Edwin Buckham paid Christine DeLay

Going Places

2007-06-20T14:22:00.000-05:00

A Texas A&M football recruiting site has a glowing article about Brian Thomas, an Aggie commitment from Pearland High. Rivals.com (subscription req'd) argues that Thomas may be the best Aggie OL recruit out of a stellar class of OL recruits.

As much as I like Aggie football, longtime readers of this blog know where my true allegiance lies. My favorite football team is the team Thomas will open holes for in 2007. Consequently, this is my favorite line in the article:

"Last year we won our Region but we want to go farther this year," he said of Pearland High. "We have a lot of talent coming back and we are all working hard this summer."

Yes, Pearland High won its Region in 2006 and played in the state semi-finals game. In order to go farther this year, Thomas and the rest of the Oilers will have to make it to the state championship game. Here's to hoping that Thomas gets his wish. I'll take it a step farther. Let's hope that the hard work Pearland's kids are putting in over the summer results in a "W" over Southlake Carroll in the championship game!

Swan Song

2007-05-15T21:31:00.000-05:00

You may have noticed that I've gutted this blog. I never really was a blogger, and I'm not going to be one going forward.

One Republican likened herself to an orphaned child as Tom DeLay left the public stage. Many other Republicans saw no reason for Mr. DeLay to leave at all. Even though I'm not as optimistic as I used to be, I still maintain some hope that the Republican Party will shun those connected to corruption. Even though I don't believe that the local party knowingly accepted corruption, they certainly remained intentionally ignorant. There is rot in our local party. I hope that someday that those in the local party will recognize what happened and hold themselves accountable for doing nothing as we lost the majorities in Congress and our Congressional seat in particular. Not a single person connected to the local party accepts any responsibility for supporting a fatally flawed candidate in 2006.

I know I said I would quit before. That was immediately after Mr. DeLay resigned. It seemed to me that Mr. DeLay's resignation announcement three days after Tony Rudy's plea bargain would be all the evidence anyone would need of his corruption. Consequently, I thought that my desired outcome had been achieved. I was wrong. I continued this site to thoroughly document Mr. DeLay's corruption for those who simply refused to see it.

This time I'm quitting because my heart isn't in it anymore. That, I think, will not change.

Before I leave, I want to thank a few people. Thank you to my loyal readers. I had a few in Houston, many more in Washington, and a smattering around the rest of the country. I was getting 2,000 hits / month. I'm not sure if that was good or bad. Thank you to the Houston Chronicle. Links from the Chron could generate a few dozen hits for me. Thank you to Kuff, who could direct twice as many people to me depending on how strongly he recommended for his readers to click through. Lastly, thank you to those who provided me inside information and tips related to the content of the blog. A special thanks goes out to Brian Mann, an individual personally connected to this scandal. We have exchanged several friendly emails, many not even related to this scandal. While I gained insight into some of the players in this matter from Brian, Brian taught me more important things than facts surrounding this scandal.

My readers know what to expect as prosecutors zero in on Tom DeLay. Christine DeLay and Edwin A. Buckham. Enough said.

My last piece of advice to everyone is to read Kuff whenever there are major developments in this case. Kuff smelled Ed Buckham's stench even before I did, and Kuff personally has an institutional memory.

Good Bye!

SacBee Links Two Scandals

2007-05-13T12:08:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I observed how the Sacramento (Calif.) Bee newspaper was preparing its readers to learn that the Jack Abramoff scandal was related to the Duke Cunningham military contractor kickback scandal. Well, the SacBee reveals a little bit more today:

Investigators have been looking at links between Abramoff; lobbyist Edwin Buckham, who had been chief of staff to Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; defense contractor Brent Wilkes; and Kevin Ring, a former Doolittle staffer who later worked for Abramoff. A key element is payments to wives, including Christine DeLay and Julie Doolittle.

What is known about Doolittle's links to Abramoff, whom he calls a close friend? In 2000, Ring e-mailed Abramoff expressing Doolittle's interest in finding work for his wife. Abramoff's firm hired Julie Doolittle from September 2002 through January 2003 (paying her $27,000) and from July 2003 through February 2004 (paying her $40,000). During that period, Doolittle wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff's Indian clients and sought federal earmarks for the Northern Marianas Islands. Ring handled these accounts.

Buckham, another close friend of Doolittle and founder of the Alexander Strategy Group lobbying firm, hired Christine DeLay from 1998 to 2002 and Julie Doolittle from 2002 to 2005. Julie was paid about $30,000. During that period, Buckham introduced his defense contractor client, Wilkes, to John Doolittle. Wilkes held a $50,000 fundraiser for Doolittle. Wilkes and his associates also gave Doolittle's committees $118,000. Julie Doolittle received 15 percent fundraising commissions on most of these contributions. From 2002 to 2005, Doolittle sponsored $37 million in earmarks for Wilkes' firm for technology the Defense Department hadn't requested.

I'm almost convinced the Wilkes scandal is related to the Abramoff scandal through Ed Buckham. I've known that Buckham was Wilkes' lobbyist for some time, but for some reason, I didn't want to believe that the brazenness of each scandal was connected. The only thing I need to see to absolutely convince me that the Wilkes-Buckham-Abramoff chain is unbroken is some sort of hint from the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit that they are investigating this angle. Remember, the Wilkes-Cunningham connection was prosecuted out of San Diego, not Washington. Get Washington involved, and I'm a believer.

As for the SacBee, they've certainly got my attention. I hope they continue to deliver the goods.

Pubs and Dems Agree: One to Four House Resignations

2007-05-11T08:26:00.000-05:00

From US News and World Report:

The Democratic "Culture of Corruption" campaign against Republicans is making a comeback, according to associates of House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

The reason: Both parties believe that more House Republican members will be ensnared in ongoing ethics investigations and that one to four members will be forced to resign. Democratic officials said that the effort has a national and local push.

I'll choose the high end of that range. The article gives us two likely names, Rep. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. Renzi (R-AZ). Here are my top four resignation candidates:

1. Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
2. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
3. Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
4. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) (a.k.a. Representative #3)

My list is majority Republican. There are really no surprises there, either, are there? Republicans need to make substantive changes in the way that they deal with their corrupt members in order to regain the trust of America's voters. Minority Leader Boehner's current policy is a failure.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Jack Abramoff

2007-05-09T20:34:00.000-05:00

The Hill leads the news again with an article entitled "Rohrabacher rues support for Abramoff". There's no need to quote from the article -- you can get the gist just from the headline.

Rep. Rohrabacher is at the margins of this scandal. He certainly accepted a lot of free meals at Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures, but he also had a 20+ year relationship with Abramoff. The long relationship is not insignificant. Ethics rules are more lenient when there is a pre-existing personal relationship. Such rules are common, and I support them. For instance, a college football backer can give gifts to a high school football recruit without stepping outside NCAA rules as long as there was a personal relationship with the student-athlete prior to the 8th grade.

I have no reason to believe that Rep. Rohrabacher is in any legal jeopardy. That probably makes it easier for him to distance himself from Abramoff now. Tom DeLay can't do that. Recall that DeLay says he'd still go on the Abramoff funded Scotland trip again. DeLay has to say that. Otherwise, he'd be admitting that it was wrong for him to do it in the first place.

Feds to Rep. Doolittle: CONFESS!

2007-05-09T18:58:00.000-05:00

From the Sacramento Bee:

Rep. John Doolittle said Wednesday that the Justice Department tried to get him to admit to criminal behavior before agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided his house looking for evidence in connection with the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal.

GreginTX22 to Rep. Doolittle: RESIGN First, then CONFESS!

There's also this nugget in the SacBee article:

Julie Doolittle said she was not a "patsy" who allowed her company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, to be a conduit for Abramoff money intended to buy the influence of her husband on Capitol Hill.

"This isn't a fly-by-night business I am involved in," she declared. "It's real."

But she said the FBI has questioned each of her clients, whose names she has not publicly disclosed. "They have effectively ruined my business," she said.

Sure Julie Doolittle had clients other than Abramoff. We learned that from The Hill newspaper:

[Rep. John] Doolittle has been under fire for paying his wife’s company, Sierra Dominion, a 15 percent commission on all contributions that the company raised for Doolittle’s campaign committee and leadership PAC. Her only other clients were Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig; Abramoff’s former restaurant Signatures; and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which Ed Buckham, a former chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), created.

Emphasis Mine

1. Rep. Doolittle's Campaign
2. Rep. Doolittle's PAC
3. Greenberg Traurig (Abramoff's former lobbying firm)
4. Signatures (Abramoff's restaurant)
5. Korea-U.S. Exchange Council (An Edwin A. Buckham creation)

Yeah, I have no doubt that the FBI has looked at all of Julie Doolittle's clients. I doubt Greenberg Traurig still has a relationship with Sierra Dominion. Signatures is closed. That leaves her husband's entities and Edwin Buckham's non-profit as her possible current clients. Don't show too much sympathy for Sierra Dominion's clients who had their bookkeeper disrupted.

I know that Rep. Doolittle claims that Julie had other non-political clients. He and Julie just can't name them due to privacy concerns. And with that, I'll leave you with a few lines from the Gen-X classic "The Breakfast Club":

Bender: Op, watch what you say, Brian here is a cherry.

Brian: A cherry?

Claire: I wish I was on a plane to France.

Brian: I'm not a cherry.

Bender: When have you ever gotten laid?

Brian: I've laid lotsa times!

Bender: Name one.

Brian: She lives in Canada, met her at Niagra Falls. You wouldn't know her.

Tom DeLay Feels the Heat

2007-05-09T11:09:00.000-05:00

The Hill reports that former Rep. Tom DeLay had a temper tantrum disguised as a press conference:

DeLay said the evidence shows that his wife did not accept improper payments: “She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can’t make the case. It’s a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something.”

"Fish or cut bait". You know, I never heard that term until I was in my twenties. I guess it just wasn't used often where I grew up in the northern half of Michigan's LP. But someone else used that term recently, too. Last week, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) called upon the FBI and Justice Department to "Fish or cut bait". For what it's worth, prosecutors are looking into suspicious payments by Edwin Buckham to the wives of both Doolittle and DeLay.

The similar behavior of DeLay and Doolittle also corroborate my speculation that DeLay's records have been raided. Why else is DeLay so angry?

As to the substance of the Hill article, we have this:

The inquiry appears to be focused on determining whether DeLay’s wife, Christine, earned her pay from two organizations controlled by Ed Buckham, a lobbyist once closely affiliated with the former Republican leader, according to sources interviewed by federal investigators. Several former employees of the groups have received subpoenas for documents, some in the past few weeks.

. . .

One source familiar with the investigation said federal officials have given immunity to at least one senior member of DeLay’s political circle who may now be cooperating with investigators. Former associates of the majority leader say investigators are apparently attempting to indict DeLay for corruption by proving that Buckham sought to influence him with unearned payments to his wife.

That DeLay accepted bribes through his wife has been my thesis since the beginning of this blog. But we learn that prosecutors have "given immunity to at least one senior member of DeLay’s political circle who may now be cooperating with investigators". A little over a week ago, I suggested that former DeLay CoS Susan Hirschmann had been given immunity in exchange for testimony.

In an effort to provide balance, The Hill talks to a source friendly to Tom DeLay:

A person still close to DeLay said a wealth of evidence proves Christine played an important role at ARMPAC and deserved her salary.

“There are dozens of people who will demonstrate that Christine DeLay was a central cog in DeLay’s political world and was a, if not the, key adviser of ARMPAC,” said the source. “No major decision affecting DeLay was made without Christine being the protector.”

Christine DeLay approved the content of fundraising letters, her husband’s fundraising schedule, and the hiring of new employees, the source said.

Testimony and memos showing that Christine played an active role at the PAC are likely to be an important part of the DeLays’ defense if they are charged.

Now I'm not suggesting that the ARMPAC payments are not significant, but I have called this focus on ARMPAC to be a little misdirection. The payments that convinced me DeLay was corrupt were the payments from Ed Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group (ASG) to Christine DeLay purportedly as compensation for creating a list of lawmakers' favorite charities. The conservative Weekly Standard magazine couldn't find any evidence that Christine DeLay did any work for ASG.

DeLay and his lawyers have had over a year to substantiate their claim that Christine DeLay was properly compensated for creating a 535 item list. There has been no indication that Team DeLay plans to do so. All we get is this assertion by DeLay from the Hill:

DeLay said the evidence shows that his wife did not accept improper payments: “She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can’t make the case."

Um. I don't give much weight to the uncorroborated self-serving statements of potential criminal defendants. If it is true, prove it! Maybe DeLay could have Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi testify that Christine DeLay contacted them to find out their favorite charities. Until then, I will stand by my long-standing position that Tom DeLay is undeserving of holding an office of public trust and furthermore that Tom DeLay is simply not a credible witness.

==

Richard Cullen's Comprehension

It is difficult for me to explain these few paragraphs from the Hill article:

DeLay said the evidence shows that his wife did not accept improper payments: “She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can’t make the case. It’s a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something.”

Speaking after a meeting with former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Capitol Hill, DeLay said, “We have cooperated with everything. We’ve given them everything, including computers; they’ve taken computers that I had here. They’ve gotten everything that’s got anything to do with my life.”

Seeking to deflect DeLay’s wrath away from Justice, his lawyer, Richard Cullen, said his client was exasperated by an unrelated case in which a grand jury indicted him on money laundering charges arising from actions at a Texas fundraising committee.

“When Tom DeLay said that [about Justice], it reflected frustration that many people feel when they are involved in an investigation,” said Cullen. “In Tom’s situation, most of the frustration centers around the Texas case, which is dragging on and on. We are very comfortable that the Justice Department is proceeding properly and expeditiously.

My comprehension abilities indicate to me that Tom DeLay when on a tirade about the federal investigation being conducted by the Department of Justice. Why does DeLay's lawyer, Richard Cullen, say that DeLay's "frustration centers around the Texas case"? DeLay didn't mention the case brought up by Ronnie Earle and merry partisans at all. Even though I don't care for lawyers all that much, I'll give Cullen the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe Cullen was distracted and didn't hear what his client said.

This brings me to another point. There is a significant segment of the Republican electorate that wants moral and ethical government. When this wing of the Republican Party withheld support from DeLay in the 2006 election, DeLay knew he was toast and eventually withdrew. Is there a moral and ethical counterpart in the Democratic Party? Why don't any Democrats denounce Ronnie Earle's political prosecution? Is there a single Democrat out there with that kind of moral strength?

==

Missing Person

There's something interesting in both "The Hill" article and my original post about it. Neither one contains the name of Jack Abramoff. Readers of my blog have long been prepared to learn more about Edwin A. Buckham, though.

==

Even Odds

Despite the fact that a Google news search for "Susan Hirschmann" yields no hits as of 6:30 p.m. CDT on May 9, 2007, I am getting a slew of hits from people searching that term. Based on the quality of those hits, I'm offering even odds that Susan Hirschmann is our DeLay aide who has received immunity and is cooperating.

==

FBI Director Responds to DeLay

Link

“In each case, I’m comfortable that we’ve taken the steps that are appropriate in the course of the investigation,” [FBI Director Robert Mueller] said.

“Every investigation we do, we follow whatever leads, whatever pieces of information that will take us to a just resolution of the case,” he said, adding that, after counterterrorism, public corruption has been the FBI’s No. 1 criminal priority.

“It’s important to democracy that democracy be exercised without being waylaid by those who engage in public corruption,” he said.

Emphasis Mine

I'd like to second Mr. Mueller's motion.

Will Heaton Has Been "Yapping"

2007-05-08T22:00:00.000-05:00

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) gives me the kind of thing I really like -- original documents. Today, BLT shows us a motion to set a sentencing date for former Ney aide Will Heaton. BLT says Heaton "has been yapping to investigators about any misdeeds of his one-time colleagues" and that Heaton's cooperation is "substantially complete".

A reading of the motion itself seems to back up BLT's claim. This is what I found most interesting from the motion:

Long before entry of his plea agreement, Mr. Heaton agreed to and began cooperating with the government in any and all matters required.

I've never claimed to know precisely how the criminal justice system works, but for some reason, I thought that plea bargains came before the cooperation. This motion clearly indicates that Mr. Heaton was cooperating prior to his February plea bargain. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that it is most likely that Mr. Heaton provided information on his former boss, Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty in September 2006.

If this is indeed the way things work, is it possible that Ed Buckham is already working with prosecutors to build a case against Tom DeLay? Did Buckham give details about his phony employment of Julie Doolittle that led to the raid of her business records? Of course this is all speculation and I don't have any evidence to back this up, but it certainly is one plausible explanation as to why these corruption cases have been moving forward as of late.

Clarification: Edwin A. Buckham is at the core of this scandal. I am suggesting that it is possible that Edwin Buckham has entered into some sort of deal with prosecutors like Will Heaton has. Prosecutors will insist that Ed Buckham plead guilty to something. He was too far into this scandal to let him go unpunished.

How Some of the West was Lost

2007-05-07T22:30:00.000-05:00

Good ol' Tom DeLay has an op-ed piece that appeared on politico.com. DeLay's main point seems to be that Democrats gained precious little ground in the Western United States during the 2006 mid-term elections. And what ground Democrats gained, Democrats could easily cede in 2008:

The loss of a few seats on the other side of the Mississippi River during the 2006 election cycle wasn't much of a trend in itself; it was simply the Western part of an electoral thumpin'. Republicans lost 30 seats. By my count, we lost nine in the Midwest, four in the South, 12 in the Northeast and six in the West. And even those six deserve something of an asterisk: One of them was in California, which is basically its own world rather than a part of a broader region in the traditional sense. Two of them were in Texas, which could just as easily be classified as part of the South rather than the West (and one of those was in Texas' 22nd, where the Republicans had no nominee and instead ran a write-in campaign).

Guess what? Believe it or not, I agree with Tom DeLay! Well, except when he talks about the "other side of the Mississippi River". From my vantage point, it is this side of the Mississippi River. But I understand that Mr. DeLay is now a Virginian. For that matter, Mr. DeLay enjoyed the smell of Washington DC's marble long before he quit being the Representative from TX22, so I understand why he thinks we live on the "other side of the Mississippi River".

The complaint I have about Mr. DeLay's article is what he doesn't say. Mr. DeLay looks at the six House seats the GOP lost in the West. I assume he's talking about AZ-05, AZ-08, CA-11, CO-07, TX-22 and TX-23. Corruption played a leading role in fully half of those seats, but Mr. DeLay doesn't mention that. (It is clear that Mr. DeLay considers Texas as part of the West. Four other seats were lost west of the Mississippi, IA-01, IA-02, KS-02* and MN-01, but I strongly suspect that Mr. DeLay categorizes those seats as being in the Midwest.)

Let's look at each of those Western seats individually:

AZ-05 (Rep. JD Hayworth defeated)
Wife Mary Hayworth may be worthy of "Wives Club" status. Strong Abramoff influence in this race.

AZ-08 (Open Seat; formerly held by Rep. Jim Kolbe)
Rep. Kolbe did not run for re-election, and open seats are always harder to defend. Republican Party nominated a weak candidate named Randy Graf. Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Graf lost by running a divisive anti-immigrant campaign. Corruption not an issue in this race.

CA-11 (Rep. Richard Pombo defeated)
Rep. Pombo clearly had Abramoff problems. Lots of Abramoff money flowed his way, and Pombo championed federal recognition of the Mashpee, an Indian tribe in Massachusetts. Yes, the Mashpee were an Abramoff client.

CO-07 (Rep. Bob Beauprez defeated)
In 2004, Rep. Beauprez only won by 121 votes. This seat was naturally precarious for the GOP. Corruption not an issue in this race.

TX-22 (Open Seat; formerly held by Rep. Tom DeLay)
Need I say more? Obviously corruption led to the loss of this seat. For some inexplicable reason, Republicans nominated the extremely weak DeLay even though he could not win the general election due to his corruption. Mr. DeLay eventually resigned rather than face defeat. Christine DeLay is clearly a member of the "Wives Club".

TX-23 (Rep. Henry Bonilla defeated)
Large demographic change after court-ordered redistricting. Corruption not an issue in this race.

None of these losses were really seismic events. The most surprising, I guess, was the loss of AZ-08, the open seat that Randy Graf sought. Republicans should have an easy shot at winning the seats lost due to corruption (including TX-22) as long as they nominate clean candidates. The scary part is that the Republican Party, like Tom DeLay himself, can't seem to come to the conclusion that corruption played a huge role in the 2006 mid-terms. If the party doesn't know what went wrong, they can't fix it. Republicans will certainly reaquire TX-22, but other landmines exist (Rep. Doolittle [CA], Rep. Renzi [AZ], Rep. Feeney [FL], Rep. Lewis [CA] and Rep. Miller [CA]) if the Party doesn't take the corruption issue seriously. Worse, if the Party doesn't act decisively, the corruption issue may affect the GOP as a whole instead of largely affecting only the corrupt candidates.

And why does Mr. DeLay attack the good folks in CA-11? They live in their "own world"? CA-11 includes wonderful cities like Tracy and Lodi. Not exactly San Francisco or Berkeley. Maybe this is just another example of Mr. DeLay attacking anti-corruption Republicans.

As the Wall Street Journal said, a GOP victory in 2008 is a perishable fruit. The Republican Party needs to get serious about eradicating corruption from its ranks. Tom DeLay is clearly in denial. Let's hope the rest of the party isn't.

* KS-02 was another Republican loss linked to corruption. It was formerly held by Jim Ryun. Mr. Ryun had a suspicious real estate deal with Ed Buckham.

Whine, whine, whine

2007-05-06T19:02:00.000-05:00

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) submits an op-ed to the Auburn Journal attacking the Jack Abramoff-related FBI search of his wife's business records. I won't quote anything from the piece because, quite simply, it is entirely unremarkable. (The FBI took Julie's cell phone and iPod! Oh, the indignity!)

Politically, I'm aligned with Rep. Doolittle. I wanted to find something -- anything -- exculpatory. There's nothing there. Rep. Doolittle sounds like a juvenile little kid: "Dad, the only reason you're doing this is because . . . (some entirely unrelated reason)." When I discipline my children, I tell them specifically what was wrong with their behavior. I suspect the FBI told Rep. Doolittle and his wife specifically what they were looking for and the reason why.

If Rep. Doolittle wants a little sympathy from me, he must explain what kind of work Julie Doolittle did for Jack Abramoff and Ed Buckham.

One last thing, I love how Rep. Doolittle tries to argue that "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard that should apply to him. That applies to the criminal justice system, not the political system. I oppose some politicians simply because I don't agree with their ideology. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.

No one told me

2007-05-06T14:48:00.000-05:00

I routinely have to go to midtown Manhattan. A few years ago, I discovered a great flight (2x / day) on American Airlines that went from Hobby to LaGuardia non-stop. LaGuardia is New York's most convenient airport, and given that I live in Pearland, Hobby is the most convenient airport for me. What a win-win! AA's flight appeared to be Hobby's little secret, because the flights were never crowded. Unfortunately, it was too much of a secret, and American discontinued the HOU-LGA flight a little over a year ago.

The good news was that the HOU-LGA route was picked up seamlessly by ATA Airlines. ATA is Southwest's codeshare partner, so even though ATA was quite the spartan airline, I still got Rapid Rewards credit. ATA was somehow able to fill the planes a little more than American, but it was still a great flight since it was non-stop between Hobby and LaGuardia.

Guess what? ATA has uncerimoniously discontinued the HOU-LGA route! The last flight is this week! No one got my permission for that! I just found that out when I tried to book a flight later this month. Best I can tell, no airline will fly the HOU-LGA route non-stop anymore. JetBlue offers a 3x / day flight from Hobby to JFK, but who wants to go to JFK? LaGuardia is just a $30 cab ride from midtown.

Without a HOU-LGA route, I'd rather drive to Bush Intercontinental than fly into JFK. I'll miss the HOU-LGA route.

Marital Conflict

2007-05-04T13:50:00.000-05:00

I take this little nugget from the Sacramento Bee to be supporting evidence for my theory that prosecutors are pressuring wives (See: "Subtle Difference") to get husbands to plead:

In his weekly press conference Thursday, [Rep. John] Doolittle said the Justice Department urged [Doolittle and his wife] to hire separate lawyers because it believes "there is a potential conflict of interest between my wife and me."

I've also predicted that prosecutors will pressure Christine DeLay to get former Rep. Tom DeLay's cooperation.

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA): There have been two more FBI raids!

2007-05-04T09:42:00.000-05:00

From the Fresno Bee:

The California Republican [Rep. Doolittle] said he had information from sources he wouldn't name that federal agents had executed search warrants recently against two other members of Congress -- a Republican and a Democrat -- in raids that hadn't become public yet. He said he thought that those raids were related to the Abramoff probe.

I know I should take a guess at who these unidentified congressmen are. Check this post later to see if I have any speculation.

==

OK, here's some instant speculation. If the Republican who has been raided were still in Congress, he would have run afoul of even the lenient standards of Minority Leader John Boehner's "Clear Likelihood" standard. Since I know of no Republican who has recently resigned from any of his committee positions, I do not believe that this Republican is a current member of the House. (Remember that Rep. Doolittle was pressured to resign from his seat on the Appropriations committee after the FBI raid on his wife's business.)

My guess: Our own former Rep. Tom DeLay. After all, DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay, had the same phony employment racket as Julie Doolittle.

Get on it, Chronicle! Ask the question!

Scotland Trip - May/June 2000 (Tom DeLay's Trip)

2007-05-01T21:56:00.000-05:00

- or -
Who is Susan Hirschmann?

A few days ago, I looked at some of the travellers on Jack Abramoff's trip to Scotland in August 2003. That was the trip with Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL). Mark Zachares has already pleaded guilty in connection to that trip.

As a result of that post, I decided to see who all went on a Scotland/England trip hosted by Jack Abramoff, the one our former Congressman Tom DeLay attended. The following is a list of people who went on the trip that straddled May and June of 2000:

1. Jack Abramoff - GUILTY
2. Edwin Buckham - not charged
3. Tony Rudy* - GUILTY
4. Lisa Rudy - not charged pursuant to deal in Tony Rudy's plea
5. Tom DeLay* - not charged
6. Christine DeLay - not charged
~~7. Amy Ridenour - not charged~~
8. Susan Hirschmann* - not charged
9. David Hirschmann - not charged

* Denotes federal employees at the time of the trip.

This list may not be exhaustive.

The travelers can be broken down into a couple of categories. We have the lobbyists, Jack Abramoff and Ed Buckham. We have three federal employees and their spouses. ~~Lastly, we have Amy Ridenour~~. Ms. Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). Nominally, this is the organization which funded the trip for the government employees since it would be illegal for the lobbyists to do it. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine where the lobbying activities of Abramoff/Buckham end and NCPPR begins. I've written about the close relationship between Team Abramoff and NCPPR before with respect to the Tom Feeney Scotland trip. The Washington Post describes the blurred distinction in an article about the DeLay trip:

But dozens of e-mails show that Abramoff and his team considered the national center [NCPPR] and other tax-exempt groups a ready resource in their efforts to influence Congress.

In one instance, Abramoff's team wanted to send two lawmakers on a trip to the Mississippi Choctaw reservation in 2001, but one congressman's office had concerns about accepting such a trip from a gaming tribe.

"How about getting National Center for Public Policy Research to sponsor the trip?" Abramoff suggested. "Works for me," replied a lobbying colleague.

E-mails suggest Ridenour was well aware that Abramoff viewed her organization as a convenient pass-through.

In September 2002, Abramoff suggested to one of his associates placing $500,000 in client funds with the national center because the group "can direct money at our discretion, anywhere if you know what I mean."

The same morning Abramoff messaged Ridenour: "I might have $500K for you to run through NCPPR. Is this still something you want to do?" Ridenour was enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do it."

I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me as if Ridenour willingly allowed her organization to be a conduit for Abramoff's bidding.

When I peruse the list of attendees of the 2000 trip, many of the names are familiar. Abramoff, Buckham, and later, Tony Rudy, the lobbyists. Tom DeLay, the Congressman. Amy Ridenour, the public policy organization manager who nominally funded the trip. All familiar.

But who is this Susan Hirschmann? Susan Hirschmann is a former Chief of Staff for Tom DeLay. The Legal Times ran a flattering piece on her last year. Here's what I found interesting:

Already under indictment in Texas, DeLay is drawing scrutiny from federal investigators looking into campaign finance irregularities, along with lobbying improprieties connected to his office through ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his friend and former political ally. DeLay’s recent decision to leave Congress is reverberating far beyond those directly involved in the ongoing probes. Already, dozens of lobbyists, government officials, and corporations have lawyered up in anticipation of being drawn into the expanding scandal. But, so far at least, Hirschmann, 42, and her lobbying practice at Williams & Jensen seem to have stayed clear of serious trouble.

Yet Hirschmann was closely involved with many of those under investigation. As chief of staff, she was the Texas lawmaker’s right-hand woman from 1997 to 2002, the key period when the alleged travel and lobbying violations occurred. Two of her former subordinates, Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, have already pleaded guilty in connection with the probe, and another former DeLay aide, Edwin Buckham, has also drawn attention from federal investigators.

Hirschmann isn’t talking. In fact, the lobbyist, who has always preferred to work behind the scenes, won’t say if she is cooperating with investigators or even if she has hired a lawyer, as many of her former colleagues have done. Despite her close ties to DeLay, Hirschmann has not been accused of any ethics violations or of breaking any federal laws and is not believed to be a target of the ongoing inquiry, according to dozens of lawyers and former House staffers who were interviewed for this article.

But with speculation that DeLay may be one of the ultimate targets of the federal lobbying probe, Hirschmann may yet play a central role in the investigation. “Given her position and close contact with DeLay, to the extent prosecutors want to build a case against DeLay, she will be important,” says Peter Henning, a former prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and now a law professor at Wayne State University.

Given that Susan Hirschmann accepted a Scotland trip similar to trips that have landed others in serious legal jeopardy, how has Hirschmann stayed out of the spotlight? No one talks about her. Why haven't we learned that investigators are looking at Hirschmann along with the other federal employees who accepted these junket-trips?

Remember that the Wall Street Journal reported that prosecutors were offering immunity in exchange for testimony to former aides to Tom DeLay. This is rank speculation, but I suspect we'll learn that Susan Hirschmann has been granted immunity and is cooperating with prosecutors. Rank speculation. Remember, I qualified it.

==

Update
May 6, 2007

I have conflicting information regarding whether Amy Ridenour went on this particular Scotland junket. Ms. Ridenour undoubtedly admits funding the trip through NCPPR, but it is not clear to me that she accompanied Abramoff, DeLay and the others on this specific trip. Ms. Ridenour did, however, go on an earlier Russian junket with DeLay.

As a result of my uncertainty, I have struck through the references which indicate Ms. Ridenour travelled on the May/June 2000 Scotland junket.

RIP ARMPAC

2007-05-01T13:09:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post tells us that Tom DeLay's PAC, ARMPAC, has finally ceased operations. My recently emerging theme is to tie everything back to Ed Buckham, and I was prepared to do that again, but the WaPo beats me to the punch:

ARMPAC also helped precipitate DeLay's fall. In the late 1990s, the PAC was run out of a Capitol Hill townhouse that housed a lobbying firm and a questionable non-profit, both of which were run by lobbyist Edwin Buckham, a former chief of staff to DeLay. For several years Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, paying her more than $100,000 for what has been widely considered undefined work.

Several years later, the FBI and Justice Department began investigating DeLay's connections to now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. To date, the investigation has yielded guilty pleas by Abramoff, two former aides to DeLay, ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), two former Ney aides and a former Interior Department official, among others. Abramoff's and Buckham's clients became major donors to ARMPAC in the late 1990s as well as to non-profits run by the two lobbyists, sometimes with fund-raising help from DeLay.

I'm curious how much ARMPAC's donor list overlaps with the clients of Abramoff and Buckham. Unfortunately, I'm not curious enough to go digging for that information.

And just how did DeLay help Buckham with his fundraising efforts? That's news to me, I think.

Scotland Trip -- August 2003

2007-04-29T21:18:00.000-05:00

A couple of months ago, I looked at the government employees who went on Abramoff's August 2002 trip to Scotland. They haven't fared well:

1. Rep. Bob Ney - GUILTY
2. David Safavian - GUILTY
3. Will Heaton - GUILTY
4. Paul Vinovich - Not charged

Well, with the guilty plea from Mark Zachares, it is time to look at the government employees who accompanied Abramoff*** on a similar junket a year later.

1. Rep. Tom Feeney - Not Charged
2. Mark Zachares - GUILTY
3. Bob Brooks - Not Charged

Given that we know the FBI is investigating Rep. Feeney, I sure wouldn't want to be this Bob Brooks guy, would you? Just who is Bob Brooks? According to Wiki, he was CoS to Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA). But there's more to know about him:

Dated Feb. 12, 2006

Bob Brooks, who got embroiled at the periphery of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, is stepping down as chief of staff to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Shreveport. Brooks will be replaced by Brett Loper, the top aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who is under his own ethical cloud. Brooks did not return telephone calls for comment. His name continues to surface in the unfolding Abramoff influence-peddling scandal because he accepted a golf trip to Scotland in 2003 that was reportedly paid for by the lobbyist. At the time, Abramoff was representing a Louisiana Indian tribe seeking to block a rival casino in McCrery's district. Brooks has said he thought the trip was paid for by a conservative foundation, but the group said it had nothing to do with it.

Brooks carried the water for the Jena band of Indians. Of course the Jena band were Abramoff clients. Don't be surprised if you hear Mr. Brooks' name again. Furthermore, among others, Tom DeLay got his hands dirty in the Jena issue:

The Coushattas and the Saginaw Chippewa in Michigan, also an Abramoff client, say they paid [Italia] Federici's group [CREA] a total of $225,000 during the Jena fight. Federici said she could not confirm the amount because environmental groups guard the privacy of their donors. "We live and die by that rule, just as the Sierra Club does," she said.

Federici said she would be disturbed "if any tribe is intimating they were solicited by CREA for anything other than environmental work. CREA's money is spent on environmental work, period."

McCrery, in whose district the Jena now planned to build, wanted to introduce "a bill to address the Jena issue," according to an e-mail Leger Short sent in May to Abramoff. She wrote that "Bob" sent her a draft bill, which she circulated for reaction, and said she was to meet with him the following day.

"Bob," Leger Short said in an interview last week, was Bob Brooks, McCrery's chief of staff, who went on a golfing trip to St. Andrews in Scotland later that summer with Abramoff. Brooks did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Meanwhile, Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger drafted a stiff letter to [then-Interior Secretary Gale] Norton warning, "we hold you accountable" to shoot down "reservation shopping" by the Jenas. Boulanger's proposed signatories were House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The draft was circulated by e-mail to Abramoff and others on the team.

In June, Norton received a slightly toned-down version of the letter, this one bearing the House leaders' signatures.

Oh no! Italia Federici, Gale Norton and CREA are mentioned, too!

==

*** Published reports indicate that eight people went on the August 2003 trip to Scotland. In addition to Abramoff and the three government employees listed, Wikipedia indicates Ralph Reed also attended. That brings the total up to five. Three other unidentified people were also on this trip. They may or may not be government employees. I have tried to figure out who the other three are with no success.

"Sacramento Bee" Discovers Edwin Buckham

2007-04-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

It appears to me that Sacramento Bee Washington Bureau reporters David Whitney and Greg Gordon have been talking to the Houston Chronicle's own Michael Hedges. The Sacramento reporters took Hedges' information on former Tom DeLay staffer Edwin A. Buckham and applied it to their own local corrupt congressman.

First the FBI raided the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville.

Then prosecutors began asking questions of Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. Now it appears federal prosecutors are weighing charges against Ed Buckham, a former aide to Tom DeLay, who could drag the former House Republican leader into the swirl.

. . .

Whatever is on the verge of erupting, it portends a new headache for the Bush administration and congressional Republicans still reeling from a furor over the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys and from last fall's election, which put Democrats back in command on Capitol Hill.

The flurry of activity can be traced to the federal courthouse in Miami, where prosecutors revealed last month that they're prepared to reduce Abramoff's sentence for fraud in connection with his purchase of a fleet of gambling ships.

. . .

[Former Doolittle staffer and Abramoff lobbyist Kevin] Ring is presumed to be talking to federal prosecutors, although neither he, his lawyers or the Justice Department are talking. Ring, who once cited his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before a Senate committee when he was grilled about his work for Abramoff, played a crucial role managing several of Abramoff's large lobbying contracts and was the principal liaison between Doolittle and Abramoff. He is also believed to have introduced Julie Doolittle to Abramoff.

Doolittle has said that he will aggressively fight any charges, revealing in the process that the feds seem to be investigating whether Julie Doolittle was paid without doing much or any work as a way to compensate the congressman for helping Abramoff.

FWIW, I have levelled the accusation that politicians' wives were employed as a means of bribery for over a year. Now I didn't originate these accusations, and many thousands of Republican voters refused to back DeLay in the 2006 primary because of these kinds of links to Buckham/Abramoff. DeLay's primary challenger raised these issues, and the fact that so many Republican voters found these kinds of allegations credible was the primary reason DeLay eventually withdrew from the race.

More from the SacBee:

Buckham is a key figure in the unfolding scandal. After leaving DeLay's office, Buckham opened a lobbying firm called the Alexandria Strategy Group that employed DeLay's wife and, for a period, Julie Doolittle via her company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions.

Buckham also could link the Abramoff investigation to another scandal, the case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-San Diego, who pleaded guilty to taking bribes. Among the alleged co-conspirators in that case is Brent Wilkes, who had several companies. Group W, one of those companies, was represented by the Alexandria Strategy Group.

Doolittle told The Bee in an interview last year that it was probably Buckham who introduced him to Wilkes, who along with his companies and associates funneled large contributions to Doolittle's political action committee. Doolittle has acknowledged obtaining $37 million for one of Wilkes' companies on a defense spending bill.

A couple more observations. One, I'm glad to see the SacBee connect Buckham's employment of Julie Doolittle and Buckham's employment of Christine DeLay. That is one of the things I pointed out in response to Hedges' article. Secondly, the SacBee prepares its readers to learn that the Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals are related. I've admitted that I held out that these scandals were unrelated for too long. As for me, I'm prepared to learn just how connected they are.

Meaningful?

2007-04-27T19:17:00.000-05:00

From McClatchy Newspapers:

A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.

Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.

He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.

When contacted at his home in Washington, Coughlin said he resigned voluntarily because he was relocating to Texas. “I was not asked to resign,” he said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “It’s important to me that it's made clear that I left voluntarily.”

He said he couldn’t comment on the Abramoff investigation, nor on whether he has a job lined up in Texas. He referred all other questions to friend Michael Horowitz.

Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney and former Justice Department official and public corruption prosecutor, did not respond to questions, including about whether he is representing Coughlin. Coughlin also would not say whether he had hired a lawyer.

Is this meaningful? I dunno. Coughlin hasn't caught my attention before, but he sure seems to have a lot of links to the Abramoff case. And why be so coy when asked whether Coughlin has lawyered up or not?

==

Susan Schmidt at the Washington Post provides additional details:

Ring took Coughlin to sporting events with tickets provided by his lobbying firm, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.

So what? An old friend gets tickets from work and invites Coughlin to go along? I can't believe that's even a close call in any organization's ethics policy. I know it wouldn't be in mine. And Coughlin recused himself when his friend became a person of interest. Tell me, what is wrong here?

There must be more to this story than has been made public. The WaPo teases us with this tidbit: "Investigators are looking into dealings between the two in 2001 and 2002, when Coughlin worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, the sources said." I assume this is the same period in which the tickets were used. Am I to infer that Coughlin used his position in 2001 or 2002 to help Ring? Maybe that's where this is going, but up to this point, there has been too much innuendo and too few facts. On the other hand, Sue Schmidt is too good of a reporter to get distracted by red herrings. I expect more facts to emerge -- facts not exactly exculpatory to Mr. Coughlin.

Is it Abramoff or NCPPR?

2007-04-27T13:17:00.000-05:00

We know that Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) went on a Scotland golfing trip with Jack Abramoff. It is impossible for me to avoid comparing Rep. Feeney's trip to the one our own former representative, Tom DeLay, took to Scotland with Abramoff.

Rep. Feeney had filed documentation with Congressional authorities stating that the trip was paid for by the non-profit organization National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). In January, Rep. Feeney claims to have discovered the trip was actually funded by one of Jack Abramoff's sham organizations.

Let's look at today's Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) for the facts:

U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney's controversial golf trip to Scotland in 2003 apparently was paid for by a foundation that Senate investigators described as a "slush fund" used by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

. . .

In January, Feeney agreed to pay $5,643 to the U.S. Treasury after a House ethics panel found that his trip to Scotland with Abramoff violated congressional rules.

. . .

In a 2005 Orlando Sentinel story, Feeney, an Oviedo Republican, said he was misled about who paid for the Scotland visit. In January of this year, he used stronger language, saying he was "duped and lied to" about what he thought was a fact-finding trip with Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

Feeney listed the nonprofit think tank National Center for Public Policy Research as the sponsor on his congressional travel reports, but the group has repeatedly insisted it did not pay for the Aug. 9-14 trip in 2003.
. . .
But documents obtained by the Sentinel on Thursday from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee show that Abramoff's personal charity, Capital Athletic Foundation, paid $150,226.32 for a "Scotland fundraiser" in 2003.

Got that? Rep. Feeney originally said NCPPR funded the trip. In 2005, Rep. Feeney realized NCPPR had not funded the trip and that he had been misled. In January 2007, Rep. Feeney said he was "duped and lied to". I don't know what Rep. Feeney knew at the time of the trip (I suspect Feeney knew the full truth based on e-mails from Abramoff's office). Regardless, it is safe to say that Rep. Feeney probably wishes he hadn't taken the trip to Scotland. With this level of scrutiny, he certainly wouldn't do it again.

What about Tom DeLay's strikingly similar Scotland golfing junket? For Mr. DeLay's take, I'll look at "No Retreat, No Surrender". This book was released in March 2007, two full months after Rep. Feeney admitted to the Ethics Committee that he had been "duped and lied to":

Lie Number 1: Tom DeLay took trips illegally paid for by corporations and lobbyists, which he rewarded with political favors.

. . .

[I]n 2000 I took a trip to Scotland and England at the invitation of conservative politicians in those countries . . . On this trip I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play at St. Andrews, the legendary birthplace of golf and a mecca for all true players. The trip was paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research and was completely aboveboard

. . .

So yes, I took a trip to Scotland. Yes, I played gold. Yes, it was privately funded. And yes, it was both legal and informative. If I had the opportunity, I would do it again.

pp 138-141

Just to jog our memories, here is what the Washington Post reported two years ago:

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

. . .

Multiple sources, including DeLay's then-chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, have confirmed that DeLay's congressional office was in direct contact with [Abramoff's then lobbying firm] Preston Gates about the trip itinerary before DeLay's departure, to work out details of his travel. These contacts raise questions about DeLay's statement that he had no way of knowing about the financial and logistical support provided by Abramoff and his firm.

Ed Buckham again? Funny how his name keeps popping up.

I suspect that Mr. DeLay will revise and extend his remarks in a future plea deal.

Rep. Rick Renzi's Decision: No Resignation

2007-04-27T12:47:00.000-05:00

According to Roll Call:

Despite rumors to the contrary, embattled Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) issued two statements Friday insisting that he has no intention of resigning.

Remember that Rep. Bob Ney angrily denied he would resign from the House. At least up until he resigned.

A court has found probable cause that a crime has been committed or else there would have been no wiretap and no FBI raid. I still maintain that Rep. Renzi needs to go for the good of the Republican Party.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Weighs Resignation from House

2007-04-26T15:20:00.000-05:00

So says an Arizona newspaper.

Rep. Rick Renzi R-Ariz., is “looking at” the prospect of resigning his office in response to an FBI public-corruption investigation.

On Tuesday, he told The Hill, a newspaper that covers the Washington political scene, that he was considering leaving office.

No tears shed here.

==

Wiretap

The Wall Street Journal reports that Rep. Renzi's phones were tapped as part of the investigation:

Normally, local U.S. attorneys may seek court approval for warrants and wiretaps without Washington's approval. But the Renzi case -- like many that involve members of Congress -- is being handled jointly by the local U.S. attorney and the department's public-integrity section. In such cases, a senior department official must approve requests for wiretaps and warrants and other formal legal steps.

People briefed on the case said investigators in Arizona asked Washington for clearance -- among other tools -- for a wiretap of Mr. Renzi's telephones, a highly unusual step against a sitting member of Congress, months before Election Day. The wiretap eventually was approved, and was in place by late October, these people said.

Sounds serious too me.

==

Political Delays

The same WSJ article indicates that some investigators faced "unexpected obstacles" in the Renzi case:

As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.

The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations.

I've been giving the White House the benefit of the doubt over the firings of several US Attorneys. After all, they are political appointments and serve at the will of the President. But White House defenders need to get in front of this angle and FAST!

==

Foreshadowing

The Tucson Citizen reports on something that indicates to me that Rep. Renzi has no plans to run for re-election:

Republicans said Renzi told House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he would withdraw from the GOP's Retain Our Majority Program, which funnels campaign contributions to members in the greatest need of help to defend their seats. It helped Renzi fight off a challenge from Democrat Ellen Simon last year, even though news of the federal probe broke weeks before the election.

And shouldn't that program be renamed "Regain our Majority"?

"Republican Residue"

2007-04-25T19:38:00.000-05:00

I've long said that I rarely have a disagreement with the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Demonstrating our philosophical alignment, the WSJ has an editorial today that echoes my frustrations with the actions taken by Minority Leader John Boehner on Republicans with ethical taint. A few of my previous posts are here, here and here. My basic premise is that the Republican Party is not taking the corruption issue seriously, and that has the potential to cause great damage to the party's ability to regain the Congress next election cycle.

Here are excerpts from the Wall Street Journal's editorial "Republican Residue":

The FBI reaided two Republican Congressmen earlier this month, and we can't muster much sympathy. Their misbehavior is the residue of the GOP's lost, arrogant Congressional majority, which allowed its principles to atrophy. If the Republicans hope to retake Congress in 2008, they'd do well to eliminate the habits that created these scandals in the first place.

. . .

To their credit, John Boehner and the House GOP leadership acted decisively: Messrs. Doolittle and Renzi resigned from their prominent committee posts at Appropriations and Intelligence, respectively, at least until the matters are resolved. The move was a promising sign that the Republicans are serious about changing their ways. But we wonder why similar pressure wasn't exerted against others suspected of ethical transgressions.

Exhibit A is California Representative Jerry Lewis.

. . .

Mr. Lewis's fellow California Republican Gary Miller also hasn't been properly disciplined by the House leadership.

. . .

No doubt there are other instances of lax ethical enforcement, which is precisely the sort of passivity that cost the Republican majority in the last election. The GOP has the opportunity to reclaim the Congress next year, but this is a perishable fruit. It will rot fast if the party is still in thrall to the status quo ante.

The arrogance isn't limited to Congressional Republicans. The local leadership (County Chairs and Precinct Chairs) from TX22 are just as arrogant. Any reasonable observer of current events over the past 18 months knew of our own former Congressman's corruption -- even before the 2006 GOP primary election. Yet not a single elected party official had the moral strength to tell Mr. DeLay not to run for re-election in 2006. Yes, it burns me up that our own local mismanagement led to a Democrat holding our Congressional seat even for two years.

I personally attempted to contact both my County Chair and my Precinct Chair to share my disappointment of their tolerance of corruption. They both went out of their way to avoid hearing the truth. GOP rot exists right here in TX22.

==

Historical WSJ articles regarding DeLay's problems:

Smells Like Beltway -- The real reason Tom DeLay is in political trouble

Cleaning House -- Banish the Abramoff Republicans

Lobbying Probe Looks at Payments To DeLay's Wife

Charges Coming Against Ed Buckham?

2007-04-25T08:52:00.000-05:00

The Chronicle has a piece (Front Page, below the fold) that I swear summarizes this blog since its inception. The article looks at the prospect of criminal charges against former Tom DeLay aide Ed Buckham:

[P]rosecutors could decide within weeks whether to bring charges against former DeLay staff chief Edwin Buckham, according to sources close to the investigation who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. The decision should give a clear signal on whether DeLay remains in legal jeopardy, the sources said.

. . .

And like [California Rep. John] Doolittle's wife, DeLay's wife, Christine, received payments from lobbyists that are now being scrutinized by investigators to determine whether they were part of an improper granting of favors.

Investigators have looked closely at the $115,000 that Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay at a rate of $3,200 a month beginning in 1998, soon after Buckham left his job as DeLay's chief of staff. A nonprofit company set up by Buckham, the U.S. Family Network, received a major part of its funding from companies with ties to Abramoff. Then, the nonprofit paid Buckham and his lobbying firm hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.

. . .

Buckham's attorney did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.

The payments to Christine DeLay resembled, at least superficially, those Abramoff's former lobbying firm gave to Julie Doolittle's company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., between September 2002 and February 2004.

Cullen has said the money for Christine DeLay was a legitimate payment from the lobbying firm for work she did to compile a list of charities in House members' districts.

C'mon, Chron, the least you could have done is given me a "hat tip".

More thoughts on this later, but my first impression is that the Chronicle hit all the major points.

==

OK, let's get to my thoughts on the article.

Really, the only new thing we learn from this article is that prosecutors are nearing a decision on whether or not to indict Ed Buckham. They have to indict. Buckham is the key to DeLay and DeLay's corruption was among the most egregious. The rest of the facts could have been reported a over year ago. In fact, readers of this blog were aware of them then. The New York Times reported the basics of the "Wives Club" in late 2005. Also in late 2005, the Washington Post connected Christine DeLay to this style of kickback.

I particularly liked this contrast in the article:

[DeLay lawyer Richard] Cullen noted that there had been no allegation of any improper favor done by DeLay for Abramoff -- which would be a key part in charging him with abusing his office.

No allegation, right? Later we read:

Court papers in [former DeLay aide Tony] Rudy's guilty plea stated that Rudy, while working for DeLay, arranged for the congressman to sign a letter opposing a postal-rate increase to aid an Abramoff client and helped kill an anti-gambling bill opposed by another Abramoff client.

Maybe DeLay's position is that while he and Rudy were helping Abramoff's clients, it had nothing to do with all the benefits he received from Abramoff. Personally I don't accept that position.

There are only two things I would have done differently than Chron writer Michael Hedges. Hedges compares Christine DeLay's "employment" with Buckham to Julie Doolittle's "employment" with Abramoff. Hedges says:

The payments to Christine DeLay resembled, at least superficially, those Abramoff's former lobbying firm gave to Julie Doolittle's company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., between September 2002 and February 2004.

It would have been better to compare both wives' employment with Buckham. Recall that FBI agents raided Julie Doolittle's business records dealing with the Korea-US Exchange Council, an Edwin Buckham controlled entity.

Secondly, Hedges lets DeLay lawyer Richard Cullen's statement regarding Christine DeLay's employment with Buckham go unchallenged:

Cullen has said the money for Christine DeLay was a legitimate payment from the lobbying firm for work she did to compile a list of charities in House members' districts.

The Weekly Standard magazine couldn't find any evidence that Christine DeLay actually produced such a list. What information did Hedges discover to help us decide whether or not Mrs. DeLay actually did any work? I'm not sure it matters. Mrs. DeLay earned over $100,000 to compile a list that was at most 535 items long. An intern could have done that work for free. It just doesn't pass the smell test. I still find it strange that Ed Buckham wanted a list of favorite charities of everyone in Congress. Why?

[For what it is worth, I don't like the idea of Congressmen running their own charities. There's just too much potential for abuse. Many of the contributors to DeLay's own charity were associated in some way to Jack Abramoff. It is just plain stinky, but I have no evidence that prosecutors are interested in that angle.]

Overall, Michael Hedges earns an "A". Hedges appears to be the intrepid reporter I asked to see. I expect to see more reporting on this matter soon. Hedges is now my favorite Chron reporter!

===

Update
July 2007

GreginTX22 is a defunct blog. You may see current postings at AntiCorruptionRepublican.

The "Clear Likelihood" Standard II

2007-04-24T21:29:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, Congressional Quarterly reported on Minority Leader John Boehner's standard for stripping committee memberships: "[The] clear likelihood of serious transgressions will lead to suspension from important committees."

Today, CQ looks at the status of two other GOP Congressmen:

The decisions of Doolittle and Renzi to resign committee posts — coupled with the GOP leadership’s decision to assume that lawmakers are guilty until proven innocent — could signify that GOP leaders are holding their members to a new standard.

During last year’s midterm election, Republicans insisted that their members under investigation were innocent until proven guilty.

“Given the amount of time the GOP leadership team has spent making ethics a priority, it’s safe to say the decisions made by Doolittle and Renzi were no-brainers … The writing was already on the wall for them,” a GOP leadership aide said.

The aide added: “This is a crucial turning point for the party and proof that our leadership intends to make good on their promise to restore ethical integrity to the House.”

But the GOP aide noted that House leaders have not reprimanded other House members facing ethics problems because there has been no legal action taken against them. Those include California Republicans Jerry Lewis and Gary Miller, who have come under scrutiny for allegedly earmarking funds for a former lawmaker’s business and neglecting to report lucrative land deals, respectively.

I'll see Rep. Jerry Lewis and Rep. Gary Miller and raise one Rep. Tom Feeney.

So Republican leaders in the House won't make any move until "legal action" has been taken against a Member. Seems like the "Clear Likelihood" standard is already watered down. In practice, the "Clear Likelihood" standard looks like "The FBI has already raided your wife's business" standard.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial hitting these same exact themes.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) -- Apr 24

2007-04-24T10:15:00.000-05:00

Discrepancy

Rep. Feeney's statement to the St. Petersburg Times yesterday:

In January, the Committee on Standards made no findings to suggest that Rep. Feeney violated any House rules and closed their file on this matter. Rep. Feeney considers this an embarrassing episode in his 17 year career as an elected official and an expensive lesson for him as a public servant.
Rep. Feeney accepted the Committee's decision and agreed to reimburse the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $5,643, the reported cost of the trip.

Emphasis Mine

What the Ethics Committee said:

After Representative Feeney voluntarily provided additional information to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member regarding the trip, we concluded that the trip did not comply with House rules and Representative Feeney has agreed to resolve the matter by paying the cost of the trip to the United States Treasury.

Emphasis Mine

I can't reconcile the two statements. It reminds me of when Tom DeLay misrepresented the findings of the Ethics Committee.

I don't get something else. Rep. Feeney was in trouble for accepting a trip paid for by Jack Abramoff. He cleansed his sins by paying the US Treasury. But the US Treasury didn't pay for the trip, and there's no way the US Treasury would have paid for it. A golfing trip to Scotland doesn't qualify as a Congressional Delegation trip. I've never understood the concept of indulgences.

==

Yesterday's Rep. Feeney Post

Comprehensive Mark Zachares Post - Apr. 24

2007-04-24T09:03:00.000-05:00

Cooperating?

Zachares' lawyer, Edward MacMahon, said he could confirm only that Zachares is scheduled for a plea hearing today before U.S. Judge Ellen Huvelle, who is handling many of the cases surrounding Abramoff.

He declined to say whether Zachares has made an agreement to implicate anyone else.

Link

I'm betting "yes".

==

Cooperation Confirmed

Zachares will cooperate with the government's continuing investigation, [defense attorney Edward] MacMahon told reporters.

I've drawn no conclusions regarding Rep. Don Young (R-AK):

After the court appearance, defense attorney Edward MacMahon declined to say whether [Rep. Don] Young was aware of what Zachares was doing on behalf of Abramoff.

==

In a previous post, I commented on how prosecutors have placed legal pressure on wives to get husbands to cooperate. The Zachares case is no different. From the Blog of Legal Times:

As part of the plea, DOJ promises not to prosecute Zachares' wife Cynthia, who sat in the second to the last row of the courtroom with her lawyer Alan Yamamoto. That is, as long as Cynthia cooperates too.

Lawyers on both sides would not say why Cynthia, who was interviewed by federal investigators on Feb. 23, was granted immunity or what her cooperation might yield. All Zachares' attorney, Edward MacMahon would say was that she did not receive money from Abramoff.

Notice that BLT specifies that Cynthia Zachares must cooperate, too. What is that all about? (I'm guessing she signed a fraudulent income tax form that happened to omit the income derived from Abramoff.)

I expect this tactic of using wives to pressure husbands to eventually be used on Tom and Christine DeLay.

==

I Didn't do It

It probably won't be as difficult to figure out who hired Mark Zachares to the staff of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommitte as it was to find out who hired bar bouncer Craig Livingstone as head of White House security. (Did we ever find that out?) But former subcommittee chairman Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) says he didn't do it:

A spokesman for Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), who chaired the maritime subcommittee, said Abramoff never approached LoBiondo about getting Zachares a job on the panel.

Young, who chaired the full transportation panel at the time, was “solely in charge of the hiring, firing and daily management of staff, including Mark Zachares,” LoBiondo spokesman James Galanes said.

“Despite being a subcommittee chair, Congressman LoBiondo had no input in the selection or management of staff members for the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee,” he added. “At no time did Mark Zachares make a request of then-Chairman LoBiondo on behalf of Jack Abramoff. I would refer questions about Mark Zachares’s employment to Rep. Young’s office …”

That seems like an awful lot of CYA to me. However, I still don't have any evidence that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) did anything illegal. I just hope Rep. Young didn't hire Zachares on Jack Abramoff's recommendation. That could make things stickier.

==

Payback

Among the specific acts to which Mark Zachares pleaded guily, this is the strangest:

Using his position to exert "payback" on entities that had retained competing lobbying firms

Payback? This could get ugly!

Cool

2007-04-23T21:01:00.000-05:00

First of all, I want to thank my readers. April will be the month with the most hits since I've been keeping track. It will eclipse November 2006, election month. I didn't think I'd ever see readership that high again.

One of the strangest things about my humble little blog is who is reading it. My intended audience is people in my local Congressional district. But my readership in Washington, DC is far higher than my readership in Houston. Oh, a lot of people, including local officeholders here in TX22, know about my blog, but they don't read it because, in the words of Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", they can't handle the truth.

Anyway, several weeks ago, I wrote a post entitled "Blame Game" explaining why Tom DeLay was attacking Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. In short, DeLay is trying to defend his legacy by suggesting that Gingrich and Armey were responsible for the loss of the Republican majority. In reality, the loss of the Republican majorities in Congress is DeLay's fault. DeLay abandoned conservative values and created the corrupt government-by-lobbyist scheme epitomized by the Jack Abramoff scandal.

To my surprise, I discovered that Dick Armey's organization, Freedom Works, reprinted that post on their own website. I'm flattered. And even though Freedom Works didn't ask for my permission, they certainly have my consent after the fact. Next time, just get the name of this blog correct; it is gregintx22.blogspot.com, not gregintx22.com. (I do very little to raise the visibility of this blog.)

I'm honored to be more closely associated with Dick Armey than Tom DeLay.

In Re: Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

2007-04-23T20:13:00.000-05:00

Soon to be admitted felon Mark Zachares worked for Rep. Don Young (R-AK). Now I have no reason to believe that Rep. Young is caught up in the Abramoff scandal, but here are a few tidbits about him:

A two day old article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel still shows up on the first page of a Google search for "Don Young". It indicates he has lawyered up. I'm not sure whether or not it is connected to the Abramoff scandal:

One of the congressmen caught up in the latest federal investigation of indicted Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha has hired a major D.C. law firm to represent him in the matter.

. . .

But it's not U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican.

Records show that the campaign of Alaska Republican Congressman Don Young paid a $25,000 retainer to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feldlast month.

The feds are looking into new truck-hauling rules that Young, Ryan and U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, helped push through in 2005 as part of a major transportation spending bill. Troha personally benefited from the measure and was a campaign contributor to all three.

Furthermore, Citizens Against Government Waste* last week named Rep. Young as the "Porker of the Month":

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), the “Congressman for all Alaska,” as Porker of the Month for defending earmarks and pledging to continue his state’s disproportionate harvest of federal tax dollars.

During an April 9 KTUU-TV (Channel 2, Anchorage) interview, Rep. Young said, “People don’t understand that this so-called cry for stopping earmarks, it does not add to the national debt. If you have a budget that’s the budget we just voted on that that we work in, what we do is decide within the budget where those dollars will go.” He also called the President Bush’s criticism of earmarks “dead wrong.”

Love of earmarks? Doesn't add to the national debt? This guy doesn't subscribe to the same brand of conservatism that I do. In fact, judging by those statements, he isn't a conservative at all. In fact, that statement makes me recall a former Republican Congressman from TX22 who declared an "ongoing victory" in restraining government spending:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

. . .

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

That guy wasn't a conservative, either.

* Demonstrating how deep the tentacles of the Abramoff scandal reach, I need to mention that Citizens Against Government Waste was named in a Senate Report as an organization that allowed Abramoff to corrupt them:

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.

E-mails released by the committee show that Abramoff, often with the knowledge of the groups' leaders, exploited the tax-exempt status and leveraged the stature of the organizations to build support among conservatives for legislation or government action sought by clients including Microsoft Corp., mutual fund company DH2 Inc., Primedia Inc.'s Channel One Network, and Brown-Forman, maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey.

Representative #3 -- Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)

2007-04-23T16:49:00.000-05:00

In the criminal information in the Mark Zachares case provided by talkingpointsmemo.com, we learn of yet another Congressman given a "generic" name:

16. From on or about August 9, 2003, through on or about August 14, 2003, ZACHARES, Abramoff and six other individuals, including a Member of the United States House of Representatives (Representative #3), traveled to Scotland to play golf on world-famous courses. Abramoff and his clients paid nearly all expenses for the trip for all participants, including ZACHARES adn Representative #3, including costs in excesss of $160,000 for private jet service between Maryland and Scotland, luxury hotel accomodations in Scotland, twice-daily golf at St. Andrews and other famous courses, meals, drinks, and local transportation.

As always, it isn't difficult to figure out who that person is. It is Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL):

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, has agreed to pay $5,643 to the U.S. Treasury to cover the cost of a golfing junket to Scotland that he took with shamed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Tamara Lytle, the Orlando Sentinel's chief Washington correspondent, reports today that the top Democrat and Republican on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct concluded Feeney's 2003 trip violated congressional rules.

. . .

“Representative Tom Feeney contacted the Committee in March 2005 after media reports regarding a trip he had taken to Scotland in August 2003. The media reports concerned allegations that the trip was paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, rather than the trip sponsor he had reported, and that the trip may have been substantially recreational in nature, contrary to House rules.

I'd say the next shoe has dropped. This does not augur well for Rep. Feeney.

==

Click here for the lastest list of persons given generic names like "Representative #3" along with their status as of late March.

==

Fun Fact

Rep. Feeney went on a trip with an outfit called the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council was an organization controlled by former DeLay staffer Ed Buckham (a.k.a. "Lobbyist B"):

[Rep. Feeney] went on a trip to Asia in 2003 that was paid for by a charity registered as a foreign agent, which is against House rules. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council has said its status may have been a mistake and that lawmakers had been told the trip was proper.

Emphasis Mine

Korea-U.S. Exchange Council. Sound familiar? It should. Julie Doolittle, wife of Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), whose business records were seized in a recent FBI search, worked for Buckham's Korea - US Exchange Council.

[Julie]Doolittle has been under fire for paying his wife’s company, Sierra Dominion, a 15 percent commission on all contributions that the company raised for Doolittle’s campaign committee and leadership PAC. Her only other clients were Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig; Abramoff’s former restaurant Signatures; and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which Ed Buckham, a former chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), created.

Emphasis Mine

==

Confirmed

Things are moving fast, but the St. Petersburg (Fla.) newspaper confirms (even though the FBI declined comment) the FBI is investigating Rep. Feeney's trip with Abramoff to Scotland.

WASHINGTON - The FBI has asked U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney for information about his dealings with Jack Abramoff as part of its ongoing investigation into the lobbyist convicted of defrauding clients.

FBI agent Kevin Luebke refused to say whether Feeney, a Republican from the Orlando area, is under federal investigation.

Federal agents also have asked the St. Petersburg Times for an email sent to the newspaper by Feeney's office describing a golfing trip the congressman took with Abramoff to Scotland in 2003.

. . . and more . . .

"Tom has never written a letter for Abramoff. Abramoff has never been in our office. Abramoff has never asked anything of us," [Feeney Chief of Staff Jason] Roe wrote in the email [from 2006]. "There is no accusation of a quid pro quo. No quid pro quo exists."

OK, I'll grant that one to Rep. Feeney. I don't know what he did in return for the trip to Scotland, so I'm not asserting a quid pro quo. I still wouldn't want to be in Rep. Feeney's shoes, though.

But I do find it interesting that Mr. Roe implicitly acknowledges that writing letters on Abramoff's behalf could be the other half of a quid pro quo. Goodness knows that there's plenty of those kinds of letters out there. Up to this point, I've ignored such letters. Maybe I should revisit that position.

==

Fuzzy Math

From the AP:

Zachares went on an August 2003 golfing trip to Scotland with Abramoff and six others including Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.

Feeney's office said the Justice Department has contacted the congressman to request more information and that Feeney is cooperating. Early this year, Feeney agreed to pay the cost of the Scotland trip.

The cost of the trip was more than $160,000 for private jet service, luxury hotel accommodations, twice-daily golf at St. Andrews and other famous courses, meals, drinks and local transportation, states the document that federal prosecutors filed in court.

Emphasis Mine

Story Problem: If seven people go on a trip, and the total cost is $160,000, what is the cost for each person? ANSWER: $160,000 / 7 = $22,857

How much did Feeney pay back as an indulgence to purify this sin?

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, has agreed to pay $5,643 to the U.S. Treasury to cover the cost of a golfing junket to Scotland that he took with shamed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Mark Zachares: GUILTY (. . . or at least soon to be)

2007-04-23T16:36:00.000-05:00

From TPMMuckraker:

Yet another shoe drops in the Jack Abramoff investigation. A former aide to Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Mark Zachares, looks set to plead guilty to corruption charges.

The Justice Department filed a criminal information today on Zachares, laying out the facts to which he'll be pleading guilty. You can read it here. A plea hearing has been scheduled for tomorrow.

This angle has been below my radar screen. I may update this if I find out anything interesting. Meanwhile, visit TPMMuckraker.

==

Update

What I discovered in the criminal information warranted a new post. In it, we learn that Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) has been designated as "Representative #3". Lots of other stuff at that post, too.

Golden State Conservatives Contemplate a Doolittle Resignation

2007-04-21T23:02:00.000-05:00

Link

Its very possible that Congressman John Doolittle will resign because of circumstances relating to the ethical (and maybe legal) charges being brought against him.

. . .

For those not familiar with the seat, this North Eastern California Congressional District is solid GOP territory that stretches from the Sacramento suburbs up to Lake Tahoe and all the way north to the Oregon border. The district has a 48% to 30% GOP registration advantage and Bush received 61% of the vote in 2004. If Democrat challenger Charlie Brown couldn't win this district in the perfect storm last year, he sure wont win it in 2008 against a well qualified Republican nominee.

There is no shortage of qualified Republican elected officials living in this district that have to be thinking about a potential run for Congress -- especially if it opens up to a special election. And I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them would consider a primary run against Doolittle if he can survive the rest of the year.

==

In 2006, a Republican did challenge Rep. Doolittle in the primary. Like our district, there wasn't enough outrage to throw out the corrupt incumbent in the primary. Unlike our district, there wasn't enough outrage in CA04 to deny the corrupt incumbent re-election in the general.

2008 Congressional Election

2007-04-21T21:57:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago, I stated that I was no longer optimistic the Republican establishment would take the corruption issue seriously. The anti-corruption wing of the Republican Party lost in the leadership elections after the 2006 election, and even at the local level here in TX22, the organized party doesn't seem to recognize that there is a problem.

Sunday's Washington Post has an article that echoes my fears:

The abrupt resignations last week of two Republican House members from their sensitive committee assignments have thrust lingering legal and ethics issues back into the limelight, potentially complicating GOP efforts to retake Congress next year.

What does the Republican leadership say?

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was more sanguine. The Democrats' theme of "a culture of corruption" is unlikely to break through to voters in a presidential election year with so much at stake, he said. And individual cases coming into focus in early 2007 will likely be resolved by the fall of 2008. "There's a long time between now and the election," he said.

Oh, great. The same story as 2006. The Democrats' theme of "a culture of corruption" won't influence voters. Maybe Republicans should change their symbol from an elephant to an ostrich. Sticking their head in the sand won't make the problem go away in 2008 any better than it did in 2006. And I really like the strategy of hoping voters forget about the corruption by 2008 because "there's a long time between now and the election." [/sarcasm] Lastly, why hope that the 2008 Presidential election will marginalize the corruption issue? Isn't it just as likely that the corruption issue will impact the Presidential race?

I'm a little bit closer to the position of Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA):

"Everybody's kind of a little bit numb," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "There's this, 'What else can happen now?' feeling going around here."

I too have that "What else can happen now?" feeling. Does this infect the White House? Republican voters abandoned many of the most corrupt politicians (e.g. Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns) in 2006 so their problems won't have as strong as an impact in 2008. But I wish Rep. Kingston would have gone farther. He should have articulated some sort of strategy to deal with corrupt officeholders NOW. Just waiting for the next bomb to drop is not a strategy. (In TX22, the precinct chairs actively supported Tom DeLay during the 2006 primary election even after his corruption was apparent. The bomb dropped mid-2006, and due to the extremely poor local leadership, this very conservative district is now temporarily represented by a Democrat.)

I'll repeat what I said in the earlier post: There is no leadership in the Republican Party when it comes to the issue of corruption. The good guys (Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) et al) tried to start a reformist movement in the Republican Congressional leadership, but lost. The local party here still believes that Tom DeLay isn't corrupt.

I hope the Republican Party doesn't stick the middle finger at its anti-corruption wing again. Last time they did that the results weren't so pretty.

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) Vows to Fight in Court

2007-04-20T13:51:00.000-05:00

At least it sounds that way to me . . .

From McClatchy Newspapers:

Rep. John Doolittle, in measured but defiant terms, said Friday that he will not resign his House seat and will battle the federal government if it brings charges of political corruption in connection with his and wife Julie’s relationship with convicted super lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The other difference in Doolittle's strategy is that he, unlike Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), won't resign from Congress. Let's see if he keeps that promise.

Previously, Rep. Doolittle had triggered Minority Leader John Boehner's "Clear Likelihood of serious transgression" standard. Rep. Boehner consequently pressured Doolittle to resign from the Appropriations Committee.

Christine DeLay in the News

2007-04-20T11:09:00.000-05:00

From the Wall Street Journal website:

FBI agents continue to interview aides to former Rep. DeLay, offering immunity in exchange for testimony, individuals close to the investigation say. Justice officials ask whether former aides paid the Texas Republican’s wife $3,200 a month for a no-show job at their lobbying firm. DeLay, who retired last year, is on a book tour.

Very little new here. I suppose it is new that investigators are offering immunity, but is that really unexpected?

Anyway, Christine DeLay's no-show job has been my prime bit of evidence against Tom DeLay for over a year. I just like to hear that the FBI still intends to bring DeLay to justice.

The "Clear Likelihood" Standard

2007-04-20T10:03:00.000-05:00

A new standard has been articulated by House Minority Leader John Boehner. The "Clear Likelihood" standard:

[I]n a letter to all House Republicans before the start of the 110th Congress, Minority Leader John A. Boehner spelled out the basics.

“Clear likelihood of serious transgressions will lead to suspension from important committee positions; guilt will lead to immediate and severe consequences,” the Ohio Republican wrote.

I've essentially employed a similar standard for some time. It is what prevented me from voting for Tom DeLay in the 2006 GOP primary. I like the "Clear Likelihood" standard. I encourage all voters to use this as they cast ballots at any level.

What I don't like is that Boehner doesn't seem to believe in the "Clear Likelihood" standard. How else to explain how Rep. John Doolittle remained on the Appropriations Committee until yesterday? The facts surrounding Doolittle's corruption have been known for months if not years.

Changing My Tune

2007-04-19T21:52:00.000-05:00

For a long time, I didn't comment on the corruption of former Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA) and defense contractor Brent Wilkes. I was focused on Abramoff, Buckham and DeLay, and it didn't seem that the Cunningham scandal was related.

I can change my mind quickly. Just earlier today, I said I "wasn't convinced" that the Doolittle investigation had anything to do with Brent Wilkes. For over a year, I've zeroed in on the Wives Club activities of Julie Doolittle primarily because of how similar Julie Doolittle's phony jobs were to those of Christine DeLay.

What caused this change? This article from the New York Times:

Mr. Doolittle is also under investigation in connection with Jack Abramoff, whose lobbying firm, Washington restaurant and personal charity group paid Mrs. Doolittle as an event planner. Mr. Abramoff is in prison on a bribery conviction. Finally, Mr. Doolittle is under scrutiny for his ties to Brent Wilkes, a San Diego military contractor who was recently indicted on bribery charges. Mr. Wilkes arranged tens of thousands in campaign contributions for Mr. Doolittle while he was shepherding through Congress $37 million in spending items for a company Mr. Wilkes controlled. (Mr. Wilkes also raised money for Mr. Lewis.)

Federal prosecutors are investigating the possibilities that Mr. Doolittle may have traded earmarks or other official acts for illegal payments from Mr. Abramoff or Mr. Wilkes. Both the Abramoff and Cunningham investigations have recently shown signs of quickening. In February, prosecutors indicted both Mr. Wilkes and a former Central Intelligence Agency executive director, Kyle Foggo, who was charged with playing a role in Mr. Wilkes’s schemes.

Does it get any clearer than that?

Holy Matrimony!

2007-04-19T21:17:00.000-05:00

Admitted liar Steven Griles has tied the knot with girlfriend and fellow Abramoff investigation figure Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The Hill newspaper reports one possible benefit to the union, one possible disadvantage and a clear denial:

The union of former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge could have implications for the investigation into Griles’s ties to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

. . .

Legal experts note that people can refuse to testify against their spouses, and that in some cases, people can prevent their spouse from testifying against them.

. . .

[George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley noted that there could be financial disadvantages to the pair’s marriage if authorities go after Griles’s assets. Griles faces a maximum fine of $250,000.

. . .

Griles attorney Barry Hartman angrily rejected any notion that spousal privilege had any bearing on Griles and Wooldridge’s decision to marry.

“Steve Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge got married because they love each other,” Hartman said. “Any other suggestion is wrong.”

I have no special insight into the motives of Griles and Wooldridge, but since they dated, I have no doubt that they have genuine feelings for each other. Let's hope the third time is the charm for Mr. Griles.

As I've speculated before, my belief is that Griles and Wooldridge are small fish in the investigation at the Department of Interior. I suspect the real focus is on former Secretary Gale Norton.

Rep. Doolittle Gives up Appropriations Seat

2007-04-19T13:54:00.000-05:00

So says the AP:

Rep. John Doolittle has decided to temporarily give up his House Appropriations Committee seat after FBI agents searched his house in a congressional influence-peddling investigation.

. . .

The lawmaker's decision followed by a day the disclosure of the raid on his Oakton, Va., home last Friday. FBI agents had a search warrant for information connected with a fundraising business run by Doolittle's wife, Julie, that had done work for convicted GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

It is possible that Doolittle is giving up the Approps seat because the investigation is leading prosecutors toward the Brent Wilkes angle. But I'm still not convinced.

==

A Pattern?

Bob Ney
Jan 2006: Resigns from House Administration Committee
Aug 2006: Announces that he won't run for re-election
Oct 2006: Pleads Guilty
Nov 2006: Resigns from House of Representatives

Tom DeLay
Jan 2006: Resigns as Majority Leader
Apr 2006: Announces that he won't run for re-election
Jun 2006: Resigns from House of Representatives
??? ????: Pleads Guilty

John Doolittle
Apr 2007: Resigns from House Appropriations Committee
??? ????: Announces that he won't run for re-election
??? ????: Resigns from House of Representatives
??? ????: Pleads Guilty

==

From The Hill:

“I accept John’s decision and appreciate his willingness to take this step, which is in the best interest of the House and the American people,” Boehner said. “John recognizes that if we are to succeed in restoring trust between the American people and their elected leaders, this action is necessary, and I commend him for having the courage to do the right thing.”

I don't understand Boehner's position here. If the Republicans are going to succeed in restoring trust with the American people, Republicans must not be tolerant of corruption. They must excise corruption away from the Party. That is my major complaint of the local Republican Party. They saw no reason to get rid of the corrupt DeLay.

Look, in order to restore trust with the American people, the Republicans must make substantive moves, not symbolic ones. Rep. Doolittle must resign from Congress.

Doolittle Raid

2007-04-18T15:32:00.000-05:00

From The Hill newspaper.

The FBI searched the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) last Friday in its investigation into the ties of the congressman and his wife, Julie, to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to law enforcement and other Congressional and K Street sources.

Hmm. What else happened last Friday? Coincidence? I think not. I'd say Rep. Doolittle faces serious legal jeopardy. Of course, I've said that for nearly a year.

There's really precious little info to be gleaned from The Hill's story. I did find this passage interesting, though:

Doolittle has been under fire for paying his wife’s company, Sierra Dominion, a 15 percent commission on all contributions that the company raised for Doolittle’s campaign committee and leadership PAC. Her only other clients were Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig; Abramoff’s former restaurant Signatures; and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which Ed Buckham, a former chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), created.

Emphasis mine.

Need I remind you that Christine DeLay had a suspicious job with Ed Buckham, too?

Ed Buckham. Remember that name. You will hear more of it.

==

There is an interesting quote from Doolittle lawyer David Barger in an article from McClatchey Newspapers:

“Because of the pending Abramoff investigation, I am not going to confirm or deny that the Doolittle’s home was raided,” Barger said. “The congressman continues to be fully supportive of his wife, Julie, and believes that the truth ultimately will prevail.”

I infer that the investigation is targetting activities of Rep. Doolittle's wife, Julie. Why else mention her? Consequently, I conclude that the FBI is interested in Julie's Wives Club activity. If I'm right, then it also increases the likelihood that Christine DeLay's Wives Club activities will come under similar scrutiny.

Lefties like to claim that the Doolittle case encompasses bribes from defense contractors similar to the Duke Cunningham case. They also like to connect the Doolittle scandal to the recent firing of US attorneys. The evidence hasn't convinced me that there's anything to those allegations.

==

From the Washington Post:

Doolittle's wife, Julie, operates Sierra Dominion Financial Services Inc. out of the couple's home in Oakton, Va. Since 2005, investigators have been looking at payments made by Abramoff and his colleagues to Doolittle's wife, as well as to the spouses of other lawmakers.

Emphasis mine

Anyone have a guess who one of those "spouses of other lawmakers" might be? Anyone?

==

Subtle Difference

Today, John Doolittle's lawyer, David Barger, declined to comment on whether Rep. Doolittle is a "target" of investigation. On Monday, Doolittle's Chief of Staff, Richard Robinson, said, "It is my understanding that Congressman Doolittle is not the target of a Department of Justice investigation."

Maybe the two statements don't need to be reconciled. Maybe Rep. Doolittle's status has changed in the past two days. Maybe Julie Doolittle has received a target letter. Previously in this investigation, prosecutors have put legal pressure on wives (see: Lisa Rudy) to get husbands to cooperate.

Anyway, it is the reader's responsibility to determine whether or not Monday's statement reconciles with today's statement. I'll give no guidance.

[UPDATE -- April 20, 2007: Rep. Doolittle says he is not aware that he is a "target of investigation".]

==

NBC News connects the Doolittle Raid to a letter Rep. Doolittle wrote to then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton:

A Roll Call article noted that Doolittle wrote a letter to then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in support of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, an Abramoff client. The letter asked Norton to allow the tribe to reopen a gaming casino that had been shut down by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The letter was written at the same time that Sierra Dominion was receiving payments from Abramoff's lobbying firm.

I've speculated about the potential legal jeopardy Norton faces.

===

Update
August 2007

I have restarted my blog at a new site. Please come visit.

Kevin Ring Cooperating? -- Plus: Rep. Doolittle's Response

2007-04-17T10:05:00.000-05:00

I'd say the chances that Kevin Ring, former aide to Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), is cooperating with prosecutors is approaching 100%:

Ring's attorney, Richard Hibey, said Ring resigned of his own accord.

"He is being responsive to whatever is going on," Hibey said. He would not comment on whether Ring is cooperating with the Abramoff investigation.

"Responsive", huh? Sounds a whole lot like "cooperative" to me.

Meanwhile, word out of Rep. Doolittle's office doesn't exactly sound confident:

"In light of the uncertainty with Mr. Ring's situation, the congressman's attorney has advised him to provide no further comment on this investigation," said Richard Robinson, Doolittle's chief of staff.

Robinson directed questions to David Barger, a prominent criminal defense attorney in suburban Virginia whom Doolittle retained a year ago. Barger was not available for comment late Monday afternoon.

I have confidence that investigators in this case will pursue justice.

==

Update
April 18, 2007

According to The Hill:

Ring has not been cooperating with investigators, a law enforcement source said, adding that developments could come in his case soon.

FWIW. I am eagerly awaiting the developments.

Former Aide of Rep. John Doolittle Abruptly Resigns from Law Firm

2007-04-16T16:11:00.000-05:00

From Politico

Amid reports the Justice Department is investigating ties between Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a key link between the two, Kevin A. Ring, has abruptly resigned from his law firm.

Ring tendered his resignation from Indianapolis-based law firm Barnes & Thornburg, effective Friday, confirmed the managing partner of the firm’s Washington office, Richard H. Streeter. Ring had no immediate plans to join another firm, a source close to the issue said.

Ring, 36, was an aide to Doolittle for five years and later worked for Abramoff at Florida-based law firm Greenberg Traurig. He often served as an intermediary between Abramoff’s clients and Doolittle’s office, according to news reports, and has remained close to Doolittle and his wife, Julie, who did consulting work for Abramoff.

Doolittle’s chief of staff, Richard Robinson, said the congressman was “not aware of the specific reason” behind Ring’s resignation. “But as a close friend and former employee, Kevin remains in the Doolittles’ thoughts and prayers,” Robinson said.

Asked about reports in The Washington Post that the Justice Department was looking at Doolittle as part of the Abramoff corruption inquiry, Robinson said, “It is my understanding that Congressman Doolittle is not the target of a Department of Justice investigation.”

Ring’s lawyer, Richard A. Hibey at Miller & Chevalier, did not return telephone calls for comment. A Justice Department spokesman, Bryan Sierra, had no comment.

Ring’s resignation could foreshadow deepening problems for Doolittle in the Abramoff inquiry.

. . .

Ring is the second former Abramoff associate to leave Barnes & Thornburg. Neil Volz resigned in January, 2006, shortly after he was named as “Staffer B” in Abramoff’s plea agreement with federal prosecutors. Volz later pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors in securing a guilty plea from his former boss, then-Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who is now serving time in a federal prison in Morgantown, W.V. Abramoff is incarcerated in a federal prison in Cumberland, Md.

Rep. Doolittle's wife had suspicious employment similar to Christine DeLay. Their common boss: Ed Buckham.

Personally, I don't believe in coincidences this big. Something is afoot. Expect to learn that Kevin Ring is cooperating with prosecutors soon. The only question is whether Ring will be held criminally accountable for any of his actions.

===

Update

TPMMuckraker reported something that seems to have particular relevence to this story:

In 2003, for instance, a lobbyist for Jack Abramoff, Kevin Ring, wrote him that emails about Abramoff's clients shouldn't be sent to White House addresses because "it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." That warning, Ring told The Washington Post, came from Jennifer Farley, a deputy in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Punctuation altered for clarity

Now I have no idea if Kevin Ring is providing this kind of information to prosecutors, but I found it extremely coincidental that Mr. Ring wrote e-mails to Jack Abramoff advising him no to use White House e-mail addresses. This kind of merges two of the hot stories of the day.

"No Retreat, No Surrender"

2007-04-15T14:15:00.000-05:00

I acquired Tom DeLay’s book, “No Retreat, No Surrender”, about two weeks ago. I finished reading the book less than eight hours later. Why did it take so long to write a post about it? Primarily because I’d have to admit that Chronicle columnist Cragg Hines was right when he advised his readers not to spend $26 to buy it. The Economist tells us that DeLay’s book is “selling very slowly”. My only defense is that I didn’t spend anywhere near $26 for it. I’d like to second Mr. Hines’ advice. Don’t spend $26 for “No Retreat, No Surrender”. If you can’t wait for it to appear on booksellers’ remainder tables, you can get remainder prices today. “No Retreat, No Surrender” sold on a recent E-bay auction for $6.29, shipping included.

Now I don’t intend to provide a general book review on “No Retreat, No Surrender”. If that is your interest, follow the Economist link; Cragg Hines just can’t seem to consider that Ronnie Earle’s indictments are purely political.

In a previous post, I speculated that “No Retreat, No Surrender” would simply be an attempt by Tom DeLay to defend his legacy. DeLay doesn’t disappoint. He blames Newt Gingrich (out of Congress since 1999) and Dick Armey (out of Congress since 2003) for all the ills of the Republican debacle in 2006. The corruption under DeLay himself is not considered a major factor in the loss of the Republican majorities in Congress despite the fact that the TX22 seat is currently held by a Democrat. (How did that happen?)

Others have nitpicked at relatively minor passages in “No Retreat, No Surrender” like did Tom DeLay compare Ronnie Earle’s prosecutorial misconduct to the Holocaust? Or what to make of DeLay’s admitted serial infidelities (see: Cragg Hines)? Others may contemplate those relatively minor issues. The thing that annoys me the most is how DeLay employs his time-honored use of misdirection to defend his illegal activites.

Specifically, I object to the way DeLay handles the accusations that his family members received phony employment. In the chapter entitled “Ten Liberal Lies You’ve Heard About Me”, DeLay acts like he will address that issue in Lie Number 6:

Lie Number 6 Tom DeLay hired his wife and daughter to do nothing – except party in Las Vegas.

See what DeLay does here? DeLay tackles the relatively easy issue of his wife and daughter working for *him*. Now I have mentioned the fact that DeLay's wife and daughter worked on his campaigns and PACs once. I did this in January 2007, as an aside. I said the arrangement was "stinky" but probably "not illegal". However, in that same post, I said the real problem was the phony "job" Christine DeLay had at Ed Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group.

Notice, too, how DeLay attempts to misdirect readers into believing the investigation an us-vs.-them affair by calling the legitimate concerns of impropriety "liberal lies". This vast left-wing conspiracy must put its right-wing counterpart to shame. Not only have I become an unwitting member of this conspiracy, so have publications that I've generally considered conservative such as the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. I have an alternative theory: A lot of true-believing conservatives abhor corruption and will not tolerate it in their midst. That is why conservatives turned against Tom DeLay in the 2006 GOP primary election and made it clear that he could not win reelection.

I would love for some intrepid reporter to call DeLay on this obvious attempt at misdirection. Ask DeLay why his wife Christine was working for Abramoff associate Ed Buckham. Ask what exactly Christine DeLay did in that "job".

Italia Federici: TARGET

2007-04-03T11:29:00.000-05:00

Via TPMMuckraker, I learn that the Legal Times reports that Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) founder Italia Federici received a target letter in January. TPMMuckraker pretty much sticks to the facts. I have a little speculation.

In a letter dated Jan. 19, the Justice Department informed Federici, founder of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, that she was a target of the federal probe.

“The investigation is focused on the allegedly illegal manner in which you operated the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy,” wrote Stephanie Evans, a trial attorney in the department’s Tax Division.

Federici co-founded CREA, a conservative-leaning environmental-advocacy group, in 1997 with Gale Norton, who became secretary of the Interior Department in 2001.

[. . .]

According to the Jan. 19 target letter filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, investigators are looking at whether Federici violated five statutes in connection with running the group: conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, impeding the Internal Revenue Service, and obstructing proceedings and making false statements before the Senate. The letter makes no mention of Abramoff or Griles.

Federal officials also informed Federici that they believe she “may have assisted others in depriving the American Public of honest services of at least one administration official,” the letter states.

The letter advised Federici to seek an attorney and asked if she would be willing to plead guilty and cooperate with investigators. Whether she is currently cooperating or played a role in Griles’ plea is unknown.

[Emphasis mine]

Who is this "one administration official" who deprived the American Public of honest services? Given the timing of the target letter (January), it is certainly possible that Federici had information the Feds wanted on her former boyfriend and convicted liar J. Steven Griles. But Griles was only convicted of lying to the Senate. I'd think the Justice Department would want to nail him for corruption if that's where the facts led them. No, my speculation is that Federici and Griles are small fish in the investigation into Interior. The "one administration official" the DoJ really wants is former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who co-founded CREA with Federici. Take my speculation with as many grains of salt as necessary.

Also, to tie this into the stated purpose of this blog, recall that admitted felon Tony Rudy, while still working on Tom DeLay's Congressional staff, suggested that donations to CREA would gain access to then-Interior Secretary Norton.

Person A; Organization A

2007-03-30T08:29:00.000-05:00

A month ago, I commented on the status of several public officials given cutesy names in court documents related to the Abramoff case. Here is the summary:

1. Representative #1 - Bob Ney - GUILTY
2. Representative #2 - Tom DeLay - Not charged
3. Staffer A - Tony Rudy - GUILTY
4. Staffer B - Neil Volz - GUILTY
5. Staffer C - Will Heaton - GUILTY

[Footnote eliminated]

Now, I'm going to broaden the scope of this analysis to include people outside of government with similar cutesy names found in court documents.

6. Lobbyist A - Jack Abramoff - GUILTY*
7. Lobbyist B - Ed Buckham - Not charged

With the recent guilty plea from J. Steven Griles, we get new court documents and new cutesy names:

3. "Person A" was the founder and operator of "Organization A", a purported tax-exempt organization created in or about 1997. Since its inception, Orgranization A operated through contributions from donors, including Abramoff and his clients.

Like the other generic names, it doesn't take a genious to figure out who "Person A" and "Organization A" are. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the Justice Department doesn't identify these people outright. Maybe the purpose is to guide people who aren't so smart (like me) into figuring out where the investigation is going. So who are "Person A" and "Organization A"?

8. Person A - Italia Federici - Not charged
9. Organization A - Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA)

As I've mentioned many times before, I'm not a lawyer. It is not clear to me whether an organization like CREA can face criminal charges. I would tend to think only real human beings can commit crimes, but remember that Arthur Anderson was criminally convicted (albeit briefly) during the Enron scandal.

Five of the eight *persons* with cutesy names have been convicted. Expect the other three to be held criminally accountable, including Tom DeLay.

==

* Jack Abramoff has been convicted of crimes not directly related to the government-by-lobbyist scandal.

Steven Griles - GUILTY

2007-03-23T10:11:00.000-05:00

According to the AP, former Department of Interior official Steven Griles will plead guilty to obstruction of justice. In previous posts, I speculated that the Griles investigation was related to suspicious payments to an organization co-founded by former Interior Secretary Gale Norton from sources linked to Jack Abramoff.

The AP article hints that my speculation may be on the right track, but there is nothing dispositive to hang my hat on:

The extent of Abramoff's reach at Interior is still somewhat unclear. The court papers echo the Senate committee's account of events.

Abramoff directed his tribal clients to give $500,000 to [Italia] Federici's Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy from March 2001 to May 2003, about the time when Griles and Federici ended their romantic relationship. They began dating in 1998.

Federici co-founded the advocacy council with [former Interior Secratary Gale] Norton — before Norton joined the Bush administration — and with Grover Norquist, a conservative GOP activist, college friend of Abramoff and a close ally of Bush.

Griles had a dating relationship with Italia Federici? Wow! Anyone that guy dates gets in trouble. Remember that his current squeeze, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, had to resign from the Justice Department recently over this matter.

There was one disappointing sentence from the AP:

The [plea] agreement does not require Griles to help investigators with their grand jury probe.

Does this mean that the investigation into Interior is over with Griles? Maybe, maybe not. This portion of the scandal has only interested me at the margin. And it is still as murky as ever.

Bob Novak on DeLay's Book

2007-03-15T07:36:00.000-05:00

Bob Novak's column today is Tom DeLay's forthcoming book, "No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight". As billed, DeLay attacks Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, the architects of the 1994 Republican Revolution. In a previous post, I asserted that this book is an attempt to preserve DeLay's legacy. DeLay desperately doesn't want the loss of the Republican majority to be his legacy.

Disappointingly, Novak declares that "DeLay was the most conservative congressional leader I have witnessed in 50 years covering Capitol Hill." It must not have been fiscal conservatism. Gingrich and Armey slowed the growth of government so much that we achieved a balanced budget far earlier than President Clinton ever thought was possible. DeLay's claim to fame is the Medicare Drug bill which he "hammered" through Congress over conservative dissent. That was the biggest new entitlement in nearly 40 years.

DeLay was certainly not an effective social conservative, either. Social conservatives really have nothing to show for their 12 year majority. No progress has been made on abortion, though that is largely out of the control of Congress. Gay marriage has ground down to a stalemate with each side making some headway in some places. Really, what is the crowning achievement for the social conservative cause during the 12-year Republican majority?

Then we have DeLay's government-by-lobbyist regime. That is the antithesis to conservatism. Judging from the behavior of the local party, perhaps DeLay was a model of the Republican Party, but he was certainly no conservative.

I end with a quote from a true conservative, a person I have previously identified as an Integrity Republican:

Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a leading conservative reformer, describes DeLay's leadership as concentrating on redistricting, fundraising and distribution of pork.

Blame Game

2007-03-07T21:45:00.000-06:00

In place of the usual "Best of the Web" column by James Taranto (an excellent daily roundup, BTW), opinionjournal.com gives us today's Political Diary. John Fund relays an interesting conversation he had with Tom DeLay. Some excerpts:

[DeLay] acknowledges that he "let [his] eye off the ball" and allowed some big-spending turkeys to pass the House. "The No Child Left Behind bill that gave the feds a bigger role in education, the last Farm Bill and the earmarks that got out of control even though they represent only a small part of the federal budget were all failings on my part," he told me. But he also staunchly defended the Medicare prescription drug bill he helped pass in a controversial late-night vote in 2003, saying it's saving money and improving the health of seniors by encouraging spending on drugs rather than hospital stays.

So Tom DeLay holds himself halfway accountable for being a big spender. I've only really made two indictments against DeLay. First that he's corrupt, and second that he was a big spender. Incredibly, DeLay still holds on to the premise that the prescription drug bill was a good idea. I'll be paying for that for decades to come. I have no evidence that DeLay isn't sincere in his confession here. I would have preferred that he lump in the prescription drug benefit with NCLB and earmarks in general. (Notice that DeLay only bemoans Farm Bill earmarks. DeLay was an aficionado of earmarks, though I doubt many of his were in the Farm Bill.)

This is where I find DeLay particularly galling:

Though Mr. DeLay insists on honoring the media embargo, he did offer one cryptic comment about the book's contents: "I'm afraid that Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey will not be completely happy with my book."

I suspect that DeLay is trying to protect the image of his legacy here. My position is pretty well baked in the history of this blog. DeLay's actual legacy is the loss of the Republican majorities in Congress. So why would DeLay attack Armey and Gingrich to protect his legacy? Because those two are telling the truth about DeLay.

In this interview, Armey says DeLay was a liability to the Republican Party. Armey faults Republicans for excessive spending and says DeLay is "conniving" and isn't "a good person". I guess that's as close as Armey wanted to get to "corrupt".

I also observed Gingrich taking some shots at DeLay. Five months prior to the November elections, Gingrich basically predicted that the dearth of ideas in the Republican Party under DeLay would cost the GOP its majorities in Congress. Gingrich also criticized the "Hammer" style of leadership. The most irritating example of that was the Prescription Drug bill.

I like Gingrich and Armey. They were committed to conservative ideals. As I've said, when Gingrich (and later Armey) left the house, there was noone to restrain DeLay's greed. Ultimately, that led to government-by-lobbyist and the Abramoff scandal.

So don't let DeLay fool you. Gingrich and Armey are the true architects of the 1994 Republican Revolution (although DeLay did help draft the Contract with America). DeLay turned something good in the late 1990s into the cesspool of the first half of this decade. Eventually, DeLay destroyed the Republican majorities created in 1994. Don't let him revise history.

Jared Woodfill has no Principles

2007-03-04T16:07:00.000-06:00

Demonstrating that he has dropped all pretense to possessing any guiding principles, Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill is demanding that Republican precinct chairs have a voice in selecting the replacement for outgoing County Judge Robert Eckels.

Some Republicans are threatening to withhold future political support for County Judge Robert Eckels unless he backs a high-profile elected official as his successor rather than a relatively obscure former lawmaker.

"This decision is extremely important to whether the base will get behind Eckels if he runs for higher office," said County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill.

. . .

Many GOP precinct chairs want Eckels and the Commissioners Court to tap a Republican official already holding countywide office, such as District Clerk Charles Bacarisse or Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, Woodfill said.

. . .

Woodfill said precinct chairs are concerned that the Democrats will field a strong candidate in the 2008 election to serve out the remaining two years of Eckels' four-year term. The election for the next four-year term will be in 2010.

Now legally, Harris County Republican precinct chairs have no authority in selecting Eckels' replacement. That authority rests soley with the five-member Commissioners' Court. My personal guiding principle is that, in a representative democracy, decisions such as this should include the broadest segment of the electorate as possible. In this particular instance, I agree with Woodfill and the GOP precinct chairs when they contend Commissioners' Court, even though they have legal authority to appoint Eckels' replacement, should seek broader input.

There was a time, though, when Woodfill didn't think that such decisions should include any more people than legally required. After Tom DeLay won the 2006 GOP primary election, he abruptly announced he was leaving Congress. Like the Eckels case, the results of a recent election were rendered irrelevant. During a period of legal ambiguity, it was believed that GOP precinct chairs had the authority to select DeLay's replacement on the general election ballot. True to my principles, I argued that the precinct chairs should seek the input from a broader segment of the electorate. But because Woodfill has no guiding principles, he made arguements completely opposite of the ones he made this week. Woodfill insulted the Republican electorate and insisted that since the GOP precinct chairs had legal authority to select DeLay's replacement, there was no need for them to seek any other input:

Others expressed confidence that the precinct chairmen, whom Texas election law has made kingmakers under the current scenario, best reflect the will of the people.

. . .

“The precinct chairs are probably more educated than 99 percent of the voters,” [Jared] Woodfill said.

I'm looking for Woodfill's quote regarding Eckels' departure where he says that the precinct chairs are probably more educated than 99 percent of the Harris County Commissioners. Can anyone help me out on that one?

Department of Interior IG Fingers Abramoff

2007-03-02T10:30:00.000-06:00

Indian Country Today covers a House hearing into the shenanigans at the Department of Interior. Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney was the star witness, and he seems to suggest that Abramoff's corruption infected the Dept. of Interior:

''From my office's perspective,'' Devaney said, reading from written testimony, ''I would point to the Abramoff scandal as an example of how the conduct of one or two people can cause an enormous diversion of resources, best evidenced by the commitment we have made to that investigation, with 10 agents dedicated to the case, now three years running.

Now this is a little cryptic to me. Who are these "one or two people" who can "cause and enormous diversion of resources"? I infer Devaney is referring to Abramoff and his associates, not DoI employees.

I find this quote from the article much more interesting:

Despite charges of a criminal conspiracy at the Interior Department and attacks on his own investigatory report, Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney maintained a stoic insistence Feb. 16 that the department is becoming more ethical and more accountable under Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

Criminal conspiracy at the Interior Department? That may be a little hyperbole based on what we know now. I have speculated that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton has some legal liability over some payments by Abramoff and his clients to an outfit founded by Norton. What Norton did in return remains a mystery to me. But I certainly find it interesting that IG Devaney believes there is more accountability at Interior under Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

The Fat and Corrupt Republican Establishment

2007-03-02T08:23:00.000-06:00

Chronicle writer Julie Mason covers this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She characterizes participants of the meeting as the "far right". I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd be at home at CPAC, and I'd prefer the moniker of "Principled Right". Here is the basic message:

"We as conservatives need new leaders," Richard Viguerie, the conservative father of political direct mail told hundreds of cheering conservatives in a Washington ballroom. "Just because the Republican Party has a death wish doesn't mean we have to go down with them."

For a party that grew and achieved in large part by force of its unity, this rift between conservatives and the Republican power structure is profound. It could be either the ruin of the GOP or the re-making of it.

"[T]he ruin of the GOP or the re-making of it." I agree. Even before the November elections, I called this very rift a fight over the "heart and soul of the Republican Party".

According to Mason, a symbol of this rift is none other than our own former Congressman, Tom DeLay:

For a symbol of this shift look no further than Tom DeLay of Sugar Land. The former House majority leader last year headlined the group's marquee Reagan banquet event, along with Ambassador John Bolton.

Since then, DeLay left office under an ethics cloud and has vowed to remain a prominent voice in the conservative movement, through his Grassroots Action/Information Network. Even so, DeLay's only appearance at the event is a Saturday afternoon panel discussion on the traditionally lightly attended last day.

Part of the reason can be traced to the full-throated rhetoric of the conference's first day, which made clear that many conservatives feel betrayed by the Republican establishment, which they believe has grown fat and corrupt.

Emphasis mine

Isn't that the basic premise of this blog? I've railed against what I've termed as the "Establishment Republicans". For whatever reason, they've accepted corruption in their midst. They supported politicians who supposedly don't share their preference for fiscal restraint. I still don't understand why the local party establishment supported DeLay in the 2006 primary. Were they fat and corrupt with power, too?

The CPAC crowd wants a return to the principles that led the 1994 Republican Revolution. Those include a renewed commitment to fiscal restraint and no tolerance for corrupt politicians (Even if they happen to be Republican).

==

But Viguerie said DeLay was a symbol of the GOP abandoning its core principles, leaving some conservatives sitting out last week's election. -- Houston Chronicle, November 12, 2006

Who is Will Heaton?

2007-02-28T20:44:00.000-06:00

Short answer: Will Heaton is a former CoS for Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). Heaton pleaded guilty to his role in the Abramoff corruption scandal.

Here are the things I find interesting: Of the four government employees who went on the 2002 Scotland golfing junket with Abramoff, three have pleaded guilty to felonies:

1. Rep. Bob Ney - GUILTY
2. Will Heaton - GUILTY
3. David Safavian - GUILTY
4. Paul Vinovich - Not charged

It is worth noting that in Bob Ney's plea agreement, Heaton was referred to as "Staffer C" while Vinovich was not given a moniker. Vinovich was routinely described in prose such as "another Ney staff member". Also, former Ney CoS Neil Volz was on the 2002 Scotland trip. While Volz has pleaded guilty, I did not include him in the above list since Volz had left Ney's employment earlier in 2002 and was a lobbyist at the time of the Scotland trip.

More interesting is this: Various court documents have given fun names similar to Heaton's "Staffer C" to participants in this scandal. Let's see where they are now:

1. Representative #1 - Bob Ney - GUILTY
2. Representative #2 - Tom DeLay - Not charged*
3. Staffer A - Tony Rudy - GUILTY
4. Staffer B - Neil Volz - GUILTY
5. Staffer C - Will Heaton - GUILTY

That list is exhaustive. I don't know about anyone else, but I have to believe that Paul Vinovich is in a much better position than that Representative #2 guy. I also seem to recall that Representative #2 guy going on an awfully similar Scotland junket hosted by Abramoff.

* Yeah, yeah, I know of Ronnie Earle's partisan indictment. I'm talking about real crimes here. Stuff related to Abramoff.

Mehlman Says Goodbye

2007-01-19T09:39:00.001-06:00

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".

CREA and the Department of Interior

2007-01-16T19:59:00.000-06:00

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.

Pearland Population

2007-01-15T15:11:00.000-06:00

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.

Ney's Alcohol Addiction

2007-01-10T22:27:00.001-06:00

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.

A New Target

2007-01-10T21:45:00.000-06:00

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.

Congressional Record

2007-01-05T20:42:00.001-06:00

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.

Charitable

2007-01-05T15:32:00.001-06:00

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?

Tom DeLay is Too Much

2006-12-11T18:56:00.000-06:00

OK, so the success of my local high school football team has distracted me for a while. Let's hope they distract me for a couple more weeks as the Texas high school football playoffs reach completion.

As many of you are no doubt aware by now, Tom DeLay has created his own blog. Despite the fact that DeLay and his leadership team have abandoned conservative principles leading to the loss of the Republican majority in the 2006 elections, DeLay now advocates a return to those principles:

It is a regrettable fact of the current American political age that too many Republicans have failed to continue an aggressive fight for the principles which bring us together as Republicans and as conservatives. The election of 2006 was an example of what happens to a party and a movement when we fail to fight for the principles that brought us together in the first place. Permalink

Recall that Tom DeLay's wife and daughter received half a million dollars in suspicious payments from Jack Abramoff associate Ed Buckham.

Meanwhile, many of Tom DeLay's official actions benefited Jack Abramoff's interests. Not only did many of these actions not benefit the 22nd district of Texas, some of them seem only to have benefited foreigners who worked with Jack Abramoff (see Naftasib).

Bribery is not a principle that "brings us together as Republicans and as conservatives". In fact, as I've argued on this blog, DeLay's dalliance with bribery is what cost him his seat in this very conservative district. [If this were a Democratic district and DeLay were a Democrat, he very well could have been re-elected.]

DeLay's corruption is in addition to his advocacy of excessive spending and love of earmarks. Fiscal restraint is one of the "principles which bring us together as Republicans and as conservatives". The only problem is that Tom DeLay didn't share that principle with us Republicans and conservatives, either.

I had wondered what changed with me lately. Was I losing interest in Tom DeLay's deceit and corruption? Or was I just distracted by the Oiler juggernaut? Something tells me that I'll find a lot of new material at Tom DeLay's new site.

Link: Kuff's World. Kuff appears downright giddy in anticipation of what he'll find at TomDeLay.com.

Democratic Culture of Corruption

2006-12-10T15:47:00.000-06:00

Democratic voters re-elected Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. You know who this guy is. He was caught with $95,000 in marked bills hidden in his freezer. Unfortunately, this very strong evidence of corruption wasn't enough to sway a majority of Democratic voters to throw Rep. Jefferson out of office.

Republican voters, on the other hand, do care about issues of character and integrity. Many Republican candidates implicated in the Abramoff scandal such as Rep. Richard Pombo and Sen. Conrad Burns were defeated as Republican voters abandoned them. Others such as Rep. Tom DeLay and Rep. Bob Ney withdrew their from their races when it became apparent that had lost the support of ordinary Republican voters due to issues of integrity and character. In short, Republican voters hold their own candidates to a higher standard than Democratic voters do.

Former Rep. Tom DeLay lamented this double standard. Since Tom DeLay advocated his own re-election, it appears that he wishes that Republican voters were as tolerant of corruption as Democratic voters. [It is worth noting that many Republican Precinct Chairmen supported Tom DeLay and do not oppose corruption as vigorously as the Republican electorate as a whole.] Obviously I don't agree with DeLay's position since I favor high standards of integrity and character. I would prefer that Democratic voters reject the culture of corruption within their own party and embrace the values of integrity and character.

Cheers to ordinary Republican voters for putting principle over party. Jeers to ordinary Democratic voters for putting party over principle.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

2006-11-10T12:31:00.000-06:00

I'm going to slow down on writing about the House leadership. My intent is to spend time on underreported stories. The fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party can no longer be considered underreported. But I want to point out this editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

As they lick their wounds, Republicans are no doubt wondering what went wrong and what to do now. The answers aren't all that complicated: Revive the reform convictions that earned them power in the 1990s, and start that process in the House of Representatives by electing a new slate of leaders.

Twelve years ago, the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans swept into power as reformers who ran against corruption and pledged to make government "smaller and smarter." Somehow, across the years, that conviction was replaced by Tom DeLay and the quest for permanent incumbency, Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis and the "earmark" brigade, and a retinue of Beltway retainers symbolized by Jack Abramoff. The current leadership let it all happen, and if Republicans want a shot at regaining control in 2008 they'll turn to a new generation to lead them.

. . .

The good news is that a younger generation does seem to be stepping forward. Mike Pence, of Indiana, has already declared for minority leader, and John Shadegg of Arizona is seeking the number two job as whip. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona (see his essay nearby) are among the other Members who have tried to put ideas above mere incumbency. Republican Members will make up their own minds, but their willingness to consider new leadership will say a lot about the lessons they've learned from this week's drubbing.

Too many Republicans were corrupted and seduced by power and forgot why voters sent them to Washington. Winning back the majority requires new faces of leadership far removed from this year's debacle.

This made me recall something I wrote back in June:

My readers know that one of the narratives I tell is that the Republican Revolution of 1994 was one of pure conservative ideals.

. . .

I never anticipated the consequences of Gingrich's departure. Without Gingrich to restrain the greed of my own Congressman, Tom DeLay, the principles of 1994 died on the vine.

It's good that the WSJ points out that Tom DeLay wears no conservative clothes. I've hinted around the edges at that. I've complained about abuse of earmarks. But for some reason, the convential wisdom was that DeLay was a conservative. Of course he wasn't. I feared that pointing out the obvious would just devolve into a flame war. That I didn't want.

Also note that the WSJ wants Pence, Shadegg and Flake. All Integrity Republicans, you know.

Edwin Buckham Part IV

2006-11-10T10:40:00.000-06:00

The Washington Post came out with an article a week ago on Ed Buckham's unlawful use of non-profit organizations. To be honest, this article is largely a re-hash of what the Washington Post reported back in March. In fact, the most interesting items in the article are the references to Julie Doolittle and Christine DeLay as members of the "Wives Club", but we already knew that.

The FBI has questioned witnesses in recent months about Alexander Strategy's use of nonprofits and its hiring of congressional spouses, including Julie Doolittle and Christine DeLay, wife of the former House majority leader.

Alexander Strategy paid Julie Doolittle about $30,000 to do bookkeeping for the Korea nonprofit. Other contracting work by Julie Doolittle, for one of Abramoff's charities, has led investigators in the Abramoff probe to scrutinize John Doolittle's activities, sources have told The Post.

Recall that Tony Rudy said in this plea bargain that he had would testify that "employment for the relatives of officials" was one of the modes of corruption. That was three days before then Rep. DeLay announced he would resign.

Am I missing anything of importance in this article?

Culture of Corruption Loses

2006-11-10T10:02:00.000-06:00

So says Rich Lowry of NRO. Read the whole thing. I mean it. I could always tell that National Review's heart was with the Integrity Republicans. Lowry provides a concise manual for those who want to understand what went wrong in 2006.

The “culture of corruption” was real. That phrase was a much-contested talking point during the past two years, with Democrats touting it as an accurate description of the degraded ethical state of the congressional GOP and Republicans dismissing it as a smear.

Democrats were much closer to the truth. Voters took a good whiff of the odor emanating from Washington and some of their Republican representatives, and recoiled. One-third of Republican losses in the House came in congressional districts where the party had been tainted, to varying degrees, by scandal.

. . .

As the scandal around Jack Abramoff developed, Republicans should have forced those members most directly implicated — Reps. Tom DeLay and Bob Ney, along with just-defeated Sen. Conrad Burns — to step aside expeditiously. They didn’t, partly for understandable reasons — delivering bad news to friends and colleagues is always hard.

That’s why reformers must be zealous. It takes zeal to break through the natural barriers to staying clean. Unfortunately, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was the opposite of zealous, refusing to force his members to purge themselves and adopt a wide-ranging, meaningful reform agenda.

I did my part in attempting to force Rep. Tom DeLay to step aside by voting against him in the primary. For reasons still unknown to me, the organized Republican Party circled the wagons around Rep. DeLay even after the facts became known and were the dominant issue in the primary.

This situation makes me recall what Peter Parker's uncle to says to him in the movie Spiderman: "With great power, there must also come great responsibility." Those in positions of power in the Republican Party, all the way down to the precinct chairs here in CD22, did not display any responsibility at all. Best I can tell, there still is no acceptance of what they did wrong. The local party should have done whatever was necessary to deny DeLay the nomination. The local party failed us.

===

I also want to point this out from the article:

Exit polls show that more voters cited corruption as their top concern than even the Iraq War. Pundits are dismissing this number, but Republicans do so at their own peril.

This seems right to me. As Lowry implies, pundits are wrong to dismiss it and Republicans shouldn't.

===

One more thing:

All elected Republicans in any way associated with scandal are now gone, courtesy of the American voter.

DeLay, Ney, Burns, Pombo, Hayworth, Ryun, Foley, Sweeney etc. Yes, a lot of those associated with scandal are gone. But Rep. John Doolittle married to "Wives Club" member Julie won reelection.

Rise of the Integrity Republicans III

2006-11-08T12:59:00.000-06:00

As expected, the Establishment Republicans have lost the GOP majority in the House. NRO sports a collection of quotes from the GOP side. On a positive note, it looks like the Republicans understand what happened, unlike the media which tries to portray the election results as a referendum on Bush. Most of the Republicans quoted by NRO hit many of my themes over the past several months:

First up: Mike Pence:

Election day 2006 will be remembered as a turning point in American political history. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration came to Washington with a conservative agenda of limited government, the American people chose a different course.

It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.

As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, "enough is enough." Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

Scandal and the abandonment of the principles of 1994. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Notice the reference to Ronald Reagan. Back in May, I noticed that Integrity Republicans liked to invoke Ronald Reagan’s name.

==

I started with the good; here’s the ugly:

House Republican Conference Secretary John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) today announced his intention to run for House Republican Conference Secretary for the 110th Congress. Doolittle pledged to be a vocal proponent of conservative principles within the leadership team and work tirelessly to win back the Republican majority.

Regular readers to this site know that Rep. Doolittle is part of the big-spending government-by-lobbyist establishment leadership. Let’s hope Doolittle gets nowhere.

==

Ken Mehlman gets it right:

""I see three things out of it. First of all, we need to recommit ourselves to our conservative reform principles, that's very important. We need to try to work where we can on bipartisan basis with democrats. We need to bend over backwards to try to do that while maintaining those conservative reform principles. And I think another thing, the number one issue that was listed is corruption. We need to remember, people that serve whether it's in the congress or in the government or any level, are people that ought to be about public policy and public service. That ought to be their basis. It ought not to be continuing your power in office but what you are trying to accomplish and what you are trying to reform. If we can focus on those three things then while last night was very difficult for many of us, ultimately we will be stronger and be able to serve the public better because we'll have learned and grown from it."

Not much needs to be added.

==

From a “pro-Pence” Hill leader:

I'm not a Boehner hater, but his time has passed and the time for the old guard has passed. Boehner may have indeed run his CAMPAIGN on a platform of change, and then what happened after? Nothing. Nothing at all. No one addressed the scandals. Earmark reform was so minor and it was the RSC under the true bloods that forced his hand.

What was accomplished under Majority Leader Boehner over 10 months? Nothing.

Nothing at all. As the majority whittled away, Mr. Boehner was more concerned with K Street than his colleagues in Cannon. Nero fiddled as Rome burned.

The bottom line is that after yesterday, the GOP is at a fork in the road. You can have a fresh renewed commitment to our core principles, or you can have the guy who was handing out checks to members from Tobacco lobbyists on the House floor. I think the choice is clear.

Fork in the road. How true. I’ve described it as a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. I’m not a Boehner hater, either. Boehner had his chance; he didn’t do anything. Time for real reformers and time to get rid of the Establishment Republican leadership.

==

And lastly, this last piece of bad news:

Blunt Will Seek To Keep Whip Post, With An Assist From Cantor

A source close to Maj Whip Roy Blunt tells The Hotline that the current #3 leader in the House leadership ranks will seek to retain his position in the minority — and that Chief Dep Min Whip Eric Cantor "will run Mr. Blunt's race for" the job. Per our source, "Cantor has already begun making calls on Blunt's behalf."

Many Hill-watchers had assumed that Blunt would not vye against his "boss" for the Min Whip position, but Blunt is still unlikely to hang onto his post without a fight, whether it is on the right from Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) or another member in the rank-and-file.

On another House leadership front, Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) appears to be intent on mounting a challenge to Maj Leader John Boehner (R) and RSC Chair Mike Pence (R) for the Min Leader position in the new Congress. A House source shares that Barton held a conf call this a.m. with fellow members of his committee and made clear he'd be ready and willing to give up his gavel for an office in the Capitol if the support is there.

Blunt is part of the problem. But I am very optimistic about the chances for the Integrity Republicans. Out of the destruction to the GOP majority, we will see re-birth and commitment to the ideals of 1994. I never understood how the Establishment Republicans could accept corruption in their midst. I hope they and their enablers, all the way down to precinct chairs and local party here in TX22, evaluate their own contributions to this debacle.

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party begins soon. If, as I anticipate, the Integrity Republicans win, the GOP will reacquire its majority status in 2008. Hopefully, there will be a renewed emphasis on ethics and character in the Republican Party. And hopefully in the future, representatives like Mr. DeLay who abandon conservative principles will be held accountable within our own party.

Rise of the Integrity Republicans II

2006-11-07T12:16:00.000-06:00

This is likely to turn into an old fashioned link dump:

Tom DeLay on the election:

"The Republicans are not so energized. They are very disappointed in the leadership of their party."

Gee, really? And just who was the leader in the House until the Integrity Republicans kicked him out? Is this an admission by Tom DeLay that Republicans were disappointed in his leadership (and the leadership of DeLay cronies Hastert and Blunt)? At least he doesn't call those of us upset with his leadership gadflies and traitors again.

==

The Hill has a good article on the potential for a run on the leadership by the Integrity Republicans. Read the whole thing because I'm only going to highlight the disappointments. Key to reading: Representatives identified as conservative (Pence, Shadegg) are Integrity Republicans; those without the conservative modifier are Establishment Republicans.

“The outcome of the election, whether we’re in the majority or the minority, will cast a shadow on leadership elections,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), an outspoken conservative. “We’re a lagging indicator of the population at large. If the population at large votes to change how Republicans do business, we’ll reflect that change.”

Integrity Republicans need to be leaders not laggards. And the Integrity Republicans in the House like Rep. Jeff Flake did not depose then Majority Leader DeLay for a return to business as usual. Integrity Republicans in TX22 didn't get rid of Tom DeLay for a return to business as usual.

Also, look at this quote from an unnamed aide:

“It’s unfortunate timing that a member of this majority [Pence] would engage in positioning that is dependent on us suffering tremendous losses [today],” one GOP aide said.

The positioning is a result of the current leadership's abandonment of conservative principles. More of the same is not an option for conservatives. If anything, the potential of a conservative House leadership is a motivation to go vote.

==

Lastly, supply sider (and Integrity Republican) Larry Kudlow peers into his crystal ball:

Another post-election surprise just might come from the House Republicans: Mike Pence and his allies in the conservative Republican Study Group — John Shadegg, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Marsha Blackburn, and others — could stage a leadership revolt that will get House Republicans back on the messages of limited domestic spending, earmark reform, broad-based tax reform, expanded investor tax-free savings accounts, and Social Security reform.

Put simply, while the Democrats may get a Pyrrhic victory in a six-year-itch close House win, in effect they will have suffered another substantial defeat. A lost opportunity with a losing message.

Of course I agree. Conservative principles is what leads to Republican electoral victories. If we get rid of the big-spending, corrupt government-by-lobbyist regime, Republicans will be stronger. As I've said before, 2006 will be a hiccup in decades of Republican dominance. If 2006 results in the Integrity Republicans wresting control of the party from the Establishment Republicans, 2006 will indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

Where were the conservative voices in the TX22 Republican Party in 2005-2006? Why did primary voter Tom Campbell have to emerge to give a voice to the conservatives?

Rise of the Integrity Republicans

2006-10-31T21:54:00.000-06:00

One of the reasons that the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party is that there is a wing of the Republican Party that strives to learn from mistakes. Those Republicans are the Integrity Republicans. Integrity Republicans are marching headstrong into a pitched battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and I sincerely hope they are able to eliminate the Establishment Republicans who turn a blind eye to corruption. Democrats never learned that lesson after 1994. And even if they gain a majority in the House this election, it won't be because Americans have newfound trust in them. As I've asserted before, it will be a two year hiccup in an era of Republican dominance. Integrity Republicans will succeed, and the Republican Party will again become the party of integrity and character.

Consequently, I find this article from The Hill to be interesting because it is in alignment with my theme.

Win or lose next week, the GOP needs some serious soul-searching, according to several rank-and-file House Republicans who already are arguing in favor of a post-Election Day leadership shake-up.

. . .

“If we lose the majority, I think it ought to be a clean sweep — a fresh start,” Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said about the GOP leadership team.

He worries that if the GOP keeps even a fragile hold on its majority, the conference will stick with the same leadership course with only minor changes. This, in turn, will mean continuing to put too much emphasis on trying to keep the majority by handing out earmarks to vulnerable members and special favors to certain groups instead of standing for principles such as fiscal restraint.

Wow! There's a lot there. I've called for a shake-up in the House leadership. I've complained about Republicans bragging about the use of earmarks (even if they weren't vulnerable). Fiscal restraint is one of the defining characteristics between Integrity Republicans and Establishment Republicans. Integrity Republicans favor fiscal restraint, while Establishment Republicans can bargain it away.

Recent conference calls with GOP leaders have done nothing to calm his fears. “When you get on these conference calls … there’s not much of a ‘Mea culpa on what we’ve done wrong and here’s what we’re going to do,’ ” he said.

. . .

Flake said he deeply regrets not standing up and criticizing GOP leaders’ decision early last year to purge the ethics committee of its Republican members after the panel admonished former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for the third time for ethics violations.

“The rank-and-file members, myself included, should have stood up and screamed,” he said. “Its just another indication that we’re not policing our own and it goes to the whole earmarking culture [that led to the imprisonment of former Rep.] Duke Cunningham [R-Calif.].”

I've said that Republicans need to acknowledge their mistakes. It's good to see Rep. Jeff Flake accept his responsibility, but his mistakes were of omission rather than commission. [Recall that I identified Rep. Jeff Flake as an Integrity Republican a month ago.] I guess I'm equally at fault there. Should I have challenged Tom DeLay on integrity issues? That's not something I could do, and I am deeply impressed with primary challenger Tom Campbell for rising from the ranks of primary voter to confront DeLay on issues of character and integrity when the organized party did nothing. I also like how Rep. Flake places the corruption caused by the earmarking culture front and center. That is another defining characteristic between Integrity Republicans and Establishment Republicans. Integrity Republicans are fully anti-corruption, and that is non-negotiable. Establishment Republicans are able to look the other way when there is corruption in their own party. [In fact, my uncompromising attitude against corruption resulted in a Republican precinct chair accusing me of not being a Republican and actually accuse me of working for Nick Lampson. If being a Republican means negotiating away my stance against corruption, I don't want any part of the Republican Party. It was never clear to me why the Establishment Republicans opposed Tom Campbell. What was so objectionable about Campbell that allowed the Establishment Republicans to tolerate corruption?]

==

Flake criticizes the Establishment Leadership for bungling the Mark Foley situation.

If the ethics committee had been up and running last year when GOP leaders first heard about inappropriate emails former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) sent to a page, members would have been able to refer it to the panel for investigation. Democrats, at the time, were protesting the purge of GOP members and were refusing to meet the new Republicans on the committee.

“You can blame the Democrats, but we certainly gave them a reason to do what they did,” Flake said. “We simply didn’t have an ethics committee process that worked at a time when we needed it … I feel badly that I didn’t say anything and neither did other members … it’s a pox on all of us.”

I've criticized the Establishment Leadership for the same thing.

==

When asked, several GOP sources said they believed that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) could announce his departure whether Republicans maintain the majority or not, although most believe it is more likely if Republicans lose.

Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) could run to replace him or, if in the minority, simply try to keep his job as leader, but he could face opposition in any race for a top spot from outspoken conservatives such as Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) or John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is also weakened, GOP sources said, and would not fare well in a challenge against Boehner, who beat him for the post after DeLay stepped aside.

. . .

Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said, “If they lose the House, it might be time for a change in leadership for obvious reasons — fresh faces, fresh blood … All three would go—Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, from my outside point of view.”

Hastert out? Blunt out? Been there, said that. Pence and Shadegg in? Already identified as Integrity Republicans.

Godspeed to the Integrity Republicans. Eliminate corruption and bring us back the principles of the 1994 Revolution!

Quid Pro Quo

2006-10-28T14:56:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me recently that I have only focused on one side of Tom DeLay's corruption. We've known for some time about Tom DeLay's suspicious trip to St. Andrews with Jack Abramoff. I've written repeatedly about strange payments made to DeLay's wife Christine and daughter Dani DeLay Ferro. But I haven't really written much on what Team Abramoff got out of the deal.

Sure, I've written about Tom DeLay's actions in blocking a bill to ban internet gambling. That was an easy call. After all, DeLay crony Tony Rudy basically told the courts in his plea bargain what he and DeLay did. Is that all I'm hanging my hat on? Absolutely not!

==

Naftasib

Russian energy interests paid $1 million to entities controlled by Ed Buckham. In return, Tom DeLay supported an IMF bailout that benefitted the same Russian energy interests. Conservative Republicans (i.e. Integrity Republicans) in Congress balked at the funding that helped the Russians. DeLay provided his vote to those who supplied the money.

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

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

==

Tinian Breakwater

Some long time readers may wonder why I like to write about the far-away US territory of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Well, there's a quid pro quo story to be told there.

Jack Abramoff needed a new majority in the legislature of the CNMI. In order to sway some fence-sitting legislators, Abramoff arranged for a pork-barrel breakwater to be built on the CNMI island of Tinian. Former DeLay COS Tony Rudy admits that DeLay was the legislator to help Abramoff:

In December 1999, Buckham and Scanlon--who was still DeLay's press secretary--went to the Marianas. They were there to help Abramoff's favored candidate win election as speaker of the commonwealth's House of Representatives. That candidate, Ben Fitial, had previously worked for Willie Tan, the factory tycoon who employed Abramoff. Rudy was aware of, and helped to coordinate, the visit. Buckham and Scanlon met with members of the Marianas legislature and determined that two of its members would side with Fitial if DeLay supported a variety of projects in their districts. After Buckham and Scanlon returned to the United States, the representatives they had met with--Alejo Mendiola and Norman Palacios--announced their support for Fitial, who was elected speaker in January 2000.

That month, Rudy arranged for another DeLay staffer to visit the Marianas alongside Scanlon, according to Rudy's plea agreement. The aide reportedly was Brett Loper. His job was to look around the commonwealth for opportunities for pork. He found some, and in May 2000 Congress passed an appropriations bill that made the construction of an airport on the Marianas island of Rota--home to Rep. Mendiola--a spending priority. In October 2000, in a separate appropriations bill, Congress directed $150,000 to a breakwater project on the Marianas island of Tinian, home to Rep. Palacios. In his plea agreement, Rudy admits that he "worked with others to secure certain appropriations projects for the [Marianas] which he knew would help Abramoff's lobbying business and that had been sought by Abramoff and Lobbyist B," aka Buckham.

[Note that in the same article, the Weekly Standard reports on Tom DeLay's efforts to influence policy at the US Post Office to help an Abramoff client. This clearly belongs on an exhaustive list of DeLay's misdeeds, but I am observing the Rule of Three in this post.]

==

Congressional Record

We all know that one of the official actions to which Rep. Bob Ney pleaded guilty was the insertion into the Congressional Record of a statement meant to harm one of Jack Abramoff's business rivals. Well, Tom DeLay did something eerily similar.

Trevor Potter is a Republican election law and ethics experts. Potter wrote a memo to Jack Abramoff's then lobbying firm, Greenburg Taurig. In the memo, Potter criticized Abramoff's means of lobbying, specifically Abramoff's highly unethical arrangement with former DeLay staffer Michael Scanlon and Scanlon's "non-profit" organization, American International Center (AIC). In the instance investigated by Potter, Abramoff was using AIC to disguise lobbying income from Malaysia so that it didn't appear that the funding was coming from a foreign country. This enraged Abramoff:

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-mailedDeLay'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. The DeLay statement, which was only three sentences long, contained two factual erros: it referred incorrectly to Potter as a lobbyist for the Campaign Finance Institute and as a board member if Common Cause. (pp. 135-136)

Quote from Heist by National Journal journalist Peter Stone

Acknowledgement

2006-10-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

This seems about right. From Andrew Stuttaford at NRO:

But if there's one thing that would make things easier for disgruntled rightists to put their vote in the GOP column, it's some acknowledgement from the party leadership that it needs to do better next time.

So far, I've yet to hear it.

Integrity Republicans have been attacked as traitors by elected officials. Precinct chairs have come to this site to accuse me of not being a real Republican. Why? The substantive differences between Integrity Republicans and the Republican Establishment are that the Integrity Republicans have zero tolerance for public corruption and prefer lower government spending. I have primarily expressed that through opposition to Tom DeLay.

Even knowing what we know now, some in the Republican Establishment think it was the right thing to do to support Tom DeLay. I honestly cannot find any reason to take that position. It was a mistake for the GOP to support DeLay.

Like Stuttaford, I think an acknowledgement of their error and a promise to do better in the future would go a long way. Also like Stuttaford, I haven't heard anything like that yet -- even in TX22, our little corner of the world.

The Abramoff Touch

2006-10-19T20:32:00.001-05:00

A quick recap of races around the nation in which Republican House Members are vulnerable due to their connections to Jack Abramoff:

Richard Pombo R-CA
Had a narrow 48-46 lead over his Democratic challenger. Pombo's district is a ruby red district in interior California (east of San Francisco Bay). This should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate, but like TX22, not one associated with Abramoff.

John Doolittle R-CA
Well, Rep. Doolittle has lawyered up while trying to defend his 60+% GOP district in northern California. Doolittle's wife received payments for work done for Abramoff. Fits the profile of the Wives' Club. Doolittle will certainly underperform this cycle.

John Sweeney R-NY
I haven't mentioned Sweeney before, but he's in hot water for a suspicious trip to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a Abramoff haunt and US territory that I have often mentioned. To be honest, I'm not following this case. The precarious position that the Establishment Republicans have placed our great party has left me near despair. I'd prefer not to know what they've done and just hurry up and get new leadership. Duelling polls either show Sweeney leading by 14 points or losing by 13 points.

What's Wrong with NRO?

2006-10-19T18:06:00.000-05:00

I generally like National Review. They are level headed conservatives who generally fall on the side of the Integrity Republicans. I even agree with them when they characterize TX22 as a "goner" for the Republican cause, meaning that the Dems will likely take this seat for a couple of years. I don't think I have to mention that I feared this result when Tom DeLay won the primary. Therefore, I don't really disagree that our Congressional district is a "goner".

But what in the world is this? NRO blogger Greg Pollowitz seems to be making the case that Nick Lampson is really some sort of conservative. That Lampson will be palatable to his TX22 constituents. That Lampson will actually represent the interests of TX22:

He's [Lampson] a little wishy-washy on the other issues, but he's a Democrat we can live with. I think one thing that the punditry is missing is that there is a special election to be held on election day as well as the general election. Although Sekula-Gibbs' name will not be on the ballot for the general election, it will at least be on the ballot for the special election. When it comes time to write her name in, that will be a big advantage. If on Nov. 8 it's clear that this race was much closer than anyone thought, I think the NRCC will be kicking themselves for not spending more to help her win.

And even if Sekula-Gibbs doesn't win in November, she'll be a favorite to win in 2008, which means any votes that Lampson casts will have to be in line with the district, not Nancy Pelosi.

TX22 won't live with Lampson. Sure, he's likely to be our Congressman for two years, but I don't think he can adapt to our district. Face it, the only reason Lampson will win our district at all is because 62% of Republican primary voters didn't educate themselves about Tom DeLay's corruption. [Obligatory reference to how much smarter a subset of those 62% are over the 38% who educated themselves about DeLay's corruption.]

Now I don't know if Shelley Sekula Gibbs will be the nominee in 2008. I hope the district can find someone more faithful to the ideals of 1994. But I do know this: Lampson is out of step with TX22 and the voters here will never think that he is a "Democrat we can live with". The effort to beat Lampson will begin on November 8.

Out to Pasture -or- Glue Factory

2006-10-16T12:26:00.000-05:00

If it weren't for the claim that conservatives are all against amnesty for immigrants, I could agree with all of this:

From National Review's Jim Geraghty:

On a lot of these [conservative] issues, the problem could be summed up that Republicans stopped acting like… well, Republicans.

The good news is, it’s very clear that 2005-2006 style Republican leadership is destined for the – well, forget being put out to pasture, let’s talk glue factory. Think about the Republican House members that the average American has heard of this year - Mark Foley, and through that scandal Denny Hastert and Tom Reynolds; Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham... the only upside for the GOP is that the Democrats who got comparable attention were William Jefferson, Alan Mollohan and Cynthia McKinney.

The conservative base wants the next crop of GOP leaders to be tougher on illegal immigration; tougher on spending; quitting the pork and earmark addiction cold turkey; less at home with the perks and schmooze culture of Washington.

One way or another, Hastert’s out. I suspect that next year, guys like Mike Pence, Jeff Flake and Jack Kingston are going to leading a more conservative House caucus – particularly if the Chris Shayses of the world get knocked out this year. And starting oh, probably too early after Election Day 2006, the Republican Party gets to have a good, long discussion of what it wants to stand for in the coming years and elections to come. But before then, there’s this little thing called the elections that has to get resolved.

I find it interesting that Geraghty points to some of the same people that I've labelled as Integrity Republicans. Pence, Flake, John Shadegg and many others have remained faithful to the principles of the 1994 Republican Revolution. The abandonment of these ideals among the Republican leadership has been one of the themes of this blog since its inception. Integrity Republicans believe in lower taxes and less spending. We believe in winning the War on Terror. We stridently oppose corruption even if it occurs in our own ranks. The current DeLay-era leadership gets it right only on taxes and the War. It appears that won't be enough to retain the House.

Recall that Jeff Flake was instrumental in knocking Tom DeLay out as Majority Leader. It appears to be too little too late. The legacy of Tom DeLay and his leadership team will be the loss of the 1994 Republican Revolution control of the House. A Nancy Pelosi led House will be disastrous. But with new and vigorous conservative leadership, I suspect that conservative Republicans will regain the House in two years. 2006 will be much more like 1952 than 1994. The results we see this year are the consequence of anger at the Republican leadership. New leadership and a renewal of commitment to conservative public policies will ensure that the Democratic majority of 2006-2008 is only a blip on the radar screen of decades of Republican majorities.

Shelley Sekula Gibbs -- Establishment Republican

2006-10-07T11:43:00.000-05:00

I know I promised not to write about the current Congressional election in TX22. I didn't want to be just a voice in the crowd with perseverent hope that Shelley Sekula Gibbs could pull off an improbable write-in campaign upset. I wanted to focus on the power struggle between the Republican Establishment and the Integrity Republicans. (In response to a comment on a previous post, I will define the two camps again later.)

Well, Dr. Sekula Gibbs has cast her lot. Unfortunately, against my advice, it is with the Republican Establishment:

According to Sekula Gibbs, Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) is scheduled to raise money for her in Houston on Oct. 18

Although Majority Whip Blunt has not accepted any bribes to my knowledge, I recognize him as the de facto leader among the Republican Establishment in the House. He loves earmark spending. He is cozy with lobbyists. And he is a DeLay protege.

(FWIW, former candidate Tom Campbell, whom I have anointed the de facto leader of the Integrity Republicans in TX22, also recognizes Majority Whip Blunt as part of the problem: "With the election of Congressman Boehner over Blunt as house majority leader the nation saw a shift in the republican agenda away from the slash and burn days of DeLay's leadership.")

It is disappointing to see Dr. Sekula Gibbs align herself with Majority Whip Blunt. I had high hopes that she would recognize that a significant portion of the Republican electorate in TX22 doesn't value incumbancy over principle. In the final analysis, though, Dr. Sekula Gibbs has me right where she wants me. What am I going to do? While I could never vote for Tom DeLay due to his personal corruption, Dr. Sekula Gibbs is clean as far as I know. And while I abhor the excessive spending of the Republican Establishment, Nick Lampson wouldn't be any better. The Establishment Republicans get the issues right on taxes and the war. For those reasons, I'm still writing in Shelley's name.

===

INTEGRITY REPUBLICANS vs. ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS

(Gotta go to a 7 year old's birthday party. More on this later.)

Speaker Mike Pence?

2006-10-04T19:55:00.000-05:00

Sounds good, doesn't it?

In a previous post, I said "[p]art of me" wants Hastert to resign. It's no secret that I view Hastert as part of the Republican Establishment, and, therefore, part of the problem. I want him out because of all the damage he and the rest of the DeLay-era leadership has done to my beloved Republican Party. But political realities being what they are, a Speaker resignation weeks before an election would just introduce more chaos to an already chaotic situation. So "part of me" was hesitant.

I said to watch the Integrity Republicans in the House. Their behavior would signal a lot. Here's what Mike Pence is up to:

"Like many Americans and many of my colleagues, I have concerns about how this matter was handled, but Speaker Hastert should not resign," said Pence.

. . .

Yet Pence stands to gain a leadership position if there's a GOP shake-up over Foley's conduct with Congressional pages, which is now the center of an intensifying federal investigation.

My larger goal is replacing the utter failure of the "Team DeLay" House leadership. I am now convinced that Speaker Hastert will not maintain that title in January. The Integrity Republicans are through with those that promote excessive government spending, favors to lobbyist friends (through earmarks and legislative actions), and the general disregard for moral values. You can see the latter in Pence's statement about how the matter has been handled.

I don't really care if Pence is Speaker or Majority Leader or what. Just as long as the Integrity Republicans are in control. I just hope that the Establishment Republicans haven't fouled things up so much that I should be considering Integrity Republicans for the position of Minority Leader.

Yes, that is a prediction. The old guard will be out next year and the Integrity Republicans will control the party. I wish it didn't have to happen this way. And if the Establishment Republicans maintain control in January, yes, I will go ballistic.

===

UPDATE

More evidence:

“He [Hastert] said if he thought that resigning would be helpful to the Republicans maintaining the majority, he would do it. But he did not think it would be helpful for Republicans,” Weyrich said in an interview after holding what he described as an emotional telephone conversation with Hastert, who is home in Illinois campaigning and trying to deal with the fallout from the Mark Foley scandal.

“He [Hastert] said he thought his resignation would just lead to a feeding frenzy where they would go after (Majority Leader John A.) Boehner, then (Rep. Thomas M.) Reynolds, then (Rep. John) Shimkus," Weyrich added. "And he said we would have the story running right up to the election.”

Weyrich, who was one of the first to publicly call for the Speaker’s head, said the conversation has led him to retract his day-old demand that Hastert resign.

. . .

The conversation with Weyrich appeared to be part of a Hastert offensive aimed putting an end to calls for an immediate resignation over his handling of the scandal. But there is still increasing talk of Republican leadership challenges after the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Such a shake-up is virtually assured if Democrats gain control of the House, but Hastert could step down even if Republicans hang on.

It appears to me that Hastert has agreed not to run for Speaker in January. In return, Weyrich has dropped his call for immediate resignation.

Rep. Foley's Entitlement

2006-10-02T22:11:00.000-05:00

From my point of view, Democratic and Republican partisan bickering is not the big issue in the Rep. Foley debacle. Democrats are trying to blur the distinction between the creepy and inappropriate e-mails and the possibly illegal IMs in order to create the greatest impact. Republicans are desperately trying to point out that distinction claiming that the Republican leadership did nothing wrong. Both sides miss the mark.

First of all, there is an important distinction between the e-mails and IMs, but the Republican leadership should have done more about the e-mails alone. Sure, it would have been better to have a more intensive investigation of the e-mails several months ago. In hindsight, who can disagree with that? Heck, *any* investigation would have been appropriate. But the Republican leadership simply had a quiet talk with Rep. Foley. The committee charged with the House page program wasn't formally informed -- likely because there was a Democrat on that committee. At this point, noone will ever know whether a complete investigation would have turned up the IMs. I would argue that it would have been better for this kind of information to have been known *before* the primaries. That way there would be no sense of an "October Surprise" and the Republicans could have a candidate with integrity on that ballot.

I probably don't have to post the reason I think the Republican leadership tried to dispense with this issue so quietly. As I've said before, there's a sense of entitlement among the establishment Republicans. Once in office, a Republican's character and commitment to principle can no longer be re-evaluated. Hence, just like the establishment Republicans rallied around our corrupt former Congressman, Tom DeLay, the establishment Republicans rallied around Rep. Foley despite his character deficit.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that Republican strategist Rich Galen had the very same thoughts:

"This sense of entitlement that members of Congress can do anything to anyone or for anyone has got to end," Galen said.

To be sure, Galen is referring to a sense of entitlement held by both Democrats and Republicans. And to be clear, I believe this sense of entitlement crosses party lines, too. It's just that I don't have any expectation that Democrats can shake their sense of entitlement. If a Democrat did what Rep. Foley did, he'd be re-elected.

I don't know where the Foley case is going. I've looked at what some of the Integrity Republicans in Congress have been saying to help shape my opinion:

"As the author of laws designed to protect children on the Internet, I was appalled at the recent revelations that a member of Congress engaged in reprehensible behavior toward young people connected to the congressional page program," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). "Congress should thoroughly investigate this matter and, in cooperation with law enforcement authorities, support all proper legal action."

. . .

“It was not a graceful exit,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, as events swirled on Friday.

. . .

[Rep. John] Shadegg [R-AZ] spokesman Ken Spain said the Phoenix Republican first learned of Foley's behavior on Friday via media reports and the policy committee position is focused on policy matters and not the behavior of other members.

There's nothing to be learned there. I don't think even the Integrity Republicans know enough facts yet to figure out where this is going. But be sure to keep on eye on the Integrity Republicans. If there is going to be a shake-up in the House leadership as the conservative editorial page of the Washington Times wants, Integrity Republicans will spearhead it. Part of me wants the Washington Times to have its way. The Establishment Republicans have put our party in a precarious position due to scandal and the abandonment of conservative ideals. We need to get rid of the remaining DeLay-era leadership and put the party back in the hands of the Integrity Republicans.

===

Update:

It appears the Integrity Republicans in the House don't view this as the proper time to get rid of the DeLay-era leadership:

Arizona congressman John Shadegg has been rounding up signatures on a letter in support of Hastert.

Disappointing.

Friday Night Lights

2006-09-22T21:49:00.000-05:00

The Chronicle rated #1 4A La Marque Cougars came to the Rig, home of the #4 5A Pearland Oilers. Pearland hung the "L" on the powerhouse from Galveston County, winning 24-14. The La Marque offense was the gift that kept on giving with a fumble and four INTs.

This was the toughest regular season game for Pearland. Congratulations to the Oilers!

Time Mag: Next Up -- Senator Burns (R-MT)

2006-09-15T20:29:00.000-05:00

It is amazing to me how fast the organized Republicans have turned on Congressman Ney after he pleaded guilty. I mean, what happened in the past few hours? Did Congressman Ney take any legislative action in favor of his benefactors? Did Congressman Ney accept any bribes in the past 48 hours? No, the only thing that changed is that Ney now admits what we already knew. I have asserted before and I will assert again, it would have been better for the organized Republicans to clean up their own garbage rather than let it come to this. We integrity Republicans are too few in numbers to do it ourselves in the primary process.

OK, off the soapbox and onto this posting. Time Magazine peers into the future to tell us what's next. It is Senator Conrad Burns of Montana:

A source close to the investigation told TIME that scores of US prosecutors and FBI agents continue to examine the activities of other sitting members of Congress and prominent individuals who could face prosecution, though not necessarily before the November 7 election. The source confirmed previous public reports that particular scrutiny is being paid to Sen. Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican who faces a tough campaign for reelection.

"A lot of the conduct to which Ney has pleaded guilty is similar to the alleged conduct of Senator Conrad Burns and his staff," points out Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-profit watchdog group. "Abramoff has said that Burns and his staff used Signatures [Abramoff's restaurant] like their cafeteria. And Burns took a number of legislative actions on Abramoff's behalf, even as members of his staff went on trip to the 2001 Super Bowl on private jet and visited Sun Cruise gambling ships, which were partly owned by Abramoff. "Abramoff himself said in an interview earlier this year, "Every appropriation we wanted [from Burns's committee] we got. Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used Signatures as their cafeteria. I mean, it's a little difficult for him to run from that record."

Would it surprise you if I said I think one of the other "prominent individuals" under FBI scrutiny is our former Congressman Tom DeLay? We're not there yet, but I firmly believe that, like Bob Ney today, it will soon enough be politically correct to say Tom DeLay is corrupt. Nothing will change between now and that future date. Tom DeLay is no longer in position to influence legislation, and he won't be taking any more bribes. But even those who have criticized me in the past will concede that DeLay is guilty. We had our chance to clean our own house here in TX22 in the primary. It is too bad that 62% of the Republican electorate wasn't paying attention. By not paying attention, that 62% has likely handed our seat to Nick Lampson for two years.

"Wives Club" Member, Christine DeLay

2006-09-06T08:49:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal says the Justice Department is looking at the Christine DeLay's curious "job" at Ed Buckham's firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

Money quote:

The latest round of FBI questioning signals that the Justice Department doesn't plan on letting up on Mr. DeLay now that he has left Congress. They also show that prosecutors might target his wife in order to force a guilty plea from Mr. DeLay.

More to come . . .

The Wall Street Journal article is packed with facts. It is worthwhile to discuss what we already knew, what is new, what else we know and to speculate a bit.

In the last few weeks, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have interviewed several people at the Alexander Strategy Group lobbying firm to determine if Christine DeLay was being paid $3,200 a month -- a total of $115,000 over three years -- but not earning it. In a series of interviews last month, investigators questioned people who used to work at Alexander Strategy as well as people who worked in the same building as the now-defunct firm. "They wanted to know how often she came to the office? What did she do there? How long was she there?" said one person who was interviewed by the FBI.

We knew that Christine DeLay earned $100,000 + for a "job" at Alexander Strategy Group where she did little, if any, work. We also knew that investigators were looking into the arrangement.

==

In last month's interviews, investigators also asked about $144,000 that Mrs. DeLay received from one of Mr. DeLay's fund-raising committees, the Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, which was housed at the lobbying firm's offices. Investigators also inquired about fees paid to Mr. DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro, a longtime political consultant to her father.

We knew of additional payments made to Christine DeLay and daughter Dani DeLay Ferro. The linked WaPo article indicates that "Buckham's financial ties to DeLay's family -- and the retirement account in particular -- have recently attracted the interest of FBI agents and others in the federal task force probing public corruption by lawmakers and lobbyists, according to a source who was questioned in the course of the government's investigation." I wasn't sure the ambiguous reference to "DeLay's family" included Dani DeLay Ferro, therefore, I think it is fair to say that it is news that investigators are asking questions about the payments to Dani DeLay Ferro.

==

Richard Cullen, a lawyer for the DeLay family, said Mrs. DeLay was a "key adviser to her husband and her employment at Armpac and Alexander Strategy was real and valuable." Mr. Cullen has said that Mrs. DeLay's job at the firm was to compile a list of lawmakers' favorite charities.

We knew the story that Mrs. DeLay "earned" her $115,000 by maintaining the list of lawmakers' favorite charities. In June, DeLay's lawyer added some new "duties" to Mrs. DeLay's employment. "Cullen said the payments were also for general political consulting Christine DeLay provided to her husband." Got that? Alexander Strategy Group paid Christine DeLay to provide ambiguous consulting services to her husband.

==

Federal prosecutors used that tactic [squeezing wives of public servants] earlier this year to secure a guilty plea from Mr. Rudy, who admitted in March to accepting bribes when he worked for Mr. DeLay and later conspiring to bribe other lawmakers when he was a lobbyist. As part of the plea deal, Mr. Rudy told prosecutors that he sabotaged an Internet-gambling bill on Capitol Hill in exchange for $50,000 in payments to his wife. In return for his cooperation, federal prosecutors agreed to give Mr. Rudy a lighter sentence and not to prosecute his wife.

We knew that Tony Rudy sabotaged the internet-gaming bill in return for payments to his wife. We also know that Tom DeLay was "instrumental" in blocking the very same bill. Oh, have I mentioned that Tom DeLay's wife got suspicious payments, too? Gentle reader, you may determine how coincidental that is.

==

The federal investigation has already netted guilty pleas from a number of former confidants of Mr. DeLay, in addition to Mr. Rudy. Mr. Abramoff, a top fund-raiser and adviser to Mr. DeLay, pleaded guilty in January to charges that he tried to bribe lawmakers. DeLay aide Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty to similar charges.

Neil Volz, a former chief of staff to Rep. Bob Ney (R., Ohio), pleaded guilty to trying to bribe Mr. Ney when he was a lobbyist working for Mr. Abramoff. Soon after, Mr. Ney announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. David Safavian, another former lobbyist at Mr. Abramoff's firm, was found guilty in June of lying and obstructing justice in the federal corruption investigation.

Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, former DeLay staffers have pleaded guilty. I think I know against whom they are providing evidence. Neil Volz, former COS for Bob Ney. I think I know against whom he'll testify. Honestly, David Safavian is a little bit of a mystery to me. He worked in the administration and appears to have gotten caught up in this due to his own greed. Against whom can he testify? Remember that Safavian went on the St. Andrews junket. Bob Ney has already been caught lying about that trip. Maybe Safavian is supposed to testify against Ney. If so, the DoJ has a little work left. Safavian did not plead. He was convicted in a jury trial and is still appealing. But going to such lengths (jury trial) to nail little fish Safavian still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

He's no Friend of Mine

2006-08-21T15:42:00.000-05:00

“The Tom DeLay era is over,” Campbell said. “I know Tom DeLay, and Tom DeLay is no friend of mine. And Shelley Sekula-Gibbbs is no Tom DeLay.”

What he said.

About a third of the Republican Party feels that way about the corrupt Tom DeLay. The rest either condone DeLay's corruption or have kept themselves intentionally ignorant. Tom Campbell deserves the lion's share of the credit for ending the Tom DeLay era. Kudos to Campbell.

It's one thing for me to write this kind of thing on my little-read blog. Why does it seem awkward to see these thoughts in a quote attributed to Tom Campbell?

===

Update
August 22, 2006

There seems to be much disbelief that I would credit Tom Campbell for ending the Tom DeLay era. Let me explain myself. As I have asserted several times, a large portion of the Republican electorate, roughly a third, values integrity and character in their candidates. I belong to this subset of the Republican Party and have termed them the integrity wing of the party or Integrity Republicans. The influence of the integrity wing of the party has always existed – witness the fact that DeLay lagged all other Republican candidates by 7-10 points in 2004.

With all due respect to Michael Fjetland, he never captured the pulse of the Integrity Republicans. (Pat Baig was a Democrat – I never understood her entrance into the 2006 primary.) But when Tom Campbell entered the scene, he became the de facto figurehead of the Integrity Republicans. Campbell’s integrity-based campaign was visible. He consolidated the integrity wing of the party to show that a significant portion of Republicans would not tolerate DeLay’s corruption.

DeLay instantly knew the consequences of this, and DeLay was furious. DeLay knew in January that he couldn’t win the general, but DeLay couldn’t bring himself to withdraw from the primary and allow Campbell to be the nominee. Campbell hit DeLay hard on the integrity issue. It hurt the DeLay campaign so much that DeLay actually had to confront the issue through the eight page “handwritten” letter. I didn’t realize it at the time, but, in hindsight, that letter indicated how vulnerable DeLay was with respect to the Abramoff allegations. DeLay foundered through the primary with a less than impressive 62% win. Although it was spun that DeLay had performed well, the reality was very different. Integrity Republicans had defected in large numbers. There is nothing Democrats could do to win this ~63% GOP district. But when Campbell rounded up the Integrity Republicans and refused to endorse DeLay, DeLay was cooked.

Conventional wisdom says that DeLay resigned and attempted to become ineligible because he knew he had become a lightening rod and his candidacy put the TX22 race in danger. The conventional wisdom is true, but why was this overwhelmingly Republican district in danger? Even if 20% of the GOP defected, DeLay could still win. The answer is that more than 20% of the Republican electorate belongs to the integrity wing. Now we could have a robust argument on whether or not the integrity effect would have occurred without Campbell, but there’s no denying that Campbell demonstrated the size and strength of the integrity wing of the party in the primary. And Campbell’s refusal to endorse the corrupt DeLay after the primary indicated that the Integrity Republicans were ready to put principle over party. I tend to think that Campbell expanded the integrity wing of the party. It was larger with Campbell than it would have been without him. And Campbell gave the Integrity Republicans a voice. We knew we weren’t outliers. There were large numbers of us.

So Campbell ended the DeLay era by empowering the integrity wing of the party. Democrats alone could never defeat DeLay. The Integrity Republicans brought down DeLay, and Campbell was their de facto leader. Hence, Campbell deserves a very large share of the credit for ending the DeLay era.

===

FWIW, Campbell is sending a strong signal to the Integrity Republicans that the battle is over. When he says the Tom DeLay era is over, he is telling us we have won. Campbell also tells us that Sekula-Gibbs is no Tom DeLay. Campbell is doing his part to heal the fractured GOP. He’s telling the Integrity Republicans to come home. We’ve accomplished our goal of having a candidate with integrity. Sekula-Gibbs may not be as committed to conservative policies as I’d like, but I’ll give her a chance. I’m under no illusion that a write-in campaign will be easy, but unless I’m convinced Sekula-Gibbs has no chance, I’ll take the time to write her name in. Sekula-Gibbs would be wise to find a way to get Campbell to repeat his message to the Integrity Republicans during the campaign.

Now only if Wallace would quit giving mixed signals in his public statements . . .

That is probably the last time I will spill any pixels on the November election.

Ed Buckham and ARMPAC

2006-08-12T20:24:00.000-05:00

When I mentioned Edwin Buckham in my last post, I realized that I haven't been spending enough time talking about him. Buckham is the guy who will put DeLay in prison.

Buckham paid nearly half a million dollars to the DeLay family, primarily to Christine DeLay and Dani DeLay Ferro. What makes this particularly interesting to me is that when DeLay aide Tony Rudy entered a guilty plea, he said he would provide evidence that "things of value [were] corruptly given to . . . others includ[ing] . . . employment for the relatives of officials."

Anyway, while I was in my funk after realizing that the Republican Party had totally bungled the ballot case, Tom DeLay's PAC, ARMPAC, admitted violating the law and shut down operations.

What does that have to do with Buckham? Well, the outlaw organization ARMPAC shared a lot with Buckham:

Besides financing the retirement account, Buckham played a role in two other streams of income that indirectly benefited DeLay.

One involved payments to DeLay's family by his principal political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), which drew its largest donations from corporations. Three former DeLay staffers with firsthand knowledge of Buckham's activities have described him as a decision maker for the group, even though it was formally run by its executive director.

An arm of the group paid Buckham a monthly consulting fee, and Buckham in turn employed its executive director as a consultant to his lobbying firm. The two of them shared a single office on the top floor of a townhouse owned by a nonprofit organization that Buckham created and directed. Buckham's role is relevant because from 2001 to Jan. 31, 2006, ARMPAC paid Christine DeLay; DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro; and Ferro's Texas firm a total of $350,304 in political consulting fees and expenses, according to public records.

A couple of things about that quote. Yes, that mysterious townhouse is the same one that got Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS) in a bit of trouble a few months ago. Also, those three former DeLay staffers providing testimony against Buckham? Bet the farm that one of them is Tony Rudy. (I'm guessing the others are Michael Scanlon and Emily Whats-her-face who exposed the entire Abramoff scandal.)

Half a million dollars. An incestuous relationship with a lobbyist. Guilty pleas. Rudy turning state's evidence about corrupt employment relationships. Get ready for Buckham's guilty plea. Then we'll know a whole lot more.

K Street Gang

2006-05-06T17:48:00.000-05:00

I made my first purchase ever on Ebay a little over a week ago. I purchased K Street Gang by Weekly Standard staff writer Matthew Continetti. Interestingly, the seller had an email address from KDKA, the news/talk station in Pittsburgh. Republicans may breathe a sigh of relief since it doesn't appear the on-air talent at KDKA will be talking about this any time soon. I paid $6.75 including shipping.

The book reads like a 250 page version of Continetti's articles. That is, K Street Gang is an easy read that I finished in about 24 hours. The book has the feel of an extraordinarily long blog entry. Continetti relies almost entirely on newspaper articles and Congressional testimony. He documents it well, but I think the format would have been better with hyperlinks.

I've been reading Continetti's articles in the Weekly Standard for some time. Consequently, much of what I read was not new to me. But I highly recommend K Street Gang to anyone who hasn't been following the Abramoff/Scanlon/Buckham scandals closely. Continetti will get you up to speed fast. My two biggest takeaways are: (1) Grover Norquist doesn't seem to have a moral compass; and (2) Continetti has convinced me that the worst of the corruption began the day Newt Gingrich resigned and couldn't restrain Team DeLay anymore. I've been wondering why Newt has raised his national profile lately while sounding like an Integrity Republican.

Here are some of Continetti's concluding statements on the last page of the book:

Far from being an artifact of the past, Jack Abramoff may well represent the Republican Party's future. And this future will last until the public's last ounce of tolerance is depleted, and the Republican Establishment is overthrown, and a new one emerges in its place.

I am convinced the Republican Establishment is on the verge of being overthrown. The big question is what group emerges to take its place. Let's hope the future belongs to the Integrity Republicans. (I know we're still a minority in the Party. Just recently, our candidate for Majority Leader, John Shadegg [R-AZ], was soundly defeated in the leadership elections after entering the race too late.)

Eric Thode Says the Right Things . . . But . . .

2006-04-30T00:17:00.001-05:00

Well, we've come a long way in the Republican Party selection process for Tom DeLay's replacement. Originally, FBC Republican Chair Eric Thode said that Tom Campbell and other candidates who ran in the March 7 Republican Primary wouldn't be considered for the nomination. Since then, Thode has backed down from his exclusive stance on selecting the nominee. Thode says that his statement was misconstrued and that any Republican interested in the nomination will be considered. Thode's plan for a Fort Bend Republican "Primary" is further evidence that Thode is taking a more inclusive approach in the nomination selection process. I have supported Thode's actions to be more inclusive and hope to continue to do so.

Despite Thode's efforts at making the Republican Party more inclusive, open and transparent, he does have his detractors. Some are opposed on the mechanics of the "Primary", not its intent. But there are a lot of detractors who appear to be opposed to the of inclusiveness and transparency. Of course, the latter group of opponents cannot publicly articulate their position, but simply judging by some of the comments left on my blog, many people do not want voters who are not active members of the Republican Party to have any say or even opine of the nomination procedure.

The way I see it, there are several layers of support the Republican Party critical to the Party's success in TX22:

Organized Republicans. First, there needs to be strong local organization. This group is a very small group that vets candidates and has outsized influence in nominations for public office. This group probably numbers just a few thousand throughout the district. Precinct chairs and members of local Republican organizations are included in this group.

Primary Voters. Secondly, there is a much larger group of self-identified Republican voters who routinely participate in the primaries. This group is ten times larger than the first group. The role of this group is to settle disputes among competing factions in the first group by deciding primary winners. This group also provides an early warning system to the mistakes of the establishment Party. For example, it was the large number of Campbell voters in this group that convinced Tom DeLay that he couldn't win the general election due to his corruption. I am a member of the Primary Voters.

Republican Voters. Lastly, we have all voters who are inclined to vote Republican in the general election. This group numbers over a hundred thousand in the district. Without these people, the Republican Party could never win elections in TX22. The Republican Party needs these people as much as they need the first two groups.

One of the lessons we should learn from the March 7 primary is that the Organized Republicans have become a little politically tone deaf. Significant numbers of the lower two levels of Republicans could not support DeLay due to his corruption. That was reflected in Tom Campbell's good showing in the primary. (Tom Campbell should be placed in the second group of Republicans, the Primary Voters, even though he was a candidate.) Unfortunately, many of the Organized Republicans fear that if the Primary Voters get to participate, Campbell may emerge as the plurality-winning Republican.

Thode’s "Primary" plan is intended to gain the participation of the Primary Voters and give them ownership in the process. I believe Thode genuinely wants the process to be inclusive, and I applaud his efforts. But there are limitations to what Thode is doing. It only applies to Fort Bend County, and the results are not binding. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. I desperately want to believe Thode when he says, "We as a party need to do everything we can to make this process open".

Here is where we differ: I want a full-fledge emergency special election to fully align the interests of all three Republican groups. TX22 is an overwhelmingly Republican district. Lampson would not win an emergency special election. As Thode says, this district is so Republican that his "Republican dog" could win here. The only question is, which Republican will win TX22? An emergency special election would allow all three groups of Republicans to have a voice in answering that question, although the notoriously low historical turnout for special elections means that the Organized Republicans and the Primary Voters would dominate.

For me personally, it would be easier to vote for the Republican who emerged with a plurality in an emergency special than it would be to vote for a Republican selected by four people from a group which has already demonstrated its lack of judgment by supporting the corrupt DeLay in the primary. We are in the situation we're in because a significant number of Republicans were prepared to defect the corrupt DeLay in the general. Every effort should be made to unite the Republican Party now that DeLay is gone. After an emergency special, the "Four" would know which candidate to nominate. Even if the winner of an emergency special was not the first choice of the "Four", he should be nominated for Party unity. It would be unwise for the "Four" to buck the collective preference of tens of thousands of voters.

Admittedly, the big drawback to this plan is that the runoff after an emergency special would undoubtedly be between Lampson and the plurality-winning (not majority winning) Republican. Many states allow plurality wins in primaries already and this would be only a single instance of a plurality-winning Republican getting the nomination. Hey, I’m willing to risk that DeLay’s hand-picked successor, David Wallace, could win in the interest of party unity; why can’t the Organized Republicans risk that Tom Campbell could win in the interest of party unity? (The Organized Republicans fear the Primary Voters may give Campbell a plurality so much, Harris County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill went so far as to suggest the voters are less educated.)

Eric Thode says he wants to have an open process. If he really wants an inclusive process in order to unite Republicans, he should advocate an emergency special. When Chris Elam fingers Thode as the primary opponent to an emergency special, I must concur. If Thode changes his mind and supports an emergency special election, I'm sure he'll be able to change Governor Perry's mind again.

C'mon Eric, put your money where your mouth is. Support an emergency special.

Time Mag: Possible Buckham Indictment may Implicate Two or Three More Republicans

2006-04-29T12:09:00.000-05:00

From Time Magazine:

Congress is bracing for the possibility of another round of Abramoff-related news. Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio and his former Chief of Staff Neil Volz both signed waivers last fall extending for six months the statute of limitations on any potential crimes relating to Abramoff; that deadline comes this weekend, and there is much speculation among those who follow the corruption scandal that the first Abramoff-related indictment of a sitting Congressman may be around the corner. And everyone is holding their breath to see if Tom DeLay's former Chief of Staff, Ed Buckham, is indicted — which could ultimately bring another two or three Republican congressmen into the mix.

This is a little more specific than the statement from Sen. Coburn (R-OK) from a couple of weeks ago that six Congressmen and a Senator (no party affiliation mentioned) would go to jail over investigations related to Abramoff and others.

So who are these Republicans specifically linked to Buckham that may be in trouble? Here's my list, more or less in order of culpability:

1. Tom DeLay (R-TX). Wife Christine "employed" by Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group. Conservative Weekly Standard magazine finds no evidence Christine DeLay did any work. Federal investigators are known to be looking into the details of this "employment". Fits the modus operendi of the "Wives Club".

2. John Doolittle (R-CA). Wife Julie Doolittle operated consulting company called Sierra Dominion Financial Services. A full list of SDFS's publicly named clients: John Doolittle's campaign; Abramoff's Signatures Restaurant; Greenberg Traurig (lobbying firm employing Abramoff); and Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a Buckham-created entity. Fits "Wives Club" profile.

3. Dave Weldon (R-FL). Weldon was instrumental in providing federal funding for Map Roi, a private company owned by a Buckham client. Tenuous link: Weldon received campaign contributions that roughly match the timing of the Map Roi funding. Be prepared to learn much more about Map Roi in the future. I suspect the shareholders of Map Roi might be an interesting reading list, too.

I'm thinking about adding JD Hayworth (R-AZ) if I can become more convinced that Mary Hayworth's connection to Buckham is worthy of "Wives Club" status. I did include Mary Hayworth in my "Wives Club" list for her contacts with Abramoff-linked entities in general.

Arrogance in Harris County

2006-04-25T18:24:00.000-05:00

A couple of articles came out today regarding Eric Thode's "Primary" plan. First up is The Hill. James Woodfill, Chair of the Harris County GOP, thinks Thode's ballot idea is a bad one:

Others expressed confidence that the precinct chairmen, whom Texas election law has made kingmakers under the current scenario, best reflect the will of the people.

James Woodfill, chairman of the Harris County GOP, said that his precinct chairmen are writing a questionnaire for prospective candidates to answer and that the chairmen will meet next week to interview the candidates.

“The precinct chairs are probably more educated than 99 percent of the voters,” Woodfill said.

This is the kind of thing Thode was saying two weeks ago! All hail the precinct chairs! Their knowledge is omnipotent! Well, I'm not a precinct chair. With this kind of attitude, this Republican voter may be too stupid to vote for the Republican nominee in November. I'm pleased Thode has recognized the error of his ways. I hope Woodfill learns the same lesson.

Here's the Fort Bend Herald. Thode plays the Goldilocks routine: Those who critize his ballot idea are from the "far right" or "far left". (I don't think I've ever seen Shelley Sekula-Gibbs described as "far right". Maybe she's "far left". I dunno.) Suffice it to say that my support of Thode's "primary" shows that I am well-grounded.

Here's more from the Herald:

"I have received over 100 e-mails from people saying it's a great idea. I even got two or three people, who quite frankly hate me, to support the idea," he [Thode] said.

I don't hate you, Eric.

There seems to be a common theme regarding the criticism of Thode's ballot. Starting with Chris Elam, many are now questioning safeguards against fraud. Fraud is a serious issue, and I hope Thode is prepared to address it. Up until now, he hasn't.

At the end of the day, though, this ballot will be a footnote in the selection process. I can't imagine that the Brazoria, Galveston or Harris precinct chairs will care one bit about Fort Bend's ballot. Besides, Harris County's chairs are smarter than the voters. But I again want to praise Thode for trying to be inclusive in the process to select a candidate. Thode's idea may not work as he intended, but I believe his intent is genuine.

===

Update
April 26, 2006

OK, so I expressed outrage over Jared Woodfill’s comment that the precinct chairs are more educated than the voters. Chris Elam reminds me that after ranting, I never responded to Woodfill’s claim. Insulting the voters is never a good idea, but I’m learning that one of my weaknesses while writing a blog is that I often sacrifice clarity. I appreciate that Chris gently guided me into something I should have done in the first place.

As regular readers know, I have repeatedly asserted that there is a schism in the Republican Party. On one side are the integrity Republicans who are disenchanted with Tom DeLay’s corruption. During the primary, candidate Tom Campbell articulated the thoughts of most of these Republicans. This group is nearly unanimous in its evaluation of the public record that DeLay at the very least provided the appearance of impropriety with his dealings with Abramoff/Buckham. In fact, for many of this group, the evidence points to basic corruption (see the Wives Club). This group of Republicans values transparency and openness (including an emergency special election to replace DeLay when he resigns) in government. They also want to purge corruption completely out of the Republican Party. Integrity Republicans voted against DeLay in the primary (most voted for Campbell).

On the opposite side of the schism is the establishment Republicans. They feel a sense of entitlement because many of them are members of local Republican Party groups and hold formal positions like the precinct chairs. This is the good-ol-boy Republican Party. They were horrified that Campbell opposed DeLay because noone is supposed to upset the status quo. The establishment Republicans are nearly unanimous that DeLay has been falsely accused of various ethical breaches. This is true when it comes to the Abramoff/Buckham scandal. Establishment Republicans voted for DeLay in the primary.

Now I don’t hide the fact that I have chosen sides and have aligned with the integrity Republicans. I think I am a distinct subset of the majority in that I don’t feel any allegiance to Tom Campbell. But my interests are certainly aligned with Campbell’s supporters.

Obviously integrity Republicans don’t understand how establishment Republicans still support DeLay. Two possibilities enter my mind: (1) Establishment Republicans haven’t evaluated the facts surrounding the Abramoff/Buckham scandal; or (2) Establishment Republicans recognize DeLay’s corruption but condone it. I’m more comfortable with believing that establishment Republicans haven’t acquainted themselves with the facts of DeLay’s corruption rather than believing they condone DeLay’s corruption.

So when Woodfill says that precinct chairs are “more educated” than 99% of the voters, it rings hollow. To the eye of the integrity Republicans, 30-38% of the Republican Party (the integrity Republicans) are very aware of what’s going on. It is the establishment Party that is in denial. Integrity Republicans are very wary of letting the establishment Republicans choose the nominee because the establishment Republicans either can’t see or accept corruption in their midst. On top of that, to be told by the establishment Republicans that they are “better educated” than us? Such hubris!

DeLay's Letter to the Editor

2006-04-18T18:33:00.000-05:00

I've tried not to dwell as much on Tom DeLay's corrupt behavior as I did before his announcement that he wouldn't continue seeking the TX22 seat. I want to focus on the possibility of an emergency special election, the selection process for the Republican candidate for the general election, and things I find interesting regarding the Abramoff scandal in general.

But Tom DeLay served me up a softball in the Letters to the Editor section in the Chronc. Most of the letter is an angry screed targeting Chris Bell, who had written an unremarkable op/ed piece of his own about DeLay. But what DeLay writes is absolutely amazing:

Secondly, Bell conveniently never mentioned that it was he — not I — who was cited by the ethics committee as having broken House rules.

Now I've seen some uninformed people try to claim that DeLay had never been admonished by the Ethics Committee, but this takes the cake! Let's look at the letter the Ethics Committee sent to DeLay:

As you are aware, the Committee has made a number of decisions regarding the allegations made in the complaint that was filed against you by Representative Bell on June 15, 2004. This letter implements determinations made by the Committee that you be admonished for your conduct in two respects:

your participation in and facilitation of an energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort for your leadership PACs on June 2-3, 2002. Those actions were objectionable under House standards of conduct because, at a minimum, they created an appearance that donors were being provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy legislation.

your intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. This action raises serious concerns under House standards of conduct that preclude use of governmental resources for a political undertaking.

What in the world is DeLay talking about when he says he hasn't broken House rules? Is he playing some kind of Clintonian word game?

Senator Coburn (R-OK): Seven Lawmakers Going to Jail

2006-04-16T15:07:00.000-05:00

Via the Club for Growth, I learn of this report from the Associated Press:

WAGONER, Okla. U-S Senator Tom Coburn isn't naming names, but he expects six congressmen and a fellow senator will go to jail.

That's because he thinks they'll be facing corruption charges following investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Wagoner last night, Coburn said that "if you've been keeping up with things, you've got a pretty good idea" of who the seven lawmakers are.

The Oklahoma Republican says members of both parties have been involved in questionable dealings.

OK, we've got a lot of vagueness here. I'm not 100% sure Coburn is limiting his prediction to Abramoff-related fallout ("investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others"). But I am hopeful that readers of this blog have "been keeping up with things". Therefore, we should have "a pretty good idea" of who the seven are.

Let me kick off with my speculation:

House
1. *Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA). OK that one may be too easy. Does Coburn even count him?

2. *Rep. Robert Ney (R-OH). Another easy one.

3. *Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). Buckham will give him up. Bribes to Christine DeLay fit "The Wives Club" profile.

4. *Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA). Wife Julie Doolittle looks like she belongs to "The Wives Club".

5. *Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL). Coburn's jail remark came in context to earmarking. Weldon earmarked funds to Buckham client Map-Roi.

6. *Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV). Coburn specifically mentions Mollohan's abuse of earmarks in this password protected article.

7. Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). Implicated in post Hurricane Katrina corruption. For some reason, I consider Jefferson's malfeasance to be unrelated to the above. But nevertheless, Jefferson's actions deserve detailed attention from the Justice Department.
8. Rep. JD Hayworth (R-AZ). Wife may be linked to "The Wives Club".

====

Senate
1. *Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT). Burns is implicated in Abramoff-linked legislation.

2. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). Recipient of Abramoff-linked funds in campaign and non-profit.

3. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Recipient of Abramoff-linked funds.

I'd like to make this list more bi-partisan, but unfortunately, I fear Republicans are more culpable than Democrats.

Feel free to make me justify anyone appearing on this list. But more importantly, feel free to use the comments to add names worthy of consideration.

* Denotes the original legislators that I fingered as being likely to be thrown in jail.

===

Update
April 17, 2006

Right of Texas takes me to task for omitting Harry Reid (D-NV) as our Senatorial candidate. He was right to do so. I'm trying to limit my list to lawmakers who have been named as being the focus of investigators/prosecutors. Harry Reid belongs on that list. I'll see Right of Texas' Harry Reid and raise him one Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Both were mentioned in this Washington Times article as gaining the attention of the Justice Department. Of course, that means I have to add JD Hayworth (R-AZ), too.

While I'm at it, I'm going to reorganize my list above to separate House and Senate members we know are under investigation.

My excuse is that Conrad Burns had been mentioned in articles just last week of being tied to the Abramoff scandals. My crime is that just because something is more recent, it doesn't make the items in our memory less reliable. That's one of the beauties of blogs . . . they have long memories.

Good catch, Right of Texas!

"The Wives Club"

2006-04-09T19:08:00.000-05:00

Since Tom DeLay has said he will eventually resign, I've resisted pointing out his specific acts of impropriety. But my theory that the sham employment of Christine DeLay will be one of the bigger items in a future DeLay indictment is getting a little support from the conservative Weekly Standard:

It is difficult to determine where the U.S. Family Network ends and the Alexander Strategy Group begins. From 1998 to 2002, Christine DeLay was an employee of the Alexander Strategy Group, yet she seems to have been paid out of commissions the Buckhams took from the network. Those payments amounted to around $3,000 a month.

Last November, the DeLays' attorney, Richard Cullen, told the Washington Post that Christine DeLay had been paid $115,000 over three years to, as the Post put it, "determine the favorite charity of every member of Congress." To date, there is no evidence that DeLay compiled a list of 535 charities.

[emphasis mine]

To be fair to the Weekly Standard, the magazine has been consistently difficult on DeLay for his relationship with Abramoff. So it is unjustified to suggest that the Weekly Standard is just now calling DeLay's behavior on the carpet. But I do hope that other conservative publications will now quit defending DeLay's corrupt behavior.

===

Update
April 10, 2006

I don't know how I missed it, but the New York Times had an on-point article about the lucrative "employment" of Congressional and lobbyist wives:

Lawyers with detailed knowledge of the Justice Department's investigation, who were granted anonymity because of rules barring public discussion of grand jury evidence, say that so many of the wives of lawmakers and lobbyists have become tied up in the investigation that F.B.I. agents have begun referring to them as "The Wives Club."

. . .

Christine A. DeLay, Mr. DeLay's wife, received $115,000 in consulting fees from 1998 to 2002 from a lobbying firm set up by her husband's former chief of staff, Edwin A. Buckham, who is also under scrutiny by the Justice Department because of his lobbying contacts with Mr. DeLay's House office.

Although there is no suggestion of any criminal investigation focused on Mrs. DeLay, lawyers involved in the investigation say prosecutors have asked about the circumstances of her hiring by Mr. Buckham and whether it was an effort to influence Mr. DeLay, the former House majority leader. Mr. DeLay announced this week that he was resigning from Congress, saying he wanted to avoid an "ugly" re-election fight this fall that might focus on ethical issues.

I liked the term "The Wives Club" so much, I changed the title of this post. But a Google search of the term indicates I'm a little late to this game.

After Resigning, Tom DeLay Continues the "Chicken Republican Offensive"

2006-04-05T18:13:00.000-05:00

Kuff shows me this article from the Washington Post. In it, Tom DeLay continues to insult the segment of the Republican base that values character, integrity and ethics.

[DeLay] considered his three Republican challengers gadflies and traitors and he was determined to try to block them from succeeding him.

I voted for Campbell. I suppose DeLay thinks I'm a gadfly or traitor simply for wanting my corrupt Congressman out and a solid conservative in. That's OK. I'll be calling DeLay a convicted felon in due time. I'll have the added benefit of actually being accurate.

We also have an article in the National Review. DeLay just can't help but attack the Republicans who voted against him:

Such polarization, DeLay said, left very few undecideds. "What's left are soft moderate Republicans," DeLay explained, "and independents that will vote for anybody but Tom DeLay, that believe for whatever reason that he's a crook, or where there's smoke, there's fire, so the beating that I've been taking has had that impact. And what I saw was it would take a ton of money to take that small group that I could appeal to and turn them around — in the face of getting beat up every day by the mainstream media and paid-for 527s."

I am not an independent. I can count on one hand the number of Democrats I've voted for in my life. So DeLay must think I'm a moderate Republican. I disagree with that label, too (unless moderate means opposed to corruption). My top three voting issues are:

1. Integrity and Character (DeLay failed)
2. National Security (win the War on Terror)
3. Fiscal policy (lower spending and growth-oriented tax cuts -- I'm a supplysider)

I'm pro-life and pro-immigration. The Wall Street Journal editorial page almost never takes positions I disagree with. Is that a moderate Republican? Why did DeLay say that?

But this is the quote that irritates me the most:

"I have a very strong base, an incredibly strong base," DeLay continued. "I've never seen anything like it. People that would die for me. I also have a very strong opposition that would kill me if they could get hold of me."

My opposition was based on principle. DeLay did not exhibit the integrity and character I demand. For this, he suggests the metaphor that I'm his assassin? No, Mr. DeLay, I do have integrity and character. I merely want you held accountable in a court of law.

I would prefer that Mr. DeLay make statements to bring the Republican Party back together. He certainly has done enough through his actions to tear it apart. The man has zero class.

Click this for background on the "Chicken Republican Offensive"

===

Update
April 5, 2006

It looks like Tom DeLay isn't the only one to attack those Republicans who voted against DeLay in the primary. Here is what HoustonDemocrats.com has to say:

The only question is whether the reformer Pugs are gonna take this lying down, or put up a fight to get one of DeLay's former challengers in there. What move they make next will show how serious they are about fixing Congress. Takers, anyone?

"Pugs". Cute.

But my substantive answer to that question is that there's no need to choose one of the former challengers. I'm not sure why this website would even claim that should be a priority. For me, I'll say that I'm pretty confident that the Republican powers that be won't choose someone with ethical baggage. Most anyone would be acceptable over a Democrat. We did the serious work. We got rid of DeLay. That was something the Democrats couldn't do. Don't suggest we're not serious because we don't insist on a primary challenger.

I think that HoustonDemocrats.com just wants to create more dissension in the Republican Party. But their tactics make them look foolish. Besides, with DeLay attacking us and the Republican powers that be plotting to keep us from voting for DeLay's replacement, the Republican Party is doing plenty to keep the base fractured.

Tom DeLay to Resign

2006-04-03T22:15:00.000-05:00

For the most part, this ends my blogging career. I must have had the shortest and most unpredictable run for a single issue blogger.

I am pleased that the corrupt Congressman from TX22 will resign. I see Sugar Land mayor David Wallace is running in a May special election to replace DeLay. I will make a broad, unsubstantiated statement that I think that the Fort Bend Republican Party is, in general, unethical. Anyone outside of FBC will have my vote in a special. I'd like to see Harris County Judge Robert Eckels on my ballot in November. Whoever the Republican candidate is will have my vote.

Let noone say that Republicans don't hold their own accountable. 38% of GOP primary voters voted against DeLay, primarily for issues of ethics, integrity and character. DeLay, unlike Clinton, at least had the integrity to resign.

I see that DeLay is claiming that he is still innocent. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that is spin. I still want him held accountable in the judicial system.

The GOP remains the party of ethics, integrity and character.

So long . . .

GreginTX22

==

Update
April 3, 2006

From Time Magazine

Tom DeLay: "The state Republican executive committee will go to work and I will move to Virginia."

Move to Virginia, eh? I hope he has no plans to become a lobbyist! :)

"Employment for the Relatives of Officials"

2006-04-02T23:01:00.000-05:00

OK, this is my first bleg.

The most interesting thing I read in The Factual Basis for the Plea of Tony Rudy appears on page three. In paragraph nine, I learn that "The things of value corruptly given to . . . others included . . . employment for the relatives of officials."

The vagueness of this statement leads me to believe that this is, in part, some of the information Rudy will give to investigators. Here is my bleg: What relatives of officials were given employment? I assume that "officials" must be government employees, but I would also like to hear any disagreement on that assumption.

Let me kick off:

1. Lisa Rudy. According to Tony Rudy's statement, Lisa Rudy's consulting firm, Liberty Consulting received payments from Abramoff related sources for seven months while he was still employed by DeLay. The fact that Tony Rudy went into some detail about this in his statement leads me to believe that his own wife is not one of the "others" mentioned in paragraph nine.

2. Christine DeLay. Wife of Tom DeLay, she was paid in excess of $100,000 by Ed Buckham's firm, Alexander Strategy Group. DeLay's lawyer said that Christine DeLay earned this money by providing Buckham a list of lawmakers' favorite charities.

3. Julie Doolittle. Wife of Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), Julie owned Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions. Her firm had four clients according to the San Diego Union Tribune: John Doolittle's PAC, Abramoff's lobbying firm, Abramoff's restaurant, and an organization created by Ed Buckham.

4. Mary Hayworth. Wife of Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Mary Hayworth is the sole employee of J. D. Hayworth's PAC, T.E.A.M. PAC. According to KPHO-TV, T.E.A.M. PAC has paid Mary Hayworth $130,000 while receiving $83,000 in Abramoff-related contributions. I'm sure T.E.A.M. PAC did a lot more than receive money from Abramoff. This means the Mary Hayworth connection is much less direct than the others, but I'm trying to populate my list with plausible candidates.

Please respond in the comments if you have any other possibilities for our "relatives of officials" who may have received sham employment.

Ralph Reed Employs "Chicken Republican Offensive"

2006-03-31T15:24:00.001-06:00

Marvin Olasky is a journalism professor at UT (or t.u. as we Aggies call it). He also edits World Magazine, a news magazine with a decidedly Christian worldview. World Magazine has been tough since at least November on Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition leader and current candidate for Lt. Governor of Georgia, for his ties to Abramoff. Some conservatives are responsible enough to hold Republicans accountable for their ethical behavior. I highly recommend that readers poke around World Magazine's website.

What has Ralph Reed's response been? According to the Washington Post, Reed is using the same tactic Tom DeLay used:

On Feb. 6, Reed wrote Olasky to say he was " very disappointed that WORLD would repeat false and politically-motivated attacks by liberal groups in Texas."

Olasky's World Magazine raised serious issues that call into question Reed's judgment and values. Reed accuses WORLD of repeating liberal groups. DeLay has done the same thing. Ethics and character are reliably conservative virtues. I applaud conservatives like Olasky for holding political allies accountable to these virtures. When Reed attacks Olasky as a liberal for insisting on the highest levels of ethical behavior, it reminds me of DeLay's Chicken Republican Offensive.

Tom DeLay a-Calling

2006-03-31T12:41:00.001-06:00

I've been meaning to post this personal experience since I began the blog. The week after the primary election, I received an interactive recorded telephone call from my Congressman, Tom DeLay.

My recollection is that I was asked a question on national security. I support a strong America and want to win the War on Terror. I answered and was asked a follow-up question. After that answer, Tom DeLay's recording said something along the lines of, "Good, I agree with you."

I got asked a question on tax policy and a follow-up. I suspect my public policy preferences match DeLay's there, too. I got a question on right-to-life issues and a follow-up. After the answers, I got the same acknowledgement from the recording that DeLay agreed with me.

The only question that I probably disagreed with DeLay was on additional funding for NASA. I didn't get a follow-up question there.

Lastly, DeLay asked if I were a senior citizen or not. I'm not. DeLay said something about this poll helping him form public policy. Then he said for more information to go to his house.gov website. I conclude that my tax dollars paid for this call to me. Great. But I couldn't help but believe that this whole thing was in response Campbell's strong challenge in the primary.

When I created this blog, I had hoped to provide color regarding events within TX22. Specifically, I wanted to let people know how a typical, not politically connected, Republican voter saw and thought. The mail I received during the primary would have made for good blog material - particularly the eight page "handwritten" letter. After the primary, though, election related stuff has really dried up. I'm sure it will increase as November approaches. Keep tuned.

Former DeLay Aide Tony Rudy pleads Guilty

2006-03-31T10:59:00.000-06:00

Via Drudge, the AP reports that former DeLay stafferTony Rudy has plead guilty to charges related to the Abramoff scandal.

The most important thing to know about Rudy is that some of his wrongdoing occurred while employed by DeLay.

A top DeLay aide while the Texas lawmaker served as House Majority Leader, Rudy took payments from Abramoff in 2000, then helped stop an Internet gambling bill opposed by Abramoff's clients, papers filed in U.S. District Court in Washington said.

So even if you believe Robert Novak when he reports that Abramoff has not implicated DeLay, you must be concerned about what Tony Rudy has to say. Keep an eye out to see if Rudy is cooperating.

===

Update
March 31, 2006

According to Bloomberg, Rudy has agreed to cooperate.

Rudy's agreement to cooperate may give investigators a new window into misdeeds on Capitol Hill.

We all had to believe this to be true. This is the first confirmation I've seen. Now let's look for confirmation that Rudy's cooperation is regarding DeLay's actions.

===

Update
March 31, 2006

The Chronc adds some material:

But Rudy's plea brings DeLay into the federal case in two different ways.

First, Rudy pleaded to getting Representative 2 [DeLay] to sign a letter opposing a postal rate increase, as sought by Abramoff's magazine company clients.

Second, Rudy admitted to coordinating activities with the staff of Representative 2 [DeLay], after Rudy had left to become a lobbyist, that would have accomplished legislative goals of Abramoff's clients.

Over the next few months, I bet we'll learn more about the circumstances regarding Rudy's ability to get DeLay to sign the letter opposing the postal rate increase. Was DeLay like Lt. Colonel Blake on MASH, signing letters without question? Or did DeLay know more about them? Also, I bet we'll learn exactly what it means when Rudy admitted "coordinating activities" with DeLay's staff. Does that mean more staff members will become witnesses? What did DeLay know about this coordination?

Today can't be judged to be a good day for Team DeLay.

Edwin Buckham, Part III

2006-03-29T18:33:00.000-06:00

Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS) has run into a bit of bad luck. Democrats accuse him of receiving a sweetheart deal on the purchase of his DC townhome. Ryun's luck gets worse. He bought it from the US Family Network, a charity run by Ambramoff-linked figure Edwin Buckham. Out of all the people in the world, Ryun buys his home from Buckham's charity. What are the chances of that? And who else in the world has ever bought a house from a charity?

Ryun defends his actions in part by suggesting that the US Family Network and he saved money by not paying brokerage commissions. Umm. That's not exculpatory in my eyes. Since the USFN and Ryun didn't meet through a broker it just adds to the suspicion that this was a sweetheart deal. I would actually think it was better if a broker widely marketed the property and Ryun just happened to be the highest bidder.

Edwin Buckham, Part II

2006-03-29T15:32:00.000-06:00

Roll Call’s Norman Orstein writes an opinion piece entitled “Reading about Buckham’s Activities Takes Strong Stomach” about the Washington Post story on Edwin Buckham that appeared Sunday. Orstein is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is a reliably conservative public policy research organization. I particularly like their articles on tax reform. I bring this up because this is another example of conservatives starting to turn on DeLay.

Most of the piece expresses outrage over the depth of corruption surrounding Buckham. Orstein echoes my earlier sentiments that the Buckham story can cause physical discomfort. But he takes it a step beyond that – Orstein is able to document thoughts that I have had in a much more eloquent manner than I could ever hope to:

Read these stories, along with the tales of Michael Scanlon, the former DeLay communications director and Abramoff crony who negotiated a plea deal with prosecutors, and reflect on what they all tell us about Tom DeLay. There are two possible explanations. One is that he is the most naive man ever to serve in Congress or any political office: Right under his nose, his closest and most trusted employees were running schemes to enrich themselves, subvert his office and repeatedly abuse his trust over many years. The second is that he knew what was going on, and saw their efforts as a nice way to enrich his friends, employees and family while helping accomplish his political goals.

If you accept the former explanation, you have to explain away the fact that DeLay was the most successful Whip in our lifetimes, thanks to his attention to detail, his keen understanding of people and his indefatigable energy and focus. I would like to hear how GOP Reps. Henry Bonilla (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Eric Cantor (Va.) and all the other House Republicans who went out of their way to repeatedly laud DeLay and his standards now explain DeLay’s conduct, after having learned about the doings of Buckham, Rudy and Scanlon.

Read the whole thing.

Who is Edwin Buckham?

2006-03-25T21:46:00.001-06:00

The first thing you should know is that he is the target of a sizable front page expose in tomorrow's Washington Post.

Buckham is the latest DeLay staffer to be linked to Jack Abramoff and the funny money business. The WaPo initially describes Buckham as DeLay's former chief of staff and later as working for DeLay in the Whip's office. I suspect that Buckham was the Chief of Staff at the Whip's office (as opposed to DeLay's Congressional office), but his precise role is not immediately clear to me.

Prior to leaving DeLay's employ, Buckham founded a nonprofit called the US Family Network and Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm. Most of the article recounts Abramoff-linked funds to these two groups. USFN and the Alexander Strategy Group are portrayed as entities with the sole function to enrich Buckham. Perhaps there was some legitimate lobbying services provided by Buckham's groups, but the WaPo doesn't mention it. And remember, Buckham and Abramoff could be two peas in a pod. It's a lot to digest. I actually feel that I understand Enron's Powers Report better than this article.

Here is the most puzzling quote in the article:

During this latter period, Buckham and his wife, Wendy, acting through their consulting firm, made monthly payments averaging $3,200-$3,400 apiece to DeLay's wife, Christine, for three of the years in which he collected money from the USFN and some other clients.

The WaPo doesn't articulate what, if any, services Christine DeLay provided the consulting firm. I believe "the consulting firm" is the Alexander Strategy Group. (The WaPo's writing leaves a lot to be desired - this is the first time the word "consulting" appears in the article.)

I'll ask the obvious question: Why in the world was Christine DeLay getting money from a consulting firm with links to Abramoff? Smells bad to me. Team DeLay needs to get in front of this.

====

Update

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

So Christine supplied lists of Congressmen's favorite charities. Make what you will from that.

====

It looks like Edwin Buckham is the third former DeLay staffer under investigation in this scandal.

One last item from the WaPo. The paper tells us that Buckham is an evangelical minister and DeLay's spiritual adviser. I'm pretty confident that like Abramoff, DeLay also discussed the Bible with Buckham.

Does Team DeLay Get It?

2006-03-22T21:14:00.000-06:00

I'm beginning to think the answer is "no".

The Washington Post has an article that covers today's court session in Austin. It has an interesting quote from DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin:

"Justice delayed is justice denied in this case," Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin said in his opening remarks. "I ask you treat this case with dispatch and render decision forthwith."

DeGuerin later told reporters the criminal case against DeLay has clearly affected not only his reign as majority leader but also his quest to win a 12th term to Congress this year. DeLay was forced to step down from his leadership post upon being indicted in September on charges stemming from the 2002 election cycle.

First of all, I have no problem with speedy justice. DeLay deserves to have these charges dismissed in a timely manner.

But DeLay's problems in his reelection campaign have little to do with Ronnie Earle's political vendetta. DeLay lagged President Bush by 9% in TX22 in the 2004 election. While Earle was preening in Austin, few people back home cared. DeLay was indicted in late 2005. There was already something unique about DeLay before the indictment.

So what do ordinary Republican voters in TX22 think? Todd Schuh says Ronnie Earle's case is "trumped up". Yet he didn't vote for DeLay. Larry Deats thinks Earle is on a witch hunt. Yet he remained undecided until the last minute and I doubt we'll ever know how he eventually voted. And you already know what I think -- Earle's actions are an alarming episode of a prosecutor criminalizing his political opponents.

Like Todd Schuh, I'm more interested in DeLay's links to lobbyists, specifically Jack Abramoff. We don't hear much from DeLay regarding Abramoff, and when we do, even the conservative Weekly Standard call's DeLay's assertions "inaccurate" and a "gloss on the available evidence".

gloss n A purposefully misleading interpretation or explanation.

Mr. DeLay, we don't worry about Ronnie Earle's preening here in TX22. We worry about Jack Abramoff's cooperating. We need *accurate* answers with respect to your relationship with Abramoff. Fell free to pass this along to your spokesperson Shannon Flaherty. She probably understands this. Ms. Flaherty is on record as saying Texans "think Ronnie Earle is a joke". I bet she'll be able to explain all this to you, Mr. DeLay.

Oh, and Mr. DeGuerin, I'll forgive you for embellishing the importance of this case in the zealous defense of your client. That's what lawyers do, right?

***DISCLOSURE***: I do not know Todd Schuh or Larry Deats. For that matter, I don't know Tom Campbell and have never had any contact whatsoever with his campaign. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Lampson in Sugar Land Town Square

2006-03-22T10:27:00.000-06:00

Fort Bend Now reports on how Nick Lampson, DeLay's Democrat opponent, spent part of his Tuesday:

One day after President George W. Bush signed a bill raising the national debt ceiling to a record $8.965 trillion, Lampson appeared in Sugar Land Town Square, handing out “Payment Due” notices to passers-by.

Lampson’s hand-outs were styled like credit card bills, showing current charges of $781 billion, and a $27,724.97 “payment due” from every man, woman and child in the country.

OK, this stunt got the coverage it deserves . . . on the pages of a newspaper-type weblog. (I don't mean to denigrate Fort Bend Now. They are good at what they do. But it isn't Channel 13.) What is disappointing, however, is Team DeLay's response:

“This stunt would be funny if it weren’t so hypocritical,” said DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty. “If he really wanted to get his Democrat message across, he would have passed out IRS collection notices to highlight their real agenda – raising taxes to fund more liberal pet programs.”

Now Lampson probably would be a big spender. But his point Tuesday was entirely defensible. The national debt and deficit spending represent deferred taxes. We will eventually have to pay off the debt. How do DeLay's policy preferences impact the spending side of fiscal policy? Fort Bend Now identifies a big difference: Lampson wants to eliminate the use of earmarks in spending bills. A few weeks ago, DeLay bragged about his use of earmarks. How in the world did DeLay let Lampson run to the right of him on government spending?

That said, I'm sure that DeLay is better on the tax side of fiscal policy. DeLay would undoubtedly be more likely to support growth-oriented tax cuts than Lampson.

Who is Tony Rudy?

2006-03-20T20:01:00.000-06:00

Kuff reads this story in the Chronicle. Kuff makes a couple points that are hard to minimize. I've known about former DeLay staffer Michael Scanlon. It seems Scanlon's malfeasance occurred after he worked for DeLay; that's still too close for comfort. But I learned about another former DeLay staffer today: Tony Rudy. And his malfeasance appears to have occurred while still working for DeLay.

Here are the money graphs from the Chron article:

What Rudy has said or will say to prosecutors about DeLay could prove pivotal in whether the lawmaker is cleared or gets pulled more directly into the federal investigation, said lawyers close to the case.

In court documents released in January, Rudy was described as "Staffer A," who helped Abramoff stop legislation that would have hurt his clients. One bill opposed by Indian gaming interests would have banned Internet gambling; another, opposed by magazine publishers, would have raised postal rates.

Read what Kuff has to say and hope that the worst DeLay is guilty of is poor supervision of his employees.

I seem to recall that DeLay mentioned his staffers in an eight-page campaign letter during the primary. I read that letter in context with Scanlon. I wish I still had it so I could read it again with Rudy in mind.

***Update***

March 21, 2006

This is the best I could do when searching for the text of DeLay's February campaign letter:

[Tom DeLay] said he expects his staff to "adhere to the highest legal and ethical standards." But he noted, "If they acted unethically or broke the law, they will face legal consequences."

It appears to me that DeLay is actually talking about Rudy here. I remember thinking that the verb tense was awkward if DeLay was referring to Scanlon.
DeLay seemed to be talking about a collapse of ethical standards by a person on his staff. Scanlon didn't fit that bill.

At any rate, I'd love to have a more complete quote. Does anyone still have the letter?

Joel Hefley (R-CO) Alleges Ethics Retaliation

2006-03-20T18:01:00.001-06:00

The Rocky Mountain News reports

A new piece of ethics reform legislation is Rep. Joel Hefley's strongest statement yet that he felt retaliation last year over his handling of a complaint against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

I don't know if there was actual retaliation or not. And if there was, the article only tells us that "Republican leaders" removed Hefley, other Republican committee members and their staff.

Let's for a moment assume that Hefley's assertions are true. Who would hammer through the removal of the Republican members of the Ethics Committee and their staff? Anyone?

***Update***

March 21, 2006

Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) makes the same insinuation. Hulshof implies that the Republican leadership removed him from the Ethics Committee after he admonished DeLay.

Hulshof chided former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay when a money-laundering scandal involving DeLay erupted last year. Later, Hulshof and another Republican who criticized DeLay were removed from the House Ethics Committee.

Hulshof is pushing an ethics reform bill. One aspect of the bill would stop House leaders from removing Ethics Committee members for political reasons.

"It is imperative that members and staff be insulated from political retaliation for their work on the committee," Hulshof said in a news release.

Now none of this is dispositive of anything. And of course it won't be an issue in the election because 99% of TX22 voters know nothing about the hints of retaliation. But it reinforces my belief that fault lines are forming on the GOP base over ethics.

DeLay Attacks his own Base

2006-03-19T14:20:00.000-06:00

When the The Hill article was published, I was interested to see how the bloggers would respond. What would they find significant about the fact that DeLay's primary opponents wouldn't endorse him? To this time, the only blogger to opine on the article is Off the Kuff. Since Kuff is on the Left side of the blogosphere, I'll excuse him for simply being happy that the GOP base shows cracks. Kuff also observes that a Virginia-based political consultant believes that DeLay will do fine with 80% of the GOP vote. Read Kuff to find out that 80% of the GOP vote is less than 50% of the total electorate. Intuitively I knew that DeLay would be in trouble with 80% of Republicans. Kudos to Kuff for quantitatively verifying my intuition.

What Kuff missed, however, inspired me to create this blog. Noone is paying attention to why the GOP base is cracked. The reason for the fracture is that Tom DeLay is attacking his own base. And that fact is right there in black in white in the article from The Hill:

Some political observers believe the lack of unity among Texas Republicans could hamper DeLay’s effort to retain his seat and question DeLay’s decision to lambaste his primary opponents soon after beating them earlier this month.

Tom Campbell, DeLay's most serious primary opponent, says that DeLay has a "problem with his base." Since I agree with him, I'll let Campbell do more talking:

“I think Mr. DeLay is engaging in a counterproductive but characteristic pattern of conduct. He’s attacking the messenger. … Ten thousand Republicans, many of which were conservative Republicans, voted against the incumbent, and they voted for another conservative as an alternative. Mr. DeLay should think about that, rather than simply attacking me as being a liberal Democrat, which simply the facts don’t support.”

Many conservative Republicans will be turned off by DeLay's repeated attacks. Does he really want our votes? I first observed this in the primary. DeLay attacked the Republican credentials of anyone who has missed a GOP primary (I have) or doesn't belong to a local GOP group (I don't). Conclusion: In DeLay's eyes, I'm less of a Republican.

DeLay accused those of us who voted against him of mimicking Democratic talking points. Darn. For all these years, I thought the Republican party was the party of integrity, ethics and character. DeLay tells me these are Democratic values? I don't believe it. I think DeLay is just wrong.

Sarcasm aside, Tom Campbell never attacked DeLay over the Ronnie Earle indictment. Campbell calls it political. I believe it's political. Democrats don't believe that way. Redistricting? I was all for it. It created a Congressional delegation that reflected the voting patterns in Texas. Any criticism DeLay gets from that is political sour grapes from Democrats. DeLay's attacks on those who voted against him in the primary fall short.

That said, DeLay has serious ethical problems that can't be explained away. I discussed some in my very first post.

DeLay has called those Republicans who believe in ethics, integrity and character "Chicken Republicans". [Sorry for the link. The article is no longer available on the NY Times.]

From now on, I will refer to DeLay's attacks on his base as the "Chicken Republican Offensive". Needless to say, I think it is unwise for DeLay to attack his base.