Edwin Buckham paid Christine DeLay

Outgoing Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman shared some thoughts about the disastrous mid-term elections at an annual GOP winter meeting. Here's what I found interesting:

Without mentioning Republican losses in seats that had been held by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Congressmen Bob Ney or Mark Foley by name, Mr. Mehlman said:

If there are Republicans for whom influence or power or money have become more important than serving the public and the nation, then let me make it perfectly clear: we don’t want you.

While calling on Congress to pass “real ethics and earmark reform” to regain the public’s trust, Mr. Mehlman didn’t mention whether the line-item veto — a measure demanded now by G.O.P. senators that is holding up the ethics legislation in that chamber — needed to be part of this package.

Here, Here! But why not mention by name those politicians who have betrayed core principles of the Republican Party? That is one of my primary criticisms of our local Republican heirarchy. It was abundantly clear that Tom DeLay was corrupt even before the filing deadline for the primary. Why wasn't there a single person in the organized party to tell DeLay that he shouldn't run? And when DeLay filed for re-election, why didn't someone in the organized party "make it perfectly clear: we don't want you." [Kudos to the man who did do those things, Tom Campbell.]

The problem is that the organized party doesn't share the anti-corruption attitudes of many in the Republican Party electorate. Like DeLay, they deny there's corruption and attack those who point out that the emperor wears no clothes. People like me are to be hated.

I agree with Mehlman's statements 100%. Unfortunately, it is clear that Mehlman and the rest of the Republican Establishment don't. They can't even identify those "Republicans for whom influence or power or money have become more important than serving the public and the nation".

As with many aspects of the Jack Abramoff scandal, this corner of the scandal is as clear as mud. We know that investigators are looking at donations Jack Abramoff directed his clients to make to an outfit called the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA). A Senate report concluded that CREA (among other groups) "appear[s] to have perpetrated a fraud" by selling influence to Abramoff. According to James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt (by now my favorite reporter) at the Washington Post:

The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."

The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff's clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.

The groups named in the report are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Emphasis mine

So I think I'm on solid ground when I say that the CREA, an organization co-founded by former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, is a suspect organization. In fact, Abramoff reportedly characterized CREA as a "DeLay organization" (p. 226). Now Abramoff has a history of exagerating such things. Abramoff once told the Saginaw Chippewa tribe that Tom DeLay had requested that the tribe donate to Abramoff's charity, Capitol Athletic Foundation even though there is no evidence that DeLay actually did so. But there is no denying that Tony Rudy, while still a DeLay staffer, was suggesting that donations to CREA would gain access to Secretary Norton:

Rep. Tom DeLay's staff tried to help lobbyist Jack Abramoff win access to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, an effort that succeeded after Abramoff's Indian tribe clients began funneling a quarter-million dollars to an environmental group founded by Norton.

. . .

Rudy wrote Abramoff that same day promising he had "good news" about securing a meeting with Norton, forwarding information about the environmental group Norton had founded, according to e-mails obtained by investigators and reviewed by The Associated Press. Rudy's message to Abramoff was sent from Congress' official e-mail system.

Within months, Abramoff clients donated heavily to the Norton-founded group and the lobbyist and one of the tribes he represented won face-to-face time with the secretary during a Sept. 24, 2001, dinner sponsored by the group she had founded.

So it appears there may be a quid pro quo where donations to Norton's group led to extraordinary access. And my working theory is that investigators hope to gain information from former DoI employees Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge regarding CREA.

The Washington Post indicates that Griles may be indicted for false testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 2005. The Senate Report on this testimony indicates that the Griles used Wooldridge to back up his version of events:

Committee staff tried to explore the precise nature of Griles’ rela-tionship with Abramoff and whether Griles did anything to further the interests of Abramoff’s clients on matters pending at Interior. To that end, a discussion about a binder ensued. During his interview, Griles stated that one day he returned to his office to find a mysterious binder with no name on his desk. After inquiring where the binder came from, his secretary told him that it had been delivered to the front desk, and he decided to ‘‘just [flip] through it.’’ Skimming the documents he discovered that the notebook was actually a packet of information about the Jena Band and ‘‘looked like it had letters—congressional letters, it had studies or something in it.’’ Accordingly, Griles remembered asking Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Counselor to the Interior Secretary, what to do with the notebook and was informed that it was now a federal record and that he had ‘‘no option except to give it to Interior lawyer Michael Rossetti.’’ Griles maintained that he gave the notebook to Rossetti and ‘‘didn’t endorse its contents.’’

Rossetti, however, has a different recollection of those events. Rossetti recalled that only after ‘‘some time’’ and ‘‘a series of questions that took much longer to get to that answer than I would have thought was necessary,’’ Griles actually told him where the binder came from: from a member of Congress by way of a chief of staff by way of a lobbyist ‘‘who turned out to be Mr. Abramoff.’’

Page 241; Footnotes omitted.

We know Griles is a target for providing false testimony. It is possible that Ms. Wooldridge provided testimony to back up Griles. After all, the WaPo says that Griles and Wooldridge had a dating relationship.

For some reason, I've been getting a lot of Google hits using keywords "Pearland and population". I've never claimed that this was a blog for a wide range of interests, but I'll satisfy this one.

As of January 1, 2007, Pearland's population is 80,503. Be aware that not all of the city of Pearland resides in Pearland ISD -- some of them are in Alvin ISD. The linked article also has a schedule of MUDs anticipated to be annexed into the city over the next few years.

The AP reports that convicted felon Rep. Bob Ney says that alcohol addiction played a role in his misconduct.

Others have suggested that high profile celebrities/politicians often claim alcohol or some other addiction in order to garner sympathy. Mel Gibson did it. Miss USA Tara Conner did it. So did Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL).

But when I heard that Ney wanted treatment for alcohol abuse, I knew there was an added benefit for him.

If Ney completes the prison treatment program, it could reduce his sentence by as much as a year.

This makes me recall Enron figure Ben Glisan's "alcohol dependency". He didn't have a problem with the juice, but Glisan completed the alcohol dependency program to shave a year off his sentence. I kind of view this as Defensive Driving. If you're willing to go through the Defensive Driving program, the ticket won't appear on your record. The alcohol treatment program gets a prisoner out early. Why not do it?

Of course, it is possible that Rep. Ney does have a problem with alcohol. If that's the case, I sincerely hope that he conquers that demon while he's in prison. As a bonus, he'll still get out prison early for completing the program.

According to the AP, J. Steven Griles is now a target of the Abramoff investigation. The AP describes Griles as the former #2 official in the Interior Department. My biggest takeaway from this revelation is that the Justice Department is still very active in the investigation.

Another name appears in the AP article as under investigation, Justice Department attorney Sue Ellen Wooldridge [***see update***], an assistant attorney general that the AP implies is still on the job. Wooldridge signed a letter of resignation earlier this week.

Lastly, Roger Stillwell, a former Interior who had been responsible for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has been sentenced to two years probation.

I can't get excited about these lower level people. The tentacles of the Abramoff investigation seemingly extend everywhere. As I said after Stillwell's guilty plea this summer, I believe that these lower level felons/targets/ingestigatees are just a means for Justice Department prosecutors to get at bigger fish. After all, Stillwell and Griles did things like accept tickets to sporting events. Now that is obviously something Congress made illegal. It is a serious matter under the law. But if Stillwell and Griles weren't public servants, it wouldn't matter. I know the ethics policy that applies to me would find nothing wrong with accepting tickets. [Griles also is charged with lying under oath, another serious matter under the law.]

I infer from the AP article that former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton may be in investigators' crosshairs:

The Senate committee's investigation and e-mails detailed numerous contacts with Abramoff and Italia Federici, who was a go-between for Abramoff. Federici headed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which she co-founded with Norton.

Federal investigators have been looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars the group received in donations from Abramoff's Indian tribal clients and from energy and mining companies, including some that were Griles' ex-clients.

You know I won't leave you without tying this back somehow to my former Congressman. When Jack Abramoff was hitting up his Indian tribe clients for contributions to the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, the tribes simultaneously contributed to Tom DeLay's personal charity:

Tribal money went both to a group founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the Cabinet secretary Abramoff was trying to meet, as well as to DeLay's personal charity.

"Do you think you could call that friend and set up a meeting," then-DeLay staffer Tony Rudy wrote to fellow House aide Thomas Pyle in a Dec. 29, 2000, e-mail titled "Gale Norton-Interior Secretary." President Bush had nominated Norton to the post the day before.

Rudy wrote Abramoff that same day promising he had "good news" about securing a meeting with Norton, forwarding information about the environmental group Norton had founded, according to e-mails obtained by investigators and reviewed by The Associated Press. Rudy's message to Abramoff was sent from Congress' official e-mail system.

Within months, Abramoff clients donated heavily to the Norton-founded group and to DeLay's personal charity. The Coushatta Indian tribe, for instance, wrote checks in March 2001 for $50,000 to the Norton group and $10,000 to the DeLay Foundation, tribal records show.

[Of course I believe the "Norton-founded group" is the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.]

From my point of view, these recent events augur worse for Secretary Norton than they do for former Congressman DeLay. But I will say without hesitation that money flowing to DeLay's personal charity via a crook like Abramoff stinks to high heaven. I don't have any evidence that there was any malfeasance surrounding the DeLay Foundation, but other politicians have had ethical allegations leveled against them for abusing charities they've created. [See: Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)] It is laudable that politicians are charitable. It even provides them goodwill. But they should donate to existing charities. The appearance of a charity run by a politician looks bad, particularly when lobbyists are involved.

===

Update
January 11

When I mentioned that Sue Ellen Wooldridge works at the Justice Department, I didn't mean to imply that the Abramoff investigation has moved from Interior to Justice. Wooldridge had been Deputy Chief of Staff to Sec. Gale Norton at Interior. Wooldridge was also solicitor at Interior. I believe the investigation is still focused on Interior.

The Miami Herald covers recent revelations regarding the corruption of former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). Understandably, the Herald finds the local Miami angle the most interesting:

During negotiations in the SunCruz deal, Abramoff asked his lobbying partner, Michael Scanlon, who had once worked for ex-GOP leader Tom DeLay, to do him a favor. That's when Ney entered the picture.

Scanlon contacted Ney's chief of staff, Neil Volz, to arrange to have Ney disparage Boulis and his company in the Congressional Record. Scanlon drafted a statement that Ney put into the Record in March 2000, saying: ``There are a few bad apples out there who don't play by the rules and that is just plain wrong. One such example is the case of SunCruz Casinos, based out of Florida.''

The motive: ''To soften the negotiating position'' of Boulis and ''secure a better deal'' for Abramoff and his business partner Kidan, according to the court documents filed Wednesday.

Now we've known for a long time (before the primary elections of 2006) that:

1. Ney inserted the language in the Congressional Record.

2. There was a $10,000 quid pro quo contribution to the NRCC credited to Ney. [Fun fact: Ney's lawyer, Mark Tuohey, claimed this was "totally false" in 2006.]

3. Former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon actually drafted the text inserted by Ney.

None of this is new. Why do I bring it up? Just to remind you that Tom DeLay has a very similar episode in his history. A former aide to DeLay (this time Tony Rudy, not Michael Scanlon) drafted language for DeLay to insert in the Congressional Record in order to harm a business critic of Jack Abramoff. DeLay dutifully inserted the statement in the CR:

In mid-January 2002, Abramoff started sending e-mails to Tony Rudy and other colleagues that attacked Potter's position on the think tank [AIC] and referred to him as "pothead". Abramoff decided to retaliate against Potter and, with Rudy's help, succeeded in getting DeLay to put a brief statement in the Congressional Record that disparaged Potter, a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, for some of his views on limiting campaign contributions. On January 25, 2002, Rudy e-mailed DeLay's office suggesting language for a statement on Potter that was "very similar to what DeLay put in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2002, according to a source familiar with the Rudy e-mail.

It is not worth my time to pinpoint which inurement DeLay received to consummate the transaction.

===

With embarassment, I look back at how naive I was when convinced myself that campaign contributions like Kidan's NRCC contribution might be legitimate. Fortunately, that naivety has long passed. I just wish other Republicans would come to that conclusion so that our party can begin to heal and this blog can end.

The AP has an article out that basically says that former Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) is guilty of more corruption than he has admitted to. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! Honestly, was anyone caught off-guard by this revelation? After all, that's what plea bargains are all about. The accused pleas to less than he is criminally liable for in order to eliminate the potentional for a longer prison sentence. The prosecutor accepts the plea in order to eliminate the potential for an acquittal at trial. Maybe a better system exists, but from my point of view, that's how it works. Defendent and prosecutor get a little bit out of the deal. Heck, even former President Clinton pled to civil contempt when everyone knows he committed perjury. So don't color me surprised.

Here is the part of the article most relevant to the mission of this blog:

Those were outlined in Ney's plea deal in October. This week, prosecutors added a new detail. In 2003, Neil Volz, an Abramoff employee and former top Ney aide, arranged for the congressman to personally resolve a passport dispute for the daughter of Russian energy executive Alexander Koulakovsky, an Abramoff client.

"Ney took these steps after having been promised and shortly before enjoying a vacation in Lake George, N.Y., in August 2003, with trip costs exceeding $3,500 paid by Volz and another lobbyist," prosecutors wrote.

Koulakovsky has been linked in the Abramoff case to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. The Washington Post has reported that Koulakovsky hired Abramoff to arrange meetings with DeLay and lobby for federal aid.

Koulakovsky and his business partner have been linked to a $1 million check to a charity sponsored by DeLay that charity officials said was intended to influence a DeLay vote, the newspaper reported.

What's that? Officials of DeLay's charity admit that the cool million was intended to influence DeLay's vote? I knew of the Koulakovsky (Naftasib) portion of the scandal, but as I've noted before, the $1 million donation to charity went to Ed Buckham's US Family Network. Here is the Washington Post story explaining the situation:

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

The conclusion I draw is that the AP is characterizing the US Family Network as "a charity sponsored by DeLay". "Sponsor" may be a weasel word here lacking any real meaning. USFN was not DeLay's charity, it was Buckham's. Consequently, I will accuse the AP of sloppy language in describing the $1 million check as going to a charity sponsored by DeLay. Listen, the truth is convincing enough. Let's not embellish.

===

Update

I don't know how I missed it, but I did. Not surprisingly, the AP story is largely a re-write of a Susan Schmidt story in this morning's Washington Post. In that story, Schmidt writes:

Koulakovsky and his business partner, Marina Nevskaya, hired Abramoff to help them arrange meetings with DeLay and to lobby for federal aid to their businesses. The Russian executives helped pay for a trip to Moscow taken by DeLay, his wife and aides in 1997.

A charity sponsored by DeLay received a $1 million check from a London law firm linked to the two. Former charity officials told The Washington Post last year the donation originated with Russian oil and gas executives, and was intended to influence DeLay's vote on an issue affecting the Russian economy.

So the mischaracterization originated with the WaPo. I still assert that the $1 million check went to USFN and that describing USFN as a "charity sponsored by DeLay" is misleading.

I also want to make it clear that I learned absolutely nothing new about my former Congressman from this article. [That assumes that I am correct in asserting that the $1 million to the DeLay "sponsored" charity and the $1 million to USFN are indeed the same.] I suppose the fact that Ney is guiltier than he claims is new to me. It's just not unexpected.

===

Update
9:17 p.m.

Last month, the WaPo published part of Jack Abramoff's Christmas shopping list. I noticed a couple interesting entries. At the time, I thought the information was trivial. Besides, I was preparing to go out of state to visit the in-laws. The information is still trivial, but I'm back from the in-laws.

Then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was listed as the intended recipient of a $250 box of Godiva chocolates

. . .

Identical pens were to go to Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky, two Russian oil executives who had hired Abramoff to help them arrange meetings with DeLay and lobby for federal aid.

Our Russian friends again . . .

And since I haven't mentioned the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands recently:

Willie Tan, a textile magnate in the Mariana Islands who helped direct $650,000 to a nonprofit group linked to DeLay, was to get a Montblanc, and two of Tan's aides were to get fruit baskets.

I can handle USFN being described as a "nonprofit group linked to DeLay". After all, Christine DeLay received $115,000 from USFN for her sham employment at Ed Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group. Since USFN isn't really a charity sponsored by DeLay, maybe the WaPo could more accurately describe it as a charity that sponsored DeLay.

===

Update
January 6, 2007

The more I think about it, the more I don't like USFN being described as a charity. It certainly was a non-profit, but it wasn't a charity. USFN was a 501(c)(4) corporation. Donations to 501(c)(4) groups are not tax deductible, my working test on whether an organization is a charity or not. This puts USFN in the same category as the National Rifle Association and moveon.org, other 501(c)(4) groups. Not exactly a charity, is it? Anyway, here's Wikipedia's explanation of 501(c) organizations. My test would say that only 501(c)(3)s and some very limited exceptions are charities.

I suppose that I could be wrong and that Schmidt's WaPo story about a $1 million Russian donation to a DeLay sponsored charity isn't referring to USFN, but what are the chances?