The Abramoff scandal investigation

Job Application for all GOP Conference Leadership Positions


Part I. The Money Stuff

1. Does Jack Abramoff have your cell-phone number in his Blackberry?

____. Yes. (You may skip the rest of the questions.)

____. No.



2. Did you have signature privileges at Signatures restaurant?

____. Yes. (That's it. You're done. And you might want to get
a lawyer.)

____. No.



3. In the last four years, have you accepted greater than $10,000
in campaign contributions from Abramoff clients?

_____. Yes. (Thank you, that will be all. We know it isn't fair,
but elections aren't fair.)

_____. No. (Are you sure about that?)



4. Did you take any trip anywhere in the past four years that
involved more than three rounds of golf?

____. Yes. (Sorry, you are out. Unless you were golfing in
Israel or on a military base.)

____. No. (Please attach a sheet explaining what you have against
golf.)


5. Please attach a separate sheet listing the earmarks you have
inserted in appropriations bills since your career began.
If you need two sheets, don't bother.


6. Prior to the decision to move forward, did you support Duncan
Hunter's proposal to bring Congressman Murtha's defeat
an retreat resolution to the floor?

____. Yes.

____. No. (Who are you kidding? Get out now.)


7. Please list all relatives and their sources of income.


8. Do you have "K Street Project" tattooed on your ankle?


Part II. The Sex Stuff.

We don't want to know. But if the Post does, then drop out now.

Part III. The Brains Stuff

Ask your best friend in the caucus. The one who offers you the breath mint all the time.

Then tell us your plans for 2006.

Part IV. The Media Stuff

Please attach a video file of your three best appearances on television. We'll be the judge of that.

Thank you for your interest. We'll be in touch.

I forgot, This was the joke thread about Abramoff..

Thanks for getting us back on topic JW

And in the joke department let me provide Clooney's joke from the Golden Globes

GWB =George Wears Banana, would be great for Jack ....off!

Reporters Zero in On Rove's Abramoff Connection
I hope journalists keep on the trail of the link between Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff and their plan to increase the influence of Republican lobbyists in D.C. Rove used Abramoff to achieve this goal. ---BBB

White House Briefing: Reporters Zero in On Rove's Abramoff Connections
Aya Kawano
By E&P Staff
Published: January 17, 2006 7:44 PM ET

Reporters continued to hammer away at President Bush's chief spokesperson today on the domestic spying issue, particularly a report in today's New York Times that suggested the NSA's secret eavesdropping program netted "a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names" after the Sept. 11 attacks, nearly all of which "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."

But another theme emerged today.

As the fallout from indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff continues, reporters are now trying to home in on Abramoff's White House connections, specifically looking for details on his meetings with President Bush's staff. But so far presidential spokesman Scott McClellan isn't budging.

On Tuesday, McClellan admitted Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, but he declined to say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing, or how he got access to the White House.

Here is the Abramoff-related portion of Tuesday's press gaggle with McClellan:

Q Another topic, if you would. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and others sent a letter to the President today regarding Abramoff, asking for the President make public any contacts that he had with Abramoff, as well as senior administration officials; and any kind of benefits or access that they may have gained from this connection. They said, "The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale." Is there any plan for the President or the administration to make that information available?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this President expects everybody in his administration to adhere to the highest ethical standards. I've already talked to you all about this matter. If you have anything specific to bring to my attention, please do. But, remember, this is a guy who has admitted wrongdoing. He's being brought to justice by the Justice Department under this administration. And he's also someone where he and/or his clients contributed to both Democrats and Republicans. So I think that needs to be put in context, as well.

Q So would the White House be open to complying with the Democrats' request to go ahead and provide that kind of information, the contacts Abramoff had with senior staff, that type of thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've already indicated to you a general description of any contacts that were there.

Q Can you be more specific about the contacts with the senior staff? You said you were going to get back to us on that. Can you give us --

MR. McCLELLAN: I did check. There were a few staff-level meetings. As I indicated there were -- I think I previously indicated that he attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House. It is actually only two Hanukkah receptions that he attended.

Q And the years?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it was the earlier years, earlier 2000 -- early in the 2000 time period. I can double-check that. And so that's --

Q Specific staff? You were going to get back to us on the specific staff --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, my understanding from the check that we did was that there are just a few staff-level meetings in addition to those.

Q Who was in the staff meetings?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't get into discussing staff-level meetings.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you got something to bring to my attention, Elisabeth, I'll be glad to look into it. If you've got something specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Did he meet with Karl Rove, for example?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't -- we don't ever tend to get into those staff-level meetings.

…

Q Scott, what was the subject matter when Jack Abramoff met with staff here?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q What was the subject --

MR. McCLELLAN: I just indicated earlier to Elisabeth's questions that we just don't get into discussing White House staff-level meetings. We never really have.

Q Can you say who Mr. Abramoff was representing when he came in here?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, we don't get into discussing staff-level meetings. If you have something specific to bring to my attention, I'll be glad to try to look into that. But I'm not aware of anything specific that you have.

Q What got him in the door here? How did he qualify for meetings here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I checked on this. What I was asked is to go and check on this, and I did. And there were only a couple of holiday receptions that he attended, and then a few staff-level meetings on top of that. And that's the way I would describe it.

Now, what I can't do is go and say with absolute certainty that he did not have any other visits. We did a check at your request and what I have learned from that request is exactly what I am telling you.

Q Was it senior staff, at that level?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Would you qualify it as senior staff that he met with here?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just saying staff-level meetings is the way I would describe it. And if you have anything specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Well, we're counting on you for the specifics --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there's any reason for me to check into it, please bring it to my attention.

Q He's pled guilty to some serious charges.

MR. McCLELLAN: And so are you insinuating something?

Q We're just trying to find out the facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you've got something to bring to my attention, do so, and then I'll be glad to look into it.

Q Scott, that's not a fair burden to place on us. This is a guy who is a tainted lobbyist, and he has connections -- we want to know -- with whom in the White House. You shouldn't demand that we give you something specific to go check it out. I mean, this guy is radioactive in Washington. And he knows guys like Karl Rove. So did he meet with him or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I know of nothing that --

Q Don't put it on us to bring something specific. It's a specific question about a specific individual.

Q Can you tell us if he met with Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because we don't discuss staff-level meetings --

Q Of course you do, whenever you want to discuss staff-level meetings. And if Karl Rove, who has ties to Ralph Reed, which he does, we want to know if he has ties to Jack Abramoff, and if they met --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can answer that.

Q Oh, great. Well, before you said --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I mean, about if he knows -- yes, he knows -- he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That's how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early '80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That's what he has said.

But if you've got specific matters that I need to look into, it's my point that I think it's your obligation to bring that to my attention and I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Well, I don't --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no --

Q -- no, no, but I don't think it's our obligation to do anything. If we want to know whether there was pending business that Abramoff represented to members of the staff here at the White House, what do we need --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like that out of this White House.

Q -- some kind of an affidavit to bring you to --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like this in this White House.

Q I'm just asking. I'm not suggesting.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're insinuating. Go ahead.

How the Press Played Dumb About the K Street Project
How the Press Played Dumb About the K Street Project
Eric Boehlert
01.19.2006

One of the most depressing traits of the news media's timid performance during the Bush years has been their newfound fear of facts and the consequences of reporting them. Where Beltway journalists once eagerly corralled facts and dispensed them to the public, scribes today, like youngsters' endless checking to see if it's safe to cross the street, over-think the consequences and end up giving the Bush administration and Republicans a pass.

For instance, in the wake of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea on Jan. 3, some press outlets did their best, belatedly, to explain the crooked lobbying empire Abramoff had built with the help of Rep. Tom DeLay. And specifically, some news outlets addressed the K Street Project, the DeLay/Abramoff/Santorum/Norquist pay-to-play money machine that's playing a pivotal role in the GOP's deepening ethical morass. (Read a smart, concise description of the K Street Project here.) But even then, the media's descriptions have often been half-hearted at best. Appearing on the Don Imus radio show recently, Newsweek's Evan Thomas mentioned, "this thing called the K Street Project," as if he'd just heard about the day before over lunch at The Palm.

In truth, there's not a serious reporter in Washington, D.C. who for the last three years did not know exactly what the K Street Project was. (The GOP openly boasted about it.) The K Street Project was, hands down, the most important behind-the-scenes development in terms of how power/legislation was bought and sold inside the Beltway and represented an epic story with endless angles and repercussions. And yet for the last three years those same serious MSM reporters participated in a virtual boycott of the story, refusing to detail corruption inside the GOP. (Curious, because during the Clinton years the press couldn't stop writing about alleged Democratic funny money scandals that never actually materialized into criminal wrongdoing by prominent Dems.) Only in recent weeks, after Abramoff pleaded guilty and DeLay's grip on power loosened, have reporters felt confident enough to cross the street--to explain what the K Street Project is.

And yes, boycott really is the word that described the MSM's previous don't-ask/don't-tell policy regarding the K Street Project. It's true that on June 10 2002, the Washington Post and the New York Times both published articles detailing the creation of the K Street Project. (Again, GOP leaders were practically advertising it.) But then the cones of silence went up. Between June 10, 2002, and Jan. 3, 2006, here's how many news articles produced by the Times' D.C. bureau mentioned the K Street Project: 4. Here's how many mentioned it three or more times: 0. Between June 2002 and Jan. 3, 2006, here's how many Los Angeles Times articles mentioned the K Street Project three or more times: 0. USA Today: 0. Associated Press: 0. Miami Herald: 0. Chicago Tribune: 0. Boston Globe: 0. Newsweek: 0. Even the Washington Post, which is supposed to meticulously detail the legislative culture of D.C., published just three news articles that contained three or more references to the K Street Project.

As for television news? Here's how many references ABC News made to the K Street Project between June 2002 and Jan. 3, 2006: 1. CBS: 0. NBC: 1. MSNBC: 1. Fox News: 0. CNN: 5. CNN never aired a reported piece explaining what the K Street Project was, although CNN International did. If you do the math for that 2002-to-2006 timeframe, we're talking about thousands and thousands of hours of network and cable news programming aired with a grand total of 8 mentions of the K Street Project.

The MSM were simply afraid of the facts.

UPDATE: ABC's Jake Tapper mocks Democrats for talking about the K Street Project, which he thinks goes over the heads of most Americans: "While the brainy readers of this blog might be able to understand the terms and significance of terms such as "K Street Project," I don't see such tactics as coming close to the resonant language and communications brilliance of Team Gingrich a dozen years ago."

He might be right. Then again if reporters, producers and anchors hadn't spent the last three years consciously ignoring the K Street Project story, perhaps the phrase today might resonate a bit more.

What is The K Street Project?
The K Street Project is a project by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995, by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and House majority leader Tom DeLay.

K Street in Washington DC is where the big lobbying firms have their headquarters and is sometimes refered to as the fourth branch of government. Lobbying firms have great influence in U.S. national politics due to monetary resources and the revolving door policy of hiring former government officials. It is common practice for politicians to request money for lobbying firms for an exchange in better access to officials and to buy favoritism in policies.

Historically, K Street hires top ex-politicians from both major parties since party in power can vary between elections and among the legislative and executive branches in government.

During most of the George W. Bush administration, the Republican party had majority control of both houses of Congress, in addition to control of the White House. DeLay of the House, Rick Santorum of the Senate, and Grover Norquist took this opportunity to expand the K Street Project by pressuring major lobbying firms to hire only Republicans in any new or open positions.

But in June 2004, the Washington Post reported that the power of the K Street Project might be waning. "According to a review of job listings in Influence.biz, a lobbying newsletter, more than 40 percent of lobbyists with identifiable party backgrounds hired in the past six months have been Democrats. During the same period a year earlier, Democrats constituted only 30 percent of those hired." [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21972-2004Jul1.html)

With "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) running neck and neck with President Bush in most polls and with the outlook for the Senate a tossup, a wide range of interest groups are filling some of their lobbying and public relations openings with Democrats -- just in case the center of influence switches. 'There is some bet-hedging going on that wasn't going on a year and a half ago,' said Thomas Hale Boggs Jr. of Patton Boggs LLP, one of Washington's largest lobbying-law firms." --Washington Post, July 1, 2004 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21972-2004Jul1_3.html).

In September 2004, The Hill reported the opposite K Street hiring trend: "Retiring House Democrats are feeling a cold draft from K Street as they seek post-congressional employment at lobbying firms, trade groups and corporations. By contrast, K Street is aggressively courting GOP lawmakers who have announced their retirements, suggesting that the business community is confident the GOP will retain the Speaker's gavel in January and that business wants to fortify its Republican Rolodexes." [2] (http://thehill.com/news/091504/kstreet.aspx)

Not everyone agreed with the conclusion that "the 'K Street Project' is alive and well"; "Democrats argue that the crop of retiring lawmakers seeking employment is not broad enough to discern a pattern or divine the intentions of K Street." Retiring Republican Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, who was interviewing with 15 firms, said K Street's current GOP bias is needed to balance a long period of Democratic bias, when the Dems enjoyed House majority party status for 40 years. "K Street is still only 30 percent Republican, so there's a lot more work to do to make it even," said Dunn.[3] (http://thehill.com/news/091504/kstreet.aspx)

SourceWatch Resources
Grover Norquist
Thomas D. DeLay
Rick Santorum
Patton Boggs
Lobbying firms

External Links
Official Website: KStreetProject.com (http://www.kstreetproject.com/)

Geoff Earle, "Dems fear lobbying blacklist (http://thehill.com/news/111604/blacklist.aspx)," The Hill, November 16, 2004.

Hans Nichols, "K Street freezes out Dems (http://thehill.com/news/091504/kstreet.aspx)," The Hill, September 15, 2004.

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "Going Left on K Street: More Democrats Hired to Lobby Despite GOP Efforts to Shut Them Out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21972-2004Jul1.html)," Washington Post, July 2, 2004.

Nicholas Confessore, "Welcome to the Machine," (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html), The Washington Monthly, July/August 2003.

David Brancaccio talks to Marty Kaplan, "Pressure Afoot at K Street" (http://www.marketplace.org/play/audio.php?media=/2003/07/01_mpp&start=00:00:17:24.0&end=00:00:21:38.0) (audio), Marketplace, July 1, 2003.

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "Congress Has No Reason to Favor Either Side as Phone and Cable Companies Battle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600905.html)," Washington Post, June 27, 2005.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project"

What is this obsession with Karl Rove??? There is nothing in either of these postings that in any way implies that Rove used Abramoff to "increase the influence of Republican lobbyists in DC". There is nothing to indicate that Rove and Abramoff had any connections other than they were both heads of the College Republicans back in the 80s.

Please, lets try to keep the right-wing conspiracy theories where they belong, with the martian pregnancies and Elvis sightings....

Abramoff was key to the Republican 'K Street Project
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess4jan04,0,3655468.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Los Angeles Times
Lobbying Plan Was Central to GOP's Political Strategy
Abramoff was key to the 'K Street Project,' designed to extend the party's influence. Changes are urged to avoid 'huge black eye.'
By Janet Hook and Mary Curtius, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 4, 2006

Abramoff and Rove were hardly strangers that only knew each other in College Republican days.


http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13

Everything in this paragraph has been reported many places.

I objected to BBB's characterization that a casual Abramoff-Rove relationship could somehow be distorted to that evil boogeyman Rove pulling Abramoff's strings to "increase the influence of Republican lobbyists".

Delay's and Santorum's fingerprints are all over the K-Street Project, but Rove's are not. Even the extremely leftist rag that you quoted doesn't draw a link between Rove and the K-Street Project.

It would seem that the press can only deal with one scandal at a time. This scandal has pushed the outing of the CIA agent investigation completely out of the news media and in turn the public eye.

Thats because the CIA outing never got traction, because the story never amounted to a hill of beans from the start.

wonder how this is going to affect Santorum's PA Senate race, especially if he really was involved in the K Street Project. He already faces a lot of criticism and PA is liable to go either way (dem or rep).

Highest ranking WH official ever indicted? If this is not a story, we are all doomed.

Thats because its not true.

The highest ranking WH official ever indicted was Spiro Agnew,the VP.

Agnew was selected to be Richard M. Nixon's running mate in the 1968 Presidential election, and was viewed as a compromise figure for most Republicans. Agnew assumed office as Vice-President in 1969, but in 1973, Agnew became the subject of investigation for bribery, extortion, tax fraud, and conspiracy, on charges of having taken kickbacks from government contractors in Maryland while governor. Although he went on television on August 8, 1973, and denounced the charges as "damned lies," he resigned on October 10, 1973, agreeing not to contest the government charge of tax evasion.

Highest ranking cabinet member, big effing deal. That is a distinction without a difference.

And a senseless, meaningless, distractive obfuscation but what else should I expect?

nope,just correcting your mistake.

No you were not just correcting a mistake, you tried to negate a point by extrapolating a minor distinction into a relavant issue. The fact that he was the highest ranking
cabinet member instead of the highest ranking official ever to be indicted is entirely irrelavant to the impact of the story. You claimed it was, you are in error.