest of the material went.

I know that the Abramoff/Delay/Bush admin./Cunningham investigation is complicated. It will be with us for some time into the future. Become familiar with it. I am weary....both from my efforts to present it in one place on this forum, which was thwarted, and then in several places, where the reaction was to delete a large chunk of material that I had posted.

tecoyah

12-31-2005 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I am weary....both from my efforts to present it in one place on this forum, which was thwarted, and then in several places, where the reaction was to delete a large chunk of material that I had posted.

I too am weary Host......Weary of the dissatisfaction and contempt you hold for the Moderation of this board. You are a guest here....remember that.

Or go elsewhere

MoonDog

12-31-2005 01:31 PM

I'm weary too...let's sum this up and get Host off the Martyr Express.

This may be radical, but it appears that the system is going to work. Yay for the US Justice System! If Abrahamson cuts a deal and provides evidence that leads to corrupt officials being sacked and prosecuted - good! I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal...hell, I don't care if the Pope himself gets bagged. Whoever they are, they will have deserved it!

Elphaba

01-06-2006 07:30 PM

I was appalled when Host's Abramoff thread was tacked onto Pan's Bush Cronyism topic, but it appears to have been prescient.

Scott McClellan has been asserting that Bush never met Abramson, a "Pioneer" in campaign fund raising. Given his strong support by Norquist and Delay, I find that very hard to believe and have been searching for images (nada) or articles that say otherwise. I stumbled upon this one today. (See the link for the documents posted)

Link

Quote:

The Pimping of the Presidency
By Lou Dubose
The Texas Observer

Friday 06 January 2006

Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. In May 2001, Jack Abramoff's lobbying client book was worth $4.1 million in annual billing for the Greenberg Traurig law firm. He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush "Pioneer," delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove's personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay. Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. From the same two clients he took to the White House in May 2001, Abramoff also obtained $2.5 million in contributions for a non-profit foundation he and his wife operated.

Abramoff's White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes he and his partner Mike Scanlon ultimately billed $82 million for services tribal leaders now claim were never performed or were improperly performed. Together the six tribes would make $10 million in political contributions, at Abramoff's direction, almost all of it to Republican campaigns of his choosing. On May 9, 2001, when he ushered the two tribal chiefs into the White House to meet the President, The Washington Post story that would end his lobbying career and begin two Senate Committee investigations was three years away. (When the Post story broke in February 2004, however, Abramoff and Scanlon, a former Tom DeLay press aide, were already targets of a U.S. Attorney's investigation in Washington.)

Abramoff brought the Coushatta and Choctaw chiefs to Washington at the request of Grover Norquist. Norquist is founder and director of Americans for Tax Reform, the advocacy group committed to slashing taxes until the federal government is so small you "can drown it in the bathtub." Norquist started ATR in 1985. His power increased exponentially in 1994, when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and he collaborated with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay to launch the "K Street Project" - a coordinated campaign to compel lobbyists to contribute only to Republican candidates and ultimately to hire only Republicans. Like Abramoff and Rove, Norquist considered George Bush's victory over Al Gore the culmination of a project the three Washington insiders started 30 years ago as national leaders of the College Republicans.

Since the Post's Susan Schmidt broke the Jack Abramoff story, the media has focused on the stunning $82 million Abramoff and Scanlon billed six tribes for lobbying and public relations work. Far less attention has been paid to the political contributions, by Abramoff's account $10 million, made by the six tribes. That piece of the story involves the K Street Project, which moves the money of corporate lobbyists and their clients into the accounts of Republican candidates, PACs, and issue advocacy groups.

Republican Campaign Accounts

Abramoff advised tribal leaders that the contributions were the cost of doing business in Washington, where he could protect them from other tribes trying to open casinos to compete with those that already had them. He sent orders for the checks to be cut, designating each recipient. On March 6, 2002, for example, Coushatta Tribal Council Chair Lovelin Poncho followed Abramoff's orders and disbursed $336,300 in tribal funds, according to tribal accounting ledgers obtained by the Observer.

The Coushattas, a southwest Louisiana tribe of 837 members, operate a casino that does an estimated $300 million in annual business. The $32 million they paid Abramoff and Scanlon makes the tribe the largest victim of the fraud their lawyers now allege in a lawsuit filed by Texas plaintiff's firm Provost Umphrey. The tribe also contributed what tribal council member David Sickey said was probably "many millions" of dollars to political causes and charities designated by Abramoff.

Since we first reported the White House ATR fundraiser and the $1 million contribution to the Capital Athletic Foundation (see "K Street Croupiers," November 19, 2004), the Coushattas, speaking through Austin attorneys at Hance, Scarborough, Wright, Ginsburg & Brusilow, and through Louisiana political consultant Roy Fletcher, have vociferously denied that tribal Chairman Poncho visited the White House after contributing $25,000 to ATR. They also denied the $1 million contribution to Abramoff's foundation. Recently the story has changed. Or at least the version told by the majority that controls the council has begun to change. Two minority members of the five-seat council have pointed to the pay-to-play meeting with President Bush and the $1 million contribution to Abramoff as examples of the council's financial mismanagement. One of the two members of the minority faction, David Sickey, has regularly made himself available to the press. Normally, press inquiries to the council majority are answered by Hance Scarborough, by Roy Fletcher, or occasionally by sources close to the council majority.

According to a source close to the tribal majority, Chairman Poncho recently "revisited that issue" of his visit to the White House. He had previously denied it because he thought he was responding to press inquiries that implied he had a one-on-one meeting with Bush. He now recalls that he in fact did go to the White House on May 9, 2001. Tribal attorney Kathryn Fowler Van Hoof went with him, although she did not get into the meeting with the President. That meeting lasted for about 15 minutes and was not a one-on-one meeting. At the meeting, Bush made some general comments about Indian policy but did not discuss Indian gaming. ABRAMOFF WAS AT THE MEETING - for which he charged the Coushatta Tribe $25,000. The change in Poncho's position is odd in light of the fact that he and his spokespersons have maintained for more than a year that he did not meet with President Bush in May 2001.[/B]

Norquist has not responded to inquiries about using the White House as a fundraiser. It is, however, a regular ATR practice to invite state legislators and tribal leaders who have supported ATR anti-tax initiatives to the White House for a personal thank-you from the President. A source at ATR said no money is ever accepted from participants in these events. The $25,000 check from the Coushattas suggests that, at least in this instance, Norquist's organization made an exception. The $75,000 collected from the Mississippi Choctaws and two corporate sponsors mentioned in Abramoff's e-mail suggests there were other exceptions. Norquist recently wrote to the tribes who paid to attend White House meetings. His story regarding that event is also evolving. The contributions, he told tribal leaders in letters that went out in May, were in no way related to any White House event. That doesn't square with the paper trail Abramoff and Norquist left behind, which makes it evident that they were selling access to the President.

The Coushatta Tribal Council majority has also revised its response to questions about the $1 million contribution, which critics in the tribe have insisted was made to Abramoff's Capital Athletic Foundation in 2001. The foundation funded Abramoff's Jewish prep school in Bethesda, MD, which closed soon after his lobbying scheme unraveled. When the Observer inquired in November 2004 about the $1 million contribution, we had obtained a copy of the Capital Athletic Foundation's tax filing, but the contributor's name was redacted. Following the lead of Lake Charles, Louisiana, American Press reporter Shawn Martin, the Observer last week obtained an un-redacted copy. The $1 million contribution, roughly 95 percent of what the foundation raised in 2001, was attributed to the Coushatta Tribe. A source working with the Coushatta Tribal Council majority said it now appears that the contribution was made in response to a bill sent by Mike Scanlon. Accountants working under the direction of Hance Scarborough found a $1-million Greenberg Traurig invoice that Scanlon sent the tribe. Scanlon routinely sent un-itemized bills for larger sums, which the tribe routinely paid. But as he was not a Greenberg Traurig employee, he billed on his own Capitol Campaign Strategies invoices. On the $1 million Greenberg Traurig invoice Scanlon sent the tribe in 2001, the company name was misspelled.

There will need to be more accounting, probably by different accountants. And perhaps by different legal representation, or at least under a different understanding between the tribe and its lawyers. In the May 28 tribal election on the Elton, LA reservation, a reform slate won a majority on the five-member council. Sickey, who five days before the election maintained that the $1 million contribution was made and that tribal chair Poncho indeed went to the White House in 2001, predicted the new majority will hire forensic accountants to determine where all the money went. (A week before the election he was looking for a tribal newsletter in which, he said, Poncho described his 2001 White House visit.) The shift on the council does not bode well for its Austin law firm. Hance Scarborough had gone to tribal court and successfully blocked a recall election that would have forced the council majority to stand for election a year ago, and David Sickey was a proponent of the recall. "Kent Hance doesn't represent me or [the other minority dissident] Harold John," said Sickey. "He represents Lovelin Poncho."

The White House press office has not responded to our questions about other visits Jack Abramoff might have made to the White House or about Norquist using the official residence of the President to raise funds for Americans for Tax Reform. None of the political contributions Abramoff insisted the tribes make as yet have been returned.

---------

Lou Dubose is a former Observer editor and co-author of The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money and the Rise of the Republican Congress.

Marvelous Marv

01-06-2006 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

You nailed it. I'm rejoicing that this appears to be something that might finally clean up Congress somewhat.

I was so happy, I skimmed one of Host's posts. It's "marvelous" in that he says he stayed up half the night researching this affair, but unless I missed something, he didn't happen to see any Democrats involved. So I took it upon myself to post this:

Link

Quote:

Not Everyone's Dropping Abramoff's Money

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 5, 5:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON - While dozens of lawmakers are dumping contributions from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients, others including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid smell no taint and plan to keep the money.
ADVERTISEMENT

Still other officials and lawmakers, from Republican
President Bush to Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, are splitting the difference. They say only some of the money linked to Abramoff is tarnished.

As recently as Wednesday, Rangel refused to return any of the money he received from Abramoff-linked clients or firms. On Thursday, his spokesman said the congressman would give up $2,000 from a law firm where Abramoff once worked — donating it to the Boys Choir of Harlem — but would keep the rest, some $47,000.
"He has no problems with his contributions from native American tribes and he's not returning any of that," said spokesman Emile Milne. "It would be ridiculous for us to assume that these tribes would be forced or directed by Abramoff to help congressman Rangel."

Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a fellow New York Democrat, is taking the opposite tack, donating $2,000 received from tribes Abramoff had worked with but deciding to keep contributions from lawyers at his firm.

"I suspect most members don't know the right answer and they're just forced to make a judgment now in a very fluid situation," said Larry Noble, the government's former chief election lawyer. He now runs the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which studies fundraising.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, has received more than $150,000 from Indian tribes once represented by Abramoff, donations he has said he will keep because they were given independently of Abramoff's influence. He donated to charity $2,250 he got from Abramoff.

Others who plan to keep Abramoff-related money include Sen. Patty Murray D-Wash., with $41,000; Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., $42,500, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., $10,000.

Some lawmakers are keeping quiet for now. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has not said if he intends to keep $6,000 from Abramoff, his wife, and a tribe.

"These are political judgments rather than ethical judgments. If you are politically smart you give it all back to try to get as far away from this scandal as you can," said Steve Cohen, a professor of politics at Columbia University.

The real problem, Cohen said, is that politics puts elected officials "in a type of bazaar, collecting money all the time. To survive politically, they're constantly in touch with rich people and moneyed interests."

Reid received some $61,000 from tribes that were once Abramoff clients. He is not going to give any of that money away, said his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen.

"Senator Reid has done nothing wrong and he doesn't see any reason why he would need to return the money," Hafen said.

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chair of the House GOP fundraising arm, will not return at least $7,000 in donations from Abramoff-linked tribes, his aides said.

Abramoff, 46, appeared in Miami federal court Wednesday, admitting to conspiracy and wire fraud connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet.

A day earlier in Washington he pleaded guilty to three other federal charges as part of a deal with prosecutors to cooperate in a probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

His guilty pleas have shaken many in Washington. The Bush-Cheney 2004 election campaign gave up some $6,000 in donations that came from Abramoff, his wife, and a client tribe.

A Texas group urged the presidential campaign on Thursday to disclose the sources of $100,000 or more that Abramoff raised for the re-election effort. The group, Texans for Public Justice, argued the public should know if that money came from Abramoff clients.

___

Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report.

Rekna

01-07-2006 09:48 AM

Marv no one is denying that some democrats have recieved money also but the truth is there are far fewer democrats than republicans who recieved money. Also the passages you highlighted draw away from the fact that many republicans are not returning all of the money for the exact same reasons, for instance Bush....

shakran

01-07-2006 10:10 AM

Plus it's rather ironic that the republicans, who have made a campaign out of being the party of "higher" "moral" "values" are so heavilly caught up in this.

Democrats who are involved in this should be ousted and jailed too. Admittedly if we were to do that with everyone who's likely involved, the congressional custodian would probably have to be drafted to be the tie breaker between the 2 politicians left in office, but if we need to clean house, then we should clean house, without worrying about the party of the people we're going after.

Elphaba

01-07-2006 04:06 PM

Quote:

I was so happy, I skimmed one of Host's posts. It's "marvelous" in that he says he stayed up half the night researching this affair, but unless I missed something, he didn't happen to see any Democrats involved. So I took it upon myself to post this:

C'mon, Marv. You don't honestly believe Host is unaware that both parties are involved? Silly man. :lol:

Marvelous Marv

01-10-2006 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

C'mon, Marv. You don't honestly believe Host is unaware that both parties are involved? Silly man. :lol:

No, I'm certain he's aware of it. It's just that his hatred of Republicans is so intense that I've never observed him trying to inject the least bit of parity into his posts. In fact, he's been caught editing out portions of his linked material which undermine his position.

Which, of course, was the point of MY post.

<marquee><img src=http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/oops.gif></img></marquee>

Sorry you missed that.

Elphaba

01-10-2006 08:20 PM

Ayup...Damned, if he kept the posts short (with a full link) and damned if he posted the full article. All I saw was that you yellow highlighted two paragraphs of a fully posted article by Host. Your original comment was about missing the involvement of democrats, but your point seems to have morphed into something else. What exactly did I miss? :)

trickyy

02-13-2006 02:21 PM

ok, here's the bush - abramoff picture

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/bushabramoff1.jpg

i laughed when i saw this. you really can't see either man in the shot. there may or may not be anything of substance between these two men, but for now we have a funny picture that proves a blurred abramoff and the back of bush's head occupied the same room.

i guess i should link to the story
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...158908,00.html

Elphaba

02-13-2006 04:21 PM

Abramoff claims that he has been with Bush on nearly a dozen occasions, with formal pictures taken. Time magazine reports to have seen four (iirc) pictures of Bush and Abramoff. Why this picture is published as anything meaningful is beyond me.

What I find really odd is that all Bush had to say is ... "oh, yeah... I think I remember him; one of those Pioneer guys, right?" ... and no one would be searching for "proof" that he knows Abramoff.

host	02-14-2006 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Back on Jan. 27, I wrote to the nytimes ombudsman, public@nytimes.com to request that his LIBER-ULL newspaper correct this Jan. 26 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html?_r=1">story</a>
so that it includes the facts about Susan Ralston's background and recent raise in salary and promotion to "special assistant to the" POTUS. I got no response, and no correction has been made. Today, the LIBER-ULL press is stumbling over itself to get out the "facts" about the Abramoff/Ralston?Rove connection, but still the "press" refuses to report the information contained below, even though it is previously reported fact that Ralston has been promoted from Rove's assistant to Bush's special assistant, and that she <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html">sits</a> just four office doors from the oval office:
117 listings http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...moff&scoring=d for the same "news report" that omits the information contained below:

As far as pictures, this may be as good as it gets..... Either the thugs underestimate the damage that this association has the potential of causing if it is broadcast properly, or....they are confident that this investigation and resulting prosecutions can be contained via the interim appointment of their own "hack", Alice Fisher as head of DOJ's criminal division, stacking the SCOTUS with Roberts and Alito, and of course, the "pardon card"! We must continue to publicize the following "info" thoroughly..... tirelessly....constantly...

(If this was not an area of concern for this Junta, why would they trot out <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_pf.html">"steno Sue" Schmidt from WaPo</a>, on Dec. 28, to "muddy" the facts as to how Ralston came to work for Bush and Rove, shortly after they took office in 2001. These thugs are alarmed enough to spread the "story", that the so far unindicted Ralph Reed was responsible for Ralston's hiring, and not Jack Abramoff, himself.)

This BS comes from the office of the POTUS, the most powerful politician in the world, but nonetheless, a petty, desparate, cornered rat, still deluded by ego and ambition.

"'Upset' Ralston says she's not going anywhere
Rita M. Gerona-Adkins, Dec 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Susan B. Ralston has determined to clear the air once and for all after speculations about her job at the White House have been published, including in the <a href="http://www.philippinenews.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=443b32a25f85eed21d2cd07e9b945192">Philippine News.</a>

“I am focused on my job serving the President in my current capacity,” she said in a telephone call from her office at the White House on December 12 to this correspondent....."

<center><center><img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-ralston.jpg">

<a href="http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal#ralston">RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND</a>

From Newsweek, May, 2005:
...."But the lobbyist’s ties to the White House extended well beyond money. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133/site/newsweek/?page=2&#note">When top Bush adviser Karl Rove was looking for an assistant in early 2001, Abramoff suggested his own top aide, Susan Ralston.</a> She remains one of Rove’s top deputies. At the same time, Bush tapped Abramoff as member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues. That level of close access to Bush, DeLay and other GOP leaders has been cited by many of the Indian tribes who hired Abramoff with hopes of gaining greater influence with the administration and Congress on gaming issues. Whether the tribes got their money’s worth is a question still being investigated by Congress, but there’s no question some doors were opened. In 2001, Bush met personally with a group of Indian leaders—including at least one tribe represented by Abramoff—to talk about his tax cut plan. The meeting was reportedly arranged by Grover Norquist, a prominent GOP activist with close ties to the administration and Abramoff.

While many GOP lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from Abramoff, the White House has remained largely quiet on Bush’s ties to the controversial lobbyist. Last fall, when Congress opened hearings into Abramoff’s lobbying and fund-raising, the Bush-Cheney campaign pointedly refused to return a $2,000 contribution check from the lobbyist and said there was no reason to question any other checks Abramoff brought in as a top fund-raiser for the campaign.

Editor's Note: On April 21, a White House spokesman told NEWSWEEK that Abramoff had played no role in Rove's hiring of Ralston."
"It's also interesting <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/3/141256/2833">to note</a> that one of Ralston's <a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50318">primary functions in Rove's office</a> is to "take messages for Rove at the White House, then call [Grover] Norquist to tell her whether she should put the caller through." Now, this is undoubtedly just the case for lobbyists. There's no way in the world that Karl Rove is having calls from journalists screened by Grover Norquist. I know this crowd is corrupt, but that would just be plain stupid.

However, it makes you wonder how many calls to Rove go unrecorded in the logs. If Rove is denying the existence of other phone calls with journalists and citing his phone logs as evidence, Fitzgerald may have caught Rove in a bit of a pickle. Even if this isn't the case, Ralston is the one person with intimate knowledge of what calls come into and go out of Rove's office. I can see where this would make her very valuable to the grand jury, despite the insistence of at least one Rove loyalist, who said her questioning was simply a matter of "wrapping up the loose ends.""

Susan Ralston "coverage" at <a href="http://www.google.com/custom?domains=philippinenews.com&q=susan+ralston&sa=Search&sitesearch=philippinenews.com&client=pub-4889336541841884&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en">philippinenews.com</a>

Susan Ralston's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html">"neighborhood"</a>
Susan's office is "no. 9" on the WaPo west wing map, published in May, 2005, just 4 doors down from the chimperor...

As an aside.....
Ralston worked for Jack Abramoff at Preston Gates, and she followed him to Greenberg Traurig. What level of security clearance does she enjoy? What are the odds that she has tipped Abramoff off regarding information that the white house certainly has obtained in it's efforts to stay up to date on the details of DOJ's Alice Fisher's "prosecution" of Abramoff?

In a prosecution of Abramoff that actually is "no holds barred", managed by a non-partisan prosecution with unquestioned integrity, wouldn't it be odd to find someone like Ralston, former key aid to Abramoff, documented in publicly available emails to have "controlled" the distribution of "bribes" to legislators, as the indictment of Abramoff describes free meals and other "considerations" (premium tickets to DC area sporting events) to clearly be categorizes as....

working in close proximity to the chief law enforcement officer, of the applicable jurisdiction, in this case the office of the POTUS? Shouldn't Ralston be deemed a material witness at the least, or a person under investigation? Wouldn't a truly uncomprimised prosectution team be pressuring Ralston to "roll over" on Abramoff, to provide confirmation that he has provided reliable and detailed information regarding the "perks" (bribes) that he bestowed on legislators?

Ralston still working in the white house, with a $25,000 raise and a promotion, does not pass the "smell test" at this stage in this scandal. The opposition must pressure the DOJ and the executive branch about these inconsistancies.
<h4>Wouldn't a U.S. press with a "liberal bias" be making an effort to refute Bush's denials about his ties to Abramoff, by enthusiastically reporting the background, salary raise, and job promotion of Susan Ralston?</h4>

host	09-29-2006 09:56 AM

The immediate concern is that congress has handed "new powers", to a criminal executive branch, not only criminal in it's waging of aggressive war, and violations of human rights, as outlined by SCOTUS rulings, and domestically, as outlined in special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of VP Cheney's COS, Irwin Libby, and in filings submitted to Libby's criminal trial court judge, but also in the matter of convicted felon, Jack Abramoff, and by the 6 year employment, in the white house, just doors from the POTUS, of presidential and Rove "special assistant, and former "key assistant" to Abramoff, at both the Traurig law firm, and at Abramoff's employer, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_pf.html">Preston Gates</a> before Traurig....none other than Susan Ralston:
(Pictured with Bush, in the previous post....)

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/wa...9abramoff.html
September 29, 2006
Report Links White House and Lobbyist
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — A bipartisan Congressional report documents hundreds of contacts between White House officials and the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his partners, including at least 10 direct contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Karl Rove, the president’s chief political strategist.

The House Government Reform Committee report, based on e-mail messages and other records subpoenaed from Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying firm, found 485 contacts between Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying team and White House officials from 2001 to 2004, including 82 with Mr. Rove’s office.

The lobbyists spent almost $25,000 in meals and drinks for the White House officials and provided them with tickets to numerous sporting events and concerts, according to the report, scheduled for release Friday.

The authors of the report said it was generally unclear from available records whether the aides reimbursed Mr. Abramoff for the meals or tickets. Ethics rules bar White House officials from accepting lobbyists’ gifts worth more than $20.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Thursday that while White House officials had not seen the report, earlier evidence showed that Mr. Abramoff had exaggerated his ties to the administration and was “ineffective in terms of getting government officials to take actions.”

Ms. Perino added, “It’s a real shame that so many of his clients were taken advantage of, lied to and ripped off.”

The report describes several instances in which Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to conspiring to bribe public officials, failed to get the action he desired from the White House, and described his overall record in lobbying the White House as “mixed.” But it also suggests that Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying resulted in Bush administration actions that benefited Abramoff clients, including decisions to distribute millions of dollars in federal money to Indian tribes with large gambling operations.

After an especially aggressive lobbying campaign in 2001 and 2002 involving 73 contacts with White House officials, Mr. Abramoff claimed credit for an administration decision to release $16.3 million to a Mississippi tribe for jail construction despite opposition from the Justice Department, the report found.

A copy of the bipartisan report was provided to The New York Times by Congressional officials who were granted anonymity because the document had not been released publicly.

Mr. Rove has described Mr. Abramoff as a “casual acquaintance,” but the records obtained by the House committee show that Mr. Rove and his aides sought Mr. Abramoff’s help in obtaining seats at sporting events, and that Mr. Rove sat with Mr. Abramoff in the lobbyist’s box seats for an N.C.A.A. basketball playoff game in 2002.

<h3>After that game, Mr. Abramoff described Mr. Rove in an e-mail message to a colleague: “He’s a great guy. Told me anytime we need something just let him know through Susan.” The message was referring to Susan Ralson, Mr. Abramoff’s former secretary, who joined the White House in February 2001 as Mr. Rove’s executive assistant.

Ms. Ralston, who did not return phone calls seeking comment Thursday, was lobbied scores of times by Mr. Abramoff and his partners, the report found, and was instrumental in passing messages between Mr. Abramoff and senior officials at the White House, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman.</h3>

Mr. Mehlman, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, was then a senior White House political strategist. A national committee spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt, said Thursday that in Mr. Mehlman’s White House job, “it was not unusual” that he “would be in contact with supporters who had interest in administration policy.”

In October 2001, the report said, Mr. Abramoff asked the White House to withhold an endorsement from a Republican candidate for governor of the Northern Marianas Islands, an American commonwealth in the western Pacific where Mr. Abramoff had clients; Mr. Abramoff was backing another candidate.

On Oct. 31, 2001, the report said, Ms. Ralson sent an e-mail message to Mr. Abramoff that read: “You win : ) KR said no endorsement.”

In March 2002, the report said, Mr. Abramoff contacted Ms. Ralson to offer tickets to Mr. Rove and his family for use of a skybox during the N.C.A.A. tournament at the MCI Center in Washington.

“Hi Susan,” Mr. Abramoff wrote in an e-mail message.” I just saw Karl and mentioned the N.C.A.A. opportunity, which he was really jazzed about. If he wants to join us in the Pollin box, please let me know as soon as you can.”

Ms. Ralston replied: “Karl is interested in Fri. and Sun. 3 tickets for his family?”

Mr. Abramoff responded: “Done. Does he want to go Friday night or Friday afternoon or both?” The report said that Mr. Rove offered to pay for the tickets, prompting Mr. Abramoff to propose that Mr. Rove pay $50 per ticket “payable to me personally.”

The report cited numerous e-mail messages in which Mr. Abramoff referred to Mr. Rove and his visits to Signatures, a Washington restaurant owned by Mr. Abramoff.

On learning in July 2002 that Mr. Rove planned to dine at Signatures with a party of 8 to 10 people, Mr. Abramoff wrote to a colleague: “I want him to be given a very nice bottle of wine and have Joseph whisper in his ear (only he should hear) that Abramoff wanted him to have this wine on the house.” In another e-mail message, Mr. Abramoff directed his restaurant staff to “please put Karl Rove in his usual table.”

Ms. Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said the offer of a free bottle of wine was actually proof of how little acquainted Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove were because “Karl doesn’t drink alcohol.”

Disclosure of the report’s findings came as a federal judge in Miami agreed on Thursday to delay Mr. Abramoff’s imprisonment, but not for as long as the Justice Department wanted.

In court papers this week, the department asked that Mr. Abramoff, who has been sentenced to nearly six years in prison, not have to surrender for three months because of the need for his continued cooperation in the influence-peddling investigation in Washington that is said to involve several members of Congress.

But the judge, Paul C. Huck, agreed to allow Mr. Abramoff to remain free only until Nov. 15, saying “there comes a time when people have to pay the piper.” Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty in Miami as part of an agreement with the Justice Department in which he confessed to corruption charges in Washington, and to fraud charges in Florida involving his purchase of a casino-boat fleet there.

The following is even more disturbing, since Bush himself, as well as his key aids, have denied the following associations with Abramoff, numerous times:

Quote:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/b...s/15254-1.html
House Report Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials

By John Bresnahan and Paul Kane
Roll Call

Thursday, Sept. 28; 7:10 pm

A House committee has documented hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates, as well as tens of thousands of dollors worth of meals and tickets to sporting events and concerts that were offered to these officials during a three-year period starting in early 2001.

A 95-page report, which was released by the House Government Reform Committee on Thursday evening, includes an analysis of more than 14,000 pages of documents provided to the panel by Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.

Democrats and Republicans on the committee immediately began to fight over the report's findings, with each side portraying the results in the context of its own political needs.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, released a statement portraying Abramoff’s efforts to lobby the Bush administration as largely ineffective.

Davis also pointed out that Abramoff’s billing records and e-mail exchanges do not mean that events unfolded as he claimed to either his firm or his clients.

“These records are just one side of what was often a multi-party conversation,” Davis said in a statement released by his office. “The almost complete absence of reply e-mails from Abramoff’s lobbying targets in the White House has to be seen as telling. In an environment that lives and breathes on e-mail exchanges, that silence speaks volumes about how seriously most people in the White House took Jack Abramoff’s schemes.”

“A number of individuals appear to have been offered tickets to sporting events and concerts,” said the statement from Davis’ office. "The Committee does not know in all cases if executive branch employees accepted them, if they were allowed to accept them without paying for them, or if they indeed paid for them themselves. The Committee is confident the appropriate authorities will examine whether the tickets were accepted, required to be paid for, and if so, whether they were paid for.”

A summary prepared for Democratic leaders by staffers for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of Government Reform, stated that the information provided by the Abramoff documents may show wrongdoing on the part of top White House officials.

Democrats suggested that the documents obtained by the committee “raised serious questions about the legality and ethics of the actions of multiple White House officials.”

The Government Reform Committee report singled out two of President Bush’s top lieutenants, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, as having been offered expensive meals and exclusive tickets to premier sporting events and concerts by Abramoff and his associates.

In total, the committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Abramoff and his lobbying team at the firm Greenberg Traurig from January 2001 to March 2004, with 82 of those contacts occurring in Rove¹s office, including 10 with Rove personally. The panel also said that Abramoff billed his clients nearly $25,000 for meals and drinks with White House officials during that period.

Rove, Mehlman, and other White House officials have denied having any close relationship with Abramoff, despite the fact that Abramoff was a “Pioneer” who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush’s White House campaigns.

Democratic committee staff wrote in a three-page summary that accompanied the report: “The documents depict a much closer relationship between Mr. Abramoff and White House officials than the White House has previously acknowledged.” Davis and Waxman this summer subpoenaed e-mails and billing records from Greenberg Traurig and other firms, including Alexander Strategy Group, which was run by one-time aides to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). They examined more than 14,000 pages of documents from Greenberg Traurig, including 6,600 pages of billing records and 7,700 pages of e-mail.

During the period examined by the committee, Bush administration officials repeatedly intervened on behalf of Abramoff’s clients, including helping a Mississippi Indian tribe obtain $16 million in federal funds for a jail the tribe wanted to build.

Abramoff was able to block the nomination of one Interior Department official using Christian conservative Ralph Reed as a go-between with Rove, according to e-mails between Abramoff and Reed.

Abramoff also tried to oust a State Department employee who interfered with their efforts on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, one of Abramoff’s most lucrative clients.

White House officials were allowed to view the draft report on Wednesday evening.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, dismissed Abramoff’s claim of pull with the Bush administration. She also noted that Abramoff has pleaded guilty to a number of felonies during the last year, including fraud and conspiracy to bribe public officials.

“The billing records that are the basis of this report are widely regarded as fraudulent in how they misrepresented the activities and influence of Abramoff,” Perino said. “There’s no reason those records should be suddenly viewed as credible.”

Perino added that she was unaware of any link between Abramoff’s lobbying and White House intervention in policy or personnel matters affecting his clients. “Not that I’m aware of as a result of a direct contact,” Perino said.

Perino did not specifically address whether White House officials ever accepted meals or tickets from Abramoff.

“We have high standards and expect them to be met,” she said.

In a bipartisan executive summary of the new report, committee staff said that “there are certain caveats” about Abramoff’s actions that are impossible to verify because the report is based solely on the records of Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig employees.

“There is little or no corroboration of the events described in the documents,” the summary states. “In other instances, the documents are vague about who was lobbied and what was said. While the documents described in this report are authentic, that does not mean that the events actually transpired or that Abramoff and his associates did not exaggerate or misrepresent their actions.”

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, which Mehlman now chairs, said Mehlman and Abramoff would have interacted when Mehlman served as White House political director.

“In his capacity as Political Director of the White House, it is not unusual that Mr. Mehlman would be in contact with supporters who had interest in Administration policy,” Schmitt said in a statement.

The committee was able to uncover numerous times when Abramoff and his associates attended social events with senior White House aides using tickets or passes supplied by Abramoff. For instance, Abramoff attended an NCAA Tournament college basketball game with Rove in March 2002. Afterward, Abramoff told an associate that Rove was “a great guy” who told him “anytime we need something, just let him know” via Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston. Ralston worked for Abramoff before moving over to the White House.

In June 2001, while he was still working at the White House, Mehlman was offered two tickets to a U2 concert by Abramoff. The documents do not indicate whether Mehlman paid for the tickets or attended the concert.

“If White House officials failed to pay for these meals and tickets, their actions would be a violation of these legal requirements,” Democratic committee staff wrote in their summary, noting a ban on gifts from lobbyists worth more than $20 to executive branch officials.

The committee said its investigation is continuing.

If the POTUS was trustworthy and competent, I would object to the passing of the "Detainee" anit-"terror", bill, out of concern that a future, less ethical or credible president might abuse these new "powers". It defies credulity that congress would transfer such unmonitored and unchecked extra-constitutional discretion and detention and prosecutorial authority to officials who have such a high probability of being felons, traitors, and war criminals, themselves!

The White House responds to the charges:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001632.php
ROLL CALL: WHITE HOUSE INTERVENED FOR ABRAMOFF CLIENTS

"The billing records that are the basis of this report are widely regarded as fraudulent in how they misrepresented the activities and influence of Abramoff," [White House spokeswoman Dana] Perino said. "There's no reason those records should be suddenly viewed as credible." Perino added that she was unaware of any link between Abramoff¹s lobbying and White House intervention in policy or personnel matters affecting his clients. "Not that I'm aware of as a result of a direct contact," Perino said.

Perino did not specifically address whether White House officials ever accepted meals or tickets from Abramoff. "We have high standards and expect them to be met," she said.....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001636.php
Email: Rove Killed Interior Nomination for Abramoff
By Paul Kiel - September 29, 2006, 11:26 AM

The House Government Reform Committee has released <a href="http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/abramoff/index.asp">hundreds of new emails</a> from Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm pertaining to his and his associates' contacts with Administration officials.

We're scouring them now, and here's a good one. In an email exchange subject-lined "were you able to whack mccain's wife yet?" Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff discuss derailing the nomination of a woman named Angela Williams to an Interior post.

Williams was up for head of the Office of Insular Affairs in the Department of the Interior, which has authority over decisions affecting the Northern Mariana Islands, an Abramoff client.

With the White House's help, Abramoff's effort was successful. Ralph Reed emailed Abramoff, "talked to rove about this and I think I killed it." You can see the exchange here.
<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1159541778reed_abe_whack1.jpg">
"Williams is married to former Federal Trade Commissioner Orson Swindle, who was a Vietnam POW with Senator John McCain," <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1122014,00.html">according to Time.</a>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001635.php
Emails Suggest Mehlman Arranged Fed Funds for Abramoff Contributions
By Paul Kiel - September 29, 2006, 8:35 AM

There's already a lot of evidence out there that Ken Mehlman was Jack Abramoff's prime favor man in the White House -- but this new congressional report provides the most damning example yet.

From The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801918.html
"One exchange of e-mails cited in the report suggests that former Abramoff lobbying team member Tony C. Rudy succeeded in getting Mehlman to press reluctant Justice Department appointees to release millions of dollars in congressionally earmarked funds for a new jail for the Mississippi Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client. Rudy wrote Abramoff in November 2001 e-mails that Mehlman said he would "take care of" the funding holdup at Justice after learning from Rudy that the tribe made large donations to the GOP."

So in exchange for political contributions, Mehlman made sure the Choctaw got their $16 million contract. I believe that's called a quid pro quo.

It's by no means the only example of Mehlman's favors.

In 2001, he <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000085.php">made sure</a> a State Department official wasn't re-nominated for his post -- the official, Allen Stayman was a long-time foe of Abramoff's.

<h1>And according to a report from the Justice Department's Inspector General, Mehlman ordered one of his suboordinates at the White House to <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001052.php">keep Abramoff updated</a> on issues related to Guam; Abramoff was keen to see the U.S. Attorney there replaced.</h1>

<h3>In March, Mehlman told Vanity Fair, "Abramoff is someone who we don't know a lot about. We know what we read in the paper."</h3>

How do you feel about so many influential members of the "one party" in power, being linked with "plea copping" scumbags.....like these:
<h3>If we can just get through the elections in 5 weeks, without anyboy else getting indicted.....we'll maintain "one party" rule !</h3>

Quote:

http://www.nbc6.net/news/9957023/detail.html
Abramoff, Kidan Win 2nd Delay In Start Of Prison Sentence

UPDATED: 4:25 pm EDT September 28, 2006

MIAMI -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former business partner Adam Kidan won new delays Thursday in the start of their prison sentences for fraud convictions stemming from their purchase of a gambling fleet.

But U.S. District Judge Paul Huck rejected a joint request by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers for an additional 90 days beyond Monday's scheduled prison surrender date for both. Instead, the judge reluctantly agreed to give Abramoff until Nov. 15 and Kidan until Oct. 23 to remain free.

"I don't feel good about this," Huck said. "My main concern is, there comes a time when people have to pay the piper, so to speak. I think that time has come."

Abramoff and Kidan were each sentenced to nearly six years in prison after they pleaded guilty to charges of concocting a fake wire transfer to close a deal in 2000 to buy SunCruz Casinos from businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, who was later killed in a gangland-style shooting.

Huck approved a first 90-day delay for Abramoff and Kidan in June. He initially said he intended to leave Monday's prison date unchanged.

But prosecutors, including senior officials at the U.S. Justice Department, and defense attorneys insisted Abramoff must remain out of prison to continue cooperating in a Washington corruption investigation. They said he is combing through about 500,000 e-mails related to that probe and needs unimpeded access to his laptop computer and to dozens of federal investigators.

If he is imprisoned, "what we need from Mr. Abramoff will be impossible to get," said Ed Nucci, acting chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, in a telephone conference call with Huck. "There are so many areas that have to be explored and so many pockets."

Abbe Lowell, a Washington attorney representing Abramoff, added that because of upcoming Jewish holidays -- Abramoff is an observant orthodox Jew -- he would be unavailable during much of October. Lowell said Abramoff has devoted some 300 hours since June in assisting investigators and submitted to seven all-day "debriefing" sessions.

"This has not been a foot-dragging experience. This has been diligent," Lowell said.

No details were provided about what Abramoff is saying. But earlier this month, Ohio GOP Rep. Bob Ney became the first congressman charged in the case and agreed to plead guilty to charges that he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in trips and other perks from Abramoff and an international businessman.

Ney's former chief of staff and two one-time aides to ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas have also pleaded guilty in the case. A former White House aide [David Safavian] was convicted in June of covering up dealings with Abramoff.

Kidan, meanwhile, is assisting prosecutors in Broward County in the murder of Boulis, who was gunned down at the wheel of his car in February 2001 amid an acrimonious dispute over the future direction of SunCruz. Kidan has told investigations that he believes the murder was committed by John Gurino, who he said was a former associate of New York crime boss John Gotti.

Gurino was killed in a Boca Raton deli by his business partner in 2003. Kidan also told authorities he was told details about the Boulis killing by Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello, purportedly an associate of the Gambino crime family once headed by Gotti.

Kidan's attorney, Joseph Conway, said Kidan will be a witness in that case and needs additional time to prepare for depositions and meetings with prosecutors. Huck, however, said that could be accomplished in a month's time or even while Kidan is incarcerated in federal prison.

"I don't see his situation to be any different than a typical cooperating witness," Huck said.

Moscatiello, 68, is charged with first-degree murder in the Boulis killing along with Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, 49, and 29-year-old James "Pudgy" Fiorillo. All have pleaded not guilty. Abramoff has not been implicated in the Boulis slaying.

host	10-06-2006 09:42 PM

It has been more than a year since first I wrote about this obvious conflict of interests and symbol of white house corruption and cronyism, seated just a few doors down from the POTUS. Now, she is gone....the most recent, after the arrest, last year, of former Abramoff associate and white house chief procurement officer, Safavian, who was convicted of accepting "favors" from Abramoff....

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct...ramoff,00.html
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
White House Aide to Rove Resigns

Friday, October 06, 2006

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — A key aide to presidential political strategist Karl Rove resigned Friday after a congressional report showed she had extensive contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and accepted tickets to sporting events and concerts from him.

Susan Ralston, a special assistant to President Bush who used to work for Abramoff, submitted her resignation less than five weeks before congressional elections in which corruption and scandal are emerging as major issues.

Critics have pointed to Ralston as evidence that Rove _ and thus Bush _ are possibly closer to Abramoff than the White House has acknowledged.

Ralston's association with Abramoff was highlighted in a recent House Government Reform Committee report that listed hundreds of contacts the lobbying group had with the White House. The Bush administration insider, who is in her 30s, had been Abramoff's administrative assistant and, after Bush took office, assumed the same post with Rove.

"She recognized that a protracted discussion of these matters would be a distraction to the White House and she's chosen to step down,"deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said in announcing Ralston's resignation."We support her decision and consider the matter closed."

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said he suspects the White House is trying to make Ralston a scapegoat.

"There is a lot that we don't yet know about the assistance that Ms. Ralston provided Mr. Abramoff from inside the White House, but there are also many unanswered questions about the assistance that higher-ranking White House officials appeared to provide Mr. Abramoff,"Waxman said.

"The vast majority of lobbying contacts and meals with White House officials documented in the report were with White House officials other than Ms. Ralston,"Waxman said.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and now is now cooperating with prosecutors in an influence peddling investigation that has enveloped Capitol Hill even as lawmakers, facing Nov. 7 elections, struggle with the fallout from a scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley's salacious messages to teenage male pages.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that about half of likely voters consider corruption and scandal in Congress very or extremely important, and about two in three of those said they would vote for Democrats in House races.

Perino said Ralston, a political appointee who has played an instrumental role in organizing and choosing presidential event sites, was respected by her White House colleagues and will be missed.

The committee's report _ based largely on Abramoff's billing records and e-mails _ listed 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials over three years, including 10 with Rove. The report indicated that Abramoff and associates lobbied on behalf of more than 20 individuals for administration jobs and only was successful once.

According to e-mails, Abramoff and his team offered White House officials tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts, and Ralston was the most frequent recipient.

She received tickets to nine events from 2001 to 2004: four Capitals hockey games, one Baltimore Orioles baseball game, two Wizards basketball games, and Bruce Springsteen and Andrea Bocelli concerts, the report said.

The report did not make clear whether Ralston or other White House officials paid for any of the tickets. In one case, Ralston wrote to Abramoff saying Rove"has to pay"for the tickets he received to an NCAA basketball playoff game. The White House said Rove paid for the tickets.

In another instance, Ralston wrote an e-mail saying she was"willing to pay"for Capitals tickets, but Abramoff replied:"No problem, and you don't have to pay."

After an Aug. 23, 2003, Orioles game that Ralston attended, she e-mailed Abramoff:"Thanks for the tix to the game last night. Our guests had a terrific time. (W)e had fun and appreciate your generosity."

The federal gratuities statute makes it a crime to give anything of value to a public official for any official act performed by that official. Officials under scrutiny for accepting gifts often defend themselves by saying they did so out of friendship. Ethics rules prohibit federal employees from accepting gifts unless given because of personal friendship.

E-mails reviewed by the committee also indicate that Abramoff and Ralston discussed business plans more than once.

In February 2002, for example, Ralston, Abramoff, and Abramoff partner Ben Waldman had an e-mail exchange about a business opportunity involving leasing an aircraft.

In November 2002, Ralston e-mailed about the possibility of forming a defense or homeland security-oriented company, acknowledging,"I . . . lack the experience to run the day-to-day operations of a defense company."

She added that"it would take a significant amount of money for me to be lured away (from the White House) so unless you're really serious and can make it worth my while, let's wait until 2005."

Abramoff responded,"I am not in a position to offer you serious money for this right now."

I've posted extensiverly about the issue of Abramoff's former key assistant being placed in the new Bush white house administration, in early 2001. Now she resigns on a friday, after 5:00 pm, the time of the week when all potentially damaging news is always released by politicians..............

Quote:

http://reform.house.gov/GovReform/Ne...cumentID=51048
Government Reform Releases Report on Jack Abramoff’s White House Lobbying
[Tom] Davis: “The silence speaks volumes…”

<a href="http://reform.house.gov/GovReform/AboutTom/">[Tom served as Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002. ]</a>

Washington, D.C., Sep 29 -

The House Government Reform Committee today released a bipartisan investigative report on the nature and extent of the lobbying of White House officials by Jack Abramoff and his associates. As part of its six month investigation, the Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of billing records and e-mail communications from Abramoff and his associates at Greenberg Traurig L.L.P. related to instances of lobbying White House officials.

The review offered a detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud and attempted influence peddling. The Committee was primarily concerned with two questions: To what extent were executive branch officials influenced by Abramoff’s elaborate schemes? And, in view of Abramoff’s admitted crimes, what reforms would better protect the integrity and increase the transparency of government processes and decisions?

“It was our job to examine whether and to what extent Jack Abramoff’s extravagant claims of influence actually reached their intended targets in the executive branch, and what that might mean about the adequacy of current ethics and lobby disclosure laws,” Committee Chairman Tom Davis said. “This is oversight: ask the right questions, get the information, and let the facts speak for themselves about needed reforms.”

The Committee’s report reveals only scant and circumstantial evidence that Abramoff’s encounters and entreaties had a dispositive impact on administration policy or personnel decisions. For example, the records indicate Abramoff and his associates advocated on behalf of more than 20 individuals for administration jobs. One was approved.

Over three years, the lobbying of senior officials appears to be quite limited. There are only nine alleged instances of Abramoff and his team having any kind of contact with Karl Rove, for example. Only one involved a scheduled meeting – less than 50 days into the Administration. The rest occurred at fundraisers or sporting events.

In terms of administration policy and agency decisions over three and half years, Abramoff did take credit for obtaining funding for construction of a jail and school on tribal client lands, political endorsements for insular territorial clients, and the resolution of a border dispute between a tribe and the State of New Mexico.

The lobbyist’s former secretary, Susan Ralston, was hired as Karl Rove’s executive assistant. Her role in brokering requests to Rove from her former boss raises questions,>/b> not answered in Committee documents or the report, about some of her activities. The report reveals Ralston was the most frequently lobbied person of those named – 69 times. Deputy Associate Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Jennifer Farley was next, with 27 instances. [Intergovernmental Affairs is the White House office that deals with tribal issues.]

A number of individuals appear to have been offered tickets to sporting events and concerts. The Committee does not know in all cases if executive branch employees accepted them, if they were allowed to accept them without paying for them, or if they indeed paid for them themselves. The Committee is confident the appropriate authorities will examine whether the tickets were accepted, required to be paid for, and if so, whether they were paid for......

host	03-31-2007 07:12 AM

I'll keep this one short....isn't it "odd" that these folks still control the executive branch of the US government? Will the democratic majority in congress reveal enough damning evidence to end up with no choice but to hold impeachment hearings and refer criminal charges? I didn't "create" the details in this thread. I simply posted them. A number of the articles now do not exist at the links where they were published. The mods, in the past, have closed a number of threads that dealt with tangents of this topic. They were created because they were relevant on their own, and there was too much specific information to "lump" the details solely into this more general thread.

Instead of threads like this being the searchable archive that they were intended to be, this site was "improved", last year, to the extent that older threads contents do not show up in search results. Thank you to all who have posted encouraging words, your appreciation has helped to offset the roadblocks thrown up by those who I would not have predicted would opt to do so. I think that this thread is an example of the depth of this forum that seems at odds with what the intent is for this forum to be. The depth, IMO, is what sets it apart....makes it an historical record, rather than just another discussion board. I've been surprised that there is so much resistance to the idea that this forum can be both. I am also surprised at the continued indifference, complacency, and the defense of what seems indefensible, in reaction to what has gone on in the Bush administration....maybe it's just a matter of bringing more facts to people's attention.....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002930.php

House Dems Want Former Abramoff, Rove Aide for Questions
By Paul Kiel - March 30, 2007, 3:57 PM

Much to the chagrin of the White House, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to hear from Susan Ralston.

Jack Abramoff's former personal assistant, Ralston became Karl Rove's assistant in 2001, where she was his "implant" at the White House.

But after a report last October by Waxman's committee (then chaired by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA)) showed that Ralston had accepted <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901434.html">thousands of dollars in gifts</a> from Abramoff without compensating him, she abruptly resigned.

At the time, the White House was clear that Ralston's resignation meant the end of the issue. "She recognized that a protracted discussion of these matterrs would be a distraction to the White House and she's chosen to step down," said deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We support her decision and consider the matter closed."

But it's not closed, according to Waxman, who, in a letter sent today, invited Ralston to appear before the committee on Thursday, April 5, to answer questions about Abramoff's access to the White House.

The hearing will also be a good opportunity for Waxman to press for more details about White House employees' use of outside email accounts provided by the Republican National Committee. Ralston used such outside accounts when corresponding with Abramoff, even <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=195">writing to him once</a>, “I now have an RNC blackberry which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.”

host	04-12-2007 08:25 AM

.....Thought we were "at war"....so much for secure communications at the highest levels of our government.....

This relates directly to the information in the preceding post....anyone take exception to the accusation that these "folks" conduct the "peoples' business", as thugs running a continuing criminal enterprise....R-I-C-O....might conduct it...
anyone ??? The similarities seem uncanny.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?hpid=sec-tech
White House E-Mail Lost in Private Accounts
Messages May Have Included Discussions About Firing of Eight Prosecutors

By Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 12, 2007; A04

The White House acknowledged yesterday that e-mails dealing with official government business may have been lost because they were improperly sent through private accounts intended to be used for political activities. Democrats have been seeking such missives as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Administration officials said they could offer no estimate of how many e-mails were lost but indicated that some may involve messages from White House senior adviser Karl Rove, whose role in the firings has been under scrutiny by congressional Democrats.

Democrats have charged that Rove and other officials may have used the private accounts, set up through the Republican National Committee, in an effort to avoid normal review. Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision-making and deliberations. White House aides' use of their political e-mail accounts to discuss the prosecutor firings has also fanned Democratic accusations that the actions were politically motivated.

Briefing reporters yesterday about an initial review of the private e-mail system, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel declined to discuss whether the political aides were driven by a desire to conduct business outside of potential review. "I can't speak to people's individual e-mail practices," he said.

Stanzel conceded that the White House had done a poor job of instructing staff members how to save politically oriented e-mail and said that it has developed new guidance for the more than 20 staffers who have official as well as political e-mail addresses. He also said that the White House is trying to recover the lost e-mails.

"The White House has not at this point done a good enough job at overseeing the practices of staff with political e-mail accounts," Stanzel said. "Some officials' e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake that the White House is aggressively working to fix."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is investigating the use of outside accounts, issued a statement saying that the White House disclosure is "a remarkable admission that raises serious legal and security issues," adding: "The White House has an obligation to disclose all the information it has."

The controversy over the outside e-mail accounts is a byproduct of the ongoing showdown over the prosecutor firings, emerging after the administration recently provided to Congress e-mails from some White House officials that had been sent from their RNC accounts. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, used a "gwb43.com" e-mail account last August to discuss the replacement of Bud Cummins, who was dismissed as the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, according to one e-mail.

In another e-mail exchange revealed during the investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a White House official was described as warning that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] . . . email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." Abramoff responded in an e-mail that the message in question "was not supposed to go into the WH system."

The heads of the House and Senate judiciary committees, which are investigating the prosecutor firings, wrote White House counsel Fred F. Fielding on March 28 asking that he preserve any e-mails written by White House employees from non-government e-mail addresses.

Stanzel said in the telephone briefing yesterday that there was a good reason for providing officials such as Rove and his deputies with political e-mail accounts: to help them avoid violations of the Hatch Act, which bars government officials from carrying out political business by using government resources.

The problem, White House officials said, is that the staffers did not receive proper guidance about what to do about e-mails that fall into a gray area between official and political business.

One White House lawyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the ground rules of the briefing, said staffers are now being advised that if they have any questions about whether an e-mail is political or official, they should use their private accounts but preserve a copy for review by White House lawyers to see whether it needs to be saved under the Presidential Records Act.

TodMaschine

04-13-2007 10:10 PM

This will be quick...The Dems have been encouraging a little too much change in the political system over the last 50 years and sadly enough the System has proceeded down the wrong path and both main parties are so corrupt it isn't funny. But being an original Constitution respecting, freedom loving conservative, I will vote for whatever party will be the last one to put anymore major restrictions on our firearms rights. And i say this because when you come down to protecting freedom, speech can be silenced, misrepresented, and terribly distorted by almost anyone with enough money anymore. And although freedom of speech is one of the most important, ultimately protecting freedom takes weapons as well. Just a thought... :)

roachboy

04-14-2007 09:53 AM

i post this while trying really hard to not say anything sarcastic in response to no. 143....the unfolding scandal at the world bank involving yet another bushcrony is clearly the fault of the democrats...such idiotic conclusions would folow from it. but for this, there is no-one and nothing to blame but the right for this latest example of the kind of shabby, ill-considered nonsense that is apparently the modus operandum of everyday life in conservativeland, such as it is now:

Quote:

Wolfowitz Dictated Girlfriend's Pay Deal
World Bank Board Weighs Its Options

By Karen DeYoung and Krissah Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 14, 2007; A01

World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz personally dictated the terms under which the bank gave what it called his "domestic partner" substantial pay raises and promotions in exchange for temporarily leaving her job there during his tenure, according to documents released by the bank's executive board yesterday.

The board issued a statement saying it will "move expeditiously to reach a conclusion on possible actions to take," amid rising speculation over whether the embattled Wolfowitz will resign or be asked to step down. Board deliberations over his future were suspended yesterday morning as the bank began its spring meeting, an annual rite attended by finance ministers and central bank presidents, and one now being overtaken by the controversy surrounding Wolfowitz.

"He has apologized, and there is a process in place," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said after a meeting with his counterparts from the world's richest nations yesterday. "I don't intend to comment on that here. I do not want that to be read as a lessening of U.S. support for Paul Wolfowitz."

Wolfowitz joined the bank in 2005 after working at the Pentagon, where as deputy defense secretary he was a principal architect of the Iraq war. This made him a controversial figure at the bank, where he fostered resentment among its member nations and 7,000 Washington employees. A number of the bank's leading donor nations, including Britain, expressed public concern about aspects of his leadership long before the current uproar over his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, which began when details of her pay package were publicly revealed last month.

As bank staffers and development activist groups continued to call for Wolfowitz's resignation, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that he has President Bush's "full confidence" and that "we expect him to remain as World Bank president."

Defenders also surfaced from other quarters. The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial that "the forces of the World Bank's status quo," angered by Wolfowitz's efforts to fight "corruption-as-usual" and institute more accountability in the institution's lending practices, had seized on a trivial issue to bring him down. One former bank staffer said that "some of the countries who failed to block his election are trying to set him up, and he walked into that trap really well."

But while few knowledgeable observers were prepared to predict Wolfowitz's departure, many expressed concern that the turmoil is threatening to undermine the work and credibility of the bank.

"The issue now, as far as many of us are concerned, is a matter of corporate governance," said a senior bank staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "The Europeans want him out. The U.S. remains silent, and the board is divided."

Others expressed concern about the effect that the controversy could have on this year's negotiations to finance the International Development Association, the bank's lending vehicle for the world's poorest countries. Europe contributes 60 percent of the IDA's funding, and the United States and Japan together give about 26 percent. U.S. contributions and pledges to the current three-year program total about $3 billion.

Among the more than 100 pages of internal letters, memorandums, and legal and ethics opinions released by the board yesterday was an angry letter from Riza to the board, written Monday, to authorize the release of the documents "in the interest of expediting and facilitating the resolution of this issue."

Riza, a Tunisian-born British citizen who worked at the bank as a communications specialist, made it clear that "I did not wish to leave the Bank." She said she had objected to the arrangements for her departure. "My effort to accommodate the Board's Ethics Committee and avoid creating distractions for Staff, Board and Management from their noble mission while protecting my interest, has only resulted in the most vicious public attacks on me."

Wolfowitz had also asked for the release of the documents, believing that they would show that the board's ethics committee had rejected his offer to recuse himself from consideration of Riza's employment and ordered him to find a solution.

But the documents also revealed that Wolfowitz's description of events has been less than candid. In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."

Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.

The board eventually ruled that "professional contact" between the two violated bank policy and instructed Wolfowitz to order the personnel department to arrange her departure and compensation.

But the board insisted yesterday that it neither "commented on" nor "reviewed or approved" the agreement that Wolfowitz ordered his human resources department to make with her.

In a memo to the bank's vice president for human resources dated Aug. 11, 2005, Wolfowitz wrote, "I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions." Riza was to be "detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining Bank salary and benefits." She was to receive an immediate raise with approximate annual increases of 8 percent.

By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade. On her return to the bank, she would be automatically promoted to the level of senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.

In a memo dated Sept. 9, 2005, Wolfowitz aide Robin Cleveland, a former White House official he brought with him to the bank, wrote that Wolfowitz had hired an outside counsel to review the agreement since Dañino, the general counsel, worked for the bank and thus had a conflict of interest. Wolfowitz, the memo said, had selected the Washington firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, "based on their ability to present a strong team within 24 hours which included, among others, the former U.S. solicitor General and Eugene Scalia, a personnel policy expert."

In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

the new york times rushes in to provide an "analysis" that in fact just states the obvious:

Quote:

Wolfowitz Fight Has Subplot
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 13 ? When President Bush appointed Paul D. Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank two years ago, the White House had to put down an insurrection among European nations that viewed the administration?s best-known neoconservative as a symbol of American unilateralism and arrogance.

For a while, Mr. Wolfowitz seemed to defuse those fears, even taking on the Bush administration over how best to aid the poorest nations of Africa. But now it is clear that the chorus of calls in recent days for Mr. Wolfowitz?s ouster is only partly about his involvement in setting up a comfortable job, with a big pay raise, for a bank officer who is Mr. Wolfowitz?s companion.

At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves ? at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 ? as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda.

As finance ministers gathered in Washington on Friday for the bank?s weekend meeting, Mr. Wolfowitz worked behind the scenes, seeking support for keeping his job. But there were few endorsements of his leadership beyond those offered by the Bush administration.

In foreign capitals, and among the bank?s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz?s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world?s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. Some longtime bank staff members complained that Mr. Wolfowitz relied too little on experts in international development and too much on a pair of aides who served with him in the administration.

Members of the bank?s board from around the world began comparing what they called the murky way in which the bank made some policy decisions to the secretive habits of the Bush administration.

Nancy Birdsall, the president of the Center for Global Development, a group that monitors aid to the world?s poorest nations, described what she termed ?real doubts about Wolfowitz?s judgment? inside the bank.

Mr. Wolfowitz came to the bank with heavy political baggage. Since the bank was set up at the end of World War II, its president has always been an American, a fact that has engendered more and more resentment over time. That reaction was compounded when Mr. Bush selected Mr. Wolfowitz, who had served as deputy secretary of defense and an architect of the Iraq war.

?It took a huge amount of effort to quiet this down,? a member of the bank?s board of governors and an early supporter of Mr. Wolfowitz recalled Friday of the early insurrection. ?And you would think, knowing that he was going into an institution that was deeply suspicious of him and the Bush administration, that he would have done everything he could to allay those concerns.?

At first, Mr. Wolfowitz did so. He made Africa his first priority. He displayed a passion and energy for the work ? much as he did many years ago as ambassador to Indonesia, where he immersed himself in the culture and took on a dictator, Suharto. His campaign against corruption was intellectually unassailable and quintessentially American, and he was certainly right as far as the facts were concerned, members of the bank?s staff and leadership say.

But eventually his focus on that issue put him at odds with career officials at an institution that is famously resistant to outside influence, and which believes that fighting poverty has to come first, even if that means dealing with countries whose leaders are not above skimming a few million dollars along the way.

?He came in to a mood of skepticism and strong reservations by many,? said Geoffrey Lamb, a former vice president of the bank, who worked closely with Mr. Wolfowitz on questions of finance for the world?s poorest nations before he retired last summer. ?My feeling was that he provided a bit of reassurance, by moving actively on aid to Africa and debt forgiveness. Clearly, those early perceptions have changed a lot.?

Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington?s counterterrorism agenda.

It did not help that he relied heavily on a pair of aides drawn from the Bush administration, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, who created an inner circle that the bank?s professional staff members said they had great trouble piercing.

Mr. Wolfowitz?s defenders say that he was right to come in with a mission of shaking up the ingrown bureaucracy at the bank, and that the place desperately needed shaking up. But even they acknowledge that management has never been his strong suit, and that his judgment in dealing with the transfer of his companion, Shaha Ali Riza, was questionable.

In the backlash against Mr. Wolfowitz, though, there is also an undercurrent of settling scores ? including those that go beyond the World Bank. Europeans still fume over Mr. Bush?s decision to send John R. Bolton, one of the biggest critics of the United Nations, to New York to serve as ambassador there ? an experiment that ended when it became clear that the newly Democratic Senate would not confirm him to finish Mr. Bush?s term.

Others recall that the administration tried to fire Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian-born head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who famously declared in early 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. Dr. ElBaradei proved to be right, and was soon awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

So far, the White House has expressed confidence in Mr. Wolfowitz, but not with much vigor. There were no signs that President Bush was about to rush to his aid, though that could still happen. European and Asian officials bet it will not.

?There is a sense that we?re finally at a moment when Bush needs the world more than the world needs Bush,? said a senior foreign official who flew into Washington recently for the annual meeting of the bank and the International Monetary Fund. ?And there?s more than a little of that mixed in this whole argument over Wolfowitz?s fate.?

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/wa...=1&oref=slogin

conclusion: wolfowitz should never have been appointed to this position in the first place.

the step-by-step self-destruction of the neo-con movement and of the right's coalition more generally is at this point kind of amazing to watch, a huge slow-motion trainwreck.

Elphaba

04-14-2007 11:47 AM

At least this crony didn't pass the snicker test. I suppose I should be pleased that he wasn't a veterinarian like the last appointee.

Link

Quote:

A Bad Choice, a Quick Exit
The New York Times | Editorial

Thursday 12 April 2007

The story of Eric Keroack's brief stint as director of family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services brings together three familiar Bush administration themes: a disdain for women's reproductive health and rights, the sacrifice of science to ideology and incompetence.

Appointed in November, Dr. Keroack was always a disturbing choice to lead the federal office that finances birth control, pregnancy tests and other health care services for five million poor Americans. He previously was the medical director of a private network of pregnancy counseling clinics in Massachusetts that views the distribution of contraception as "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," according to the group's Web site.

Its program for dissuading women from having an abortion has included spreading the medically inaccurate claim that having an abortion greatly increases the risk of breast cancer. In speeches and writing, Dr. Keroack has promoted the scientifically bereft notion that sex with multiple partners alters women's brain chemistry in a way that makes it hard for them to form relationships.

It turns out these were not the only reasons Dr. Keroack was unsuitable. Last month he resigned after the Medicaid office in Massachusetts took action in connection with his private medical practice. The details of a continuing investigation (which someone in the White House should have discovered) are still murky, and Dr. Keroack says he plans an appeal. In the meantime, the administration's ideological blinkers and shoddy process for vetting appointees has produced yet another embarrassment.

I'm willing to bet he has been defrauding Medicaid.

Elphaba

04-20-2007 03:49 PM

Finally, there has been a move on Doolittle. I have been wondering what the delay was.

Link

Quote:

Congressman Quits Panel After Raid

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A08

Less than a week after the FBI raided the Northern Virginia home of his wife, Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) gave up his coveted seat on the House Appropriations Committee yesterday amid concerns that he had used that post to advance the interests of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and other allies.

"I understand how the most recent circumstances may lead some to question my tenure on the Appropriations Committee," the conservative nine-term congressman wrote in a letter to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "Therefore, I feel it may be in the best interest of the House that I take a temporary leave with seniority from this Committee until this matter can be resolved."

host	05-03-2007 09:46 AM

It is with profound regret that these developments come long after many of the members with whom we debated the Bush presidency and it's phony, GWOT, ceased to participate in the discussions in this politcal forum.....

In August, 2005, I posted the following, on this thread:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93064"> Whitehouse Will Appoint Yale "Bonesman" to Control "Plamegate" Prosecutor Fitzgerald</a>

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1858770&postcount=2

If you are skeptical about what I wrote in the opening post, here is some new "news" for you to consider:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...itics-national
August 7, 2005
latimes.com : National Politics

Inquiry Into Lobbyist Sputters After Demotion
# The unusual financial deal between Jack Abramoff and officials in Guam drew scrutiny.

By Walter F. Roche Jr., Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A U.S. grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, <h4>but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor and the inquiry ended soon after.</h4>

The previously undisclosed Guam inquiry is separate from a federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating allegations that Abramoff bilked Indian tribes out of millions of dollars.

In Guam, an American territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court revision bill then pending in the U.S. Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

Guam court officials have not explained the contractual arrangement. At the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbyist in the Pacific islands because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in sweatshop conditions..........................

.............A day later, the chief prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status, Black had held the acting U.S. attorney assignment for more than a decade.

The acting U.S. attorney was a controversial official in Guam. At the time he was removed, Black was directing a long-term investigation into allegations of public corruption in the administration of then-Gov. Carl Gutierrez. The inquiry produced numerous indictments, including some of the governor's political associates and top aides.

Black also arranged for a security review in the aftermath of Sept. 11 that was seen as a potential threat to loose immigration rules favored by local business leaders. In fact, the study ordered by Black eventually cited substantial security risks in Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Abramoff, who then represented the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, alerted his clients in a memo about the expected report and warned: "It will require some major action from the Hill and a press attack to get this back in the bottle."........................

Almost 14 months later, we were "treated" to this:

I went back and enlarged the letters in a paragraph of my 9/29/06 post (# 142), referencing the DOJ Inspector General's findings about former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's instructions concerning Jack Abramoff's interest in the continued assignment by the DOJ of Frederick Black as US Attorney on Guam......

Now....with these latest revelations, I'm begining to wonder if the Bureau of Federal Prisons will have to provide a facility that will exclusively house corrupt, and "traitorously corrupt", former employees of the DOJ and the executive branch....but, then again, who would investigate and prosecute them.....themselves?

Remember the long, long, GWOT.....I guess that it is over, or that it never really mattered in the hearts of the politicians who so fiercely embraced and embellished it:

Quote:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...threat_070430/
Report warns Guam of terror threat

By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno - Pacific Daily News
Posted : Tuesday May 1, 2007 6:09:35 EDT

Guam and the Northern Marianas offer a "ready-made environment" for terror groups to launch attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel, according to a report that assessed security vulnerabilities on the islands in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

With the nation's security at stake and the islands vulnerable to terror groups, the report states that "the level of safeguards and federal control" on the islands has not measured up.

A federal government regional security specialist prepared the report five years ago, but it has resurfaced in light of the federal conspiracy case filed earlier last week against Mark D. Zachares.

Zachares, a former Northern Marianas Cabinet official and ex-congressional staffer, said he used his job while still employed by Congress to seek a copy of the report at the request of now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Zachares pleaded guilty April 24 and is cooperating with authorities in the widening investigation into public corruption and Abramoff's lobbying activities. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to corruption and fraud charges.

'High-risk environment'

Local immigration control in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has helped the local economy tap into foreign workers' skills for lower than U.S. minimum wage, but at the same time, CNMI control of immigration has become a loophole in the tight federal screening of foreigners entering other parts of the U.S., including Guam, according to previous interviews with authorities.

The 2002 report states if the "high-risk environment is allowed to stand, it will continue to threaten federal and public interests and seriously jeopardize the national security of the United States."

Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo last week said, "It is an egregious breach of the public trust for a federal employee to provide a classified government report to a lobbyist for private gain.

"I would not go so far as to say our nation's security was compromised," the delegate said, "but I would say that classified information is classified for a reason."

Since the Abramoff public corruption scandal broke more than a year ago, the Democrats in Congress have tightened the House rules, but Democrats say more should be done to "eradicate the corrupt lobbying practices that the Abramoff scandals represent."

Abramoff was paid about $7 million by the Northern Marianas government between 1998 and 2002, according to Zachares' plea documents.
Meissner report

The 2002 security report strongly recommended tighter scrutiny of foreigners entering the islands, in part by applying U.S. immigration law in the Northern Marianas and positioning federal Customs agents at Guam points of entry for passengers and cargo.

The report is labeled "sensitive — for limited official use only".

R. G. Meissner, a regional security specialist with the U.S. Attorney's Office East District of Virginia prepared the report April 25, 2002.

The report was prepared at the request of Frederick Black, then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Districts of Guam and the CNMI.

According to the report, Meissner visited both districts in January and February 2002. Meissner said federal law enforcement officials, and a variety of military and territorial officials were consulted.

Previously compiled documents, surveys, reports, newspaper articles and other information pertaining to security-related actions also were reviewed, according to the report.

The CNMI, according to CNMI Attorney General Matthew Gregory, also is "a victim of the Abramoff conspiracy in other ways, not only in the overcharging of lobbying fees, but most significantly in the besmirching of the commonwealth's reputation."

Gregory stated, in a written comment, that the report "is primarily focused on physical security," of federal offices on the islands and emphasizes obtaining additional funding from Washington.

"CNMI immigration is mentioned almost as an afterthought," Gregory stated.
'Single most cause of concern'

The report states that the lack of oversight by federal immigration law enforcers over the screening of foreigners entering the CNMI is "the single most cause of concern" expressed by all federal law enforcement officials who provided input for the report.

<h3>Abramoff allegedly used his connections at the Justice Department to suppress the security-risk assessment report, according to a January 2006 statement from California Rep. George Miller and several other Democratic members of Congress.</h3>

The report was never acted upon, according to the statement from the congressional Democrats.

"The entire justice system lacks credibility when ... lobbyists are permitted to gain access to information that they cannot legally have," according to Rep. John Conyers, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in the January 2006 joint statement that also included the signature of Bordallo.
Examples cited

Prepared seven months after Sept. 11, the report lists examples of the presence of certain people or groups on the islands that raise security concerns:

* A man who claimed to be Iranian attempted to enter Guam using forged documents, and immediately requested asylum when arrested.

"Federal authorities fear that this individual is from Kabul and has terrorist ties," the report noted.

* During a routine discussion between a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office and an official of the Guam airport agency, it was learned that the Guam airport received letters from three different addresses within Iraq.

"Each letter contained a request for maps, posters and promotional materials about Guam and the airport," the security report stated. "The information was compiled and was being readied for dispatch when it was discovered by a supervisor who brought the requests to the attention of higher management. No materials or information were provided."
Al-Qaida concern

Past incidents provide sufficient indication that Guam and the CNMI are being considered as possible targets for terrorist activity, according to the report.

It mentions a "bio-terrorism threat" that was received at several local government locations.

The threat was credited to al-Qaida "as much as one year prior to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center," according to the report.

The identification of possible al-Qaida "cell members and other highly questionable individuals foster additional concern," according to the report.

"Additionally, there is a growing sentiment among federal officials that since the attacks against U.S. sites in Malaysia and Singapore were foiled, Guam and the CNMI have ... been moved up on a list of potential targets in the Pacific. These factors and others create a valid concern," according to the five-year-old security report.

While the report was being prepared, according to Meissner, a federal attorney on Guam was attempting to gather "open-source information" — for the report — about bombings in the Philippines.

But in the process of doing the electronic research, according to the report, the federal attorney's anti-hacking software warned that "the online activity was being monitored from a source in Pakistan."
Transnational crime organizations

The report made a host of recommendations, but it's unclear whether the recommendations were ever followed.

Besides beefing up Guam and Northern Marianas border security with federal law enforcers, the report also recommended "continuous on-island oversight of financial transactions ... to curtail the activities of transnational criminal organizations."

The report states there's indication of presence of Japanese, Russian, Chinese and other organized crime groups in the Northern Marianas.

"It would also provide U.S. authorities a means to monitor and prevent a flow of funding to terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor and support their efforts," according to the report.

"The presence of several transnational criminal organizations on Guam and in the CNMI coupled with the lack of federal immigration, customs and interdiction patrols present a critical vulnerability to the federal government and a ready made environment for terrorist groups to perpetrate any number of actions," according to the report.
'Done all they can'

U.S. Attorney Leonardo Rapadas, who covers Guam and replaced Black in the CNMI, said in a written response to e-mailed comments from the PDN: "All matters related to the Abramoff case are being handled by the Task Force from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C."

But he said federal efforts on the island continue to be geared toward protecting the islands against security threats.

"We want to assure those who reside on Guam and in the CNMI that federal and local authorities have done all they can to protect their safety," Rapadas said. "Our efforts are continuing, we are at all times seeking to strengthen and improve the defenses against terrorist and national security threats."

Consider that, a month ago, when the following article was published, the specifics in R. G. Meissner's 2002 CNMI security report had not yet been made public:

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...70416&s=berman
Attorneygate in Guam

by ARI BERMAN

[from the April 16, 2007 issue]

Before Attorneygate, there was Guam.

Back in the spring of 2002, when Guam's then-Governor, Carl Gutierrez, found himself in the cross-hairs of a federal corruption probe, he hired disgraced über-lobbyist Jack Abramoff to force out the US territory's longtime acting US Attorney, Frederick Black. "I don't care if they appoint bozo the clown, we need to get rid of Fred Black," Abramoff wrote to colleagues in March 2002.

Eventually Black, a well-regarded prosecutor who'd held the position since 1991, began investigating Abramoff for a $324,000 contract the lobbyist had received from Guam's highest court--and asked for Washington's assistance. The Justice Department forwarded the information to then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. Instead of receiving help, Black was pushed out of his job <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=177639">[see "Can Justice Be Trusted?" February 20, 2006]</a>.

The same fate would later befall eight other US Attorneys, dislodged from their posts this past December. But it's not only the pattern that's similar. Many of the Administration officials playing starring roles in Attorneygate--including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson--also had a hand in the dismissal of the US Attorney in Guam.

Black's allegations of his politically motivated ouster were the subject of a report by the DOJ's Inspector General last June, which found no evidence of foul play. But the IG report, which leaned heavily on Administration testimony, including that of the now-discredited Sampson, failed to include crucial information backing up Black's claims. For example, while the report stated that the White House had decided to replace Black with Assistant US Attorney Leonard Rapadas in March 2002, other evidence suggests that it was only after Black began his aggressive pursuit of Abramoff later that year that a decision was made to install Rapadas--the nephew, as it happened, of a major figure in the Gutierrez investigation. David Sablan, who headed the Guam Republican Party at the time, says he received a call in September 2002 from a DOJ lawyer named Juan Carlos Benitez, who told him that "Rapadas was not selected for the US Attorney position out here and that I was to come up with another person or persons for the position." Benitez, who subsequently went to work at the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates, where Abramoff landed briefly in 2004, says he does not recall the conversation, and has since been publicly circulating letters of support for Gonzales.

On November 7 Black informed the DOJ of his preliminary investigation of Abramoff. Days later, Guam's new Republican Governor, Felix Camacho, wrote a letter to the White House asking to keep Black on. Yet on November 19, a day after Black subpoenaed the Abramoff contract, the Administration announced that it was nominating Rapadas. Black was subsequently barred from handling any public corruption cases.

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Bush Administration Nominations by Date
PRESIDENT | VICE PRESIDENT | FIRST LADY | MRS. CHENEY | NEWS ... 19, 2002, Humberto (Bert) Sigifredo Garcia , Leonardo Matias Rapadas , Ellen Lisa Weintraub ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nomin...ndex-date.html - 196k -

Did Black's Abramoff probe resurrect and fast-track Rapadas's nomination and seal his departure? That central matter in the IG inquiry remains unsettled today. "I just wonder whether they wanted to prevent Fred Black from staying on," says Sablan.

Black's story parallels that of dismissed US Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego, who successfully prosecuted Congressman Duke Cunningham on bribery charges. Kyle Sampson, who called for Lam's firing a day after she pursued search warrants for a top GOP military contractor and CIA official, also oversaw the ouster of Black, according to the IG's report.

<h3>The apparent purging of Black at Abramoff's behest demonstrates the clout the lobbyist wielded at both the DOJ and the White House. Then-White House political director Ken Mehlman, the recent chairman of the Republican National Committee, told White House official Leonard Rodriguez, a protégé of Karl Rove, to "reach out to make Jack aware" of all Guam-related information, including candidates for US Attorney, according to the IG report.</h3>

In May 2002 Abramoff used his influence to kill a risk-assessment report of Guam and the neighboring Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), requested by Black, that called for federalizing immigration laws on the islands, a move that might have jeopardized the influx of cheap labor to CNMI and Abramoff's $1.6 million lobbying contract with its local government. Abramoff learned of the report from John Ashcroft's then-chief of staff, David Ayres, whom he hosted at a Washington Redskins game. "We'll hope that higher ups will take some time to squash this," Abramoff wrote. Sure enough, the report never came out, and the DOJ demoted its author, regional security specialist Robert Meissner.

At the time, Meissner's boss was then-US Attorney for Eastern Virginia, Paul McNulty, who has since risen to become Deputy Attorney General and a key player in Gonzales's embattled DOJ. A longtime Republican operative who served as spokesman for House Republicans during Bill Clinton's impeachment--and never tried a case before becoming US Attorney--McNulty now stands accused of misleading Congress about the reasons for the eight US Attorneys' dismissals.

<h3>Meissner discussed his risk-assessment report with McNulty on multiple occasions and told several colleagues he believed McNulty helped suppress the report and curtail his career. "Bob told me he thought McNulty had everything to do with it," says one colleague of Meissner's in the Bush Administration with knowledge on Guam matters. Says another colleague, "McNulty was kind of the fireman at Justice. He was the guy trying to run around and put a lid on things that could become political, especially with Abramoff."</h3>

McNulty may have also intervened in the IG's investigation of Black's removal. According to sources close to the investigation, when Black contradicted Administration testimony, he was told by IG investigators, "That's not the scope we were given by DAG"--at the time, McNulty. McNulty's office declined to comment, and the IG's counsel, Cynthia Schnedar, says, "The conclusion we reached was a fair and appropriate one."

Sampson and McNulty were close to the heart of the Guam affair, but it's unlikely they were operating as rogue agents. Indeed, contained in the IG report is a startling admission. Sampson told the IG that after receiving permission from the DAG, AG and White House counsel to replace a US Attorney, "he would then discuss the US Attorney candidate recommendations with the President." After the Attorneygate scandal broke, Bush contradicted this, claiming that he "never brought up a specific case nor gave [Gonzales] specific instructions."

Given these damning details, leading members of Congress, such as Representatives George Miller and Nick Rahall, say the probe into the fired US Attorneys must be widened to include the circumstances surrounding the demotions of Black and Meissner. And they doubt the ability of the DOJ to investigate itself. "It is necessary now to re-examine this case," they wrote in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee chairs on March 13, "as it may represent the beginning of a pattern of behavior by...officials in the Bush Administration to politicize the work of US Attorneys and to quash their independence."

Quote:

http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/rel031307.html
House Committee Chairmen Say Probe of Fired U.S. Attorneys Should Include Abramoff Case

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

WASHINGTON – Two House committee chairmen called today for the congressional probe into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys to be widened to include the case of an acting U.S. Attorney demoted in 2002 after he began investigating the now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the Education and Labor Committee chairman, and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the Natural Resources Committee chairman, have repeatedly pressed for a full investigation of Abramoff’s dealings with the CNMI and its sweatshop industry and of the demotion of Fred Black, the then-acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the CNMI.

Miller and Rahall said that what looked initially to them as another example of Abramoff’s excesses as a corrupt lobbyist exploiting his deep ties to the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress might in fact be part of a widespread pattern of tampering with the work of U.S. Attorneys.

Press reports and leaked emails indicated that the Bush Administration may have replaced Black because he was conducting a criminal investigation of Abramoff and his clients, and because he favored insular area policies that Abramoff and his clients opposed. Abramoff also reportedly helped to quash a classified Justice Department report that Black requested on security threats posed by CNMI’s immigration policy.

At the lawmakers’ request, the Justice Department’s Inspector General investigated the case and found numerous political contacts between Abramoff and Administration officials but reported that Black’s replacement had not been improper. Miller and Rahall believe it is now appropriate to revisit the case.

“We want to know whether high level Bush Administration officials tampered with a U.S. Attorney’s investigation of a corrupt lobbyist,” said Miller. “Black was trying to secure our borders and root out corruption while Abramoff was wining and dining the Justice Department. We need to know what happened in this case.”

In their letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee chairs, Miller and Rahall asked for their current probe to be expanded to include the case of Fred Black.

“In light of more recent revelations about political interference with the work of other U.S. Attorneys… it is necessary now to re-examine the case as it may represent the beginning of a pattern of behavior by some members of Congress and officials in the Bush Administration to politicize the work of U.S. Attorneys and to quash their independence.”

For additional information, see: www.house.gov/georgemiller/press/rel12606b.html

The full text of the letter is below.

March 13, 2007
Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Chairwoman Linda Sánchez
ubcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Chairman Charles Schumer
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers, Chairman Leahy, Chairwoman Sánchez, and Chairman Schumer:

The recent questions that you have been diligently investigating regarding the treatment of U.S. Attorneys recall an earlier episode that was never properly resolved. As you conduct your important oversight regarding political interference at the Department of Justice, we write to bring this related matter to your attention.

Specifically, we urge you to include in your ongoing investigation the potential political manipulation by Jack Abramoff and his allies in Congress and the Administration in criminal and immigration matters overseen by then Acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Fred Black.

In October 2005, and again in January 2006, we and others asked the Attorney General to appoint an outside counsel to determine whether Black was replaced by the Bush Administration in November 2002 because he was conducting a criminal investigation of Abramoff and his clients, and because he favored insular area policies that Abramoff and his clients opposed.

As we wrote to Attorney General Gonzales, it is clear that Abramoff was given ample and, in our view, improper opportunity to weigh in with the Justice Department, and that the White House sought his counsel. Newspaper reports and leaked emails indicated that Abramoff had used his influence in the Justice Department to remove the Acting U.S. Attorney, and had worked to gain knowledge of and attempt to prevent the release of a classified review of Guam and CNMI immigration laws commissioned by Black. In one email, Abramoff explained that he had found out about the classified immigration report when “we had the COS of the Justice Department in our box at today’s Redskins game.”

In response to our request, the Department’s Inspector General reported on the breadth of Abramoff’s influence, including the fact that former White House Political Director Ken Mehlman had “recommended or suggested that [the White House Office of Political Affairs] reach out to make Jack aware” of potential nominees for the U.S. Attorney position.

The Inspector General’s June 2006 report found that Abramoff – who described the Acting U.S. Attorney as a “total commie” and told his colleagues that “We need to get this guy sniped out of there” – had weighed in and attempted to influence the process of replacing the U.S. Attorney. However, the report concluded that the replacement of the Acting U.S. Attorney had not been improper.

At the time, we viewed the replacement of the Acting U.S. Attorney as an example of the overly zealous and improper, if not illegal, conduct by the now disgraced and convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

In light of more recent revelations about political interference with the work of other U.S. Attorneys, however, it is necessary now to re-examine the case as it may represent the beginning of a pattern of behavior by some members of Congress and officials in the Bush Administration to politicize the work of U.S. Attorneys and to quash their independence.

We encourage you to include this earlier incident in your ongoing work. As you know, Jack Abramoff worked closely with the Bush Administration and Congress to distort insular area policy; that matter was never appropriately investigated by this body.

We stand ready to work with you to determine potential wrongdoing in this matter, and help to finally close the books on the Abramoff scandal that has so damaged the public trust.

Sincerely,
GEORGE MILLER NICK J. RAHALL, II
Chairman Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor Committee on Natural Resources

Elphaba

05-03-2007 11:42 AM

I bet the DC Madame and her "escorts" will be linked to "Dusty's" poker parties. Any takers? :)

Elphaba

05-17-2007 03:43 PM

There is a new crony appointment that is so in your face that it makes one wonder about the extent of this administration's chutzpah. The following article also provides a nice summary of the known scandals.

Link

Quote:

Consumer Protection Nominee Rekindles Charges of Cronyism
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 16 May 2007

The nomination of a long-time manufacturers' lobbyist to head the nation's consumer safety watchdog agency is not only igniting fierce opposition from public interest groups, but is sparking a reexamination of the Bush administration's five-year history of appointing senior officials many regard as "cronies" who were inefficient, inexperienced and, in some cases, forced to resign under pressure or convicted of crimes.

According to a report released by Public Citizen, Michael Baroody, President Bush's nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission, was the top lobbyist for the country's most powerful industry trade association when the group supported weakening guidelines for reporting information about dangerous products.

The report charged that the "requirements that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and its allies sought to weaken had been responsible for more than 80 percent of the fines issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) over the past decade. NAM's members and its coalition partners were responsible for paying more than half of those fines."

The CPSC is tasked with protecting the public - and especially children - from serious injury or death and monitors more than 15,000 types of consumer products. Reports about product hazards are mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Act, one of the key laws governing the CPSC's role in protecting consumer safety.

Public Citizen says that, with Baroody serving as its executive director for lobbying efforts, NAM supported a move to weaken agency protocols that dictate when companies - including NAM members - must immediately report information about potentially hazardous product defects. The changes NAM successfully pressed for could affect the agency's ability to issue timely decisions to recall dangerous products.

"As head of the CPSC, Baroody would be in charge of administering the weakened disclosure guidance his industry association sought, presenting a serious and unavoidable conflict of interest," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "Under his authority, consumer and public safety would be at risk, while the companies he represented for years would save millions in future fines."

Public Citizen's analysis shows that weakening the rules had enormous financial benefits for NAM and its manufacturer members at the expense of consumer safety. Alleged violations of reporting guidelines were responsible for about $32.9 million of $39.6 million in civil fines collected by the CPSC since 1997. NAM members and affiliates accounted for more than half of those payments, totaling $18 million. Five of those companies alone paid a combined $10 million for allegedly violating reporting guidelines.

"While Baroody was at its helm, NAM had a record of unrelenting hostility to the safety of consumers, including small children," said Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "Baroody should not be confirmed to lead a safety agency that has such a vital role in protecting American families."

The Baroody nomination has rekindled charges of serious ethics breaches, conflicts of interest, inefficiency, cronyism and a number of criminal convictions among Bush political appointees since the election of 2000.

The public is by now familiar with the more high-profile cases. The departure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The conviction of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for lying to a federal grand jury in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity. The conviction of David Safavian, head of all government procurement at the Office of Management and Budget, for lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The resignation of neoconservative leader Richard Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, who stepped down as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board amid conflict-of-interest charges. The firing of Michael Brown, the FEMA director whose performance before, during and after Hurricane Katrina became a national scandal. And, most recently, the resignation of Monica Goodling, the Bush administration official believed to have played a pivotal role in the current contretemps over sacked prosecutors, after she invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify to Congress.

Less well-known to the public is the catalog of indictments or guilty pleas by lower-level Executive Branch political appointees.

Here are some of them, originally compiled by Nick Turse of TPM Muckraker, and added to by readers.

Steven Griles, deputy secretary at the Interior Department, who resigned and subsequently pled guilty to lying about his ties to convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Dusty Foggo, CIA executive director, who was indicted following accusations of corruption in connection to the Duke Cunningham scandal.

Claude Allen, assistant to the president for domestic policy, who pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

Larry Franklin, a DOD intelligence officer, who pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

Roger Stillwell, a desk officer at the Interior Department, who pled guilty to failing to report receiving Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

Frank Figueroa, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security and former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator, who pled no contest to exposing himself to a 16-year-old girl in a Florida mall.

Darleen Druyun, a senior contracting official for the Air Force, who pled guilty and was sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

John Korsmo, chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board, who pled guilty to lying to the Senate and an inspector general about his role in a fundraiser for a friend's Congressional campaign.

Korsmo's wife, Michelle Larson Korsmo, deputy chief of staff at the Department of Labor, who resigned about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were targets of a criminal probe.

P. Trey Sunderland III, chief of geriatric psychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health, who admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

Still others have resigned in the face of pending charges or after investigations had been completed.

These include:

Carl Truscott, director of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau, who resigned after a report by the Justice Department's inspector general found he wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

Joseph Schmitz, the Defense Department's inspector general, who resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

Susan Ralston, a White House assistant, who resigned amidst revelations she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyist Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, who resigned after the release of an inspector general's report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him.

George Deutsch, a NASA press aide, who resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

James Roche, secretary of the Air Force, who resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

Marvin Sambur, the top contracting executive at the Air Force - Darleen Druyun's boss - who resigned in the wake of the Boeing scandal, though further investigations cleared him of wrongdoing.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality and a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, who resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who resigned following an investigation by the HHS Inspector General found he had pressured the agency's actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law.

David Smith, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department, who resigned after shooting a buffalo and accepting its remains as an illegal gratuity.

Sean Tunis, Chief Medical Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who left after the State of Maryland suspended his medical license because he faked documentation relating to his medical education.

Julie MacDonald, the Interior Department's assistant secretary of fish, wildlife and parks, who resigned after an inspector general investigation concluded that she used her position to squelch protection of endangered species.

Janet Rehnquist, daughter of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who resigned as inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department after Congress began investigating her decision to delay an audit of Florida's pension fund at the request of Gov. Jeb Bush's office.

Robert E. Coughlin II, deputy chief of staff for the DOJ's criminal division, who resigned after coming under scrutiny in the department's expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Lester Crawford, who resigned as a commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration and pled guilty to charges of "conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating."

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, the Army's top civilian official, who resigned in the wake of the ongoing controversy about poor outpatient care of injured soldiers at Walter Reid Army Medical Center.

The nominations of a number of other Bush loyalists were withdrawn because of scandal or political opposition.

For example:

Harriet Miers, a longtime Bush friend, whom the president nominated to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court, but later was forced to withdraw because of opposition from the religious right.

Bernard Kerik, nominated on the recommendation of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to head the Department of Homeland Security, who withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations.

Timothy Flanigan, nominated to be deputy attorney general, who withdrew his nomination after revelations that he had worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was general counsel for corporate and international law at Tyco, an Abramoff client.

Linda Chavez, nominated to become secretary of labor, who withdrew her nomination because of revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her.

A number of other Bush nominees made it through the Senate confirmation process but remain under scrutiny by Congress because of lack of experience or ideologically driven views.

One such is Ellen Sauerbrey, now head of the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, the office that coordinates the American response to migration problems caused by war and natural disasters and works with international groups on population and reproductive-health issues. Sauerbrey's resume includes no experience in any of these areas. She ran Bush's 2000 presidential campaign in Maryland, and twice ran for governor of that state.

Another is Julie Myers, head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whose nomination was criticized by several ICE supervisors and agents who said she was "unqualified" because she never held a law-enforcement management position. Myers leads the largest investigative component of the Department of Homeland Security and the second-largest investigative agency in the federal government, with more than 15,000 employees and an annual budget of nearly $5 billion. Her uncle is retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, formerly chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A third is J. Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. Smith, a former ABC News producer and the former media adviser to Coalition Provisional Authority Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, was confirmed by the Senate months after President Bush used a recess appointment to install him in the job. Objections were raised about a column he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in which he suggested that US television networks engaged in "collaboration" with terrorists by airing Arab news reports on al-Qaeda.

Many of the Bush administration's younger appointees were recruited from right-wing Christian universities, such as Patrick Henry College, whose mission is "to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding." Others have come from Liberty University, the Christian liberal arts university founded as Lynchburg Baptist College in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell.

Pat Robertson's Regent University is the alma mater of Monica Goodling, the DOJ's White House liaison officer, who recently resigned rather than testify to Congress about her role in the firing of US attorneys.

A long line of Patrick Henry graduates have found their way to internships and permanent positions in the Bush administration, including some in the office of Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. Paul Bonicelli, a former Patrick Henry dean, is now the No. 2 official supervising democracy-promotion programs at the US Agency for International Development.

But not all Bush appointees have been happy campers. A number have resigned. For example, John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, who quit his post after only seven months on the job, and David Kuo, his deputy, who left saying that ìthere was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda" and that there never really was great concern over what he called "the 'poor people stuff'."

DiIulio told Esquire Magazine, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." He also decried "a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded nonpartisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism."

The invasion of Iraq also triggered the resignations of a number of officials who disagreed with the Bush administration's war policies. Among them were career Foreign Service Officers like John Brown, now a Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, and Mary A. (Ann) Wright, who now writes about US foreign policy and lectures at universities.

But the current controversy related to the forced resignations of nine US attorneys promises to add fuel to the fire caused by what many administration-watchers describe as the most inept, ideological and politically driven presidencies in recent US history.

Virtually every American administration has had its share of scandal.

The presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Ulysses S. Grant were destroyed by the appointment of corrupt or unqualified officials.

Woodrow Wilson got rid of his attorney general, James McReynolds, by appointing him to the Supreme Court; McReynolds was a reactionary who hated his fellow Justices, Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo, for being Jewish, and is remembered as one of the worst justices in it's history.

Dwight D. Eisenhower had to fire his top aide, Sherman Adams, for accepting a Vicuna coat from a government contractor.

One of John F. Kennedy's assistant secretaries in the Commerce Department was fired for violating the Hatch Act by soliciting campaign contributions from government employees.

Jimmy Carter appointed Bert Lance as head of his Office of Management and Budget, but Lance was forced to resign six months later amid allegations of mismanagement and corruption when Lance was chairman of the board of Calhoun National Bank of Calhoun, Georgia.

Lyndon B. Johnson appointed a defense secretary, Robert McNamara, who was a serial liar on conditions in Vietnam.

Ronald Reagan had Col. Oliver North, Adm. John Pointdexter and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the lead roles of Iran-Contra.

Richard Nixon appointed the arrogant sycophants whose amoral hubris resulted in Watergate.

And Bill Clinton appointed many Arkansas cronies, including Webster Hubbell as his deputy attorney general, only to have him assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress, but later plead guilty to several felony charges relating to illegal billing in the Whitewater affair.

Critics of the Bush administration, however, assert that its "appointments deficit" extends wider and deeper than that of any other modern presidency. They contend that, of the 3,000-plus political jobs a president can offer, an exponentially larger proportion of Bush appointees lack the specialized experience they require, are managerially inept and ideologically driven, have contempt for career civil servants, and regularly sacrifice good governance ethics for personal gain or to curry favor among Bush supporters, especially the religious right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world for the US State Department and USAID for the past thirty years. He began his work life as a journalist for newspapers and for the Associated Press in Florida. Go to The World According to Bill Fisher for more.

roachboy

05-17-2007 05:53 PM

there's probably little reason to post this as i am sure it is well-known by now...mostly, i think doing it is a bit therapeutic:

Quote:

May 17, 2007
Wolfowitz to Resign From World Bank
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, May 17 ? Paul D. Wolfowitz this evening ended weeks of furor over charges of favoritism toward a bank employee who is his female companion and announced his resignation as president of the World Bank, effective June 30.

The bank board backed away from threats to force Mr. Wolfowitz to resign for violating his contract, as a special investigative committee had concluded, and instead accepted his claim that his actions were honorably intended.

The resignation brought a dramatic conclusion to two days of negotiations between Mr. Wolfowitz and the bank board, which went along with his demands for an exoneration of the charges that he had broken ethics and governance rules in arranging for a generous pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza, his girlfriend, in 2005.

?He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that,? the board?s directors said. ?We also accept that others involved acted ethically and in good faith.?

In a carefully negotiated statement, the board praised Mr. Wolfowitz for his two years of service at the bank, and especially for his work in arranging for debt relief and pressing for more assistance to poor countries, especially in Africa, and also combating corruption, which was Mr. Wolfowitz?s signature issue.

Mr. Wolfowitz said he was grateful for the directors? decision and, referring to the bank?s mission of helping the world?s poor, added: ?Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward. To do that I have concluded that it is in the best interests of those whom this institution serves for that mission to be carried forward under new leadership.?

Though Mr. Wolfowitz?s resignation is effective June 30, people close to the negotiations said he agreed not to make major personnel or policy decisions. Some bank officials said he might go on an administrative leave and cede day-to-day functions to an acting leader, but that may not be decided until Friday.

President Bush had earlier in the day praised Mr. Wolfowitz at a news conference but signaled that the end was near by saying he regretted ?that it?s come to this.?

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said this evening: ?We would have preferred that he stay at the bank, but the president reluctantly accepts his decision.?

More important for the bank?s future, Mr. Fratto said President Bush would soon announce a candidate to succeed Mr. Wolfowitz, quashing speculation that the United States would go along with an end to the custom, in effect since the 1940s, of the American president picking the bank president.

Many European officials had previously indicated that they would go along with the United States? picking a successor if Mr. Wolfowitz would resign voluntarily, as he now has.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said this evening that he would ?consult my colleagues around the world? before recommending a choice to Mr. Bush. This was an apparent effort to assure European allies that the United States would not repeat what happened in 2005 when Mr. Bush surprised European allies in naming Mr. Wolfowitz, then a deputy secretary of defense and an architect of the Iraq war.

Leaders of Germany and France objected but decided not to make a fight over the choice, reopening wounds from their opposition to the Iraq war two years earlier. Some also argued that Mr. Wolfowitz, as a conservative seeking to write a new chapter in a career that until 2005 had been focused on national security, might bring new support to aiding the world?s poor.

Soon after Mr. Wolfowitz took office, however, he engaged in fights with various fiefdoms at the bank over many issues, particularly his campaign against corruption, in which he suspended aid to several countries without consulting board members, and his reliance on a small group of aides.

Mr. Wolfowitz?s resignation, while ending the turmoil that erupted in early April over the disclosure of his role in arranging Ms. Riza?s pay and promotion package, will not by itself repair the divisions at the bank over his leadership, bank officials said this evening.

By all accounts, the terms of Mr. Wolfowitz?s exoneration left a bitter taste with most of the 24 board members, who represent major donor countries, as well as clusters of smaller donor and recipient countries. Most had wanted to adopt the findings of a special board committee that he had acted unethically on the matter of Ms. Riza.

But the closest the board came to criticizing Mr. Wolfowitz was in its carefully worded statement that ?a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration and that the bank?s systems did not prove robust to the strain under which they were placed.?

Also angered was the bank?s staff association, which had called for Mr. Wolfowitz?s resignation in early April. The bank?s internal blogs were lit up with denunciations of the action this evening.

During the day, as word spread throughout the institution that Mr. Wolfowitz was close to a deal, some officials said that one of the hang-ups was his compensation package. But there was no information tonight on whether he would receive any sort of severance package or pension, or be reimbursed for legal fees from his long battle.

Mr. Wolfowitz?s salary was $302,470 as of 2004 ? with the bank paying any taxes on that sum ? and $141,290 in expenses. His contract calls for him to be paid a year?s salary if he is terminated, but it was unclear whether his resignation would be considered a termination as defined by the contract.

The sense that his term was coming to an end permeated the bank and was being discussed in finance and development ministries throughout the world.

The resignation came after Mr. Bush, at a Rose Garden news conference with Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, who was paying his last official visit to the White House before leaving office this summer, spoke in the past tense of Mr. Wolfowitz?s record in helping the poor.

The irony of those comments, in the presence of Mr. Blair, is that a British member of the World Bank?s board, Thomas Scholar, had recently taken the lead in negotiating with Mr. Wolfowitz?s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, over the president?s exit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/wo...hp&oref=slogin

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Page 4 of 4

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360