The Daily Muck
Why did Jack Abramoff finally stop running from the law? Maybe it was because he blew out both of his knees playing racquetball. Roll Call reports that Abramoff had knee surgery on Thursday, the day after he pled guilty to fraud in Florida, and this only five months after having surgery on the other knee. Boy, when it rains it pours, doesn't it?
Roll Call also reports on a more likely source of Jack's downfall - a re-energized Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department. Under the leadership of Noel Hillman, who took over in 2002, the department "has more than doubled the number of federal corruption cases it has brought to the courts in the past four years."
TPM readers who are wishing, hoping, and praying that Abramoff, like Duke, wore a wire, will be cheered by this passage:
"Hillman told Roll Call that along with inspectors general and the FBI, federal investigators have adopted a more widespread use of wiretaps, surveillance and other secretive investigative techniques.'If we've been more aggressive, and I think we have, one of the ways we've done that is to be more aggressive in the ways we investigate the cases: the more effective use of cooperators, the more effective use of undercover techniques, the consensual recordings.'"
Hillman says his office began investigating Abramoff in the spring of 2004.
Time's cover story reports that "investigators are viewing Abramoff as 'the middle guy'--suggesting there are bigger targets in their sights." And maybe this isn't just a bribery investigation:
"A high-level source tells Time that prosecutors will also focus much of their energies on the lesser and easier-to-prove charge of 'honest services mail fraud,' for which they have to show only that a lawmaker has acted in his personal interest or that of another individual but not of his constituents in return for improper gain."
Time also reports on the White House asking, "Tom who?" Once a golfing buddy, DeLay has been demoted to "useful servant." Read Matt Yglesias's take on it here.
There are a host of articles about the jockeying for leadership positions in the House. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh.) both announced their candidacy for Majority Leader yesterday and seem likely to be the only candidates. Both Blunt and Boehner are assuming the mantle of reform: Blunt advocates "new lobbying reforms and enhanced penalties for those who break the public trust," and Boehner touted his "commitment to cleaning up problems and to accountability," but cautioned on Fox News yesterday that "adding more rules isn't the answer." Roll Call charitably characterizes Boehner's position as "more complicated" than Blunt's.
Boehner also took a shot at the messenger Friday, challenging "the Center for Responsive Politics to remove his name from a database that the watchdog group had posted on its Web site tallying amounts that Members of Congress have received from Abramoff and his clients." Boehner says he had nothing to do with Abramoff doesn't like the implication that he did.
In the event that Blunt wins the race, his Whip position will open up. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) seems likely to claim that. The vote is scheduled for Feb. 2nd.
Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) tapped Rep. David Dreier (R-Cal.) yesterday to lead the GOP's ring of the lobbying reform circus.
In other muck:
In Newsweek's cover story on Abramoff shows Isikoff, Bailey and Thomas to be unimpressed by all this hullabaloo: "It's doubtful that congressmen sold their votes any more or less than before. Most lawmakers who take money from lobbyists would vote that way regardless."
The NY Times' piece on Abramoff's firm Greenberg Traurig ("Lobbyist's Firm Escapes Fallout From a Scandal") notes their successful strategy of cooperating and laying low.
The Times also has a story ("Lobbyist's Work for Publishers of Magazines Under Scrutiny") on the Magazine Publishers Association's role in the Abramoff scandal. "It turns out that some of the association's money may have been funneled to Mr. Abramoff's political allies," namely: a $25K check made out to Toward Tradition eventually made its way to Tony Rudy's wife. Abramoff's plea agreement contained a reference to $50K in payments to Rudy's ("Staffer A") wife. The other $25K came from another Abramoff client, eLottery, Inc.
Roll Call notes that Ney would lose his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee if he were indicted.
And finally, Al Kamen is holding a contest to properly name the Abramoff scandal. "Names ending in -gate, while not automatically rejected, are frowned upon." Any ideas?















I don't have a suggestion for the "name the scandal," but I definitely second the "don't call it a -gate" thought.
Insert-scandal-name-gate
January 9, 2006 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that calling every scandal X-gate was a conscious effort by William Safire to trivialize the importance of Watergate in history.
How about "Teapot Sky Dome Scandal"?
January 9, 2006 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Bush was using the NSA to spy on the Justice Department. He might have wanted to know who was being investigated.
January 9, 2006 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drop the "gate".
Spy SCANDAL
Lobbying SCANDAL
Downing Street Memo SCANDAL
Lying SOBs SCANDAL
January 9, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sent in (ABC) (The Abramoff Bribery Corporation) scandal.
January 9, 2006 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's call it the Republican Bribery Scandal. Simple, direct, descriptive.
January 9, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why did Jack Abramoff finally stop running from the law?
Raw Story may have the real answer How they got caught: After lobbyist broke off engagement, ex-fiancee told of illicit dealings to FBI
The raw meat: (there is a life lesson: don't discuss your criminal operations with your powerful fiancee, and if you do don't drop her for a manicurist.)
"While still engaged to Miller, Scanlon had started an affair with a manicurist and broke up with Miller because he planned to marry the other woman, three of Scanlon's former associates at DeLay's office said. They added that the two had numerous public arguments.
But Miller had something on Scanlon. He confided in her all of his dealings with Abramoff, former colleagues said. She saw his emails and knew the intimate details of his lobbying work--work which is now the center of a criminal fraud investigation. After the breakup, Miller went to the FBI and told them everything about Scanlon's dealings with Abramoff, her coworkers added.
In turning him in, she became the agency's star witness against her former lover. Scanlon pled guilty in November and is cooperating with prosecutors; Abramoff reached a plea agreement today."
Look after Scalon and Kidan flipped, one from each side of his operations, Abramoff was only a question of time.
January 9, 2006 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 9, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with Republican indictees and their injuries? First Scooter crutches around town after Fitzmas, and now Jack is a gimp, too? These pleas for sympathy by surgical means are so pitiful, not to mention drastic.
January 9, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are already two problems that the Democrats better start dealing with immediately. The first is the claim, made often, that Democrats received money from Abramoff. While not fitting them out for a halo my understanding is that this is not true.
Which brings me to the other point, the "everybody does it" theme. I sure many at the Cafe sort of believe this too. It must be hammer that this was not about bribery or just money but about locking up the government for Republicans while enriching the favored few.
January 9, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 9, 2006 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Most lawmakers who take money from lobbyists would vote that way regardless." Come again? If that were the case, why do the lobbyists spend the money in the first place? And even more to the point, why do the people who hire the lobbyists spend their (or their shareholders') money on them? Surely we're talking about people who are in the business of making money, not providing charity to lobbyists. People who never take their eyes off the bottom line. But we're supposed to believe that they're willing to pay for an outcome that's going to happen anyway. This one doesn't pass the smell test.
January 9, 2006 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not outlaw lobbying outright? I believe England's Parliament has a rule that lobbyists cannot approach a Member nor a member approach a lobbyist. Let's do away with this reprehensible industry. Of course, no one in Congress would think of doing it.
January 9, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read this one on someone's blog:
Jackoff-Gate,
or if you don't love the gate suffix
the Jackoff Scandal.
Hand jobs all around.
January 9, 2006 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This points out a problem. Journalists, editors and publishers have been bowing to one pressure tactic after another. They abdicated their role as the watchdogs of democracy, and now they want it back. Well, we need them.
But! They don't want to admit they fell down on the job: fronting for the Iraq war; hiding ethics failures in Congress; trying to make torture, dirty coal, domestic surveilance and tax cuts for the rich seem reasonable; and so forth. Local papers (the LA Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and other national papers do garner some respect) kept the flame alive.
In order to hide their extended and pernicious failure to expose the bad actors in charge of our country, they now want to downplay what's been happening for the last 5 years in the executive and the last 11 years in the legislative branch*.
We can't let them! We have to demand that they admit that they failed us out of greed and cowardice, and ask for their recommitment to excellence!
I'm just saying.
* the supreme court had a blowout in Bush v. Gore, but it's still kind of a mixed bag.
January 9, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Delay Game
"Of Pioneers, Rangers, and Pyramids. How the GOP money machine auctioned off your tax dollar to create the largest deficits, highest paid lobbiest, and richest politicians ever."
January 9, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Abramoffence
January 9, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the spirit of Fitzmas, I nominate...
<span class="Apple-style-span"><I></span><B>Abramoffukka!<span class="Apple-style-span"></B></span><span class="Apple-style-span"></I></span>
(cribbed from dkos)
January 9, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, that's ugly. What's up with that?
January 9, 2006 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight. The right-wing whackos that are still whining about the Monica dress are being brought down by a woman scorned? Oh, that's rich!
January 9, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
To get people who favor their positons elected in the first place, and keep them there. Candidates and incumbents have to get money from someone, so the lobbyists make sure that "someone" is them and not their opponent. It's an open question whether lobbyists "tempt" representatives into supporting their position or the representatives "squeeze" the lobbyists to get their money. It's a win-win for both until they get caught.
January 9, 2006 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently this is the reason that we don't outlaw lobbying. Whether Jack Abramoff is what the founding fathers thought they were getting is another question altogether.
January 9, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It works best if you pronounce Abramoff with the accent on the wrong syllable....
January 9, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Reader BE has some good naming suggestions:
"As a takeoff of Abscam, 'Abramscam' might be interesting.
'Contract On America' is probably too subtle & syntactical.
'Little House on K Street' might make a good Western,
occupied as it was by 'Republican Pioneers' or Bush Pioneers
('K Street Scandals' seems like a good name).
'Millennium Slush Fund' except the millennium's well on its way."
January 9, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the jobs and the little insertions in the Congressional Record.
"Most lawmakers who take money from lobbyists would vote that way regardless."
Campaign contributions into accounts monitored by the FEC are one thing. As are recorded votes on the House floor. It is the practice of giving very lucrative jobs and contracts to congressional spouses (which in the days of joint accounts really means to the congressman) and the congressmen taking open actions designed to assist business ventures far outside their constituents interests (N. Mariana sweatshops, Sun Cruz casino boats etc) that are going to take these guys down.
Traditionally Congress has been all about power. The money wasn't a fraction of what you could be making on the outside but you had power, respect, special elevators, wealthy people begging for an instant of your time. It just happened that a certain group thought that power would go even better with 40 foot yachts and $57,000 golf excursions. It was no longer enough to get reelected, what was the use of being in office in you didn't have a Louis XIVth commode?
January 10, 2006 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink