Insulating Bush
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.
The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue.
But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.
For one, Hadley's review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.
For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon -- even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.
And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration's conduct in the months leading up to war.
"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."
The President's Summary
Most troublesome to those leading the damage-control effort was documentary evidence -- albeit in highly classified government records that they might be able to keep secret -- that the president had been advised that many in the intelligence community believed that the tubes were meant for conventional weapons.
The one-page documents known as the "President's Summary" are distilled from the much lengthier National Intelligence Estimates, which combine the analysis of as many as six intelligence agencies regarding major national security issues. Bush's knowledge of the State and Energy departments' dissent over the tubes was disclosed in a March 4, 2006, National Journal story -- more than three years after the intelligence assessment was provided to the president, and some 16 months after the 2004 presidential election.
The President's Summary was only one of several high-level warnings given to Bush and other senior administration officials that serious doubts existed about the intended use of the tubes, according to government records and interviews with former and current officials.
In mid-September 2002, two weeks before Bush received the October 2002 President's Summary, Tenet informed him that both State and Energy had doubts about the aluminum tubes and that even some within the CIA weren't certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons, according to government records and interviews with two former senior officials.
Official records and interviews with current and former officials also reveal that the president was told that even then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts that the tubes might be used for nuclear weapons.
When U.S. inspectors entered Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, they determined that Iraq's nuclear program had been dormant for more than a decade and that the aluminum tubes had been used only for conventional weapons.
In the end, the White House's damage control was largely successful, because the public did not learn until after the 2004 elections the full extent of the president's knowledge that the assessment linking the aluminum tubes to a nuclear weapons program might not be true. The most crucial information was kept under wraps until long after Bush's re-election.
Choreography
The new disclosures regarding the tubes may also shed light on why officials so vigorously attempted to discredit Wilson's allegations regarding Niger, including by leaking information to the media that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Administration officials hoped that the suggestion that Plame had played a role in the agency's choice of Wilson for the Niger trip might cast doubt on his allegations.
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted on October 28 on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice in attempting to conceal his role in outing Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Signaling a possible defense strategy, Libby's attorneys filed papers in federal court on March 17 asserting that he had not intentionally deceived FBI agents and a federal grand jury while answering questions about Plame because her role was only "peripheral" to potentially more serious questions regarding the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the prewar debate. "The media conflagration ignited by the failure to find [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq and in part by Mr. Wilson's criticism of the administration, led officials within the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to blame each other, publicly and in private, for faulty prewar intelligence about Iraq's WMD capabilities," Libby's attorneys said in court papers.
Plame's identity was disclosed during "a period of increasing bureaucratic infighting, when certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability," the attorneys said. "The White House and the CIA were widely regarded to be at war."
Only two months before Wilson went public with his allegations, the Iraq war was being viewed as one of the greatest achievements of Bush's presidency. Rove, whom Bush would later call the "architect" of his re-election campaign, was determined to exploit the war for the president's electoral success. On May 1, 2003, Bush made a dramatic landing on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the nation the cessation of major combat operations in Iraq. Dressed in a military flight suit, the president emerged from a four-seat Navy S-3B Viking with the words "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief" painted just below the cockpit window.
The New York Times later reported that White House aides "had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the 'Mission Accomplished' banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot."
On May 6, in a column in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof quoted an unnamed former ambassador as saying that allegations that Saddam had attempted to procure uranium from Africa were "unequivocally wrong" and that "documents had been forged." But the column drew little notice.
A month later, on June 5, the president made a triumphant visit to Camp As Sayliyah, the regional headquarters of Central Command just outside Qatar's capital, where he spoke to 1,000 troops who were in camouflage fatigues. Afterward, Rove took out a camera and began snapping pictures of service personnel with various presidential advisers. "Step right up! Get your photo with Ari Fleischer -- get 'em while they're hot. Get your Condi Rice," Rove said, according to press accounts of the trip. On the trip home, as Air Force One flew at 31,000 feet over Iraqi airspace, escorted by pairs of F-18 fighters off each wing, the plane's pilots dipped the wings as a sign, an administration spokesperson explained, "that Iraq is now free."
There were few hints of what lay ahead: that sectarian violence would engulf Iraq to the point where some fear civil war and that more than 2,440 American troops and contractors would lose their lives in Iraq and an additional 17,260 servicemen and -women would be wounded.
Blame The CIA
The pre-election damage-control effort in response to Wilson's allegations and the broader issue of whether the Bush administration might have misrepresented intelligence information to make the case for war had three major components, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials: blame the CIA for the use of the Niger information in the president's State of the Union address; discredit and undermine Wilson; and make sure that the public did not learn that the president had been personally warned that the intelligence assessments he was citing about the aluminum tubes might be wrong.
On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson challenged the Niger-uranium claim in an op-ed article in The New York Times, Libby met with Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, for breakfast at the St. Regis hotel in Washington. Libby told Miller that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, and he suggested that Wilson could not be trusted because his wife may have played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. Also during that meeting, according to accounts given by both Miller and Libby, Libby provided the reporter with details of a then-classified National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE contained detailed information that Iraq had been attempting to procure uranium from Niger and perhaps two other African nations. Libby and other administration officials believed that the NIE showed that Bush's statements reflected the consensus view of the intelligence community at the time.
According to Miller's account of that meeting in The Times, Libby told her that "the assessments of the classified estimate" that Iraq had attempted to get uranium from Africa and was attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program "were even stronger" than a declassified White Paper on Iraq that the administration had made public to make the case for war.
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has said that he considers the selective disclosure of elements of the NIE to be "inextricably intertwined" with the outing of Plame. Papers filed in federal court by Libby's attorneys on March 17 stated that Libby "believed his actions were authorized" and that he had "testified before the grand jury that this disclosure was authorized," a reference to the NIE details he gave to Miller.
In the same filings, Libby's attorneys said that Hadley played a key role in attempting to have the NIE declassified and made available to reporters: "Mr. Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE and [also] had numerous conversations during [this] critical early-July period with Mr. Tenet about the 16 words [the Niger claim in the State of the Union address] and Mr. Tenet's public statements about that issue."
Three days later, on July 11, while on a visit to Africa, Bush and his top aides intensified their efforts to counter the damage done by Wilson's Niger allegations.
Aboard Air Force One, en route to Entebbe, Uganda, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave a background briefing for reporters. A reporter pointed out that when Secretary Powell had addressed the United Nations on February 5, 2003, he -- unlike others in the Bush administration -- had noted that some in the U.S. government did not believe that Iraq's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for nuclear weapons.
Responding, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together ... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did.... The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view." Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or me."
In fact, contrary to Rice's statement, the president was indeed informed of such doubts when he received the October 2002 President's Summary of the NIE. Both Cheney and Rice also got copies of the summary, as well as a number of other intelligence reports about the State and Energy departments' doubts that the tubes were meant for a nuclear weapons program.
Discrediting Wilson
After Air Force One landed in Entebbe, the president placed the blame squarely on the CIA for the Niger information in the State of the Union: "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services." Within hours, Tenet accepted full responsibility. The intelligence information on Niger, Tenet said in a prepared statement, "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed." Tenet went on to say, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
Behind the scenes, the White House and Tenet had coordinated their statements for maximum effect. Hadley, Libby, and Rove had reviewed drafts of Tenet's statement days in advance. And Hadley and Rove even suggested changes in the draft, according to government records and interviews.
Meanwhile, as the president, Rice, and White House advisers worked to contain the damage from overseas, Rove and Libby, who had remained in Washington, moved forward with their effort to discredit Wilson. That same day, July 11, the two spoke privately at the close of a White House senior staff meeting.
According to grand jury testimony from both men, Rove told Libby that he had spoken to columnist Robert Novak on July 9 and that Novak had said he would soon be writing a column about Valerie Plame. On July 12, the day after Rice's briefing, the president's and Tenet's comments, and the conversation between Rove and Libby regarding Novak, the issue of discrediting Wilson through his wife was still high on the agenda. According to the indictment of Libby: "Libby flew with the vice president and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia on Air Force Two." On the return trip, "Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries" regarding Wilson's allegations.
Later that day, Libby spoke on the phone with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Cooper had been told days earlier that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. During this conversation, according to Libby's indictment, "Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information, too." Also that day, Libby's indictment charged, "Libby spoke by telephone with Judith Miller ... and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA."
On July 14, Novak published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and reporting that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.
On July 18, the Bush administration declassified a relatively small portion of the NIE and held a press briefing to discuss it, in a further effort to show that the president had used the Niger information only because the intelligence community had vouched for it. Reporters noted that an "alternate view" box in the NIE stated that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (known as INR) believed that claims of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Africa were "highly dubious" and that State and DOE also believed that the aluminum tubes were "most likely for the production of artillery shells."
But White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett suggested that both the president and Rice had been unaware of this information: "They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document." Later, addressing the same issue, Bartlett said, "The president of the United States is not a fact-checker."
Because the Bush administration was able to control what information would remain classified, however, reporters did not know that Bush had received the President's Summary that informed him that both State's INR and the Energy Department doubted that the aluminum tubes were to be used for a nuclear-related purpose.
(Ironically, at one point, before he had reviewed the one-page summary, Hadley considered declassifying it because it said nothing about the Niger intelligence information being untrue. However, after reviewing the summary and realizing that it would have disclosed presidential knowledge that INR and DOE had doubts about the tubes, senior Bush administration officials became preoccupied with ensuring that the text of the document remained classified, according to an account provided by an administration official.)
On July 22, the White House arranged yet another briefing for reporters regarding the Niger controversy. Hadley, when asked whether there was any reason that the president should have hesitated in citing Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions, answered, "It is an assessment in which the director and the CIA stand by to this day. And, therefore, we have every reason to be confident."
Later that summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee launched an investigation of intelligence agencies to determine why they failed to accurately assess that Saddam had no viable programs to develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion.
As National Journal first disclosed on its Web site on October 27, 2005, Cheney, Libby, and Cheney's current chief of staff, David Addington, rejected advice given to them by other White House officials and decided to withhold from the committee crucial documents that might have shown that administration claims about Saddam's capabilities often went beyond information provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Among those documents was the President's Summary of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
In July 2004, when the Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on its investigation of prewar intelligence by the CIA and other agencies, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said in his own "Additional Views" to the report, "Concurrent with the production of a National Intelligence Estimate is the production of a one-page President's Summary of the NIE. A one-page President's Summary was completed and disseminated for the October 2002 NIE ... though there is no mention of this fact in [this] report. These one-page NIE summaries are ... written exclusively for the president and senior policy makers and are therefore tailored for that audience."
Durbin concluded, "In determining what the president was told about the contents of the NIE dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- qualifiers and all -- there is nothing clearer than this single page."
LINK
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Abramoff Gets Almost 6 Years in Prison
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago
Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison in a Florida fraud case, the minimum sentence allowed.
Abramoff and former partner Adam Kidan pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud stemming from the ill-fated purchase in 2000 of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet.
The sentence won't start immediately so the pair can continue cooperating in a Washington corruption investigation and a Florida probe into the murder of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.
Before the hearing, more than 260 people — including rabbis, military officers and even a professional hockey referee — wrote letters on the men's behalf asking the federal judge for leniency.
The letters, obtained by The Associated Press, put a new spin on the foibles and crimes of a man who became the face of Washington's latest corruption scandal.
"Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful, lost sight of the rules," National Hockey League referee Dave Jackson wrote, describing the time Abramoff brought 14 youngsters to his dressing room before a game.
Kidan, in his own letter to the judge, said he knew the SunCruz deal was wrong but said he "was very caught up in the fast paced world of my partner and the high profile that came along with it." He added, "I am not the horrible person that the media has written about."
In the Florida case, Abramoff and Kidan admitted concocting a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they had made a large cash contribution to the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Based on that fake transfer, lenders provided the pair with $60 million in financing.
The same week Abramoff pleaded guilty to the SunCruz fraud, he entered guilty pleas to three federal charges as part of a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. No date has been set for his sentencing in that case.
Abramoff, 47, and Kidan, 41, are also expected to give statements in the investigation into the Feb. 6, 2001, slaying of Boulis, who was gunned down at the wheel of his car amid a power struggle over the gambling fleet. Three men face murder charges, including one who worked for Kidan as a consultant at SunCruz and who allegedly has ties to New York's Gambino crime family.
Both Abramoff and Kidan have repeatedly denied any role in or knowledge of the Boulis murder. But prosecutors say Kidan has not been ruled out as a suspect and defense attorneys say Abramoff could provide critical inside information about the dispute with Boulis, who also founded the Miami Subs restaurant chain.
LINK
33 minutes ago
Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison in a Florida fraud case, the minimum sentence allowed.
Abramoff and former partner Adam Kidan pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud stemming from the ill-fated purchase in 2000 of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet.
The sentence won't start immediately so the pair can continue cooperating in a Washington corruption investigation and a Florida probe into the murder of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.
Before the hearing, more than 260 people — including rabbis, military officers and even a professional hockey referee — wrote letters on the men's behalf asking the federal judge for leniency.
The letters, obtained by The Associated Press, put a new spin on the foibles and crimes of a man who became the face of Washington's latest corruption scandal.
"Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful, lost sight of the rules," National Hockey League referee Dave Jackson wrote, describing the time Abramoff brought 14 youngsters to his dressing room before a game.
Kidan, in his own letter to the judge, said he knew the SunCruz deal was wrong but said he "was very caught up in the fast paced world of my partner and the high profile that came along with it." He added, "I am not the horrible person that the media has written about."
In the Florida case, Abramoff and Kidan admitted concocting a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they had made a large cash contribution to the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Based on that fake transfer, lenders provided the pair with $60 million in financing.
The same week Abramoff pleaded guilty to the SunCruz fraud, he entered guilty pleas to three federal charges as part of a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. No date has been set for his sentencing in that case.
Abramoff, 47, and Kidan, 41, are also expected to give statements in the investigation into the Feb. 6, 2001, slaying of Boulis, who was gunned down at the wheel of his car amid a power struggle over the gambling fleet. Three men face murder charges, including one who worked for Kidan as a consultant at SunCruz and who allegedly has ties to New York's Gambino crime family.
Both Abramoff and Kidan have repeatedly denied any role in or knowledge of the Boulis murder. But prosecutors say Kidan has not been ruled out as a suspect and defense attorneys say Abramoff could provide critical inside information about the dispute with Boulis, who also founded the Miami Subs restaurant chain.
LINK
Abramoff ashamed of own film he produced
03/28/2006 @ 8:53 pm
Filed by Ron Brynaert
According to a biography of Jack Abramoff crafted by his lawyers in an appeal for leniency, "Hollywood politics" triumphed over his pious attempts to keep offensive language out of an action film he produced in the late eighties, RAW STORY has found.
But left unmentioned in the appeal is any hint that the film was shot in South African-occupied Namibia during apartheid, and may have even been partly funded by the South African military.
Abramoff's memorandum in aid of sentencing (pdf link) is an attempt to fight back against the "caricature" foisted upon him by the media that "has distorted a lifetime of accomplishments beyond recognition."
"As large a figure as he has been painted in the media, he is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse," reads the introduction.
All four elements - "family, faith, generosity and remorse" - are on display in Abramoff's account of the making of the anti-communist "Red Scorpion."
As he worked on the movie, Abramoff attests to steadfastly observing the rules of Orthodox Judaism by working only Sunday through Thursday, before returning "each Friday to his wife and son to spend the Sabbath."
Before filming started, according to Abramoff's account, director Joseph Zito made an "unprecedented informal agreement" with him to shy away from "obscenity and profanity," but went back on his word by shooting on Sabbath days, no less, scenes that contained "language that he felt should shame even the most hardened street thug."
But though an "appalled" Abramoff did his best to get the "offending language" stricken from his movie, he lost out to "Hollywood politics," since "the distributor thought changing the film for that reason would be crazy."
In an article written in February for RAW STORY, Danny Schechter wrote that the "idea was to make anti-communist films that could denigrate the anti-apartheid movement." Schechter also wrote that while "for years, Abramoff publicly denied South African financing...the Mail & Guardian quoted one-time apartheid spy Craig Williamson as now admitting that the money came directly from the South African military." (link)
But apartheid isn't the only thing left out of Abramoff's behind-the-scenes story about the making of "Red Scorpion."
According to Abramoff's plea, he "accepted the rabbinic decree that, because there were still vendors to be paid from the production, he should do nothing to impair its commercial viability and must not publicly protest or remove his name."
Last August, the Salon news site reported (registered link) that "a lot of people didn't get paid" for their work on the film.
"The manager of one of the major cast members, who did not want to be named, said that, according to her client, many of the actors and crew were never paid at all," reported Salon's James Verini.
Summing it all up in the conclusion, Abramoff pleads for the shortest sentence possible "in recognition of his extraordinary history of good works for his community and the country."
Excerpts from Abramoff's memorandum in aid of sentencing:
#
Upon leaving Citizens for America, Mr. Abramoff worked with his father’s real estate development company and decided to enter the motion picture production field. He helped make anti-communist action movies, such as Red Scorpion, starring Dolph Lundgren, and Red Scorpion II, its HBO released sequel.
Mr. Abramoff loved the experience of making movies, even though he shared the disappointment film critics saw in his final products and grew frustrated over his inability to control the use of inappropriate language in his own films. Indeed, Mr. Abramoff had obtained an unprecedented informal agreement from the director of Red Scorpion that he would not use obscenity or profanity (particularly any use of the name of G-d in vain).
While Mr. Abramoff was on the set from Sunday through Thursday (he would return each Friday to his wife and son to spend the Sabbath), no violation of this pact were filmed. But on the Sabbath, with Mr. Abramoff hundreds of miles from the set, Mr. Abramoff later learned the director filmed language that he felt should shame even the most hardened street thug. When Mr. Abramoff finally had the chance to see the edited version of the film (at its first showing to the distributors, no less!), he was appalled and immediately pressured the director to remove the offending language. Mr. Abramoff lost that battle, outmaneuvered by Hollywood politics, as the distributor thought changing the film for that reason would be crazy.
Mr. Abramoff sought rabbinic advice whether to remove his name from the film and accepted the rabbinic decree that, because there were still vendors to be paid from the production, he should do nothing to impair its commercial viability and must not publicly protest or remove his name. Nevertheless, Mr. Abramoff decided that for future films he would have the director sign an agreement prohibiting the inclusion of offensive language and sexually suggestive scenes. He soon learned that such agreements would not stop the profanity, and would only cause immense frustration for him. Ultimately, Mr. Abramoff came to realize that he was better suited for Washington’s politics than Hollywood’s, and he returned to Washington.
LINK
Filed by Ron Brynaert
According to a biography of Jack Abramoff crafted by his lawyers in an appeal for leniency, "Hollywood politics" triumphed over his pious attempts to keep offensive language out of an action film he produced in the late eighties, RAW STORY has found.
But left unmentioned in the appeal is any hint that the film was shot in South African-occupied Namibia during apartheid, and may have even been partly funded by the South African military.
Abramoff's memorandum in aid of sentencing (pdf link) is an attempt to fight back against the "caricature" foisted upon him by the media that "has distorted a lifetime of accomplishments beyond recognition."
"As large a figure as he has been painted in the media, he is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse," reads the introduction.
All four elements - "family, faith, generosity and remorse" - are on display in Abramoff's account of the making of the anti-communist "Red Scorpion."
As he worked on the movie, Abramoff attests to steadfastly observing the rules of Orthodox Judaism by working only Sunday through Thursday, before returning "each Friday to his wife and son to spend the Sabbath."
Before filming started, according to Abramoff's account, director Joseph Zito made an "unprecedented informal agreement" with him to shy away from "obscenity and profanity," but went back on his word by shooting on Sabbath days, no less, scenes that contained "language that he felt should shame even the most hardened street thug."
But though an "appalled" Abramoff did his best to get the "offending language" stricken from his movie, he lost out to "Hollywood politics," since "the distributor thought changing the film for that reason would be crazy."
In an article written in February for RAW STORY, Danny Schechter wrote that the "idea was to make anti-communist films that could denigrate the anti-apartheid movement." Schechter also wrote that while "for years, Abramoff publicly denied South African financing...the Mail & Guardian quoted one-time apartheid spy Craig Williamson as now admitting that the money came directly from the South African military." (link)
But apartheid isn't the only thing left out of Abramoff's behind-the-scenes story about the making of "Red Scorpion."
According to Abramoff's plea, he "accepted the rabbinic decree that, because there were still vendors to be paid from the production, he should do nothing to impair its commercial viability and must not publicly protest or remove his name."
Last August, the Salon news site reported (registered link) that "a lot of people didn't get paid" for their work on the film.
"The manager of one of the major cast members, who did not want to be named, said that, according to her client, many of the actors and crew were never paid at all," reported Salon's James Verini.
Summing it all up in the conclusion, Abramoff pleads for the shortest sentence possible "in recognition of his extraordinary history of good works for his community and the country."
Excerpts from Abramoff's memorandum in aid of sentencing:
#
Upon leaving Citizens for America, Mr. Abramoff worked with his father’s real estate development company and decided to enter the motion picture production field. He helped make anti-communist action movies, such as Red Scorpion, starring Dolph Lundgren, and Red Scorpion II, its HBO released sequel.
Mr. Abramoff loved the experience of making movies, even though he shared the disappointment film critics saw in his final products and grew frustrated over his inability to control the use of inappropriate language in his own films. Indeed, Mr. Abramoff had obtained an unprecedented informal agreement from the director of Red Scorpion that he would not use obscenity or profanity (particularly any use of the name of G-d in vain).
While Mr. Abramoff was on the set from Sunday through Thursday (he would return each Friday to his wife and son to spend the Sabbath), no violation of this pact were filmed. But on the Sabbath, with Mr. Abramoff hundreds of miles from the set, Mr. Abramoff later learned the director filmed language that he felt should shame even the most hardened street thug. When Mr. Abramoff finally had the chance to see the edited version of the film (at its first showing to the distributors, no less!), he was appalled and immediately pressured the director to remove the offending language. Mr. Abramoff lost that battle, outmaneuvered by Hollywood politics, as the distributor thought changing the film for that reason would be crazy.
Mr. Abramoff sought rabbinic advice whether to remove his name from the film and accepted the rabbinic decree that, because there were still vendors to be paid from the production, he should do nothing to impair its commercial viability and must not publicly protest or remove his name. Nevertheless, Mr. Abramoff decided that for future films he would have the director sign an agreement prohibiting the inclusion of offensive language and sexually suggestive scenes. He soon learned that such agreements would not stop the profanity, and would only cause immense frustration for him. Ultimately, Mr. Abramoff came to realize that he was better suited for Washington’s politics than Hollywood’s, and he returned to Washington.
LINK
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Jack Abramoff Sentencing Wednesday: Lawyers Say He's Broke
Jack Abramoff faces sentencing tomorrow in federal court in Miami for his admitted fraud in the purchase of the Sun Cruz Casinos. 260 letters, some from prominent persons, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, have written letters on his behalf. The list of letter-writers is here (pdf.)
The letters, along with the filing by the defense in Miami, sought to portray Mr. Abramoff as a man devoted to his family and to his faith who, while acknowledging that he defrauded Indian tribes and other clients of millions of dollars, deserved leniency because so much of his money had been given to charity.
"Media attention regarding Mr. Abramoff, from newspaper editors to late-night comedy monologues, has made him into a caricature and has distorted a lifetime of accomplishments," the defense lawyers said in their brief. "As large a figure as he has been painted in the media, he is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse."
The Miami Herald has details of the biography his lawyers have written for him. If you want to see great, creative lawyering, read the defense sentencing memo (pdf.)
In a footnote, they add:
In his overly determined pursuit of helping people and charities, Mr. Abramoff spent virtually all of the funds he earned in his various business dealings. He has no real assets beyond their home and its contents. Determined to help others, and confident that he could always earn more money if needed, he ignored the guidance of his financial advisors and accountants who repeatedly warned him that he needed to put funds aside into personal savings. Now, Mr. Abramoff is broke. He is tormented daily that his wife will not be able to support the large family on her own and chagrined that, instead of being a provider and source of aid for his community, he will now see his own family needing financial assistance.
The memo also takes a stab at George Clooney's father for his comments about Abramoff at the Golden Globes. The section on Abramoff's children is an example of what I mean by creative, great lawyering. Read pages 44-45.
So is this footnote on page 52:
One interesting note is that for the type of offense Mr. Abramoff has committed, various countries never incarcerate a defendant and often take age into account in deciding who should use precious penal resources. As Justice Kennedy observed: "In countries such as England, Italy, France and Germany, the incarceration rate is about 1 in 1,000 persons. In the United States it is about 1 in 143. . . . Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long." [See here (Aug. 14, 2003).]
Abramoff's lawyers ask for a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines, 7 years. But, as they point out, after his cooperation in the Washington case is over, they expect to get a sentence reduction. They detail his "extraordinary" cooperation towards the end of the brief.
Government counsel now and over time will be able to explain best to the Court how Mr. Abramoff's expeditious acceptance of responsibility and cooperation have assisted their efforts. The literally hundreds of hours he has spent, the hundreds of thousands of documents he has reviewed, and the dozens of topics he has been assisting with in themselves would merit a sentence at the bottom of the stipulated range. Indeed, that extraordinary acceptance of responsibility is often the only factor a Court needs to impose that type of sentence. Such consideration promotes individuals under investigation to come forward early to save law enforcement time and limited resources.
Bottom line: The 7 or so year sentence he gets tomorrow won't be the final sentence. I'd be shocked if Abramoff ends up doing more than 3 to 4 years in jail.
He won't be going to jail tomorrow, as the feds need him to continue cooperating in the Washington lobbying-corruption investigation.
LINK
The letters, along with the filing by the defense in Miami, sought to portray Mr. Abramoff as a man devoted to his family and to his faith who, while acknowledging that he defrauded Indian tribes and other clients of millions of dollars, deserved leniency because so much of his money had been given to charity.
"Media attention regarding Mr. Abramoff, from newspaper editors to late-night comedy monologues, has made him into a caricature and has distorted a lifetime of accomplishments," the defense lawyers said in their brief. "As large a figure as he has been painted in the media, he is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse."
The Miami Herald has details of the biography his lawyers have written for him. If you want to see great, creative lawyering, read the defense sentencing memo (pdf.)
In a footnote, they add:
In his overly determined pursuit of helping people and charities, Mr. Abramoff spent virtually all of the funds he earned in his various business dealings. He has no real assets beyond their home and its contents. Determined to help others, and confident that he could always earn more money if needed, he ignored the guidance of his financial advisors and accountants who repeatedly warned him that he needed to put funds aside into personal savings. Now, Mr. Abramoff is broke. He is tormented daily that his wife will not be able to support the large family on her own and chagrined that, instead of being a provider and source of aid for his community, he will now see his own family needing financial assistance.
The memo also takes a stab at George Clooney's father for his comments about Abramoff at the Golden Globes. The section on Abramoff's children is an example of what I mean by creative, great lawyering. Read pages 44-45.
So is this footnote on page 52:
One interesting note is that for the type of offense Mr. Abramoff has committed, various countries never incarcerate a defendant and often take age into account in deciding who should use precious penal resources. As Justice Kennedy observed: "In countries such as England, Italy, France and Germany, the incarceration rate is about 1 in 1,000 persons. In the United States it is about 1 in 143. . . . Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long." [See here (Aug. 14, 2003).]
Abramoff's lawyers ask for a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines, 7 years. But, as they point out, after his cooperation in the Washington case is over, they expect to get a sentence reduction. They detail his "extraordinary" cooperation towards the end of the brief.
Government counsel now and over time will be able to explain best to the Court how Mr. Abramoff's expeditious acceptance of responsibility and cooperation have assisted their efforts. The literally hundreds of hours he has spent, the hundreds of thousands of documents he has reviewed, and the dozens of topics he has been assisting with in themselves would merit a sentence at the bottom of the stipulated range. Indeed, that extraordinary acceptance of responsibility is often the only factor a Court needs to impose that type of sentence. Such consideration promotes individuals under investigation to come forward early to save law enforcement time and limited resources.
Bottom line: The 7 or so year sentence he gets tomorrow won't be the final sentence. I'd be shocked if Abramoff ends up doing more than 3 to 4 years in jail.
He won't be going to jail tomorrow, as the feds need him to continue cooperating in the Washington lobbying-corruption investigation.
LINK
Fitzgerald Will Seek New White House Indictments
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 28 March 2006
It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.
These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.
In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.
The sources said late Monday that it may take more than a month before Fitzgerald presents the paperwork outlining the government's case against one or both of the officials and asks the grand jury to return an indictment, because he is currently juggling quite a few high-profile criminal cases and will need to carve out time to write up the indictment and prepare the evidence.
In addition to responding to discovery requests from Libby's defense team and appearing in court with his attorneys, who are trying to obtain additional evidence, such as top-secret documents, from Fitzgerald's probe, the special prosecutor is also prosecuting Lord Conrad Black, the newspaper magnate, has recently charged numerous individuals in a child pornography ring, and is wrestling with other lawsuits in his home city of Chicago.
Details about the latest stage of the investigation began to take shape a few weeks ago when the lead FBI investigator on the leak case, John C. Eckenrode, retired from the agency and indicated to several colleagues that the investigation is about to wrap up with indictments handed up by the grand jury against Rove or Hadley or both officials, the sources said.
The Philadelphia-based Eckenrode is finished with his work on the case; however, he is expected to testify as a witness for the prosecution next year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators regarding his role in the leak.
Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.
Libby and other officials in Cheney's office used the information they obtained about Plame Wilson to undermine the credibility of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. He had alleged that President Bush misspoke when he said, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow-cake uranium, the key component used to build a nuclear bomb, from Niger.
The uranium claim was the silver bullet in getting Congress to support military action two months later. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the country barely had a functional weapons program, according to a report from the Iraq Survey Group.
Wilson had traveled to Niger more than a year earlier to investigate the yellow-cake claims and reported back to the CIA that intelligence reports saying Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger were false.
On Monday, though, attorneys close to the leak case confirmed that Fitzgerald had met with the grand jury half a dozen times since January and recently told the jurors that he planned to present them with the government's case against Rove or Hadley, which stems from an email Rove had sent to Hadley in July of 2003 indicating that he had a conversation about Plame Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
Neither Hadley nor Rove disclosed the existence of the email when they were questioned by FBI investigators or when they testified before a grand jury, the sources said, adding that Rove testified he found out about Plame Wilson from reporters and Hadley testified that he recalled learning about Plame Wilson when her name was published in a newspaper column.
Rove testified before the grand jury four times. He did not disclose the existence of the email during the three previous times he testified, claiming he simply forgot about it because he was enmeshed with the 2004 Presidential election, traveling around the country attending fundraisers and meetings, working more than 15 hours a day on the campaign, and just forgot that he spoke with Cooper three months earlier, sources familiar with his testimony said.
But Rove and Libby had been the subject of dozens of news stories about the possibility that they played a role in the leak, and had faced dozens of questions as early as August 2003 - one month after Plame Wilson was outed - about whether they were the administration officials responsible for leaking her identity.
The story Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, provided to Fitzgerald in order to explain why Rove did not disclose the existence of the email is "less than satisfactory and entirely unconvincing to the special counsel," one of the attorneys close to the case said.
Luskin did not return numerous calls for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council said she could not comment on an ongoing investigation and has vehemently denied that Hadley was involved in the leak "because Mr. Hadley told us he wasn't involved."
In December, Luskin made a desperate attempt to keep his client out of Fitzgerald's crosshairs.
Luskin had revealed to Fitzgerald that Viveca Novak - a reporter working for Time magazine who wrote several stories about the Plame Wilson case - inadvertently tipped him off in early 2004 that her colleague at the magazine, Matt Cooper, would be forced to testify that Rove was his source who told him about Plame Wilson's CIA status.
Novak - who bears no relation to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson's name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column - met Luskin in Washington DC in the summer of 2004, and over drinks, the two discussed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Wilson leak.
Luskin had assured Novak that Rove learned Plame Wilson's name and CIA status after it was published in news accounts and that only then did he phone other journalists to draw their attention to it. But Novak told Luskin that everyone in the Time newsroom knew Rove was Cooper's source and that he would testify to that in an upcoming grand jury appearance, these sources said.
According to Luskin's account, after he met with Viveca Novak he contacted Rove and told him about his conversation with her. The two of them then began an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails for any evidence that proved that Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin said that during this search an email was found that Rove had sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately after Rove's conversation with Cooper, and it was subsequently turned over to Fitzgerald.
"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper on July 11, 2003. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Luskin wound up becoming a witness in the case and testified about his conversation with Viveca Novak that Luskin said would prove his client didn't knowingly lie to FBI investigators when he was questioned about the leak in October 2003, just three months after Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
The email Rove sent to Hadley, which Luskin said he found, helped Rove recall his conversation with Cooper a year earlier. Rove then returned to the grand jury to clarify his previous testimonies in which he did not disclose that he spoke with journalists.
Still, Rove's account of his conversation with Cooper went nothing like he had described in his email to Hadley, according to an email Cooper sent to his editor at Time magazine following his conversation with Rove in July 2003.
"It was, KR said, [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized [Wilson's] trip," Cooper's July 11, 2003, email to his editor said. "Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The email characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
It is unclear whether Rove was misleading Hadley about his conversation with Cooper, perhaps, because White House officials told their staff not to engage reporters in any questions posed about Wilson's Niger claims.
But Fitzgerald's investigation has turned up additional evidence over the past few months that convinced him that Luskin's eleventh-hour revelation about the chain of events that led to the discovery of the email is not credible. Fitzgerald believes that Rove changed his story once it became clear that Cooper would be compelled to testify about the source - Rove - who revealed Plame Wilson's CIA status to him, sources close to the case said.
If any of the people named in this story believe they have been unfairly portrayed or that what was written in this story is untrue, they will have an opportunity to respond in this space.
LINK
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 28 March 2006
It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.
These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.
In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.
The sources said late Monday that it may take more than a month before Fitzgerald presents the paperwork outlining the government's case against one or both of the officials and asks the grand jury to return an indictment, because he is currently juggling quite a few high-profile criminal cases and will need to carve out time to write up the indictment and prepare the evidence.
In addition to responding to discovery requests from Libby's defense team and appearing in court with his attorneys, who are trying to obtain additional evidence, such as top-secret documents, from Fitzgerald's probe, the special prosecutor is also prosecuting Lord Conrad Black, the newspaper magnate, has recently charged numerous individuals in a child pornography ring, and is wrestling with other lawsuits in his home city of Chicago.
Details about the latest stage of the investigation began to take shape a few weeks ago when the lead FBI investigator on the leak case, John C. Eckenrode, retired from the agency and indicated to several colleagues that the investigation is about to wrap up with indictments handed up by the grand jury against Rove or Hadley or both officials, the sources said.
The Philadelphia-based Eckenrode is finished with his work on the case; however, he is expected to testify as a witness for the prosecution next year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators regarding his role in the leak.
Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.
Libby and other officials in Cheney's office used the information they obtained about Plame Wilson to undermine the credibility of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. He had alleged that President Bush misspoke when he said, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow-cake uranium, the key component used to build a nuclear bomb, from Niger.
The uranium claim was the silver bullet in getting Congress to support military action two months later. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the country barely had a functional weapons program, according to a report from the Iraq Survey Group.
Wilson had traveled to Niger more than a year earlier to investigate the yellow-cake claims and reported back to the CIA that intelligence reports saying Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger were false.
On Monday, though, attorneys close to the leak case confirmed that Fitzgerald had met with the grand jury half a dozen times since January and recently told the jurors that he planned to present them with the government's case against Rove or Hadley, which stems from an email Rove had sent to Hadley in July of 2003 indicating that he had a conversation about Plame Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
Neither Hadley nor Rove disclosed the existence of the email when they were questioned by FBI investigators or when they testified before a grand jury, the sources said, adding that Rove testified he found out about Plame Wilson from reporters and Hadley testified that he recalled learning about Plame Wilson when her name was published in a newspaper column.
Rove testified before the grand jury four times. He did not disclose the existence of the email during the three previous times he testified, claiming he simply forgot about it because he was enmeshed with the 2004 Presidential election, traveling around the country attending fundraisers and meetings, working more than 15 hours a day on the campaign, and just forgot that he spoke with Cooper three months earlier, sources familiar with his testimony said.
But Rove and Libby had been the subject of dozens of news stories about the possibility that they played a role in the leak, and had faced dozens of questions as early as August 2003 - one month after Plame Wilson was outed - about whether they were the administration officials responsible for leaking her identity.
The story Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, provided to Fitzgerald in order to explain why Rove did not disclose the existence of the email is "less than satisfactory and entirely unconvincing to the special counsel," one of the attorneys close to the case said.
Luskin did not return numerous calls for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council said she could not comment on an ongoing investigation and has vehemently denied that Hadley was involved in the leak "because Mr. Hadley told us he wasn't involved."
In December, Luskin made a desperate attempt to keep his client out of Fitzgerald's crosshairs.
Luskin had revealed to Fitzgerald that Viveca Novak - a reporter working for Time magazine who wrote several stories about the Plame Wilson case - inadvertently tipped him off in early 2004 that her colleague at the magazine, Matt Cooper, would be forced to testify that Rove was his source who told him about Plame Wilson's CIA status.
Novak - who bears no relation to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson's name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column - met Luskin in Washington DC in the summer of 2004, and over drinks, the two discussed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Wilson leak.
Luskin had assured Novak that Rove learned Plame Wilson's name and CIA status after it was published in news accounts and that only then did he phone other journalists to draw their attention to it. But Novak told Luskin that everyone in the Time newsroom knew Rove was Cooper's source and that he would testify to that in an upcoming grand jury appearance, these sources said.
According to Luskin's account, after he met with Viveca Novak he contacted Rove and told him about his conversation with her. The two of them then began an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails for any evidence that proved that Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin said that during this search an email was found that Rove had sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately after Rove's conversation with Cooper, and it was subsequently turned over to Fitzgerald.
"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper on July 11, 2003. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Luskin wound up becoming a witness in the case and testified about his conversation with Viveca Novak that Luskin said would prove his client didn't knowingly lie to FBI investigators when he was questioned about the leak in October 2003, just three months after Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
The email Rove sent to Hadley, which Luskin said he found, helped Rove recall his conversation with Cooper a year earlier. Rove then returned to the grand jury to clarify his previous testimonies in which he did not disclose that he spoke with journalists.
Still, Rove's account of his conversation with Cooper went nothing like he had described in his email to Hadley, according to an email Cooper sent to his editor at Time magazine following his conversation with Rove in July 2003.
"It was, KR said, [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized [Wilson's] trip," Cooper's July 11, 2003, email to his editor said. "Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The email characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
It is unclear whether Rove was misleading Hadley about his conversation with Cooper, perhaps, because White House officials told their staff not to engage reporters in any questions posed about Wilson's Niger claims.
But Fitzgerald's investigation has turned up additional evidence over the past few months that convinced him that Luskin's eleventh-hour revelation about the chain of events that led to the discovery of the email is not credible. Fitzgerald believes that Rove changed his story once it became clear that Cooper would be compelled to testify about the source - Rove - who revealed Plame Wilson's CIA status to him, sources close to the case said.
If any of the people named in this story believe they have been unfairly portrayed or that what was written in this story is untrue, they will have an opportunity to respond in this space.
LINK
Leniency Letters Offer New Abramoff View
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Mar 28, 3:08 AM ET
Jack Abramoff is getting a makeover, compliments of friends who want him spared a harsh prison sentence.
The fallen superlobbyist may have fleeced clients of millions of dollars and endeared himself to politicians with free trips, meals and donations on his way to becoming the public face of Washington's latest corruption scandal.
But more than 260 friends, relatives and beneficiaries of Abramoff's largesse have written letters to a federal judge who is sentencing him Wednesday, asking that he be shown mercy and viewed in a different light.
He was, they said, a champion for the underprivileged who donated much of his riches — even the ill-gotten — to charity; a principled racquetball player who called fouls on himself; a dedicated father who once spent a night searching for a lost hamster.
"Tragically, Mr. Abramoff led two lives — a very flawed and reckless professional life but on the other hand his personal life was dedicated to helping others," friend Eli W. Schlossberg of Baltimore wrote.
Dozens of religious leaders weighed in with similar letters. Former pro basketball player Ledell Eackles chimed in. So too did a journalist, a couple of lawmakers, military officers and neighbors.
Even one of Abramoff's more infamous clients offered a different take of the controversial lobbyist.
Auditors in the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands once questioned Abramoff's lobbying expenses as excessive. But the islands' current governor wrote Abramoff was a "personal friend and political champion" of the "beleaguered" Pacific islands.
"He was a natural crusader and political activist, with great sympathy for our un-represented Commonwealth," Marianas Gov. Benigno R. Fitial wrote, using official government stationery.
The Marianas, known for their low-paying garment factories, hired Abramoff to keep the islands' workers exempt from U.S. laws like the minimum wage.
Others argued that Abramoff's glitzy capital restaurant, Signatures, wasn't just for wining and dining lawmakers or hosting political fundraisers. It also was a place where Abramoff gave free meals and advice to friends down on their luck.
"Jack was the kind of person who would offer his guest a glass of water if a server wasn't around to do so," friend Monty Warner wrote, noting Abramoff always picked up the check as he counseled friends on financial, marital or career problems.
The arena skybox where he treated lawmakers to a bird's-eye view of events was also opened to children, whom Abramoff frequently brought to games at his own expense to help teach sportsmanship.
"Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful, lost sight of the rules," National Hockey League referee Dave Jackson wrote, relating to the judge the time when Abramoff took 14 kids to his dressing room before a game.
Abramoff and a former colleague each face prison sentences of just more than seven years when they are sentenced Wednesday in Florida. Abramoff faces separate prison time in a corruption case in Washington. He is cooperating with prosecutors investigating possible corruption in Congress and the administration.
The letters, which ask the judge for lowest possible sentence, also were a reminder of how far Abramoff has fallen. Once a household name on Capitol Hill where he doled out political donations by the dozens and lent his restaurant to lawmakers for fundraisers, Abramoff got just a single letter of support from a member of Congress, his longtime friend Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif.
"Over many years, I've known a far different Jack than the profit-seeking megalomaniac portrayed in the press," Rohrabacher wrote. "Jack was a selfless patriot for most of the time I knew him."
In an interview, Rohrabacher explained why he took a risk others in Congress wouldn't in writing the letter. "Jack was a good friend, and even your good friends at times do wrong things," the lawmaker said.
A former top Republican official in California's Assembly, Steve Baldwin, and two military officers were the others with government connections willing to attach their names to letters appearing in Abramoff's court case.
Air Force Capt. Andrew Cohen, a chaplain, wrote the court about Abramoff's generosity in taking in Cohen's family of seven for several weeks last year when the military family couldn't find housing.
Cohen wrote that Abramoff was a complete stranger and his act of generosity arose from "humanitarian considerations" and a "sense of national service and duty to assist a service member and his family."
The letters from average citizens — many from Abramoff's Orthodox Jewish community — were strewn with references to his generosity, like the time the lobbyist gave $10,000 to a rabbi "overwhelmed by medical bills."
Abramoff is "a man of exceptional generosity and kindness, often to those he doesn't even know," former ABC News reporter Tim O'Brien wrote.
No anecdote seemed too small to mention. Dr. Gene Colice told the judge about the time Abramoff tried to "find a lost hamster on a Friday night." And Attorney Laurence Latourette called his racquetball playing partner as someone who "always acts honorably, and will call himself on infractions."
LINK
Tue Mar 28, 3:08 AM ET
Jack Abramoff is getting a makeover, compliments of friends who want him spared a harsh prison sentence.
The fallen superlobbyist may have fleeced clients of millions of dollars and endeared himself to politicians with free trips, meals and donations on his way to becoming the public face of Washington's latest corruption scandal.
But more than 260 friends, relatives and beneficiaries of Abramoff's largesse have written letters to a federal judge who is sentencing him Wednesday, asking that he be shown mercy and viewed in a different light.
He was, they said, a champion for the underprivileged who donated much of his riches — even the ill-gotten — to charity; a principled racquetball player who called fouls on himself; a dedicated father who once spent a night searching for a lost hamster.
"Tragically, Mr. Abramoff led two lives — a very flawed and reckless professional life but on the other hand his personal life was dedicated to helping others," friend Eli W. Schlossberg of Baltimore wrote.
Dozens of religious leaders weighed in with similar letters. Former pro basketball player Ledell Eackles chimed in. So too did a journalist, a couple of lawmakers, military officers and neighbors.
Even one of Abramoff's more infamous clients offered a different take of the controversial lobbyist.
Auditors in the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands once questioned Abramoff's lobbying expenses as excessive. But the islands' current governor wrote Abramoff was a "personal friend and political champion" of the "beleaguered" Pacific islands.
"He was a natural crusader and political activist, with great sympathy for our un-represented Commonwealth," Marianas Gov. Benigno R. Fitial wrote, using official government stationery.
The Marianas, known for their low-paying garment factories, hired Abramoff to keep the islands' workers exempt from U.S. laws like the minimum wage.
Others argued that Abramoff's glitzy capital restaurant, Signatures, wasn't just for wining and dining lawmakers or hosting political fundraisers. It also was a place where Abramoff gave free meals and advice to friends down on their luck.
"Jack was the kind of person who would offer his guest a glass of water if a server wasn't around to do so," friend Monty Warner wrote, noting Abramoff always picked up the check as he counseled friends on financial, marital or career problems.
The arena skybox where he treated lawmakers to a bird's-eye view of events was also opened to children, whom Abramoff frequently brought to games at his own expense to help teach sportsmanship.
"Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful, lost sight of the rules," National Hockey League referee Dave Jackson wrote, relating to the judge the time when Abramoff took 14 kids to his dressing room before a game.
Abramoff and a former colleague each face prison sentences of just more than seven years when they are sentenced Wednesday in Florida. Abramoff faces separate prison time in a corruption case in Washington. He is cooperating with prosecutors investigating possible corruption in Congress and the administration.
The letters, which ask the judge for lowest possible sentence, also were a reminder of how far Abramoff has fallen. Once a household name on Capitol Hill where he doled out political donations by the dozens and lent his restaurant to lawmakers for fundraisers, Abramoff got just a single letter of support from a member of Congress, his longtime friend Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif.
"Over many years, I've known a far different Jack than the profit-seeking megalomaniac portrayed in the press," Rohrabacher wrote. "Jack was a selfless patriot for most of the time I knew him."
In an interview, Rohrabacher explained why he took a risk others in Congress wouldn't in writing the letter. "Jack was a good friend, and even your good friends at times do wrong things," the lawmaker said.
A former top Republican official in California's Assembly, Steve Baldwin, and two military officers were the others with government connections willing to attach their names to letters appearing in Abramoff's court case.
Air Force Capt. Andrew Cohen, a chaplain, wrote the court about Abramoff's generosity in taking in Cohen's family of seven for several weeks last year when the military family couldn't find housing.
Cohen wrote that Abramoff was a complete stranger and his act of generosity arose from "humanitarian considerations" and a "sense of national service and duty to assist a service member and his family."
The letters from average citizens — many from Abramoff's Orthodox Jewish community — were strewn with references to his generosity, like the time the lobbyist gave $10,000 to a rabbi "overwhelmed by medical bills."
Abramoff is "a man of exceptional generosity and kindness, often to those he doesn't even know," former ABC News reporter Tim O'Brien wrote.
No anecdote seemed too small to mention. Dr. Gene Colice told the judge about the time Abramoff tried to "find a lost hamster on a Friday night." And Attorney Laurence Latourette called his racquetball playing partner as someone who "always acts honorably, and will call himself on infractions."
LINK
Monday, March 27, 2006
Rove said cooperating in CIA leak inquiry
03/27/2006 @ 10:52 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna
Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff and special adviser to President George W. Bush, has recently been providing information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, sources close to the investigation say.
According to several Pentagon sources close to Rove and others familiar with the inquiry, Bush's senior adviser tipped off Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to information that led to the recent "discovery" of 250 pages of missing email from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Rove has been in the crosshairs of Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson for what some believe to be retaliation against her husband, former U.S. Ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson. Wilson had been an ardent critic of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
While these sources did not provide any details regarding what type of arrangements Rove's attorney Robert Luskin may have made with the special prosecutor's office, if any, they were able to provide some information regarding what Rove imparted to Fitzgerald's team. The individuals declined to go on the record out of concern for their jobs.
According to one source close to the case, Rove is providing information on deleted emails, erased hard drives and other types of obstruction by staff and other officials in the Vice President's office. Pentagon sources close to Rove confirmed this account.
None would name the staffers and/or officials whom Rove is providing information about. They did, however, explain that the White House computer system has "real time backup" servers and that while emails were deleted from computers, they were still retrievable from the backup system. By providing the dates and recipient information of the deleted emails, sources say, Rove was able to chart a path for Fitzgerald directly into the office of the Vice President.
In a comment to RAW STORY late Sunday evening, Robert Luskin denied any deal between Rove and Fitzgerald's office.
"Mr. Rove has cooperated fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation," Rove's attorney said. "We have not and will not comment on the nature or substance of any communications with the office of the special counsel."
"That said, there is no basis whatsoever to the matters you allege that Mr. Rove has related," Luskin added.
One senior White House official is already under indictment in the leak case. Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction and false statements to investigators in October of last year.
Rove eluded indictment late last fall after his lawyer said he recalled a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak that he alleged would vindicate his client. Sources say that while the defense was able to parlay Luskin's revelation into postponing Rove's indictment, ultimately a deal would likely have to be cut.
The sources did not say a deal had been reached, but did assert that Rove pointed Fitzgerald to Cheney's office for the missing emails.
Asked about allegations that Rove is providing Fitzgerald's office with key information and if his status had changed as a result, Luskin provided a vehement denial.
"Your story is false and utterly without foundation," he said. "There has never been any discussion of any deal of any kind involving Mr. Rove. His cooperation has at all times been voluntary and unconditional."
One of the sources close to the investigation said he was not surprised by Luskin's response.
"That would be difficult for Rove to admit," the source said. "I think Rove is now considered a special cooperating witness."
The White House was ordered to turn over all emails by then-White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2003, after the Administration received word the Justice Department had launched an investigation into the CIA outing. According to newspaper reports, Gonzales waited twelve hours to inform White House staff after he had received an order from the Justice Department to surrender materials relating to the case.
In a January letter to Libby's defense team, Fitzgerald expressed concern that some emails might be missing.
"Some e-mails might be missing because the White House's archiving system had failed," he said.
Sources say that the missing emails, which surfaced only a month later were not really "missing." Rather, they had been deleted by White House staff. Fitzgerald may have been aware of this at the time of his January letter when he cited the missing emails.
Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, was unavailable for comment Monday.
A White House divided
Sources say the rift between Rove and the Vice President's office crystallized when Rove quietly attempted to gauge the temperature for replacing Cheney on the 2004 Presidential ballot last year.
"Rove was the source of 'feelers' put out before the last presidential election in which he was suggesting that Cheney could be replaced on the ticket with someone who had better poll ratings," said one of the former experts approached who wished to remain anonymous.
"White House polls were showing that Cheney was a drag on the reelection ticket and that the Iraq war issue might be responsible for about a three percent drop, with Cheney the principal object of voter hostility in this percentage of anti-war sentiment among the general public," the source added.
Cheney, the source said, got wind of "Rove's political soundings" and the already tense relationship between the Bush and Cheney camps became almost impossible.
Whether or not Rove's recent cooperation will spare him an indictment and a Fitzgerald probe remains unclear. But according to last week's New York Times, associates say Rove is "increasingly certain" he will not be indicted in the case.
LINK
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna
Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff and special adviser to President George W. Bush, has recently been providing information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, sources close to the investigation say.
According to several Pentagon sources close to Rove and others familiar with the inquiry, Bush's senior adviser tipped off Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to information that led to the recent "discovery" of 250 pages of missing email from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Rove has been in the crosshairs of Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson for what some believe to be retaliation against her husband, former U.S. Ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson. Wilson had been an ardent critic of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
While these sources did not provide any details regarding what type of arrangements Rove's attorney Robert Luskin may have made with the special prosecutor's office, if any, they were able to provide some information regarding what Rove imparted to Fitzgerald's team. The individuals declined to go on the record out of concern for their jobs.
According to one source close to the case, Rove is providing information on deleted emails, erased hard drives and other types of obstruction by staff and other officials in the Vice President's office. Pentagon sources close to Rove confirmed this account.
None would name the staffers and/or officials whom Rove is providing information about. They did, however, explain that the White House computer system has "real time backup" servers and that while emails were deleted from computers, they were still retrievable from the backup system. By providing the dates and recipient information of the deleted emails, sources say, Rove was able to chart a path for Fitzgerald directly into the office of the Vice President.
In a comment to RAW STORY late Sunday evening, Robert Luskin denied any deal between Rove and Fitzgerald's office.
"Mr. Rove has cooperated fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation," Rove's attorney said. "We have not and will not comment on the nature or substance of any communications with the office of the special counsel."
"That said, there is no basis whatsoever to the matters you allege that Mr. Rove has related," Luskin added.
One senior White House official is already under indictment in the leak case. Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction and false statements to investigators in October of last year.
Rove eluded indictment late last fall after his lawyer said he recalled a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak that he alleged would vindicate his client. Sources say that while the defense was able to parlay Luskin's revelation into postponing Rove's indictment, ultimately a deal would likely have to be cut.
The sources did not say a deal had been reached, but did assert that Rove pointed Fitzgerald to Cheney's office for the missing emails.
Asked about allegations that Rove is providing Fitzgerald's office with key information and if his status had changed as a result, Luskin provided a vehement denial.
"Your story is false and utterly without foundation," he said. "There has never been any discussion of any deal of any kind involving Mr. Rove. His cooperation has at all times been voluntary and unconditional."
One of the sources close to the investigation said he was not surprised by Luskin's response.
"That would be difficult for Rove to admit," the source said. "I think Rove is now considered a special cooperating witness."
The White House was ordered to turn over all emails by then-White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2003, after the Administration received word the Justice Department had launched an investigation into the CIA outing. According to newspaper reports, Gonzales waited twelve hours to inform White House staff after he had received an order from the Justice Department to surrender materials relating to the case.
In a January letter to Libby's defense team, Fitzgerald expressed concern that some emails might be missing.
"Some e-mails might be missing because the White House's archiving system had failed," he said.
Sources say that the missing emails, which surfaced only a month later were not really "missing." Rather, they had been deleted by White House staff. Fitzgerald may have been aware of this at the time of his January letter when he cited the missing emails.
Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, was unavailable for comment Monday.
A White House divided
Sources say the rift between Rove and the Vice President's office crystallized when Rove quietly attempted to gauge the temperature for replacing Cheney on the 2004 Presidential ballot last year.
"Rove was the source of 'feelers' put out before the last presidential election in which he was suggesting that Cheney could be replaced on the ticket with someone who had better poll ratings," said one of the former experts approached who wished to remain anonymous.
"White House polls were showing that Cheney was a drag on the reelection ticket and that the Iraq war issue might be responsible for about a three percent drop, with Cheney the principal object of voter hostility in this percentage of anti-war sentiment among the general public," the source added.
Cheney, the source said, got wind of "Rove's political soundings" and the already tense relationship between the Bush and Cheney camps became almost impossible.
Whether or not Rove's recent cooperation will spare him an indictment and a Fitzgerald probe remains unclear. But according to last week's New York Times, associates say Rove is "increasingly certain" he will not be indicted in the case.
LINK
Friday, March 24, 2006
Lobbyist Abramoff gets subpoenaed in Boulis murder case
By Jon Burstein
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
March 24, 2006
Fallen super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his former business partner soon will be subpoenaed by defense attorneys to give sworn statements in the Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis murder case.
The attorney for murder suspect Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello filed paperwork this week asking to question Abramoff and Long Island businessman Adam Kidan about the SunCruz Casino founder's gangland-style slaying. Broward Circuit Judge Michael Kaplan granted the request Thursday after prosecutors agreed to it.
Prosecutor Brian Cavanagh said the Broward State Attorney's Office had been concerned about subpoenaing Kidan and Abramoff because it didn't want to give them any form of immunity. Kidan has not been eliminated as a suspect in the murder case, Cavanagh said.
"The point we made in court was we weren't saying he would be a suspect in place of the present defendants, it's a question of whether he will be an additional defendant," Cavanagh said. "All the defendants are innocent until proven guilty and certainly at the present time Mr. Kidan is not under indictment so there has not even been a formal allegation at this juncture."
Attorneys for Kidan and Abramoff declined to comment Thursday, but they have said their clients had nothing to do with the murder plot.
Kidan's attorney, Joseph Conway, said last month that Kidan is ready to testify as part of a plea deal he cut with federal prosecutors. Kidan and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to lying on financial statements and creating phony documents to convince lenders to back their bid for SunCruz, a Dania Beach-based gambling ship fleet.
The SunCruz fraud case enabled prosecutors to leverage Abramoff into cooperating with a potentially wide-ranging federal investigation into congressional bribery and influence peddling.
Moscatiello's attorney, David Bogenschutz, wrote in court papers that he needed to question the two men because "the SunCruz Casino sale is at the heart" of the murder case.
Boulis was ambushed Feb. 6, 2001, shortly after he left his Fort Lauderdale office. One car stopped in front of his BMW; a second car pulled up alongside the self-made millionaire and he was sprayed with bullets.
In the months leading up to his murder, Boulis and Kidan had been locked in an acrimonious battle over SunCruz. Boulis had cut a deal to sell SunCruz to a partnership including Kidan and Abramoff, but the business agreement had soured and Boulis wanted to regain control.
A Broward County grand jury indicted Moscatiello, 67; Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, 49; and James "Pudgy" Fiorillo, 28, in September for Boulis' slaying. All three have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They could face the death penalty if convicted.
Prosecutors have suggested the three defendants killed Boulis to ensure he didn't take back SunCruz. While Kidan ran SunCruz, he paid $145,000 in consulting fees to companies tied to Moscatiello, who had admitted ties to the Gambino crime family and to late mob boss John Gotti, according to court records A company controlled by Ferrari received an additional $95,000 for security from Kidan's SunCruz, court records show.
Attorneys for Moscatiello and Fiorillo have been arguing that the state's case isn't strong enough for them to be in jail without bond. Their bond hearing will continue this afternoon.
LINK
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
March 24, 2006
Fallen super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his former business partner soon will be subpoenaed by defense attorneys to give sworn statements in the Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis murder case.
The attorney for murder suspect Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello filed paperwork this week asking to question Abramoff and Long Island businessman Adam Kidan about the SunCruz Casino founder's gangland-style slaying. Broward Circuit Judge Michael Kaplan granted the request Thursday after prosecutors agreed to it.
Prosecutor Brian Cavanagh said the Broward State Attorney's Office had been concerned about subpoenaing Kidan and Abramoff because it didn't want to give them any form of immunity. Kidan has not been eliminated as a suspect in the murder case, Cavanagh said.
"The point we made in court was we weren't saying he would be a suspect in place of the present defendants, it's a question of whether he will be an additional defendant," Cavanagh said. "All the defendants are innocent until proven guilty and certainly at the present time Mr. Kidan is not under indictment so there has not even been a formal allegation at this juncture."
Attorneys for Kidan and Abramoff declined to comment Thursday, but they have said their clients had nothing to do with the murder plot.
Kidan's attorney, Joseph Conway, said last month that Kidan is ready to testify as part of a plea deal he cut with federal prosecutors. Kidan and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to lying on financial statements and creating phony documents to convince lenders to back their bid for SunCruz, a Dania Beach-based gambling ship fleet.
The SunCruz fraud case enabled prosecutors to leverage Abramoff into cooperating with a potentially wide-ranging federal investigation into congressional bribery and influence peddling.
Moscatiello's attorney, David Bogenschutz, wrote in court papers that he needed to question the two men because "the SunCruz Casino sale is at the heart" of the murder case.
Boulis was ambushed Feb. 6, 2001, shortly after he left his Fort Lauderdale office. One car stopped in front of his BMW; a second car pulled up alongside the self-made millionaire and he was sprayed with bullets.
In the months leading up to his murder, Boulis and Kidan had been locked in an acrimonious battle over SunCruz. Boulis had cut a deal to sell SunCruz to a partnership including Kidan and Abramoff, but the business agreement had soured and Boulis wanted to regain control.
A Broward County grand jury indicted Moscatiello, 67; Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, 49; and James "Pudgy" Fiorillo, 28, in September for Boulis' slaying. All three have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They could face the death penalty if convicted.
Prosecutors have suggested the three defendants killed Boulis to ensure he didn't take back SunCruz. While Kidan ran SunCruz, he paid $145,000 in consulting fees to companies tied to Moscatiello, who had admitted ties to the Gambino crime family and to late mob boss John Gotti, according to court records A company controlled by Ferrari received an additional $95,000 for security from Kidan's SunCruz, court records show.
Attorneys for Moscatiello and Fiorillo have been arguing that the state's case isn't strong enough for them to be in jail without bond. Their bond hearing will continue this afternoon.
LINK
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Investigation has DeLay stuck in legal limbo
March 20, 2006, 3:17PM
Probe into Abramoff's ties may last through November vote
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay, who emerged victorious from the Republican primary and hoped to dispose quickly of ethics controversies, remains in a legal limbo that could keep him under a cloud through the November election, according to lawyers involved in the Washington and Texas ethics cases.
The investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff's bilking of Indian gaming clients has not directly implicated DeLay. But it has led federal authorities to examine the actions of lawmakers and staffers with whom Abramoff worked, and DeLay is likely to be linked to the probe for the foreseeable future because of his previous close association with Abramoff.
Former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon, who was an Abramoff business partner, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges in the case, and a former DeLay deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, remains under intense scrutiny by prosecutors. Either one's cooperation with federal investigators could lead investigators to more information about DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.
Justice Department officials have declined to comment on DeLay's status in the wide-ranging probe into whether Abramoff or his associates got favors in return for contributing money to lawmakers' campaigns and arranging foreign trips for the lawmakers.
"The Justice Department has not approached us for any information or cooperation," said Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney in the Abramoff corruption investigation. He said there is no reason to think DeLay is in legal jeopardy.
"Not even Tom DeLay's most fierce political enemies have alleged he has done anything criminal (in connection to the Washington investigation)," Cullen said. "It makes me wonder why the Chronicle feels compelled to write a story like this when there is no allegation he has done anything a prosecutor would be interested in."
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, did essentially make such an allegation in January, saying in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that Democrats expect the House ethics committee to look into the "alleged violations of criminal laws and the rules of the House" by DeLay and three other Republican lawmakers with ties to Abramoff. DeLay took trips to Russia and Britain that were indirectly funded by Abramoff and have drawn the attention of investigators to see if they involved funding that might have been improper.
Abramoff recently told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't extensively lobby DeLay, partly because they already were in tune as conservatives.
Cullen has said the article supports the contention that there was no trade-off of legislative favors involved in their trips or their other dealings.
'A ticking time bomb'
But DeLay can't rest easy until it becomes clear what Abramoff has told prosecutors about their relationship during extensive debriefing sessions before and since his guilty plea in January.
"People expect further indictments before November, which may very well be at a lower level," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that monitors money in elections. "Then prosecutors will see how high they can take it. This is a ticking time bomb and no one knows when it will go off or how far it will detonate."
Lawyers involved in the case, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, confirmed the assertion that the investigation could easily still be in progress in early November, when the general election for DeLay's 22nd Congressional District seat takes place.
DeLay will face Democratic challenger and former Congressman Nick Lampson and a yet-to-be-named Libertarian candidate. Steve Stockman, a former Republican congressman, is seeking a place on the ballot as an independent.
Rudy, the former DeLay aide, adds another dimension to the investigation of DeLay in Washington.
Documents released by federal prosecutors made it clear that Rudy has been in significant legal jeopardy. He is believed to be cooperating with federal officials, and sources close to the case said he is expected to reach a plea deal with the Justice Department. But details of those negotiations have not surfaced.
The details could be of critical importance to DeLay.
The prosecutors' documents depicted an unnamed congressional aide, separately identified as Rudy, improperly influencing congressional action on behalf of Abramoff's Indian gaming clients. But there was no indication that DeLay was aware of Rudy's activities.
Rudy's statements are key
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.
In return, Abramoff funneled $50,000 to the political consulting firm of Rudy's wife, Lisa, prosecutors said in court documents. The money was "obtained from (Abramoff's) clients who would and did benefit from Staffer A's official actions," the prosecutors said. Rudy then left Congress to work directly for Abramoff.
Cullen said DeLay had no knowledge of any work by Rudy on behalf of Abramoff's clients.
DeLay also must contend with criminal charges in Texas.
Next week, an appellate court in Travis County will hear District Attorney Ronnie Earle's argument to reinstate conspiracy charges against DeLay. The issue must be resolved before the lawmaker can be tried on pending charges of money laundering brought by Earle after an investigation of DeLay's Texas fundraising.
There are several legal moves remaining for both sides before DeLay's Texas lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, can achieve his goal of getting the charges into court.
A key tactic by DeLay's legal team is an effort to have the case moved from Travis County, a Democratic stronghold, to a venue more politically sympathetic to DeLay, like his home base of Fort Bend County. That request would be considered by a judge just before a trial commenced.
Given the pretrial snarls and likely appeals, a trial date in late July or early August appears most likely, DeGuerin said.
"Generally speaking, Mr. DeLay has put all his confidence in the legal system that these charges will be resolved in a timely fashion," DeGuerin said.
LINK
Probe into Abramoff's ties may last through November vote
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay, who emerged victorious from the Republican primary and hoped to dispose quickly of ethics controversies, remains in a legal limbo that could keep him under a cloud through the November election, according to lawyers involved in the Washington and Texas ethics cases.
The investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff's bilking of Indian gaming clients has not directly implicated DeLay. But it has led federal authorities to examine the actions of lawmakers and staffers with whom Abramoff worked, and DeLay is likely to be linked to the probe for the foreseeable future because of his previous close association with Abramoff.
Former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon, who was an Abramoff business partner, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges in the case, and a former DeLay deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, remains under intense scrutiny by prosecutors. Either one's cooperation with federal investigators could lead investigators to more information about DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.
Justice Department officials have declined to comment on DeLay's status in the wide-ranging probe into whether Abramoff or his associates got favors in return for contributing money to lawmakers' campaigns and arranging foreign trips for the lawmakers.
"The Justice Department has not approached us for any information or cooperation," said Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney in the Abramoff corruption investigation. He said there is no reason to think DeLay is in legal jeopardy.
"Not even Tom DeLay's most fierce political enemies have alleged he has done anything criminal (in connection to the Washington investigation)," Cullen said. "It makes me wonder why the Chronicle feels compelled to write a story like this when there is no allegation he has done anything a prosecutor would be interested in."
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, did essentially make such an allegation in January, saying in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that Democrats expect the House ethics committee to look into the "alleged violations of criminal laws and the rules of the House" by DeLay and three other Republican lawmakers with ties to Abramoff. DeLay took trips to Russia and Britain that were indirectly funded by Abramoff and have drawn the attention of investigators to see if they involved funding that might have been improper.
Abramoff recently told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't extensively lobby DeLay, partly because they already were in tune as conservatives.
Cullen has said the article supports the contention that there was no trade-off of legislative favors involved in their trips or their other dealings.
'A ticking time bomb'
But DeLay can't rest easy until it becomes clear what Abramoff has told prosecutors about their relationship during extensive debriefing sessions before and since his guilty plea in January.
"People expect further indictments before November, which may very well be at a lower level," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that monitors money in elections. "Then prosecutors will see how high they can take it. This is a ticking time bomb and no one knows when it will go off or how far it will detonate."
Lawyers involved in the case, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, confirmed the assertion that the investigation could easily still be in progress in early November, when the general election for DeLay's 22nd Congressional District seat takes place.
DeLay will face Democratic challenger and former Congressman Nick Lampson and a yet-to-be-named Libertarian candidate. Steve Stockman, a former Republican congressman, is seeking a place on the ballot as an independent.
Rudy, the former DeLay aide, adds another dimension to the investigation of DeLay in Washington.
Documents released by federal prosecutors made it clear that Rudy has been in significant legal jeopardy. He is believed to be cooperating with federal officials, and sources close to the case said he is expected to reach a plea deal with the Justice Department. But details of those negotiations have not surfaced.
The details could be of critical importance to DeLay.
The prosecutors' documents depicted an unnamed congressional aide, separately identified as Rudy, improperly influencing congressional action on behalf of Abramoff's Indian gaming clients. But there was no indication that DeLay was aware of Rudy's activities.
Rudy's statements are key
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.
In return, Abramoff funneled $50,000 to the political consulting firm of Rudy's wife, Lisa, prosecutors said in court documents. The money was "obtained from (Abramoff's) clients who would and did benefit from Staffer A's official actions," the prosecutors said. Rudy then left Congress to work directly for Abramoff.
Cullen said DeLay had no knowledge of any work by Rudy on behalf of Abramoff's clients.
DeLay also must contend with criminal charges in Texas.
Next week, an appellate court in Travis County will hear District Attorney Ronnie Earle's argument to reinstate conspiracy charges against DeLay. The issue must be resolved before the lawmaker can be tried on pending charges of money laundering brought by Earle after an investigation of DeLay's Texas fundraising.
There are several legal moves remaining for both sides before DeLay's Texas lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, can achieve his goal of getting the charges into court.
A key tactic by DeLay's legal team is an effort to have the case moved from Travis County, a Democratic stronghold, to a venue more politically sympathetic to DeLay, like his home base of Fort Bend County. That request would be considered by a judge just before a trial commenced.
Given the pretrial snarls and likely appeals, a trial date in late July or early August appears most likely, DeGuerin said.
"Generally speaking, Mr. DeLay has put all his confidence in the legal system that these charges will be resolved in a timely fashion," DeGuerin said.
LINK
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Armitage may come under scrutiny in CIA leak trial
Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:56 PM ET
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top State Department official suspected of being the first person to discuss the identity of a CIA official with reporters is expected to testify in the perjury trial of ex-vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a court motion says.
The filing by Libby's defense team late on Friday asks Judge Reggie Walton to force prosecutors to turn over material they have about likely witnesses including former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Others who are expected to testify include White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, former CIA director George Tenet and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the document says.
It suggests Libby's team may try to pin blame on the State Department for the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to the public after her husband criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee told Vanity Fair magazine this week that it is reasonable to assume that Armitage told Post reporter Bob Woodward about Plame's identity before other Bush administration officials mentioned her name to reporters.
Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent is against the law. But so far no officials have been charged with leaking Plame's identity to the news media in 2003.
Libby, set to go on trial in January 2007, faces charges of lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury during the investigation. Rove remains under investigation for making false statements.
Libby's lawyers noted that there has been speculation that Armitage might also have told syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to make Plame's identity public in a July 14, 2003, column.
"If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novak's primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the 'leak' that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity," Libby's defense team wrote, referring to Plame by her married name.
Libby's lawyers hope to demonstrate that he was too preoccupied with national security matters to accurately remember his conversations with reporters about Plame, and have sought access to reporters' notes and top-secret security briefings to bolster their case.
LINK
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top State Department official suspected of being the first person to discuss the identity of a CIA official with reporters is expected to testify in the perjury trial of ex-vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a court motion says.
The filing by Libby's defense team late on Friday asks Judge Reggie Walton to force prosecutors to turn over material they have about likely witnesses including former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Others who are expected to testify include White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, former CIA director George Tenet and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the document says.
It suggests Libby's team may try to pin blame on the State Department for the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to the public after her husband criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee told Vanity Fair magazine this week that it is reasonable to assume that Armitage told Post reporter Bob Woodward about Plame's identity before other Bush administration officials mentioned her name to reporters.
Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent is against the law. But so far no officials have been charged with leaking Plame's identity to the news media in 2003.
Libby, set to go on trial in January 2007, faces charges of lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury during the investigation. Rove remains under investigation for making false statements.
Libby's lawyers noted that there has been speculation that Armitage might also have told syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to make Plame's identity public in a July 14, 2003, column.
"If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novak's primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the 'leak' that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity," Libby's defense team wrote, referring to Plame by her married name.
Libby's lawyers hope to demonstrate that he was too preoccupied with national security matters to accurately remember his conversations with reporters about Plame, and have sought access to reporters' notes and top-secret security briefings to bolster their case.
LINK
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Libby’s Defense Could Be Our Answer
March 18, 2006 at 1:23 pm by Jamie
The trial of Scooter Libby is still 10 months away but already we are learning that his defense could expose serious problems within the White House, in particular, their claims for the war in Iraq.
Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are suggesting they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby’s legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
So does this mean one of the administration’s top allies in selling the war to the public could now become a greater asset to revealing the truth that lead is into this mess called Iraq? When it comes down to a threat of jail time that is exactly what could happen.
Since the invasion started three years ago there have been countless documents, reports and documentaries on the subject of “cooked intelligence”. One of the most damaging items has been reports from employees at Langley talking about the vice-President and his excessive “hands on” attitude when it came to the Iraq war. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern even brought this up during the Downing Street Memo hearings last summer. He spoke of times where Cheney would come in and want “briefings” from the analysts and Tenet would be there with him. This was a highly uncommon practice with previous administrations and in fact put extra pressure on the analysts to say what Cheney wanted to hear.
Now that Scooter Libby is getting ready to go to court, stories like this have a greater chance of gaining more attention. It not only helps build the defense of him being under enormous pressure and the pressure building inside the beltway, but also the lengths this administration was going to in order to protect their lie.
Something else that will help back Scooter’s defense is a July 30, 2003 Rose Garden press conference. This was the day President Bush accepted responsibility for the flawed intelligence of the Niger claim. This will help show that those times were in fact tense. At the same time it will be a damaging blow to the White House. Just a few weeks prior to that, the administration was in a full blown “attack Joe (Wilson)” campaign and one of those attacks was outing his wife which lead to all of this.
Perhaps Scooter will be able to convince a jury that he did “forget” about disclosing Plame’s identity. It is a long shot but even if he does, it will expose more truths about what was happening in Washington and to what lengths this administration would go to defend their illegal war. The only hurdle left for our side is hoping that this information is not kept from the public because it is classified. Even if it is we still have the ears of Patrick Fitzgerald listening in and he might just be willing to pursue other angles of this case.
Cross posted at Firedoglake.
LINK
The trial of Scooter Libby is still 10 months away but already we are learning that his defense could expose serious problems within the White House, in particular, their claims for the war in Iraq.
Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are suggesting they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby’s legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
So does this mean one of the administration’s top allies in selling the war to the public could now become a greater asset to revealing the truth that lead is into this mess called Iraq? When it comes down to a threat of jail time that is exactly what could happen.
Since the invasion started three years ago there have been countless documents, reports and documentaries on the subject of “cooked intelligence”. One of the most damaging items has been reports from employees at Langley talking about the vice-President and his excessive “hands on” attitude when it came to the Iraq war. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern even brought this up during the Downing Street Memo hearings last summer. He spoke of times where Cheney would come in and want “briefings” from the analysts and Tenet would be there with him. This was a highly uncommon practice with previous administrations and in fact put extra pressure on the analysts to say what Cheney wanted to hear.
Now that Scooter Libby is getting ready to go to court, stories like this have a greater chance of gaining more attention. It not only helps build the defense of him being under enormous pressure and the pressure building inside the beltway, but also the lengths this administration was going to in order to protect their lie.
Something else that will help back Scooter’s defense is a July 30, 2003 Rose Garden press conference. This was the day President Bush accepted responsibility for the flawed intelligence of the Niger claim. This will help show that those times were in fact tense. At the same time it will be a damaging blow to the White House. Just a few weeks prior to that, the administration was in a full blown “attack Joe (Wilson)” campaign and one of those attacks was outing his wife which lead to all of this.
Perhaps Scooter will be able to convince a jury that he did “forget” about disclosing Plame’s identity. It is a long shot but even if he does, it will expose more truths about what was happening in Washington and to what lengths this administration would go to defend their illegal war. The only hurdle left for our side is hoping that this information is not kept from the public because it is classified. Even if it is we still have the ears of Patrick Fitzgerald listening in and he might just be willing to pursue other angles of this case.
Cross posted at Firedoglake.
LINK
Obstruction trial may jog Libby's memory
by Jason Leopold
March 18, 2006
Attorneys representing Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case believe they have a rock solid defense to present in their client's perjury and obstruction of justice trial expected to begin next year.
In numerous court filings over the past few months, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby have maintained that their client did not intentionally lie to federal investigators and a grand jury regarding the role he played in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson during the summer of 2003.
Instead, Libby's attorneys have said that their client was dealing with other, more crucial matters, such as the Iraq war, terrorism, and national security and simply forgot about how he first learned that Plame was employed by the CIA when he told the grand jury - untruthfully - that a reporter told him that she worked for the spy agency.
However, that defense strategy may unravel when Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald calls to the stand some of Libby's former White House colleagues who have promised to tell a much different story about Libby's alleged memory lapse, according to six sources close to Fitzgerald's investigation.
A secretary for Ted Wells, one of Libby's defense attorneys, said Wells was traveling. The secretary wrote down questions for Wells and said she passed them on to him. But he did not respond. A second and third attempt to reach Wells was unsuccessful.
Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about his role in the leak. The case grew out of a 2002 intelligence query from the vice president's office about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. Cheney asked the CIA for information on a report claiming Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the African country.
In response to Cheney's questions, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger to investigate the claims. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was working undercover at the CIA at the time and told her superiors that her husband had good contacts in Niger. When Wilson returned, he reported back to the CIA that the uranium intelligence was bogus.
But in January 2003, President Bush in his State of the Union address cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium as a sign of President Saddam Hussein's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. In July, Wilson wrote an op-ed column for the New York Times saying the administration "twisted" intelligence on the Iraqi threat and inserted the uranium claims into the president's State of the Union address to win support for the war.
Some of the officials who worked with Libby in the office of the vice president and who are said to have faced criminal charges in the case have made deals with the special prosecutor in exchange for their testimony, sources close to the case said.
Other officials who work or worked in the State Department, the CIA, and the National Security Council at the time of the leak have also decided to cooperate with Fitzgerald; however, it's unknown whether these people faced any criminal charges before agreeing to testify at a trial.
Libby was questioned by investigators twice in 2003 - in October and November - and he testified in 2004, repeating the answers to questions he had provided to investigators months earlier: that he did he retaliate against the ambassador's criticism of the administration's rationale for war, and that he found out Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from reporters.
It was revealed last year that Libby had actually been a source for at least two reporters who wrote about Plame Wilson in July of 2003.
When Libby's trial begins in 2007, Libby's claim of forgetfulness is expected to be contradicted by his former colleagues who worked closely with him on foreign policy issues. These officials have told Fitzgerald over the past year that Libby continued his campaign against Wilson long after Libby and other White House officials allegedly unmasked Plame Wilson's identity to reporters in late June and early July 2003.
In September 2003, Libby is said to have first instructed his staff to monitor the Internet for any new articles related to Wilson and his wife during this time and provide him with printed versions, which he kept in a binder, the sources said.
The sources close to the case said the officials also told Fitzgerald that Libby's "obsession" with Wilson lasted well into October 2003 - the first time Libby was questioned by investigators probing the leak - and into March of 2004, when Libby testified before the grand jury.
Additionally, these officials are expected to testify at Libby's criminal trial that during the time of Libby's grand jury appearance in 2004, the time frame in which his attorneys say Libby allegedly forgot about Wilson and his wife, Libby had a packet of information on Wilson that included every comment, interview and media appearance Wilson had made since early 2003 when Wilson first started to criticize the administration's rationale for war.
Moreover, the administration officials told Fitzgerald that from September 2003 through March 2004 Libby urged White House communications director Dan Bartlett on numerous occasions to aggressively respond to Wilson's further attacks against the administration. Libby's attorneys have said in court documents that Libby had forgotten about Wilson during this time and that is the reason his grand jury testimony wasn't accurate.
Libby also discussed with Cheney and other aides to the vice president Wilson's relentless "campaign against the administration" and sought his colleagues' support for issuing a response, one person close to the investigation said.
"Mr. Libby was a lone wolf in that regard," this person said. "He did not receive any backing from the administration. Everyone thought he should just let it go."
Still, Libby's attorneys have said in several court documents that during his grand jury testimony, nearly eight months after the leak, Libby had been dealing with more serious matters and as a result he could not remember the true facts about Plame Wilson or how and when he first learned about her, because it took place months earlier.
Weeks before he was questioned by investigators probing the leak in November 2003, people close to the case said, Libby had discussed Wilson with unnamed individuals of the Republican National Committee and sought help in discrediting Wilson.
Libby reportedly became angry when Joseph Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," was released in April 2004. He had been closely following the book's release during the prior weeks, which coincides with his grand jury appearance, and had again pressed the White House to respond to certain passages he believed were untrue, according to sources close to the case.
"The Wilson affair was still very much on his mind," said one attorney who is representing a witness in the case. "Mr. Libby seemed to be consumed by it."
LINK
March 18, 2006
Attorneys representing Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case believe they have a rock solid defense to present in their client's perjury and obstruction of justice trial expected to begin next year.
In numerous court filings over the past few months, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby have maintained that their client did not intentionally lie to federal investigators and a grand jury regarding the role he played in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson during the summer of 2003.
Instead, Libby's attorneys have said that their client was dealing with other, more crucial matters, such as the Iraq war, terrorism, and national security and simply forgot about how he first learned that Plame was employed by the CIA when he told the grand jury - untruthfully - that a reporter told him that she worked for the spy agency.
However, that defense strategy may unravel when Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald calls to the stand some of Libby's former White House colleagues who have promised to tell a much different story about Libby's alleged memory lapse, according to six sources close to Fitzgerald's investigation.
A secretary for Ted Wells, one of Libby's defense attorneys, said Wells was traveling. The secretary wrote down questions for Wells and said she passed them on to him. But he did not respond. A second and third attempt to reach Wells was unsuccessful.
Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about his role in the leak. The case grew out of a 2002 intelligence query from the vice president's office about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. Cheney asked the CIA for information on a report claiming Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the African country.
In response to Cheney's questions, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger to investigate the claims. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was working undercover at the CIA at the time and told her superiors that her husband had good contacts in Niger. When Wilson returned, he reported back to the CIA that the uranium intelligence was bogus.
But in January 2003, President Bush in his State of the Union address cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium as a sign of President Saddam Hussein's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. In July, Wilson wrote an op-ed column for the New York Times saying the administration "twisted" intelligence on the Iraqi threat and inserted the uranium claims into the president's State of the Union address to win support for the war.
Some of the officials who worked with Libby in the office of the vice president and who are said to have faced criminal charges in the case have made deals with the special prosecutor in exchange for their testimony, sources close to the case said.
Other officials who work or worked in the State Department, the CIA, and the National Security Council at the time of the leak have also decided to cooperate with Fitzgerald; however, it's unknown whether these people faced any criminal charges before agreeing to testify at a trial.
Libby was questioned by investigators twice in 2003 - in October and November - and he testified in 2004, repeating the answers to questions he had provided to investigators months earlier: that he did he retaliate against the ambassador's criticism of the administration's rationale for war, and that he found out Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from reporters.
It was revealed last year that Libby had actually been a source for at least two reporters who wrote about Plame Wilson in July of 2003.
When Libby's trial begins in 2007, Libby's claim of forgetfulness is expected to be contradicted by his former colleagues who worked closely with him on foreign policy issues. These officials have told Fitzgerald over the past year that Libby continued his campaign against Wilson long after Libby and other White House officials allegedly unmasked Plame Wilson's identity to reporters in late June and early July 2003.
In September 2003, Libby is said to have first instructed his staff to monitor the Internet for any new articles related to Wilson and his wife during this time and provide him with printed versions, which he kept in a binder, the sources said.
The sources close to the case said the officials also told Fitzgerald that Libby's "obsession" with Wilson lasted well into October 2003 - the first time Libby was questioned by investigators probing the leak - and into March of 2004, when Libby testified before the grand jury.
Additionally, these officials are expected to testify at Libby's criminal trial that during the time of Libby's grand jury appearance in 2004, the time frame in which his attorneys say Libby allegedly forgot about Wilson and his wife, Libby had a packet of information on Wilson that included every comment, interview and media appearance Wilson had made since early 2003 when Wilson first started to criticize the administration's rationale for war.
Moreover, the administration officials told Fitzgerald that from September 2003 through March 2004 Libby urged White House communications director Dan Bartlett on numerous occasions to aggressively respond to Wilson's further attacks against the administration. Libby's attorneys have said in court documents that Libby had forgotten about Wilson during this time and that is the reason his grand jury testimony wasn't accurate.
Libby also discussed with Cheney and other aides to the vice president Wilson's relentless "campaign against the administration" and sought his colleagues' support for issuing a response, one person close to the investigation said.
"Mr. Libby was a lone wolf in that regard," this person said. "He did not receive any backing from the administration. Everyone thought he should just let it go."
Still, Libby's attorneys have said in several court documents that during his grand jury testimony, nearly eight months after the leak, Libby had been dealing with more serious matters and as a result he could not remember the true facts about Plame Wilson or how and when he first learned about her, because it took place months earlier.
Weeks before he was questioned by investigators probing the leak in November 2003, people close to the case said, Libby had discussed Wilson with unnamed individuals of the Republican National Committee and sought help in discrediting Wilson.
Libby reportedly became angry when Joseph Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," was released in April 2004. He had been closely following the book's release during the prior weeks, which coincides with his grand jury appearance, and had again pressed the White House to respond to certain passages he believed were untrue, according to sources close to the case.
"The Wilson affair was still very much on his mind," said one attorney who is representing a witness in the case. "Mr. Libby seemed to be consumed by it."
LINK
Libby Defense May Highlight Infighting
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago
Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide are suggesting they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby's legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
"If the jury learns this background information" about finger-pointing, "and also understands Mr. Libby's additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered ... snippets of conversation" about Plame's status, the defense lawyers said.
Cheney's former chief of staff was indicted Oct. 28 on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about her.
LINK
22 minutes ago
Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide are suggesting they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby's legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
"If the jury learns this background information" about finger-pointing, "and also understands Mr. Libby's additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered ... snippets of conversation" about Plame's status, the defense lawyers said.
Cheney's former chief of staff was indicted Oct. 28 on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about her.
LINK
Prosecutor Opposes Libby Motion to Dismiss
Fri Mar 17, 9:58 PM ET
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday disputed the claim of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide that the prosecutor lacks legal authority to indict him in the CIA leak investigation.
Fitzgerald opposed the move of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby asking a judge to dismiss the five-count indictment against him in the Valerie Plame affair. In court papers, the prosecutor argued that being allowed to operate outside any control of the Justice Department is constitutional and in accordance with federal law.
The prosecutor, who is investigating the disclosure of Plame's CIA undercover status, is not supervised by the Justice Department and he is not required to inform anyone at the department about the investigation's progress.
In a court filing in February, Libby said that only Congress could approve such an arrangement.
"The attorney general may delegate powers but he may not abdicate responsibility," Libby's lawyers wrote.
Fitzgerald replied that the attorney general has been granted broad legal authority by Congress "to delegate any of his functions to other offices of the Department of Justice."
Fitzgerald is the U.S. attorney in Chicago. He was appointed in December 2003 by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey. John Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time, recused himself from the matter because of a conflict.
Fitzgerald obtained an indictment of Libby on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.
LINK
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday disputed the claim of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide that the prosecutor lacks legal authority to indict him in the CIA leak investigation.
Fitzgerald opposed the move of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby asking a judge to dismiss the five-count indictment against him in the Valerie Plame affair. In court papers, the prosecutor argued that being allowed to operate outside any control of the Justice Department is constitutional and in accordance with federal law.
The prosecutor, who is investigating the disclosure of Plame's CIA undercover status, is not supervised by the Justice Department and he is not required to inform anyone at the department about the investigation's progress.
In a court filing in February, Libby said that only Congress could approve such an arrangement.
"The attorney general may delegate powers but he may not abdicate responsibility," Libby's lawyers wrote.
Fitzgerald replied that the attorney general has been granted broad legal authority by Congress "to delegate any of his functions to other offices of the Department of Justice."
Fitzgerald is the U.S. attorney in Chicago. He was appointed in December 2003 by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey. John Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time, recused himself from the matter because of a conflict.
Fitzgerald obtained an indictment of Libby on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.
LINK
Friday, March 17, 2006
Abramoff's sentencing delayed to further cooperation
Judge approves motion sought by federal investigators
Friday, March 17, 2006; Posted: 3:39 p.m. EST (20:39 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge Friday delayed sentencing of Jack Abramoff, a move the prosecutors requested to further the former lobbyist's cooperation with their investigation.
In January, Abramoff plead guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, charges in Washington.
Federal investigators, citing Abramoff's cooperation, wanted to defer until at least June a status conference, initially set for next week, that could have led to Abramoff's sentencing.
The delay is "in order to allow Mr. Abramoff's cooperation to continue uninterrupted," according to a joint motion for a new status conference filed late Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle signed the order proposed by prosecutors in the Public Integrity and Fraud sections, along with Abramoff's defense counsel, Abbe Lowell.
A judge in Miami, Florida, earlier this month refused to grant a similar sentencing delay on Abramoff's guilty plea to separate fraud charges there. U.S. District Judge Paul Huck moved the sentencing date only from March 16 to 29 but rejected an open-ended deferral. He said, "I just don't want to get involved in a situation where it just goes on and on and on."
The length of Abramoff's sentences in both cases will depend on the level of help he provides to investigators as they continue their probe of corruption among public officials.
According to court documents in the case, Abramoff and a business partner supplied gifts to a member of Congress identified only as "Representative 1." The gifts were in exchange for the lawmaker's help on behalf of their clients, including support of specific bills and statements in the Congressional Record.
Government sources have identified the lawmaker as longtime Ohio Republican Rep. Robert Ney, who has denied wrongdoing. Soon after Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges in January, Ney relinquished his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee and has since acknowledged being subpoenaed.
In September, Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, gave up his majority leader post after being indicted in his home state on charges he improperly steered corporate donations in 2002 to state legislative candidates.
A longtime associate of Abramoff, DeLay has denied wrongdoing, remains in Congress and continues to fight the charges.
Although there are no known ties to the Abramoff affair, another Republican, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, resigned in November after pleading guilty to taking bribes from defense contractors.
Stalled reform
Since the lobbying scandal broke, members of Congress have pledged quick reform but have had difficulty meeting timetables for action.
At last word, the House had missed a February schedule to consider ethics legislation and now expects action before spring break in April.
The Senate last week suspended debate because of controversy surrounding the port security deal. It's not clear when it will consider any ethics bills.(Details)
Also swept up in Abramoff's lobbying activities is the Bush administration.
Abramoff was a Pioneer-level fund-raiser during Bush's re-election campaign, meaning the lobbyist raised more than $100,000.
The White House has given $6,000 of Abramoff's donations to charity.
Investigators have also been examining the activities of some officials at the Interior Department and the General Services Administration, sources have told CNN.
One former GSA official, David Safavian, was indicted in October on charges of obstructing a GSA proceeding, obstructing a U.S. Senate proceeding and making false statements in connection with the investigation. His lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, and a hearing on that motion is set for March 24.
LINK
Friday, March 17, 2006; Posted: 3:39 p.m. EST (20:39 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge Friday delayed sentencing of Jack Abramoff, a move the prosecutors requested to further the former lobbyist's cooperation with their investigation.
In January, Abramoff plead guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, charges in Washington.
Federal investigators, citing Abramoff's cooperation, wanted to defer until at least June a status conference, initially set for next week, that could have led to Abramoff's sentencing.
The delay is "in order to allow Mr. Abramoff's cooperation to continue uninterrupted," according to a joint motion for a new status conference filed late Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle signed the order proposed by prosecutors in the Public Integrity and Fraud sections, along with Abramoff's defense counsel, Abbe Lowell.
A judge in Miami, Florida, earlier this month refused to grant a similar sentencing delay on Abramoff's guilty plea to separate fraud charges there. U.S. District Judge Paul Huck moved the sentencing date only from March 16 to 29 but rejected an open-ended deferral. He said, "I just don't want to get involved in a situation where it just goes on and on and on."
The length of Abramoff's sentences in both cases will depend on the level of help he provides to investigators as they continue their probe of corruption among public officials.
According to court documents in the case, Abramoff and a business partner supplied gifts to a member of Congress identified only as "Representative 1." The gifts were in exchange for the lawmaker's help on behalf of their clients, including support of specific bills and statements in the Congressional Record.
Government sources have identified the lawmaker as longtime Ohio Republican Rep. Robert Ney, who has denied wrongdoing. Soon after Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges in January, Ney relinquished his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee and has since acknowledged being subpoenaed.
In September, Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, gave up his majority leader post after being indicted in his home state on charges he improperly steered corporate donations in 2002 to state legislative candidates.
A longtime associate of Abramoff, DeLay has denied wrongdoing, remains in Congress and continues to fight the charges.
Although there are no known ties to the Abramoff affair, another Republican, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, resigned in November after pleading guilty to taking bribes from defense contractors.
Stalled reform
Since the lobbying scandal broke, members of Congress have pledged quick reform but have had difficulty meeting timetables for action.
At last word, the House had missed a February schedule to consider ethics legislation and now expects action before spring break in April.
The Senate last week suspended debate because of controversy surrounding the port security deal. It's not clear when it will consider any ethics bills.(Details)
Also swept up in Abramoff's lobbying activities is the Bush administration.
Abramoff was a Pioneer-level fund-raiser during Bush's re-election campaign, meaning the lobbyist raised more than $100,000.
The White House has given $6,000 of Abramoff's donations to charity.
Investigators have also been examining the activities of some officials at the Interior Department and the General Services Administration, sources have told CNN.
One former GSA official, David Safavian, was indicted in October on charges of obstructing a GSA proceeding, obstructing a U.S. Senate proceeding and making false statements in connection with the investigation. His lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, and a hearing on that motion is set for March 24.
LINK
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Libby's lawyers subpoena Judith Miller, New York Times
03/15/2006 @ 8:21 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
"Lawyers for I. Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who faces charges of obstruction of justice, served subpoenas on Tuesday on The New York Times Co. and a former reporter for The Times, Judith Miller," begins a story set for Thursday's New York Times, RAW STORY has found.
"The subpoenas seek documents concerning the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Wilson," writes Adam Liptak. "Libby has been charged with lying to a grand jury about how he learned about Wilson's identity."
According to the Times, Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert of NBC News also received subpoenas.
Although a spokeswoman for the Times states that the lawyers are still reviewing the subpoena, Miller's lawyer called it "entirely too broad."
"It's highly likely we'll be filing something with the court," Robert S. Bennett tells the Times.
New York Times subscribers can read the rest of the article at this link.
Filed by RAW STORY
"Lawyers for I. Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who faces charges of obstruction of justice, served subpoenas on Tuesday on The New York Times Co. and a former reporter for The Times, Judith Miller," begins a story set for Thursday's New York Times, RAW STORY has found.
"The subpoenas seek documents concerning the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Wilson," writes Adam Liptak. "Libby has been charged with lying to a grand jury about how he learned about Wilson's identity."
According to the Times, Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert of NBC News also received subpoenas.
Although a spokeswoman for the Times states that the lawyers are still reviewing the subpoena, Miller's lawyer called it "entirely too broad."
"It's highly likely we'll be filing something with the court," Robert S. Bennett tells the Times.
New York Times subscribers can read the rest of the article at this link.
Still lobbying?
Inside the Beltway
By John McCaslin
March 14, 2006
"Please do not share this e-mail or forward it to anyone. I have sent it [to] a limited number of friends and hope you will honor this request. Thanks."
So reads a Sunday-night missive received (that much we can confirm) by an acquaintance of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff (requesting anonymity, we can tell you the recipient is a high-profile politico in Washington who, given the lobbying atmosphere these days, smartly washed his hands of the correspondence and forwarded it to Inside the Beltway).
"My dear friends," it reads, "I am saddened and embarrassed to have to write to you under these circumstances and hope that you will forgive my not calling, as unfortunately the matter is urgent, and (as you will see) I must reach out to as many friends as possible very quickly ...
"As you may have seen in the recent press accounts, the judge on my case in Florida has denied the motion of the government and my attorneys to have my sentencing delayed until after I have completed my cooperation with the government. Since that period may take a few years, the judge did not want to leave the matter hanging and set March 29, 2006, as the date of sentencing.
"While the judge is unlikely to incarcerate me while I am still cooperating, the sentence he imposes will have a direct bearing on a possible more sympathetic re-sentencing when my cooperation has ended," it explains. "My attorneys have advised me to seek help from friends in the form of letters to the judge on my behalf ...
"The reason letters from friends are so important is that Judge Paul C. Huck in Florida has not been privy to much of my background and life. He probably only knows of me through the harsh media caricature which has plagued me for the past two years. It may only be through letters of friends that any compassion and balance can be achieved.
"
The once-powerful lobbyist, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in a wide-ranging corruption probe, asks that any letters of compassion include "suggestions for alternatives to or reduction of amount of incarceration and any reference to any redeeming character trait or actions of mine."
He then provides the judge's court address in Miami.
Straw pol
"I'm nothing," said John, "if not cunning,"
LINK
By John McCaslin
March 14, 2006
"Please do not share this e-mail or forward it to anyone. I have sent it [to] a limited number of friends and hope you will honor this request. Thanks."
So reads a Sunday-night missive received (that much we can confirm) by an acquaintance of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff (requesting anonymity, we can tell you the recipient is a high-profile politico in Washington who, given the lobbying atmosphere these days, smartly washed his hands of the correspondence and forwarded it to Inside the Beltway).
"My dear friends," it reads, "I am saddened and embarrassed to have to write to you under these circumstances and hope that you will forgive my not calling, as unfortunately the matter is urgent, and (as you will see) I must reach out to as many friends as possible very quickly ...
"As you may have seen in the recent press accounts, the judge on my case in Florida has denied the motion of the government and my attorneys to have my sentencing delayed until after I have completed my cooperation with the government. Since that period may take a few years, the judge did not want to leave the matter hanging and set March 29, 2006, as the date of sentencing.
"While the judge is unlikely to incarcerate me while I am still cooperating, the sentence he imposes will have a direct bearing on a possible more sympathetic re-sentencing when my cooperation has ended," it explains. "My attorneys have advised me to seek help from friends in the form of letters to the judge on my behalf ...
"The reason letters from friends are so important is that Judge Paul C. Huck in Florida has not been privy to much of my background and life. He probably only knows of me through the harsh media caricature which has plagued me for the past two years. It may only be through letters of friends that any compassion and balance can be achieved.
"
The once-powerful lobbyist, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in a wide-ranging corruption probe, asks that any letters of compassion include "suggestions for alternatives to or reduction of amount of incarceration and any reference to any redeeming character trait or actions of mine."
He then provides the judge's court address in Miami.
Straw pol
"I'm nothing," said John, "if not cunning,"
LINK
Monday, March 13, 2006
Justice Dept. reviewed financial records of nine congressmen in 2005, paper reports
RAW STORY
Published: March 13, 2006
The Justice Department pulled the personal financial records of at least nine Members of Congress and at least seven former staffers last summer and fall, many of whom have been identified publicly as having links to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, ROLL CALL reports Monday. Excerpts:
#
In a stretch running from June to October, a pair of aides at Justice examined the financial disclosure forms of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and Bob Ney (R-Ohio), as well as ex-staffers for three of those lawmakers, according to House and Senate records.
While Justice officials declined to comment, many of the financial searches appear to be connected to the continuing two-year probe of Abramoff’s dealings on Capitol Hill and with the Bush administration. In addition, the agency looked over the financial records of several lawmakers who have had no public connection to the investigation: Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), as well as Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa).
Aides to most of those lawmakers denied their bosses had any connection to the Abramoff probe, suggesting Justice must have been pulling their records for some other, unrelated reasons.
#
Read the full, registration-restricted story here.
Published: March 13, 2006
The Justice Department pulled the personal financial records of at least nine Members of Congress and at least seven former staffers last summer and fall, many of whom have been identified publicly as having links to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, ROLL CALL reports Monday. Excerpts:
#
In a stretch running from June to October, a pair of aides at Justice examined the financial disclosure forms of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and Bob Ney (R-Ohio), as well as ex-staffers for three of those lawmakers, according to House and Senate records.
While Justice officials declined to comment, many of the financial searches appear to be connected to the continuing two-year probe of Abramoff’s dealings on Capitol Hill and with the Bush administration. In addition, the agency looked over the financial records of several lawmakers who have had no public connection to the investigation: Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), as well as Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa).
Aides to most of those lawmakers denied their bosses had any connection to the Abramoff probe, suggesting Justice must have been pulling their records for some other, unrelated reasons.
#
Read the full, registration-restricted story here.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Dobson site denies lobbying Norton for Abramoff
RAW STORY
Published: March 10, 2006
In a message posted on his Focus on the Family website, Dr. James Dobson's group has denied lobbying outgoing Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton on behalf of fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
"There is no connection," Dobson's site says flatly.
However, in already public e-mails and letters sent in early 2002 between former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and Abramoff, Reed insists that he has secured Dobson's support for Abramoff's gaming interest clients in Louisiana, in opposition of allowing competing tribes to expand the state's access to legal gambling.
Just three days after Reed's guarantee, Dobson did indeed write a letter to Norton, urging her to intervene in blocking rival casinos. (Read the letter here.) Schlafly also penned a letter.
The Dobson-helmed Focus on the Family website explains, "Those e-mails are examples of Mr. Abramoff bragging about events that did not happen."
However, even a cursory examination of the documents reveals that it was not Mr. Abramoff, but in fact Dobson ally Ralph Reed, who claimed to have secured Dobson's involvement.
Focus goes on to address the contents of the e-mails, often attempting to deflect criticism away from Dobson and Reed, and on to Abramoff. In a point- by- point Q & A style list, Focus attempts to distance Dobson and Reed from Abramoff's lobby.
"[The e-mails claim that] Dr. Dobson would record and air radio commercial advertisements against the Jena Choctaw casino opposed by one of Abramoff's Louisiana clients," the argument begins.
In the e-mails, Abramoff and his associates discuss the budget for the "state" advertisements, which they hope to feature Dobson. At no point do they indicate that Dobson has agreed to appear. Reed is reported to have requested $150,000 for the deal, which Abramoff and his associates considered countering with a $60,000 offer.
Reed continued to pressure for funds for the spots, while Abramoff discussed with associate Michael Scanlon offering some "chump change" or "a token" to make it happen.
Focus on the Family concedes that VP of Public Policy Tom Minnery and host Bob Ditmer did publicly oppose the rival tribe's casino plans on a "special edition" radio broadcast aired only in the state, explaining that, "These discussions were not radio commercials." Rather, they were "'state-only' radio content geared to important issues."
Focus goes on to identify another purported falsehood in the e-mails: Claims that, "Dr. Dobson would go on the air to 'hit Haley' Barbour, who at the time was a D.C. lobbyist who’d been hired by the Jena Choctaws, the Indian tribe whose casino project was opposed by Abramoff's clients." The group counters that, "No one from Focus mentioned Barbour on the air, let alone urged listeners to 'hit' him with phone calls or e-mails."
Reed and Abramoff seem to be discussing an appearance by Abramoff on talk radio, most likely his own show, which has discussed the topic of legalized gambling over 200 times. However, at no point in the e-mails do Reed, Abramoff, or any of Abramoff's associates claim that Dobson plans to attack former RNC chair Barbour on the air, encouraging listeners to call the lobbyist. In fact, they appear to grow anxious that Dobson will not appear.
Rather, Reed seems to indicate that Dobson's "history" with Barbour will likely impassion his opposition. Strangely, Focus goes on to verify this claim, explaining that, "Many years before, Dr. Dobson opposed Barbour’s role in allowing the Republican Party to take gambling money."
The final claim addressed by Focus, Reed's guarantee that "Dr. Dobson would privately urge Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to oppose the Jena Choctaw casino," it concedes to be true. Dobson, along with Focus Senior VP Tom Minnery, did indeed write Norton directly to express their opposition. They claim this was not due to Reed's urging.
The Q & A closes with an attempt to portray Reed, now a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, as a victim of Abramoff: "It appears Mr. Abramoff attempted to use Mr. Reed's respect among social conservatives to further the goals of his casino clients." It denies that Dobson had any knowledge of Reed's ties to the lobbyist.
"We have only one record of a call from Mr. Reed during this time, but it was made after we had already received multiple requests to write letters to Gale Norton from our longtime Louisiana allies. It is not clear whether Reed was calling Dr. Dobson to thank him for writing to Norton, or to ask him to do so."
In the e-mails, Reed reports to have placed his call to Dobson on February 19, 2002. Dobson penned his letter to Norton three days later, on February 22. This timeline is inconsistent with the possible explanation that Reed had placed the call to thank Dobson for the letter.
LINK
Published: March 10, 2006
In a message posted on his Focus on the Family website, Dr. James Dobson's group has denied lobbying outgoing Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton on behalf of fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
"There is no connection," Dobson's site says flatly.
However, in already public e-mails and letters sent in early 2002 between former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and Abramoff, Reed insists that he has secured Dobson's support for Abramoff's gaming interest clients in Louisiana, in opposition of allowing competing tribes to expand the state's access to legal gambling.
Just three days after Reed's guarantee, Dobson did indeed write a letter to Norton, urging her to intervene in blocking rival casinos. (Read the letter here.) Schlafly also penned a letter.
The Dobson-helmed Focus on the Family website explains, "Those e-mails are examples of Mr. Abramoff bragging about events that did not happen."
However, even a cursory examination of the documents reveals that it was not Mr. Abramoff, but in fact Dobson ally Ralph Reed, who claimed to have secured Dobson's involvement.
Focus goes on to address the contents of the e-mails, often attempting to deflect criticism away from Dobson and Reed, and on to Abramoff. In a point- by- point Q & A style list, Focus attempts to distance Dobson and Reed from Abramoff's lobby.
"[The e-mails claim that] Dr. Dobson would record and air radio commercial advertisements against the Jena Choctaw casino opposed by one of Abramoff's Louisiana clients," the argument begins.
In the e-mails, Abramoff and his associates discuss the budget for the "state" advertisements, which they hope to feature Dobson. At no point do they indicate that Dobson has agreed to appear. Reed is reported to have requested $150,000 for the deal, which Abramoff and his associates considered countering with a $60,000 offer.
Reed continued to pressure for funds for the spots, while Abramoff discussed with associate Michael Scanlon offering some "chump change" or "a token" to make it happen.
Focus on the Family concedes that VP of Public Policy Tom Minnery and host Bob Ditmer did publicly oppose the rival tribe's casino plans on a "special edition" radio broadcast aired only in the state, explaining that, "These discussions were not radio commercials." Rather, they were "'state-only' radio content geared to important issues."
Focus goes on to identify another purported falsehood in the e-mails: Claims that, "Dr. Dobson would go on the air to 'hit Haley' Barbour, who at the time was a D.C. lobbyist who’d been hired by the Jena Choctaws, the Indian tribe whose casino project was opposed by Abramoff's clients." The group counters that, "No one from Focus mentioned Barbour on the air, let alone urged listeners to 'hit' him with phone calls or e-mails."
Reed and Abramoff seem to be discussing an appearance by Abramoff on talk radio, most likely his own show, which has discussed the topic of legalized gambling over 200 times. However, at no point in the e-mails do Reed, Abramoff, or any of Abramoff's associates claim that Dobson plans to attack former RNC chair Barbour on the air, encouraging listeners to call the lobbyist. In fact, they appear to grow anxious that Dobson will not appear.
Rather, Reed seems to indicate that Dobson's "history" with Barbour will likely impassion his opposition. Strangely, Focus goes on to verify this claim, explaining that, "Many years before, Dr. Dobson opposed Barbour’s role in allowing the Republican Party to take gambling money."
The final claim addressed by Focus, Reed's guarantee that "Dr. Dobson would privately urge Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to oppose the Jena Choctaw casino," it concedes to be true. Dobson, along with Focus Senior VP Tom Minnery, did indeed write Norton directly to express their opposition. They claim this was not due to Reed's urging.
The Q & A closes with an attempt to portray Reed, now a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, as a victim of Abramoff: "It appears Mr. Abramoff attempted to use Mr. Reed's respect among social conservatives to further the goals of his casino clients." It denies that Dobson had any knowledge of Reed's ties to the lobbyist.
"We have only one record of a call from Mr. Reed during this time, but it was made after we had already received multiple requests to write letters to Gale Norton from our longtime Louisiana allies. It is not clear whether Reed was calling Dr. Dobson to thank him for writing to Norton, or to ask him to do so."
In the e-mails, Reed reports to have placed his call to Dobson on February 19, 2002. Dobson penned his letter to Norton three days later, on February 22. This timeline is inconsistent with the possible explanation that Reed had placed the call to thank Dobson for the letter.
LINK
Judge orders CIA to turn over intelligence briefings to Libby
WASHINGTON(AP) -- A federal judge ordered the CIA on Friday to turn over highly classified intelligence briefings to Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide to use in the aide's defense against perjury charges.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected CIA warnings that the nation's security would be imperiled if the presidential-level documents were disclosed to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.
The judge said the CIA can either delete highly classified information from the briefing material and provide copies of what Libby received six days a week, often with Cheney. Or, Walton said, the CIA can produce "topic overviews" of the matters covered in the briefings.
The judge also ordered the CIA to give Libby an index of the topics covered in follow-up questions that the former White House aide asked intelligence officers who conducted the briefings.
In seeking CIA input late last month, Walton appeared to have been trying to broker a compromise between defense attorneys and prosecutors to avoid a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration over the briefing material.
The judge's order indicates he is ready for such a fight. He set a schedule for the Bush administration to file any objections by March 24.
The charges against Libby -- perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents -- grew out of an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
LINK
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected CIA warnings that the nation's security would be imperiled if the presidential-level documents were disclosed to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.
The judge said the CIA can either delete highly classified information from the briefing material and provide copies of what Libby received six days a week, often with Cheney. Or, Walton said, the CIA can produce "topic overviews" of the matters covered in the briefings.
The judge also ordered the CIA to give Libby an index of the topics covered in follow-up questions that the former White House aide asked intelligence officers who conducted the briefings.
In seeking CIA input late last month, Walton appeared to have been trying to broker a compromise between defense attorneys and prosecutors to avoid a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration over the briefing material.
The judge's order indicates he is ready for such a fight. He set a schedule for the Bush administration to file any objections by March 24.
The charges against Libby -- perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents -- grew out of an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)