The Daily Muck
The senseless, partisan persecution of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mon.) continues, having enlisted two of the nation's leading newspapers, and Burns is working hard to clear his name. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have both reported that Burns is under investigation for his dealings with Jack Abramoff. But Burns is unimpressed: these pieces relied on "unknown sources," making their allegations "the same as a grain of salt."
"A report with unknown sources is just journalistic speculation," he explained to the editorial board of the Billings Gazette, who I'm sure were very surprised to learn this.
The NY Times reports on the Republicans' ecstasy after a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) pled guilty yesterday to bribery charges. The plea alleged some very mucky dealings by Jefferson, which Congressional Republicans cited as evidence that "wrongdoing on Capitol Hill is a bipartisan matter."
Bipartisan? Carl Hulse, the piece's author, plays a little game of he-said-she-said:
"Republicans have sought to entangle Democrats in the Abramoff scandal by highlighting contributions from the lobbyist's American Indian clients to some Democrats. But Democrats, backed by some outside analysts, say Republicans face much more political risk because of more direct links between Mr. Abramoff and Republicans as well as the fact that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, potentially making them more culpable in the eyes of voters."
I think "backed by some outside analysts" is Hulse's way of satisfying his journalistic conscience, but I can't be sure.
Roll Call reports on Reps. Roy Blunt's (R-Mo.) and John Boehner's (R-Ohio) three-legged race for Majority Leader. The latest tally has Blunt at over 100 and Boehner at 90, with both sides challenging the other's number, since few lawmakers have actually publicly committed their vote. Speculation is rampant that Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) will join in as the Real McCoy reform candidate, probably today. Unfortunately for Shadegg, he has an Abramoff problem too, although a modest one: $6,900 from Abramoff tribal clients, including some fun in the MCI Center skybox.
(Late Update: Shadegg entered the race this morning.)
It's been nearly a week since DeLay stepped down and Blunt and Boehner jumped in to replace him. Even though many remain unconvinced of their reform bona fides, they're still trying. Yesterday Boehner declared, "If I am elected majority leader, there will no longer be a 'K Street project,' or anything else like it," referring to the decade-old effort by conservatives to ensure that lobbying firms hire Republicans. Perhaps he was a bit rash. Later, Boehner's aides, ahem, clarified:
"Mr. Boehner's aides said he sees nothing wrong with urging firms to hire Republicans, but added that political contributions should not be used as a litmus test for gauging how Republican someone is."
No K Street Project, or anything else like it. Right.
The reform-o-rama pushes on. Hotline reports that Rep. David Dreier (R-Cal.) is close to unveiling the Republican House version, which will have a ban on privately financed travel as its centerpiece. And here come the Dems! Roll Call reports that Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Pelosi (D-Cal.) plan to unveil a package on Wednesday that will go much further than the Republican proposals...or "partially" further. They're "deciding between an outright ban on all gifts or some kind of partial ban that would then call for specific disclosure of every gift." Hopefully they'll make the right choice.
Will the House ethics committee be roused from its slumber? Nancy Pelosi gave it a poke in the ribs yesterday, sending a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) that said Democrats expect the committee to investigate "alleged violations of criminal laws and the rules of the House" by four House members: DeLay, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Rep. John Doolittle (R-Cal.), and Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Cal.). The letter was not a formal complaint, however, so it will undoubtedly be ignored. The AP gingerly notes that "Pelosi's letter did not ask the ethics committee to investigate an unrelated case involving Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana."
The AP also reports on Doolittle's Abramoff problem.
The "Eric Cantor" sandwich...Forward details Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) relationship with Abramoff (Cantor is leading the race for Whip):
"In January 2003...a downtown Washington kosher deli then owned by Abramoff, Stacks, feted Cantor with a $500-a-plate "sandwich-naming" fund-raising party attended by a raft of lawmakers and their aides, activists and lobbyists. The "Eric Cantor" sandwich was originally supposed to feature tuna, but Cantor asked that it be changed to the more red-meat combo of roast beef on challah."
In other muck:
Wondering about the GOP reformers' pocketbooks? The Center for Responsive Politics has profiles for Blunt, Boehner, Dreier, and Santorum showing contributors to each man's campaign committees, as well as donors to their leadership PACs.
MyDD and firedoglake are annoyed with the Dem's 'stupid' choice of Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to lead the "Clean House Team." In 1997, Clyburn took a trip to the Northern Marianas Islands on Abramoff's dime.
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) says he's keeping the $2,750 that he received from Abramoff and his wife. Why? It's "been spent, so I won't be giving it back." Oh.
Left in the West does some muckraking on Sen. Burns (R-Mon.) and finds a tangled web. Though it has nothing to do with Jack Abramoff, you'll find some familiar features - a chief of staff who left to lobby his former boss, campaign contributions for pork, and even a bonus Iraq connection.
Raw Story delves into the lobbying activities of Assistant Secretary of Labor and former Abramoff colleague Patrick Pizella.
Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Cal.) sugar daddy Brent Wilkes is a big donor to San Diego State. They like his money, but deplore his deeds.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin ran Toward Tradition, a charity which prosecutors say was used to funnel $50K to the wife of Tony Rudy (Staffer A) - Rudy was working for DeLay at the time. Yesterday, Lapin, who hosts a radio talk show in Seattle, explained his behavior in a "lengthy email": in brief, Abramoff didn't seem corrupt, so Lapin can be excused for not noticing that he was. He also explains away some of Abramoff's more embarrassing emails as evidence of Jack's "jocular and often fatally irreverent e-mail style." Yep, that's Jack: "Fatally irreverent."
FOREIGNID: 83176
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 4947
AUTHOR: DCMike
DATE: 01/13/2006 08:04:49 AM
January 13, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Using Data Mining on the Abramoff Scandal would probably be the most cost efficient use of funds by the Democrats in the last 10 years.
One of the great problems of the Abramoff Scandal is the amount of data that is now coming out. One can easily be overwhelmed by all this information. This is why NSA, DoD and others use data mining. The more information in a data mining operation, the better.
All one would have to do is:
1. Enter all known information on the people, Abramoff, Representatives, staffs, any other people, such as relatives, and groups involved, etc.
2. Enter all known communications such as phone calls, phone number lists, emails, etc.
3. Enter movements, trips, meetings, etc.
4. Enter all financial transactions, including contributions, payrolls, fees, loans, gifts, etc.
5. Enter all businesses involved with their relationships to the people.
6. Enter all legislation, executive orders, rules, etc. whether passed or not or proposed.
7. Include everything relating to the above, no matter how small or unimportant, especially dates and times.
8. Include other information as it becomes apparent.
If the above were done in a data mining operation, the results would be astonishing. Relationships heretofore unknown would become apparent. Effects of this corrupt Republican Coup could be easily seen.
This project could easily cost in excess of a million dollars but would easily be worth far more, just in information alone.
January 13, 2006 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK....let's suppose the dems take back some of the congress this fall....Now will they be obligated to give a fair hearing to a bunch of lobbyists that were hired as part of the K-street project? Seems to me that one of the first orders of business should be to make sure that these firms know that the shoe is now on the other foot...and their actions should reflect their deference to the new majority. That's only fair.
January 13, 2006 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking money from Indian tribes does not equal taking money from Abramoff, just because the tribes were his clients.
Having said that, Jefferson is one of ours who probably needs to go.
January 13, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admittedly some topics beg for the muck nomenclature; I often think this when studying election law; and yesterday mentally reviewing the snippets of Alito's statements about his 1-person, 1-vote opinions. There is something about the person that is unmuckish; but there is a sensation that the calm cool judgments rendered facilitated augmented muckability. Today I was reminded of that reading Texan Charles Gonzales' expert testimony at the finale of the Alito hearing. There is a natural tension between the two political parties; and CGonzales' view intensified that in an egalitarian way; we know the TX delegation paid a price for their state's swing from one gerrymander framework to the polar opposite gerrymander. There is one especially impartial election law site on the internet, which shall remain unnamed here in my commentary; but it is a very helpful resource sponsored by an energetic professor; not that it is always dispassionate, rather, sometimes it is quite political; but its reach throughout multiple sources fills it with ample investigative leads to whet the appetite of the electoral law hound in this visitor. I hope the MuckSite becomes its own identy as well as that election law venue has. Good luck to you folks.
John Lopresti
January 14, 2006 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 5, 2005 San Diego Union Tribune- Senator Russ Feingold dissussing Group W Transportation run by defense contractor Brent Wilkes. Wilkes is linked to Mitch Wade and soon to be prisoner, Duke Cunningham. "Making a corporate jet available for key members of Congress to use for their personal and business travel is a nice way to curry favor with people who can help get earmarked appropriations included in massive spending bills, not to mention the chance to put your lobbyist on a five-hour flight in the next seat."
Feingold is out in front on the Patriot Act, Iraq War and now corruption in the majority Republican Party.
Gore has a much anticipated speech on Monday. He will be introduced by former Congressman and hard arse Republican Bob Barr. Gore has been out in front for the last 4 years.
Gore/Feingold ticket.
January 14, 2006 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink