0
   

Should DeLay resign

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:47 am
DeLay Ex-Aide to Plead Guilty in Lobby Case
November 19, 2005
DeLay Ex-Aide to Plead Guilty in Lobby Case
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
New York Times
WASHINGTON

Michael Scanlon, a former top official for Representative Tom DeLay and onetime partner of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has agreed to plead guilty in a deal with federal prosecutors, according to his lawyer. The deal reveals a broadening corruption investigation involving top members of Congress.

Criminal papers filed in federal court outlined a conspiracy that not only named Mr. Scanlon but also mentioned a congressman, identified only as Representative No. 1, as part of the exchange of favors from clients funneled to lobbyists and officials.

This was the first time that a member of Congress, identified by lawyers in the case as Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, has been implicated in criminal papers as part of the inquiry, which has sprawled from Indian casinos to the lucrative lobbying firms of Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon and then reached to the Republican leadership.

Federal prosecutors announced a single conspiracy charge against Mr. Scanlon on Friday, in advance of a Monday court hearing at which he is expected to plead guilty in exchange for his cooperation. Investigators accused Mr. Scanlon of conspiring to defraud Indian tribes of millions of dollars as part of a lobbying and corruption scheme.

Mr. Scanlon, 35, is a former spokesman for Mr. DeLay. News of his cooperation with law enforcement officials sent a jolt through the Republican majority in Congress.

Mr. DeLay has been indicted in Texas on unrelated charges involving fund-raising practices for state Republicans. His ties to Mr. Abramoff, along with costly overseas trips, have been under investigation for more than a year. The indictment forced Mr. DeLay to step aside as House majority leader this fall.

Court papers filed Friday alleged that Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff, who has not been charged in the Indian lobbying case, had sought to "corruptly offer and provide things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts." The wording suggested that more than one lawmaker was under investigation.

But the document singled out Representative No. 1 as the main recipient of gifts, tickets and meals - including a now infamous golfing trip to Scotland - in exchange for helping Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff with their clients.

Mr. Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, has offered his cooperation to prosecutors, said Brian Walsh, his spokesman, who added that Mr. Ney had contended that he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into assisting their clients.

Federal prosecutors and Congressional officials have been conducting extensive investigations into the lobbying practices of Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon, who earned about $82 million representing a handful of wealthy Indian tribes on gambling issues over four years. Investigators believe the two men funneled millions through charities and front organizations to skim profits, avoid taxes and mask incomplete work.

Beyond accusations of fraud, investigators have delved into the politically delicate territory of the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers. Until last year, Mr. Abramoff ruled an industry governed by networking because of his close ties to Mr. DeLay, trading on his access to the rising Republican leader to build a lucrative lobbying practice. He and Mr. Scanlon are at the center of a Senate inquiry that held its final hearing this week.

In the eight-page criminal filing, prosecutors accused Mr. Scanlon of taking part in a "corruption scheme" between January 2000 and April 2004, working alongside a "Lobbyist A" who was identified by lawyers involved in the case as Mr. Abramoff.

The pair "provided a stream of things of value" to Representative No. 1 and members of his staff, the charge read. In return, both Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff received agreements from Mr. Ney "to perform a series of official acts," including "agreements to support and pass legislation, agreements to place statements into the Congressional Record," and meetings with their clients.

The court filing also states that the congressman helped one of the businessmen's clients apply for a license to install wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives. Mr. Ney's committee manages such issues.

Mr. Ney has been the focus of scrutiny for months after revelations that he took a 2002 golfing trip to Scotland that was sponsored by Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Ney has started a legal defense fund. His legal troubles have added to the growing ethics accusations against Congressional Republicans.

Other lawmakers including Mr. DeLay received campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff's and Mr. Scanlon's Indian clients. But Mr. Ney performed what prosecutors portrayed as blatant favors for Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon, inserting remarks helpful to their business into the Congressional Record and sponsoring bills at their behest.

Mark H. Tuohey, the lawyer representing Mr. Ney, said that the congressman had never offered any legislative help to the lobbyists in exchange for travel, like the 2002 golfing trip to Scotland, or gifts.

Mr. Ney has said that Mr. Abramoff deceived him over how the Scotland trip was paid for in his travel disclosure forms, saying it was paid for by a conservative educational group, not by Mr. Abramoff or his lobbying firm - and about the details of Mr. Abramoff's purchase of a casino boat fleet in Florida in 2001.

"I think the people who are named in this among others, Scanlon and Abramoff, didn't tell him the truth," Mr. Tuohey said of Mr. Ney.

Mr. Abramoff was indicted in Florida this year on fraud and conspiracy charges relating to a separate effort to buy Sun Cruz, a fleet of casino boats, in 2000. Although Mr. Scanlon did public affairs work for Sun Cruz, he was not charged in that case. It now appears that Mr. Scanlon has been cooperating with the authorities to reach a plea deal in the Indian gambling inquiry. Mr. Abramoff is not cooperating with law enforcement officials, people involved with the case said.

The lawyer for Mr. Abramoff, Abbe Lowell, declined to comment. The lawyer for Mr. Scanlon, Stephen Braga, confirmed that his client would enter a plea on Monday. "Mr. Scanlon and the Department of Justice will present a proposed plea agreement to the court to resolve the charge," Mr. Braga said.

How much Mr. Scanlon knows and has told prosecutors about the business practices of Mr. Abramoff and members of Congress remains unclear. "This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Abramoff because Scanlon was reportedly his closest associate," said Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor who is now a prominent defense lawyer in Washington. As for politicians like Mr. DeLay and Mr. Ney, Mr. Barcella said, "I wouldn't be sitting as comfortably today as I was yesterday if I were them."

In addition to the corruption scheme, prosecutors say Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff carried out a secret kickback deal in which Mr. Abramoff encouraged his Indian clients to hire Mr. Scanlon for public affairs work. Mr. Scanlon then funneled half his profits to Mr. Abramoff. Their aim was "to enrich themselves by obtaining substantial funds from their clients through fraud and concealment and through obtaining benefits for their clients through corrupt means," the charge said.

Tribes in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Michigan fell prey to the conspiracy, the Scanlon papers said.
--------------------------------------

Philip Shenon, Eric Lichtblau and David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting for this article.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 05:44 pm
Things are going to become more uncomfortable for DeLay. From the NYT:

November 21, 2005
Former Aide to DeLay Pleads Guilty in Conspiracy Case
By DAVID STOUT
and PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Michael Scanlon, former aide to a powerful congressman and onetime partner of a wealthy lobbyist, pleaded guilty today to a federal conspiracy charge as part of a deal in which he agreed to cooperate with an investigation into possible wrongdoing by some lawmakers.

Mr. Scanlon's comedown from a young and wealthy Washington power-player to disgraced felon, formalized before Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of Federal District Court here, had been expected. But it still may have sent shivers down Capitol corridors.

Mr. Scanlon agreed to pay restitution totaling more than $19 million to the tribes and faces up to five years in prison. He was allowed to remain free on $5 million bond. After pleading guilty, the well-tanned Mr. Scanlon appeared incongruously cheerful. Asked by reporters why he was smiling, he replied, "I'm always smiling."

Mr. Scanlon, 35, was accused of conspiring to defraud Indian tribes out of millions of dollars as part of a lobbying and corruption scheme that involved wining and dining of some lawmakers, treating them to lavish trips and contributing to their campaigns.

Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, was alluded to in the indictment (although not by name) as a main beneficiary of largess, in return for helping Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon with their clients.

Lawyers involved in the case have confirmed that Mr. Ney is the "Representative #1" cited in the indictment. The congressman - who has not been charged - has asserted that he was duped by the two and is cooperating with prosecutors, a spokesman for Mr. Ney says.

Mr. Scanlon's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, was asked whether any other members of Congress had anything to fear. "I have no comment on that," he replied.

Until recently, Mr. Scanlon occupied a powerful - and lucrative - position at the intersection of political power and lobbying influence. For several years, he worked as a top aide to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader. He left Mr. DeLay's office in 2000 to become an associate of Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist.

Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon earned more than $80 million representing a few wealthy Indian tribes on gambling issues. Those transactions have been under investigation by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as well as federal prosecutors.

In an e-mail message made public by the committee, Mr. Scanlon seemed to lust for wealth, and seemed to see the Indian tribes as easy targets. "I want all their money!!!" he wrote of one tribe in 2002. Referring to the money available from another tribe, he exclaimed, "Weeez gonna be rich!!!"

Mr. DeLay has been indicted in Texas on charges involving political fund-raising that are not related to the inquiry in which Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty today. And Mr. Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on unrelated fraud-and-conspiracy charges involving an attempt to buy a fleet of casino boats.

Like Mr. Ney, Mr. DeLay has been named as a beneficiary of Mr. Abramoff's and Mr. Scanlon's generosity. He, too, has denied wrongdoing. Mr. Cacheris, when asked whether Mr. DeLay had reason to worry over Mr. Scanlon's cooperating with prosecutors, said, "You'll have to ask his lawyers."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 06:56 pm
Here's a dilly.

On PBS news tonight, a reporter for Business Week who has been working on the Abramoff/Scanlon lobbying scandal say that one source of his believes that some 60 congressmen are targets of investigation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 06:58 pm
60? WOW!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 07:06 pm
Blatham
blatham wrote:
Here's a dilly.

On PBS news tonight, a reporter for Business Week who has been working on the Abramoff/Scanlon lobbying scandal say that one source of his believes that some 60 congressmen are targets of investigation.


Somehow, many in Congress have stopped representing the people and starting representing special interest lobbyists and putting party loyalty before the interests of the country and it's citizens. Above all, they work in the interests of their reelection and positioning themselves to get high paying jobs after leaving office.

I'm so disappointed that voters are willing to put up with this. They are part of the problem.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 07:07 pm
BBB, So true! They're mostly bums of the worst kind, and we the people keep revoting them in. What a revolting development!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 07:53 pm
Abramoff took a lot of congressmen to Scotland for golfing. The question is what did he get from them in return and did they know it was not exactly ethical.

Just because they took a trip isn't in itself incriminating although the question is there of taking gifts from a lobbyist and not reporting it as required. Several have already skirted that issue. Abramoff may have a lot of cards to play to get himself a reduced sentence. We can only wait to see how willing he is to squeal and what he really has to offer that is supported by other facts.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 09:26 pm
parados

As Scanlon was Abramoff's partner, and as he is now co-operating with the prosecuter, Abramoff's cooperation may be somewhat moot.

As of tomorrow, by the way, the PBS Newshour site will have that interview up. It will be labeled the Abramoff Scandal or the Lobbying Scandal or some such. Two reporters (Business Week and Wash Post) interviewed. Both have been working on the story for some time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 09:38 pm
blatham wrote:
parados

As Scanlon was Abramoff's partner, and as he is now co-operating with the prosecuter, Abramoff's cooperation may be somewhat moot.

As of tomorrow, by the way, the PBS Newshour site will have that interview up. It will be labeled the Abramoff Scandal or the Lobbying Scandal or some such. Two reporters (Business Week and Wash Post) interviewed. Both have been working on the story for some time.


If Abramoff can give up some congressmen that Scanlon can't, Abramoff will get a deal.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 08:25 am
It would appear that a special prosecutor is needed to investigate the the political prostitudes in congress. Just wonder how many could stand up under the glare of that spotlight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:22 am
One percent?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:31 am
Interesting comment regarding our democratic institution
Bring Democracy to Congress





By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005; Page A29



Perhaps we should redeploy the democracy experts we have sent to the Middle East and ask them to work on our Congress. The past few days have confirmed that our national government is dysfunctional.

It wasn't just the nasty Friday evening "debate" over Iraq policy in the House, set up by Republican leaders to score political points after Rep. John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal received so much attention. And it wasn't just Rep. Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, deciding to send a constituent's "message" to Murtha -- a Marine combat veteran with 37 years of active and reserve service -- to the effect that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

What happened hours earlier, at 1:45 a.m., symbolized all that is wrong with Washington. After immense pressure from Republican leaders, the House passed $50 billion in budget cuts -- including reductions in Medicaid, food stamps and child support enforcement -- on a 217 to 215 vote. Republicans who pride themselves on being moderate had their arms twisted into backing the bill, partly on the basis of promises that many of the cuts it contained wouldn't survive in House-Senate negotiations.

Not a single Democrat was willing to vote for the budget, because there are far better ways to cut the deficit. Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican who dissented from his party, made the case against the budget as well as anyone. "We should cut the pork," he told the Washington Times, "not the poor."

The current leadership in Congress simply refuses to revisit any of the tax cuts it has passed since President Bush took office. On the contrary, the leaders plan to push through $70 billion in tax cuts after Thanksgiving, including dividend and capital gains reductions that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans.

Some of the most powerful words on the budget cuts came from one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Rep. Gene Taylor, whose district was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, couldn't believe that cuts in programs for the poor were being justified as necessary to cover the costs of relief for hurricane victims. Taylor's syntax only underscored the emotion he brought to the floor: "Mr. Speaker, in south Mississippi tonight, the people . . . who are living in two- and three-man igloo tents waiting for Congress to do something, have absolutely got to think this place has lost their minds. The same Congress that voted to give the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans tax breaks every time . . . suddenly after taking care of those who had the most, we have got to hurt the least. . . . Folks, this is insane. . . . This is the cruelest lie of all, that the only way you can help the people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else."

It is, indeed, insane that a clear majority in the House was unable to work its will and come up with a more reasonable approach. In addition to the 14 House Republicans who voted against the cuts, another dozen who voted for them under pressure expressed grave doubts about the effect of some of the reductions. If our democracy were functional, the House majority that wants a balanced approach to cutting the deficit -- Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans -- could hash out the trade-offs between tax cuts and spending cuts. Everything would be on the table.

But the Republican leadership does not want to revisit the tax cuts. It wants to keep control over the budget within the Republican Party, which is dominated by its right wing. Eventually, enough moderate Republicans cave in. The game continues. The system guarantees that moderation, so often praised by academics, editorial writers and columnists, is the one approach that's impossible.

And so it was not surprising that hours after the budget vote, the House blew up over Iraq. If the House leadership had wanted a real debate on Iraq policy, it wouldn't have sprung a synthetic, one-sentence "resolution" crafted to embarrass Democrats at the last minute. It would have permitted amendments and alternatives, and allotted serious time to a serious subject.

Which brings us back to those democracy experts we are sending around the world. Let's bring just a few home and ask them to advise our leaders on how to bring democracy to Congress. If we want to sell reason and moderation to our Iraqi allies, we'd be more persuasive if we could have reasonable debates ourselves about how to fund our government and how to conduct our policy in their country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:38 am
au, One of the reasons I quit being a republican is their cold-hearted ways of hurting the people most unable to protect themselves; our children. They prefer to line their pockets rather than help the most needy of people. How the christian right and republicanism has a marriage is hard to fathom. The contradictions are enormous; why can't people see through all this?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:27 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
au, One of the reasons I quit being a republican is their cold-hearted ways of hurting the people most unable to protect themselves; our children. They prefer to line their pockets rather than help the most needy of people. How the christian right and republicanism has a marriage is hard to fathom. The contradictions are enormous; why can't people see through all this?


I find it hard to believe you were ever a Republican, c.i., other than a RINO. Your line of thinking is completely liberal, through and through.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:33 am
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
au, One of the reasons I quit being a republican is their cold-hearted ways of hurting the people most unable to protect themselves; our children. They prefer to line their pockets rather than help the most needy of people. How the christian right and republicanism has a marriage is hard to fathom. The contradictions are enormous; why can't people see through all this?


I find it hard to believe you were ever a Republican, c.i., other than a RINO. Your line of thinking is completely liberal, through and through.


Tico, study Republican history. Until the last two decades, the Republican party was replete with liberal and moderate Republicans along with conservatives. Now it has been taken over by the radical right wing religious fundamentalists, who may eventually destroy the party.

BBB
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:35 am
TICO
Indeed it's hard to belive C.I.was once a republican. He does not seem to ever have been mean of spirit enough to be a member of that coven.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:38 am
Tico
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
au, One of the reasons I quit being a republican is their cold-hearted ways of hurting the people most unable to protect themselves; our children. They prefer to line their pockets rather than help the most needy of people. How the christian right and republicanism has a marriage is hard to fathom. The contradictions are enormous; why can't people see through all this?


I find it hard to believe you were ever a Republican, c.i., other than a RINO. Your line of thinking is completely liberal, through and through.


I guess Tico has annointed himself as A2K's official lie detector.

click, click, buzz, buzz.

Oops! Machine on the fritz.

BBB
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:44 am
BBB
I think that is lie defender for the republican party.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:49 am
I'm a Republican, my father is a Republican, my grandfather was a Republican, as was his father. You sir, are no Republican.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:50 am
Here's a hint:

just because your family hasn't progressed much in four generations doesn't mean you have a patent on what it means to be a Republican.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should DeLay resign
  3. » Page 31
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 01:01:42