<pre>While I don't expect a short WaPo report to go into details like Bush's 1997 letter to Guam governor on behalf of Abramoff, Safavian's attorney wife, or even the 2001 Bush appointmentof Patrick Pizzella as asst. Labor Dept. Sec'try, </pre><pre>I did expect a mention of Safavian's indictment and his ties to Abramoff, inclusion of Susan Ralston, her title, the fact that she worked for Abramoff at both lobbying firms and actually controlled access to Abramoff's sky boxes, and the investigation of Bush's firing of U.S. prosector Black during his Mariana's related investigation that included Abramoff.
One more paragraph in the WaPo articles would have put a much more serious light on Abramoff's relationship with the executive branch!</pre><pre>If this is a thorough investigation with complete integrity, the relationship of Brent Wilkes and Delay's former staffer Ed Markham needs to be examined, along with Wilke's relationshup with his best friend, Dusty Foggo, #3 man at CIA.</pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
Doesn't 10 years seem like a very light maximum term given the extent of the corruption? I wonder if that suggests prosecutors expect a lot more from him, or is corruption so in-grained in our system that massive corruption only earns what will probably amount to a year in prison?
All I want to know is whether I have to turn down every request to have dinner with someone. lol! Thank goodness for those decent people over at CSIS and Woodrow Wilson Center. I'd be lost in DC otherwise.
My first reaction is that I'm reading a lot of divergent versions of exactly how much time Abramoff is looking at. I'm assuming based on the totality of what I'm seeing that he'll get less than eight years but will still have to do significant time, over four years.
If that's the case, I would assume that at least some of the people he's rolling over on will be looking at more time than that, which is strange to think about. Could we really see congressmen going to jail for serious, multi-decade stretches? Seems hard to imagine.
I wonder when he will be pardoned.
He is admitting to one side of the corruption equation. The prosecutors provided a laundry list of methods that Abramoff used to influence votes.
If I were to come up with a method of choosing lawmakers to go after, I would put checks under each item on the list with respect to each lawmaker. Maybe some checks are worth more than others. Once this is done, draw a line and everyone above a certain score gets indicted. Otherwise there isn't any way for prosectors to handle defense lawyers who might say "Well, didn't you do this for 'so-n-so' and not expect anything in return?" They will need to characterize everything that Abramoff did as an attempt to influence votes, one that lawmakers and their staff surely understood and took advantage of.
Although it is true that this is a case soaked in politics, prosecuting lawmakers is going to have to have a rational basis. There will need to be enough facts presented to make it difficult for a defense lawyer to explain them all away.
The dither over a lack of names in the Abramhoff docs seems premature. While most of those to be eventually implicated know who they are keeping mum about their identity for now makes sense in dozens of ways. Watch a cat stalk a mouse in a field. Most quiet damned predator you can imagine. The mouse figures it out about the moment it has claws buried in its hide.
Whatever JA has copped to in the plea, and whoever he has agreed to take down with him, it's nothing (Club Fed time) compared to the (Hard Time) risk on the conspiracy to commit murder rap he was probably being threatened with in the SunCoast probe......
Great point, although as I always tell people who use that term, I knew a guy who did federal prison time and I have never heard the words "Club Fed" cross his lips, not once.
Still, I like your thinking. I was continually scratching my head wondering why someone would cop to a multi-year sentence on a nonviolent rap. I forgot about the murder angle.
RG
perhaps Jack will detail the K St. project as an enormous, long-standing far-ranging conspiracy, and thus bring down not only a dozen congressmen but also the entire lobbying industry (including, dare I hope, some major league megacorp CEO).
A girl can dream.
Plea negotiations revolve around what sentence is going to be recommended The prosecution has a whole bunch of different charges they can bring under various statutes. Each charge has sentencing range. The negotiations just allow both sides to reach agreement on 1.) the statute(s) and 2.) the penalty, time and/or fine. Usually the only thing that goes in the information is what is absolutely necessary to support the agreed-upon charges. This charging document has nothing at all to do with what Abramoff has told prosecutors. Suffice it to say that they are satisifed with what he's said and the corroboration he has, or else they wouldn't have made the deal.
The actual charges agreed upon can sometimes turn on things totally unrelated to the case at hand. For example, maybe the defendant has a private pilot's license, and under statute A he is required to relinquish it, but not under statute B, and he wants to keep it. The prosecutor doesn't care if he flies again, so they agree on B. Not saying at all that this has anything to do with Abramoff, but you get the idea. Maybe the prosecutor wants C because it has a forfeiture provision and D does not. Suffice it to say that all we really can read into this agreement is that the prosecutors are satisfied with the cooperation they're getting, and Abramoff figures it's the best deal he can make.
The tack taken by the US attorney provides him with the flexibility to pursue this case where it leads. However, it also serves to address the political "need" to delay, as long as possible in this election year, formally making other tainted Republicans a part of this investigation. Similarly, the timing of any move to go after Republican persons of interest may be paired with moves against vulnerable Democrats in order to give a bi-partisan flavor to the problem.
"To do otherwise would be to improperly engage the legal system in a political contest and undermine the foundational premise of an independent judiciary. This is the tightrope that Fitzgerald is walking in the Plame matter. So long as he is pursuing the violation of a particular Federal statute he is on solid ground. But were he to find himself standing on the threshold of something that, if pursued, could alter the political balance of power then he would have to retreat. Otherwise he would fall into that political contest and improperly involve DOJ in the public arena of political combat."
Deeply frustrating but also intriguing, such a move would leave the matter in the hands of The People.
Oops -- I see this issue has been taken up in another thread. Still, it's worth repeating!
The Bush administration has been nothing if not expert in maintaining control and discipline behind the scenes. Can you imagine Karl Rove's Justice Department rounding up Republican congressmen and sending them to jail? I can't. Also Abramoff is a smart guy - he isn't going to take down politically connected friends in order to shave a couple of years off his sentence. He's better off taking the bullet and hoping they can come to his aid after the dust has settled.
Despite Frank Foer's comment that the blogosphere has been to rough on the MSM, it still seems as though the (non-stop) press coverage of TAM has been just as whitewashed (at least of any party affiliation) as the war was. Chris Matthew's epitomized the punditry who continue to carry water for the Republicans. Paraphrasing his wisdom this afternoon on MSNBC: "this will not turn into case about a culture of corruption in the Republican party". Why won't the MSM follow the trails where they lead? The "K-Street Project" is not a housing development next to Signatures (at least only metaphorically)! I think this will only go as far as the press is willing to take it, because the DOJ will not have the cahones or the support of the administration to go any further than the surface of this case. Which I'm guessing will mean Abramoff will be demonized (again, Matthew's refers to him as the devil) and a few bad apple congressmen will be taken down like Cunningham, but the institiution will be preserved at all costs.
I'm not optimistic that we will see serious prosecution and sentencing as a result of any of this. Abu Gonzales is running the DOJ, for christ's sake.
What I would like to know is if we have a backup plan in case the FEDERAL case doesn't go anywhere or gets watered down as Josh suggests. And by backup plan I mean this: Is there the possibility of getting a savy state attorney general (I'm thinking Eliot Spitzer) or other prosecutor outside of the federal government to start working on a case against any of these people? (other than Earle down in Texas.....I really think that case is going to be squashed by the texas court system). How do the people in this case and the crimes they seem to have committed fall in the area of jurisdiction in all of this......state crimes vs federal crimes??
This could go any number of ways. It's too early to tell yet how much will come out here. I keep seeing Harry Reid and Dorgan's name on lists that I am sure they do not belong on, so I am expecting a big push by Republicans to make this look like Abramoff was in leaguw with both parties.
The Chris Matthews quote above about this not being about Republican corruption is what I expect to hear from the rightwing noise machine. There were Republicans caught up in corruption when they made their contract with America in 1994, and they still managed to hand the corruption around the necks of Democrats. We can do the same to them if we push the Republican corruption angle hard enough.
And we all need to study up on K Street because it is the iceberg below the surface and Abramoff and DeLay are just the top of the corruption iceberg. We have to connect the votes on legislation with the special interests that legislation was written by and draw the electorate a simple little map, showing how special interests, as long as they paid to play, were allowed by the Republican controlled congress to have a louder voice than the taxpayers.
Abramoff Plea May Mask GOP Foreign Influence-PeddlingA plea agreement has been reached between the Bush Justice Department and attorneys representing GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff. This reportedly promises to implicate some 20 Congressmen in a elaborate scheme to funnel slush fund money syphoned from Indian tribes and fraud in the purchase of a cruise line to favored lawmakers. However, there is another side to the Abramoff influence-peddling operation that the Indian tribes lobbying fraud and SunCruz probes do not touch, and which major papers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, have virtually ignored. That is the money that Abramoff and fellow GOP fixer, Grover Norquist, have syphoned from Islamic banks and groups known to have financial ties to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda. They appear to have been operating a protection racket for terrorist moneymen with ties to the GOP. Shaking down their clients, Abramoff then passed funds on to the Republican officials from a slush fund he operated.
This is the bigger crime of illegal foreign influence over the Bush Administration and GOP lawmakers that FBI whistleblower Sybil Edmonds has tried to expose despite a federal gag order based in the rarely invoked State Secrets exemption. http://www.democracynow.org/.... ; http://www.csmonitor.com/... Unless Democrats and other concerned Americans raise their voices and call for a full inquiry into illegal foreign influence over the US political process and elections, the details of this story just are not going to be made public. We should oppose any plea agreement in the Abramoff case that does not put foreign money into the spotlight.Abramoff's Former Law Firm Had a History of Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions There was a very significant piece of background information in yesterday's Raw Story report, which notes that the Greenberg Traurig (GT) law firm, which hosted Abramoff's lobbying shop, was previously convicted of knowingly accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions. A German paid the largest fine to date for that offense after a foreign-source contribution went through a GT lobbyist. Under Federal Election Commission laws, foreign individuals and companies are barred from contributing to American political campaigns and parties. See, http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Firm_knew_of_Abramoffs_re... According to reports published in The National Journal and The Hill, respected Washington political newsletters, Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist continued to lobby after 9/11 on behalf of Islamic states, banks and groups that had been accused of financing terrorist groups and in WMD proliferation. A percentage of the fees they pocketed were then transferred to the Republican slush fund operated by Abramoff. We must now ask, is that side of the Republican influence-peddling scheme ever going to be revealed in court documents, or is this going to get buried as part of Jack's plea agreement with the Bush Justice Department? See, www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/122311/72 ; www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/13/91057/126 This from my DKos post linked in the article above: http://www.dailykos.com/...Jack Abramoff and His Close Friend Grover Norquist Were A Conduit Between Islamicists with Terrorist Ties and The GOP Shortly after 9/11, Abramoff registered as a lobbyist for the General Council of Islamic Banks. According to the National Journal (Aug 31, 2002), the consortium was funded to counter the Treasury Department and the FBI's efforts to put an unwanted public spotlight on global terrorist financing coming out of banks in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Abramoff's lobbyists spread the lie that Islamic banks had not sheltered money used for terrorist networks. Their primary client, chairman of the Council, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, soon after 9/11 became the focus of intense government scrutiny over alledged ties to terrorist activity. Kamel, whose fortune is estimated at $3 billion, is the chairman of Dallah al Baraka Group (DBG), which is accused of financing al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and he was also the co-founder and major shareholder of Al Shamal Bank in Sudan, an institution in which Osama bin Laden established a personal ownership interest. Kamel was listed as being one of the seven "main individual sponsors of terrorism" in a report by French counter-terrorism exert Jean-Charles Brisard submitted to the UN Security Council in December 2002. Recall that Omar al-Bayoumi, who provided money to two of the 9/11 hijackers, was once an assistant to the Director of Finance for Dallah Avco, a DBG company that works with the Saudi aviation authority. And the WSJ has reported that the United States believes the Dallah al-Baraka Bank, another DBG company, was also used by al-Qaeda. Kamel's name appeared in the "Golden Chain," a roster seized by Bosnian authorities in Sarajevo in March 2002 listing Saudi donors to bin Laden. Furthermore, while at Greenberg & Traurig, Jack Abramoff set up a subsidiary lobbying group with a Director of the Islamic Institute, a Virginia group founded by Grover Norquist, a GOP strategy and fundraising heavyweight. Abramoff and a partner, Kaled Saffuri, operated Lexington Group LLC. This was reportedly not a commercial success, according to The Hill newspaper (04/14/2005): http://www.hillnews.com/... ... Three years ago, Abramoff and a prominent Islamic activist set up a lobbying firm, the Lexington Group LLC, with the goal of developing more lobbying business for Abramoff's employer at the time, Greenberg Traurig. The firm existed for at least four months and boasted on its now-defunct website that it represented "major U.S. corporations before the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch every day." But it never reported any clients, nor did it direct business to Greenberg Traurig, according to public records and an interview with Abramoff's associate in the venture, Khaled Saffuri, now a government affairs adviser with Collier Shannon Scott. "I expected business to come, and it didn't. It just folded," said Saffuri, who said he was hired by Abramoff to be the Lexington Group's president from May until August 2002, when it closed. Reportedly, Grover "Norquist and Khaled Saffuri founded the Islamic Institute, which was instrumental in the creation of the Al Qaeda financial network in Virginia. Saffuri was the Executive director of the American Task Force for Bosnia, which lobbied for US military intervention in Bosnia. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization actively was recruiting and training Arab fighters to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims. Bosnia had become the focus of the worldwide jihad after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989." http://www.findarticles.com/... ... ; http://www.libertyforum.org/... ... Norquist's ties to the Saudi-funded Islamist movement in the US go back to 1998, after which Norquist became the principal Washington bridge for radical Islamists to the Republican Party. Frank J. Gaffney writes: http://www.frontpagemag.com/... ...
The association between Grover Norquist and Islamists appears to have started about five years ago, in 1998, when he became the founding chairman of an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute. The Institute's stated purpose was to cultivate Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans whose attachment to conservative family values and capitalism made them potential allies for the Republican Party in advance of the 2000 presidential election. . . . Unfortunately, some associated with the Islamic Institute evidently had another agenda. Abdurahman Alamoudi, for one, a self-described "supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah," the prime-mover behind the American Muslim Council (AMC) and a number of other U.S.-based Islamist-sympathizing/supporting organizations, saw in the Islamic Institute a golden opportunity to hedge his bets. Norquist's Islamic Institute was raided by the FBI in July, 2004. By the time the feds showed up, the Saudi directors had long since fled the country. That Law Firm Also Operated as an All-purpose Campaign Tool for the Republican Party Rawstory ran an article yesterday reporting that the law firm was aware of his unlawful practices months before The Washington Post first reported on them in 2004. Greenberg Traurig claims it had no knowledge of Abramoff's wrongdoing until it was revealed in The Post. According to RawStory: Before he was a pariah, Abramoff was Greenberg Traurig's poster boy. SNIP With Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig did even better than they had hoped. The firm's lobbying receipts leapt fourfold, from $3 million in 2000, to $16 million in 2001. At the peak in 2003, the firm grossed $26 million on lobbying alone. The scandal hounding Abramoff isn't the first the firm has faced. In 1998, the Federal Election Commission levied a $77,000 fine against Greenberg for knowing soliciting illegal contributions from foreign national. The fine given the German developer in the case, $323,000, was the largest of its kind ever assessed by the FEC. Reporting in national media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post which has been covering the Abramoff story closely, have virtually ignored foreign sources of fees and funding collected by Abramoff and his various shell companies, money which if it were commingled with Jack's political contributions to the Republican Party would be a violation of federal law. According to SourceWatch, GT has been involved in other political fundraising and election scandals: http://www.sourcewatch.org /... Bush-Greenberg Traurig Connections The following enumerations were published (http://portland.indymedia.org /...) in September 2004 by, among others, the Portland Indymedia. Some sources have been provided in support. 1. "Represented President George W. Bush in the Bush-Gore 2000 Florida election vote recount." "Court's reputation being tested," (http://quest.cjonline.com /...) Associated Press (cjonline.com), December 11, 2000: "Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, is the lead Bush attorney in Florida. Richard, who is a Democrat, said he was called Nov. 8 about representing Bush." re Barry S. Richard "Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest," (http://archives.cnn.com /...) CNN, December 12, 2000: See "Justice Scalia's sons": "Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm's Tallahassee office." "Florida Attorneys for Bush and Gore to Debate 2000 Presidential Election Recount," (http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu /...) University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, March 25, 2003: "Barry Richard, chief Florida attorney for Bush ... an attorney of Greenberg Traurig law firm in Tallahassee,..." "Greenberg Traurig Instrumental in Florida Vote Recount Victory," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.com, January 13, 2004. 2. "Personally represents Florida Governor Jeb Bush." "Governor Bush Appoints Raquel A. Rodriguez to Serve As General Counsel," (http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us /...) My Florida, November 25, 2002. re Raquel A. Rodriguez "Gov. Bush names Greenberg Traurig lawyer general counsel," (http://www.bizjournals.com /...) South Florida BizJournal, November 25, 2002. "Hayden Dempsey Joins Greenberg Traurig LLP," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTlaw.com, December 23, 2003. re Hayden R. Dempsey Profile: Hayden R. Dempsey (http://www.rnla.org /...), Republican National Lawyers Association. Profile: Justin Sayfie (http://www.pmbconsulting.com /...), Poole McKinley & Blosser website. re Justin J. Sayfie. Bush Donor Profile: Justin J. Sayfie: here (http://www.tpj.org /...) and here (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org /...), Texans for Public Justice. 3. "Hired son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on election day 2000--after which Justice Scalia cast one of the 5 to 4 deciding votes which placed Bush in presidency." re John F. Scalia "Court's reputation being tested," (http://quest.cjonline.com /...) Associated Press (cjonline.com), December 11, 2000: "John Scalia accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on Nov. 7, election day." "Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest," (http://archives.cnn.com /...) CNN, December 12, 2000. See "Justice Scalia's sons": "John Scalia, 35, has accepted a job offer with the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig. Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm's Tallahassee office. ... John Scalia won't actually join the Greenberg, Traurig firm until sometime next year, according to partner Joe Reeder, who said the job was offered weeks before the election and has no connection to the Florida case." "Attorney John Scalia Joins Greenberg Traurig LLP's Tysons Corner Office," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.com, January 10, 2001; Scalia's GTLaw profile (http://www.gtlaw.com /...). 4. "Miami-headquartered firm partially funded/sponsored delegation to Israel by House-Senate Armed Services Committee members and government contractors to witnes and be briefed on interrogation resistance procedures and torture techniques ... One of lobbyists joining them to Israel included Jack London, CEO, CACI International, the American defense contractor implicated by Major General Antonio M. Taguba in outsourced Iraqi torture at Abu Ghraib prison." See Taguba Report. Ali Abunimah, "Israeli link possible in US torture techniques. In exchange for interrogation training, did Washington award security contracts?" (http://www.dailystar.com.lb /...) The Daily Star (Lebanon), May 11, 2004. Also posted May 18, 2004 by San Francisco Indymedia (http://sf.indymedia.org /...). Tom Flocco, "Gonzalez confirmation hearing ignored US / Jordan torture links and legislative junket to Israel to witness 'anti-terror' exercises," (http://911citizenswatch.org /...) 911citizenswatch.org, January 7, 2005. 5. "Firm has prominent administrative positions in Massachusetts 9/11 Fund which also involves Bush family banking house Brown Brothers Harriman." "$500,000 DONATION LAUNCHES MASSACHUSETTS 9/11 FUND. Stop & Shop and Greenberg Traurig LLP Launch Fund Supported by Victims' Families," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.org, January 2002. Yahoo! Search results (http://search.yahoo.com /...), December 20, 2005. 6. "One appointed as General Counsel of the Department of the Navy and its Office of Naval Intelligence just 90 days before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." "Alberto J. Mora, General Counsel of the Department of the Navy (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil /...), "the 20th General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, was sworn into office on July 25, 2001." 7. "Firm works with 9-11 victims on planning out their U.S. gov't hushmail/bribery estates." "As The Revolving Door Turns. How does Washington work these days? A telling tale of two Capitol Hill staffers," (http://www.businessweek.com /...) Business Week, July 11, 2005: "On the Hill, both Rudy and Shiffman were involved in issues that were creating a new and lucrative lobbying niche for Greenberg Traurig and others: claims brought by victims of war, terror, and torture against foreign governments and companies. In these cases, U.S. cooperation was key, either in pressing the POWs' case against Japanese companies or in unblocking foreign assets frozen by the U.S. Treasury." 8. "Firm partner is Marvin S. Rosen, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Finance Chairman who supervised activities of convicted fund-raiser and DNC vice-chairman of finance John Huang who had to return half of $3 million+ raised by him because of contributions from illegal foreign sources. Profile: Marvin S. Rosen (http://www.gtlaw.com /...), GTLaw.com website. 9. Bush still owes Greenberg firm nearly one million dollars for work done by dozens of lawyers and paralegals--leaving some to question why a Republican candidate would hire a Democratic lawyer from a Democratic firm ... "Bush Florida 2000 recount committee still owes lobbyist's former firm $314k. White House directs queries to RNC," (http://rawstory.com /...) The Raw Story, May 5, 2005: "Greenberg Traurig has yet to receive more than $314,000 in legal fees charged to a Bush committee during the 2000 Florida recount ... As a corporation, Greenberg's unpaid tab represents a massive in-kind campaign contribution, far larger than anything that went unreported by DeLay. But it appears to be legal: corporations are allowed to donate any amount to the nebulous type of committee employed during the recount. It would, however, violate the committee's self-imposed $5,000 contribution limit from individual donors. ... Greenberg's leadership has apparently declined to press the issue. Jill Perry, Greenberg's director of marketing and public affairs, declined to comment," according to (http://rawstory.com /...) The Raw Story's John Byrne, May 5, 2005. *** There is evidence that Jack Abramoff and the Greenberg Traurig firm have served as a conduit for illegal foreign influence-peddling that must be investigated and prosecuted. Readers are urged to contact the media and their representatives to oppose any plea agreement that closes off that line of inquiry. Copyright, 2005. Mark G. Levey
Notrol, I agree that fear of what could come of the alleged connection to the murder conspiracy is probably what got A. to cop a plea. And I think the prosecuters expect something substantial from him.
Someone in Congress needs to make this an issue and stay on it until the MSM comes around - maybe Lieberman or a fiscal Dem hawk. The issue should be the President's credibility. He promised in '00 to clean up DC ("restore dignity" I think); he promised that everyone in the WH would cooperate with the Plame investigation; he assured us all he was not breaking any laws using the warrantless NSA searches; on and on. The MSM must take an historical legacy approach and get Bush to promise to root out corruption in government that leads to waste and abuse and increases the deficit. He is in no position to not make this pledge as he is in danger as being seen as enabling the corruption by never using his veto. Once he makes a pledge it is time for Dems to turn the screws. We must pit Bush's damaged legacy versus his friends like Delay. In 08 Bush will be gone but we will still need to take back congress.
Well, we can wish for anything we want, but I don't think your wish is likely to come true. That would be huge, too huge. It won't happen.
Let the chips fall where they may. But make sure that ALL of them fall. No corrupt Democrats, don't be silly. But this one's got to take 10 - 1 Republicans. If it doesn't there's a fix in.
My point is that this should be a completely seperate issue than the GWOT and Iraq and serve as a flanking manuever on Bush himself.
The dither over a lack of names in the Abramhoff docs seems premature. While most of those to be eventually implicated know who they are keeping mum about their identity for now makes sense in dozens of ways.
This is what I want to know about it: Texas State Attorney General Cornyn, Scanlon, Reed and their connections to George Bush and the political machine that got Bush into the governor's office. It would be lovely to see a prosecutorial pincer movement with the Delay Case, especially if it was inadvertent, which is just like everything else about that man-in-chief. One can dream. Norquist is there, though. Just lookback at 2001:
What were Hastert and Blunt expecting in the Coushatta heist? Afterall, Cantor got cash. It is the People's business to know specific communications between Hastert, Blunt, Abramoff and any and all parties who pertain to being refered to in any evidence obtained. If the prosecutor is doing the People's business, that is. Evidence that shows a broad based, ongoing conspiracy that would fall under the RICO statutes would be too good to be true. But it would be sooo nice. This stuff is thick.
I think Dems should run some polls before making hay of this.
You see, if we come out too strong against Abramoff, some voters in the center may be offended by that.
So, just like Iraq, a measured, careful poll-tested message is really the best way to proceed.
Accuracy In the Media had an excellent point. George Soros, the billionaire spent and funnelled much more money for liberal causes than did Abramoff. Was is the furor over that? O yeah, the liberal MSM agrees with Soros. Check it out: http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4270_3_0_C/ .
cscs, that's right; we can't be too careful here. Dems might be accused of the politics of personal destruction or something. We can't have that, can we?
"Mark G. Levey", There's this thing called "the law of diminishing returns", and the way it works is... oh, nevermind. I think one major reason democrat/progressive activists fail to rally more people to their issues is that they can't just make one simple, reasonable point, and then shut up. It starts with something reasonable then next thing you know, Bush Caused the Tsunami with Super Secret Microwave Pulses... It's just a point about form and substance you might want to consider. Also, do you really need to bum-rush a 'discussion' here with 200 things? The polite thing to do is make a simple point and move on. I thought posts like this were filtered out of TPM cafe? Plus, this plea agreement is like 1 day old. Why is everyone bugging out? Maybe the speculation is a bit premature? We should be judging this deal based on who they indict over the coming months. JG
The two of you are joking, right?
Really, my irony meters overloaded a while back, and I just can't tell anymore.
I personally don't think "democrats" should dance around according to poll numbers. I dont think anyone should. Isnt that the problem? They should get around to working on behalf of their constituents and not be the generally mealymouthed pussyfoots they are about everything, and quit spending the bulk of their time either stuffing pork into every bill they can find, or selling themselves to the public over meaningless issues like Doping in Baseball, or saving children from potentially harmful thoughts.
In the case of corruption, the reason the Dems may not play pile-on right now is because neither side of the aisle wants 'full disclosure'. There's dirt under everyone.
Though, on the purely tactical political side, i think using the word 'corrupt' about 100 times a day (the way GWB says '9/11, turrurism' like a mantra) in connection with the GOP isnt really a bad idea. Corrupt. Crrupt. Kurrpt!
JG
I think sometimes the fallout from prosecution of political crimes is so great, so catastrophic and so altering of the field of play the law shirks from it, kinda like looking at a severed limb resulting from a horrific accident. You avert your eyes, not wanting to imagine the pain and disfigurement involved. Can DOJ pursue all this to the very fullest even if it means the collapse of the current government? It's not 1974 anymore.
Corruption is not money spent for causes. Corruption is money paid to politicians to buy votes. Of course they will say that is not what the money was for, but we don't have to be blind.
Josh writes, "The question lingering in the background here, of course, is whether political officials at the DOJ have leaned on prosecutors to limit the scope of the investigation for political reasons."
It seems to me that this is less a "lingering" question and more the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. ( Remember how the DOJ politicos responded to the in-house opinion on the Texas redistricting? Reminder: They decreed that such opinions will hereafter not be expressed.)
Under the circumstances and given the established record, how could anyone credibly assume that the damage control forces are not in full battle mode within the political offices at Justice?
Soros bought TV ads; Abramoff bought legislation. Almost the same thing, really. How silly of us to not see the similarity.
...
The question here is about institutional integrity. Who are these Justice Dept. types investigating JA? How far are they willing to go? How far are they allowed to go? If they really went all out, does anyone really doubt than more than a dozen GOP power-broker types would go down? How independent are Justice Dept. investigators, really? That's the question the next batch of indictments will really settle...
<pre>While I don't expect a short WaPo report to go into
details like Bush's 1997 letter to Guam governor on
behalf of Abramoff, Safavian's attorney wife, or even
the 2001 Bush appointmentof Patrick Pizzella as asst.
Labor Dept. Sec'try,
</pre><pre>I did expect a mention of Safavian's indictment and
his ties to Abramoff, inclusion of Susan Ralston, her
title, the fact that she worked for Abramoff at both
lobbying firms and actually controlled access to Abramoff's
sky boxes, and the investigation of Bush's firing of U.S. prosector
Black during his Mariana's related investigation that included
Abramoff.
One more paragraph in the WaPo articles would have put
a much more serious light on Abramoff's relationship
with the executive branch!</pre><pre>If this is a thorough investigation with complete integrity, the relationship of Brent Wilkes and Delay's former staffer Ed Markham needs to be examined, along with Wilke's relationshup with his best friend, Dusty Foggo, #3 man at CIA.</pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
January 3, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't 10 years seem like a very light maximum term given the extent of the corruption? I wonder if that suggests prosecutors expect a lot more from him, or is corruption so in-grained in our system that massive corruption only earns what will probably amount to a year in prison?
January 3, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I want to know is whether I have to turn down every request to have dinner with someone. lol!
Thank goodness for those decent people over at CSIS and Woodrow Wilson Center. I'd be lost in DC otherwise.
January 3, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first reaction is that I'm reading a lot of divergent versions of exactly how much time Abramoff is looking at. I'm assuming based on the totality of what I'm seeing that he'll get less than eight years but will still have to do significant time, over four years.
If that's the case, I would assume that at least some of the people he's rolling over on will be looking at more time than that, which is strange to think about. Could we really see congressmen going to jail for serious, multi-decade stretches? Seems hard to imagine.
January 3, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder when he will be pardoned.
January 3, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is admitting to one side of the corruption equation. The prosecutors provided a laundry list of methods that Abramoff used to influence votes.
If I were to come up with a method of choosing lawmakers to go after, I would put checks under each item on the list with respect to each lawmaker. Maybe some checks are worth more than others. Once this is done, draw a line and everyone above a certain score gets indicted. Otherwise there isn't any way for prosectors to handle defense lawyers who might say "Well, didn't you do this for 'so-n-so' and not expect anything in return?" They will need to characterize everything that Abramoff did as an attempt to influence votes, one that lawmakers and their staff surely understood and took advantage of.
Although it is true that this is a case soaked in politics, prosecuting lawmakers is going to have to have a rational basis. There will need to be enough facts presented to make it difficult for a defense lawyer to explain them all away.
January 3, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dither over a lack of names in the Abramhoff docs seems premature. While most of those to be eventually implicated know who they are keeping mum about their identity for now makes sense in dozens of ways. Watch a cat stalk a mouse in a field. Most quiet damned predator you can imagine. The mouse figures it out about the moment it has claws buried in its hide.
January 3, 2006 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever JA has copped to in the plea, and whoever he has agreed to take down with him, it's nothing (Club Fed time) compared to the (Hard Time) risk on the conspiracy to commit murder rap he was probably being threatened with in the SunCoast probe......
January 3, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point, although as I always tell people who use that term, I knew a guy who did federal prison time and I have never heard the words "Club Fed" cross his lips, not once.
Still, I like your thinking. I was continually scratching my head wondering why someone would cop to a multi-year sentence on a nonviolent rap. I forgot about the murder angle.
RG
January 3, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps Jack will detail the K St. project as an enormous, long-standing far-ranging conspiracy, and thus bring down not only a dozen congressmen but also the entire lobbying industry (including, dare I hope, some major league megacorp CEO).
A girl can dream.
January 3, 2006 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This charging document has nothing at all to do with what Abramoff has told prosecutors. Suffice it to say that they are satisifed with what he's said and the corroboration he has, or else they wouldn't have made the deal.
The actual charges agreed upon can sometimes turn on things totally unrelated to the case at hand. For example, maybe the defendant has a private pilot's license, and under statute A he is required to relinquish it, but not under statute B, and he wants to keep it. The prosecutor doesn't care if he flies again, so they agree on B. Not saying at all that this has anything to do with Abramoff, but you get the idea. Maybe the prosecutor wants C because it has a forfeiture provision and D does not. Suffice it to say that all we really can read into this agreement is that the prosecutors are satisfied with the cooperation they're getting, and Abramoff figures it's the best deal he can make.
January 3, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tack taken by the US attorney provides him with the flexibility to pursue this case where it leads. However, it also serves to address the political "need" to delay, as long as possible in this election year, formally making other tainted Republicans a part of this investigation. Similarly, the timing of any move to go after Republican persons of interest may be paired with moves against vulnerable Democrats in order to give a bi-partisan flavor to the problem.
January 3, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The writer quoted by Josh Marshall at TPM has, I believe, nailed it. S/he believes that DOJ may indeed pull in its horns in this matter:
"To do otherwise would be to improperly engage the legal system in a political contest and undermine the foundational premise of an independent judiciary. This is the tightrope that Fitzgerald is walking in the Plame matter. So long as he is pursuing the violation of a particular Federal statute he is on solid ground. But were he to find himself standing on the threshold of something that, if pursued, could alter the political balance of power then he would have to retreat. Otherwise he would fall into that political contest and improperly involve DOJ in the public arena of political combat."
Deeply frustrating but also intriguing, such a move would leave the matter in the hands of The People.
Oops -- I see this issue has been taken up in another thread. Still, it's worth repeating!
January 3, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush administration has been nothing if not expert in maintaining control and discipline behind the scenes. Can you imagine Karl Rove's Justice Department rounding up Republican congressmen and sending them to jail? I can't. Also Abramoff is a smart guy - he isn't going to take down politically connected friends in order to shave a couple of years off his sentence. He's better off taking the bullet and hoping they can come to his aid after the dust has settled.
January 3, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite Frank Foer's comment that the blogosphere has been to rough on the MSM, it still seems as though the (non-stop) press coverage of TAM has been just as whitewashed (at least of any party affiliation) as the war was. Chris Matthew's epitomized the punditry who continue to carry water for the Republicans. Paraphrasing his wisdom this afternoon on MSNBC: "this will not turn into case about a culture of corruption in the Republican party". Why won't the MSM follow the trails where they lead? The "K-Street Project" is not a housing development next to Signatures (at least only metaphorically)! I think this will only go as far as the press is willing to take it, because the DOJ will not have the cahones or the support of the administration to go any further than the surface of this case. Which I'm guessing will mean Abramoff will be demonized (again, Matthew's refers to him as the devil) and a few bad apple congressmen will be taken down like Cunningham, but the institiution will be preserved at all costs.
January 3, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not optimistic that we will see serious prosecution and sentencing as a result of any of this. Abu Gonzales is running the DOJ, for christ's sake.
January 3, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to know is if we have a backup plan in case the FEDERAL case doesn't go anywhere or gets watered down as Josh suggests. And by backup plan I mean this: Is there the possibility of getting a savy state attorney general (I'm thinking Eliot Spitzer) or other prosecutor outside of the federal government to start working on a case against any of these people? (other than Earle down in Texas.....I really think that case is going to be squashed by the texas court system). How do the people in this case and the crimes they seem to have committed fall in the area of jurisdiction in all of this......state crimes vs federal crimes??
January 3, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could go any number of ways. It's too early to tell yet how much will come out here. I keep seeing Harry Reid and Dorgan's name on lists that I am sure they do not belong on, so I am expecting a big push by Republicans to make this look like Abramoff was in leaguw with both parties.
The Chris Matthews quote above about this not being about Republican corruption is what I expect to hear from the rightwing noise machine. There were Republicans caught up in corruption when they made their contract with America in 1994, and they still managed to hand the corruption around the necks of Democrats. We can do the same to them if we push the Republican corruption angle hard enough.
And we all need to study up on K Street because it is the iceberg below the surface and Abramoff and DeLay are just the top of the corruption iceberg. We have to connect the votes on legislation with the special interests that legislation was written by and draw the electorate a simple little map, showing how special interests, as long as they paid to play, were allowed by the Republican controlled congress to have a louder voice than the taxpayers.
January 3, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reportedly promises to implicate some 20 Congressmen in a elaborate scheme to funnel slush fund money syphoned from Indian tribes and fraud in the purchase of a cruise line to favored lawmakers. However, there is another side to the Abramoff influence-peddling operation that the Indian tribes lobbying fraud and SunCruz probes do not touch, and which major papers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, have virtually ignored.
That is the money that Abramoff and fellow GOP fixer, Grover Norquist, have syphoned from Islamic banks and groups known to have financial ties to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda. They appear to have been operating a protection racket for terrorist moneymen with ties to the GOP. Shaking down their clients, Abramoff then passed funds on to the Republican officials from a slush fund he operated.
Jan 03, 2006 -- 03:26:28 PM EST
- leveymg's diary :: ::
This is the bigger crime of illegal foreign influence over the Bush Administration and GOP lawmakers that FBI whistleblower Sybil Edmonds has tried to expose despite a federal gag order based in the rarely invoked State Secrets exemption. http://www.democracynow.org/.... ; http://www.csmonitor.com/...Unless Democrats and other concerned Americans raise their voices and call for a full inquiry into illegal foreign influence over the US political process and elections, the details of this story just are not going to be made public. We should oppose any plea agreement in the Abramoff case that does not put foreign money into the spotlight.Abramoff's Former Law Firm Had a History of Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions
There was a very significant piece of background information in yesterday's Raw Story report, which notes that the Greenberg Traurig (GT) law firm, which hosted Abramoff's lobbying shop, was previously convicted of knowingly accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions. A German paid the largest fine to date for that offense after a foreign-source contribution went through a GT lobbyist. Under Federal Election Commission laws, foreign individuals and companies are barred from contributing to American political campaigns and parties. See, http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Firm_knew_of_Abramoffs_re...
According to reports published in The National Journal and The Hill, respected Washington political newsletters, Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist continued to lobby after 9/11 on behalf of Islamic states, banks and groups that had been accused of financing terrorist groups and in WMD proliferation. A percentage of the fees they pocketed were then transferred to the Republican slush fund operated by Abramoff. We must now ask, is that side of the Republican influence-peddling scheme ever going to be revealed in court documents, or is this going to get buried as part of Jack's plea agreement with the Bush Justice Department? See, www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/122311/72 ; www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/13/91057/126 This from my DKos post linked in the article above: http://www.dailykos.com/...Jack Abramoff and His Close Friend Grover Norquist Were A Conduit Between Islamicists with Terrorist Ties and The GOP
Shortly after 9/11, Abramoff registered as a lobbyist for the General Council of Islamic Banks. According to the National Journal (Aug 31, 2002), the consortium was funded to counter the Treasury Department and the FBI's efforts to put an unwanted public spotlight on global terrorist financing coming out of banks in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
Abramoff's lobbyists spread the lie that Islamic banks had not sheltered money used for terrorist networks. Their primary client, chairman of the Council, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, soon after 9/11 became the focus of intense government scrutiny over alledged ties to terrorist activity.
Kamel, whose fortune is estimated at $3 billion, is the chairman of Dallah al Baraka Group (DBG), which is accused of financing al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and he was also the co-founder and major shareholder of Al Shamal Bank in Sudan, an institution in which Osama bin Laden established a personal ownership interest.
Kamel was listed as being one of the seven "main individual sponsors of terrorism" in a report by French counter-terrorism exert Jean-Charles Brisard submitted to the UN Security Council in December 2002. Recall that Omar al-Bayoumi, who provided money to two of the 9/11 hijackers, was once an assistant to the Director of Finance for Dallah Avco, a DBG company that works with the Saudi aviation authority. And the WSJ has reported that the United States believes the Dallah al-Baraka Bank, another DBG company, was also used by al-Qaeda.
Kamel's name appeared in the "Golden Chain," a roster seized by Bosnian authorities in Sarajevo in March 2002 listing Saudi donors to bin Laden.
Furthermore, while at Greenberg & Traurig, Jack Abramoff set up a subsidiary lobbying group with a Director of the Islamic Institute, a Virginia group founded by Grover Norquist, a GOP strategy and fundraising heavyweight.
Abramoff and a partner, Kaled Saffuri, operated Lexington Group LLC. This was reportedly not a commercial success, according to The Hill newspaper (04/14/2005): http://www.hillnews.com/... ...
Three years ago, Abramoff and a prominent Islamic activist set up a lobbying firm, the Lexington Group LLC, with the goal of developing more lobbying business for Abramoff's employer at the time, Greenberg Traurig.
The firm existed for at least four months and boasted on its now-defunct website that it represented "major U.S. corporations before the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch every day." But it never reported any clients, nor did it direct business to Greenberg Traurig, according to public records and an interview with Abramoff's associate in the venture, Khaled Saffuri, now a government affairs adviser with Collier Shannon Scott.
"I expected business to come, and it didn't. It just folded," said Saffuri, who said he was hired by Abramoff to be the Lexington Group's president from May until August 2002, when it closed.
Reportedly, Grover "Norquist and Khaled Saffuri founded the Islamic Institute, which was instrumental in the creation of the Al Qaeda financial network in Virginia. Saffuri was the Executive director of the American Task Force for Bosnia, which lobbied for US military intervention in Bosnia. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization actively was recruiting and training Arab fighters to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims. Bosnia had become the focus of the worldwide jihad after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989." http://www.findarticles.com/... ... ; http://www.libertyforum.org/... ...
Norquist's ties to the Saudi-funded Islamist movement in the US go back to 1998, after which Norquist became the principal Washington bridge for radical Islamists to the Republican Party. Frank J. Gaffney writes: http://www.frontpagemag.com/... ...
The association between Grover Norquist and Islamists appears to have started about five years ago, in 1998, when he became the founding chairman of an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute. The Institute's stated purpose was to cultivate Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans whose attachment to conservative family values and capitalism made them potential allies for the Republican Party in advance of the 2000 presidential election. . . .
Unfortunately, some associated with the Islamic Institute evidently had another agenda. Abdurahman Alamoudi, for one, a self-described "supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah," the prime-mover behind the American Muslim Council (AMC) and a number of other U.S.-based Islamist-sympathizing/supporting organizations, saw in the Islamic Institute a golden opportunity to hedge his bets. Norquist's Islamic Institute was raided by the FBI in July, 2004. By the time the feds showed up, the Saudi directors had long since fled the country.
That Law Firm Also Operated as an All-purpose Campaign Tool for the Republican Party
Rawstory ran an article yesterday reporting that the law firm was aware of his unlawful practices months before The Washington Post first reported on them in 2004. Greenberg Traurig claims it had no knowledge of Abramoff's wrongdoing until it was revealed in The Post. According to RawStory:
Before he was a pariah, Abramoff was Greenberg Traurig's poster boy. SNIP
With Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig did even better than they had hoped. The firm's lobbying receipts leapt fourfold, from $3 million in 2000, to $16 million in 2001. At the peak in 2003, the firm grossed $26 million on lobbying alone.
The scandal hounding Abramoff isn't the first the firm has faced. In 1998, the Federal Election Commission levied a $77,000 fine against Greenberg for knowing soliciting illegal contributions from foreign national. The fine given the German developer in the case, $323,000, was the largest of its kind ever assessed by the FEC.
Reporting in national media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post which has been covering the Abramoff story closely, have virtually ignored foreign sources of fees and funding collected by Abramoff and his various shell companies, money which if it were commingled with Jack's political contributions to the Republican Party would be a violation of federal law.
According to SourceWatch, GT has been involved in other political fundraising and election scandals: http://www.sourcewatch.org /...
Bush-Greenberg Traurig Connections
The following enumerations were published (http://portland.indymedia.org /...) in September 2004 by, among others, the Portland Indymedia. Some sources have been provided in support. 1. "Represented President George W. Bush in the Bush-Gore 2000 Florida election vote recount."
"Court's reputation being tested," (http://quest.cjonline.com /...) Associated Press (cjonline.com), December 11, 2000: "Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, is the lead Bush attorney in Florida. Richard, who is a Democrat, said he was called Nov. 8 about representing Bush." re Barry S. Richard
"Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest," (http://archives.cnn.com /...) CNN, December 12, 2000: See "Justice Scalia's sons": "Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm's Tallahassee office."
"Florida Attorneys for Bush and Gore to Debate 2000 Presidential Election Recount," (http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu /...) University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, March 25, 2003: "Barry Richard, chief Florida attorney for Bush ... an attorney of Greenberg Traurig law firm in Tallahassee,..."
"Greenberg Traurig Instrumental in Florida Vote Recount Victory," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.com, January 13, 2004.
2. "Personally represents Florida Governor Jeb Bush."
"Governor Bush Appoints Raquel A. Rodriguez to Serve As General Counsel," (http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us /...) My Florida, November 25, 2002. re Raquel A. Rodriguez
"Gov. Bush names Greenberg Traurig lawyer general counsel," (http://www.bizjournals.com /...) South Florida BizJournal, November 25, 2002.
"Hayden Dempsey Joins Greenberg Traurig LLP," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTlaw.com, December 23, 2003. re Hayden R. Dempsey
Profile: Hayden R. Dempsey (http://www.rnla.org /...), Republican National Lawyers Association.
Profile: Justin Sayfie (http://www.pmbconsulting.com /...), Poole McKinley & Blosser website. re Justin J. Sayfie.
Bush Donor Profile: Justin J. Sayfie: here (http://www.tpj.org /...) and here (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org /...), Texans for Public Justice.
3. "Hired son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on election day 2000--after which Justice Scalia cast one of the 5 to 4 deciding votes which placed Bush in presidency." re John F. Scalia
"Court's reputation being tested," (http://quest.cjonline.com /...) Associated Press (cjonline.com), December 11, 2000: "John Scalia accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on Nov. 7, election day."
"Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest," (http://archives.cnn.com /...) CNN, December 12, 2000. See "Justice Scalia's sons": "John Scalia, 35, has accepted a job offer with the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig. Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm's Tallahassee office. ... John Scalia won't actually join the Greenberg, Traurig firm until sometime next year, according to partner Joe Reeder, who said the job was offered weeks before the election and has no connection to the Florida case."
"Attorney John Scalia Joins Greenberg Traurig LLP's Tysons Corner Office," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.com, January 10, 2001; Scalia's GTLaw profile (http://www.gtlaw.com /...).
4. "Miami-headquartered firm partially funded/sponsored delegation to Israel by House-Senate Armed Services Committee members and government contractors to witnes and be briefed on interrogation resistance procedures and torture techniques ... One of lobbyists joining them to Israel included Jack London, CEO, CACI International, the American defense contractor implicated by Major General Antonio M. Taguba in outsourced Iraqi torture at Abu Ghraib prison." See Taguba Report.
Ali Abunimah, "Israeli link possible in US torture techniques. In exchange for interrogation training, did Washington award security contracts?" (http://www.dailystar.com.lb /...) The Daily Star (Lebanon), May 11, 2004. Also posted May 18, 2004 by San Francisco Indymedia (http://sf.indymedia.org /...).
Tom Flocco, "Gonzalez confirmation hearing ignored US / Jordan torture links and legislative junket to Israel to witness 'anti-terror' exercises," (http://911citizenswatch.org /...) 911citizenswatch.org, January 7, 2005.
5. "Firm has prominent administrative positions in Massachusetts 9/11 Fund which also involves Bush family banking house Brown Brothers Harriman."
"$500,000 DONATION LAUNCHES MASSACHUSETTS 9/11 FUND. Stop & Shop and Greenberg Traurig LLP Launch Fund Supported by Victims' Families," (http://www.gtlaw.com /...) GTLaw.org, January 2002.
Yahoo! Search results (http://search.yahoo.com /...), December 20, 2005.
6. "One appointed as General Counsel of the Department of the Navy and its Office of Naval Intelligence just 90 days before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon."
"Alberto J. Mora, General Counsel of the Department of the Navy (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil /...), "the 20th General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, was sworn into office on July 25, 2001."
7. "Firm works with 9-11 victims on planning out their U.S. gov't hushmail/bribery estates."
"As The Revolving Door Turns. How does Washington work these days? A telling tale of two Capitol Hill staffers," (http://www.businessweek.com /...) Business Week, July 11, 2005: "On the Hill, both Rudy and Shiffman were involved in issues that were creating a new and lucrative lobbying niche for Greenberg Traurig and others: claims brought by victims of war, terror, and torture against foreign governments and companies. In these cases, U.S. cooperation was key, either in pressing the POWs' case against Japanese companies or in unblocking foreign assets frozen by the U.S. Treasury."
8. "Firm partner is Marvin S. Rosen, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Finance Chairman who supervised activities of convicted fund-raiser and DNC vice-chairman of finance John Huang who had to return half of $3 million+ raised by him because of contributions from illegal foreign sources.
Profile: Marvin S. Rosen (http://www.gtlaw.com /...), GTLaw.com website.
9. Bush still owes Greenberg firm nearly one million dollars for work done by dozens of lawyers and paralegals--leaving some to question why a Republican candidate would hire a Democratic lawyer from a Democratic firm ...
"Bush Florida 2000 recount committee still owes lobbyist's former firm $314k. White House directs queries to RNC," (http://rawstory.com /...) The Raw Story, May 5, 2005:
"Greenberg Traurig has yet to receive more than $314,000 in legal fees charged to a Bush committee during the 2000 Florida recount ... As a corporation, Greenberg's unpaid tab represents a massive in-kind campaign contribution, far larger than anything that went unreported by DeLay. But it appears to be legal: corporations are allowed to donate any amount to the nebulous type of committee employed during the recount. It would, however, violate the committee's self-imposed $5,000 contribution limit from individual donors. ... Greenberg's leadership has apparently declined to press the issue. Jill Perry, Greenberg's director of marketing and public affairs, declined to comment," according to (http://rawstory.com /...) The Raw Story's John Byrne, May 5, 2005. ***
There is evidence that Jack Abramoff and the Greenberg Traurig firm have served as a conduit for illegal foreign influence-peddling that must be investigated and prosecuted. Readers are urged to contact the media and their representatives to oppose any plea agreement that closes off that line of inquiry.
Copyright, 2005. Mark G. Levey
January 3, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notrol, I agree that fear of what could come of the alleged connection to the murder conspiracy is probably what got A. to cop a plea. And I think the prosecuters expect something substantial from him.
January 3, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone in Congress needs to make this an issue and stay on it until the MSM comes around - maybe Lieberman or a fiscal Dem hawk. The issue should be the President's credibility. He promised in '00 to clean up DC ("restore dignity" I think); he promised that everyone in the WH would cooperate with the Plame investigation; he assured us all he was not breaking any laws using the warrantless NSA searches; on and on. The MSM must take an historical legacy approach and get Bush to promise to root out corruption in government that leads to waste and abuse and increases the deficit. He is in no position to not make this pledge as he is in danger as being seen as enabling the corruption by never using his veto. Once he makes a pledge it is time for Dems to turn the screws. We must pit Bush's damaged legacy versus his friends like Delay. In 08 Bush will be gone but we will still need to take back congress.
January 3, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we can wish for anything we want, but I don't think your wish is likely to come true. That would be huge, too huge. It won't happen.
January 3, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the chips fall where they may. But make sure that ALL of them fall. No corrupt Democrats, don't be silly. But this one's got to take 10 - 1 Republicans. If it doesn't there's a fix in.
January 3, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that this should be a completely seperate issue than the GWOT and Iraq and serve as a flanking manuever on Bush himself.
January 3, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I want to know about it:
Texas State Attorney General Cornyn, Scanlon, Reed and their connections to George Bush and the political machine that got Bush into the governor's office. It would be lovely to see a prosecutorial pincer movement with the Delay Case, especially if it was inadvertent, which is just like everything else about that man-in-chief. One can dream. Norquist is there, though. Just lookback at 2001:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss
What were Hastert and Blunt expecting in the Coushatta heist? Afterall, Cantor got cash. It is the People's business to know specific communications between Hastert, Blunt, Abramoff and any and all parties who pertain to being refered to in any evidence obtained. If the prosecutor is doing the People's business, that is. Evidence that shows a broad based, ongoing conspiracy that would fall under the RICO statutes would be too good to be true. But it would be sooo nice. This stuff is thick.
January 3, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Dems should run some polls before making hay of this.
You see, if we come out too strong against Abramoff, some voters in the center may be offended by that.
So, just like Iraq, a measured, careful poll-tested message is really the best way to proceed.
January 3, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Soros, the billionaire spent and funnelled much more money for liberal causes than did Abramoff. Was is the furor over that? O yeah, the liberal MSM agrees with Soros.
Check it out: http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4270_3_0_C/ .
January 3, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs, that's right; we can't be too careful here. Dems might be accused of the politics of personal destruction or something. We can't have that, can we?
January 3, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's this thing called "the law of diminishing returns", and the way it works is... oh, nevermind.
I think one major reason democrat/progressive activists fail to rally more people to their issues is that they can't just make one simple, reasonable point, and then shut up. It starts with something reasonable then next thing you know, Bush Caused the Tsunami with Super Secret Microwave Pulses...
It's just a point about form and substance you might want to consider. Also, do you really need to bum-rush a 'discussion' here with 200 things? The polite thing to do is make a simple point and move on. I thought posts like this were filtered out of TPM cafe?
Plus, this plea agreement is like 1 day old. Why is everyone bugging out? Maybe the speculation is a bit premature? We should be judging this deal based on who they indict over the coming months.
JG
January 3, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, my irony meters overloaded a while back, and I just can't tell anymore.
I personally don't think "democrats" should dance around according to poll numbers. I dont think anyone should. Isnt that the problem? They should get around to working on behalf of their constituents and not be the generally mealymouthed pussyfoots they are about everything, and quit spending the bulk of their time either stuffing pork into every bill they can find, or selling themselves to the public over meaningless issues like Doping in Baseball, or saving children from potentially harmful thoughts.
In the case of corruption, the reason the Dems may not play pile-on right now is because neither side of the aisle wants 'full disclosure'. There's dirt under everyone.
Though, on the purely tactical political side, i think using the word 'corrupt' about 100 times a day (the way GWB says '9/11, turrurism' like a mantra) in connection with the GOP isnt really a bad idea. Corrupt. Crrupt. Kurrpt!
JG
January 3, 2006 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 3, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corruption is not money spent for causes. Corruption is money paid to politicians to buy votes. Of course they will say that is not what the money was for, but we don't have to be blind.
January 3, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that this is less a "lingering" question and more the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. ( Remember how the DOJ politicos responded to the in-house opinion on the Texas redistricting? Reminder: They decreed that such opinions will hereafter not be expressed.)
Under the circumstances and given the established record, how could anyone credibly assume that the damage control forces are not in full battle mode within the political offices at Justice?
January 3, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soros bought TV ads; Abramoff bought legislation. Almost the same thing, really. How silly of us to not see the similarity.
...
January 3, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question here is about institutional integrity. Who are these Justice Dept. types investigating JA? How far are they willing to go? How far are they allowed to go? If they really went all out, does anyone really doubt than more than a dozen GOP power-broker types would go down?
How independent are Justice Dept. investigators, really? That's the question the next batch of indictments will really settle...