Jack Abramoff pleads guilty

[wbtfg]

Who will he bring down with him? I wonder if Conrad's name will come to the forefront.....Very Interesting.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to three felony counts in Washington on Wednesday as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues, people involved with the case said.

With Jack Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption within the Republican leadership.
Mr. Abramoff, 46, is pleading guilty to fraud, public corruption and tax evasion, setting the stage for prosecutors to begin using him as a cooperating witness against his former business and political colleagues. In exchange, Mr. Abramoff faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison in the Washington case.

After entering his guilty plea in United States District Court in Washington, Mr. Abramoff will also announce a plea agreement in a related Florida case, in which he was indicted last year. In that case, he is pleading guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with his purchase of the SunCruz casino boat line, and will face a maximum of about seven years' prison time.

Mr. Abramoff has been talking to investigators in the corruption case for many months, said participants in the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. They said he had given investigators a full picture of what evidence he could offer against other suspects.

His participation in Washington has taken place mostly below the radar, as prosecutors made the Miami case the focus of their public work and as Mr. Abramoff and his associates claimed they were preparing to stand trial, facing up to as many as 30 years in prison.

Mr. Abramoff will enter separate pleas in both locations. But the deal reached with the Justice Department is all-encompassing, reducing the severe penalties Mr. Abramoff could have faced in either investigation, in exchange for his inside knowledge of certain lobbying work and legislative actions. One element of the deal is that any he can serve prison time in the two cases concurrently, although the sentencing will not take place until much further along in the investigation.

Details of the long-sought plea agreement were not finalized until after 9 p.m. on Monday night, following weeks of around-the-clock communications between numerous prosecutors in several Justice Department offices and lawyers for Mr. Abramoff. The deal, a so-called "global" arrangement because it encompasses separate prosecutions in Florida and Washington, comes less than a week before Mr. Abramoff was scheduled to stand trial in the Miami case.

Official Washington has been on edge for months awaiting word of Mr. Abramoff's legal future. Once a masterful Republican lobbyist with close ties to the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, he earned tens of millions of dollars representing Indian casino interests and farflung entities like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Through a complicated web of financial arrangements, he helped funnel donations to his lawmaker friends' and their campaigns, and took members of Congress, mainly the Republicans in power, on lavish trips.

Now, after more than two years of investigations, prosecutors have developed a list of at least a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists whose work appears suspect and who are now at the core of the case. With Mr. Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption or bribery within the Republican leadership ranks, which in some cases they believe also took the form of campaign donations and free meals at Mr. Abramoff's downtown restaurant, Signatures.

Already, prosecutors have a key witness in Michael Scanlon, once press secretary to Mr. DeLay. Mr. Scanlon reached a plea agreement last year, putting pressure on Mr. Abramoff to reach his own deal. Now that Mr. Abramoff has done the same, one person involved in the case said: "When some people hear about this, they will clamor to cut a deal of their own."

[mslacat]

Montana Voter are a weird bunch. I think Conrad could be caught on tape with underaged sheep and he would still win with 60% of the vote.

[Grizlaw]

Montana Voter are a weird bunch. I think Conrad could be caught on tape with underaged sheep and he would still win with 60% of the vote.

That may be true, but if he's indicted for a federal felony, it probably won't matter a whole lot whether or not Montana voters care...

[bozbobcat]

I don't think Montana voters would just re-elect Burns with 60% of the vote if he gets indicted for a federal felony. He barely beat Brian Schweitzer in 2000. If this Abrahmoff thing blows up, Conrad Burns is in trouble, even more depending on who the Democrats run in 2006.

[mslacat]

I don't think Montana voters would just re-elect Burns with 60% of the vote if he gets indicted for a federal felony. He barely beat Brian Schweitzer in 2000. If this Abrahmoff thing blows up, Conrad Burns is in trouble, even more depending on who the Democrats run in 2006.

Depends how close to the election the inditement comes to the election. If it comes a couple months it will affect him negitively. If he has 6-9 months to spin it it will not effect him at all. Remember when he came out in favor of the asphestos companies during the last time he was up for election. His approval rating plumitted, until he decided to represent the citizens of Libby and Montana instead of the Asphestos companies.

For the record I do not like Conrad........ not at all, but I know their are a lot Montana voters out there who don't care what he did, but will go out their way to look for a reason to vote for him.

[Hell's Bells]

I don't think Montana voters would just re-elect Burns with 60% of the vote if he gets indicted for a federal felony. He barely beat Brian Schweitzer in 2000. If this Abrahmoff thing blows up, Conrad Burns is in trouble, even more depending on who the Democrats run in 2006.

Depends how close to the election the inditement comes to the election. If it comes a couple months it will affect him negitively. If he has 6-9 months to spin it it will not effect him at all. Remember when he came out in favor of the asphestos companies during the last time he was up for election. His approval rating plumitted, until he decided to represent the citizens of Libby and Montana instead of the Asphestos companies.

For the record I do not like Conrad........ not at all, but I know their are a lot Montana voters out there who don't care what he did, but will go out their way to look for a reason to vote for him.

not trying to weigh in on this but burns wasnt the only congressmen from mt that took money from abramhoff, look at rehberg and baucus also

btw I met burns once, i really like the guy

[wbtfg]

I don't think Montana voters would just re-elect Burns with 60% of the vote if he gets indicted for a federal felony. He barely beat Brian Schweitzer in 2000. If this Abrahmoff thing blows up, Conrad Burns is in trouble, even more depending on who the Democrats run in 2006.

Depends how close to the election the inditement comes to the election. If it comes a couple months it will affect him negitively. If he has 6-9 months to spin it it will not effect him at all. Remember when he came out in favor of the asphestos companies during the last time he was up for election. His approval rating plumitted, until he decided to represent the citizens of Libby and Montana instead of the Asphestos companies.

For the record I do not like Conrad........ not at all, but I know their are a lot Montana voters out there who don't care what he did, but will go out their way to look for a reason to vote for him.

not trying to weigh in on this but burns wasnt the only congressmen from mt that took money from abramhoff, look at rehberg and baucus also

btw I met burns once, i really like the guy

I could be wrong about this, but I believe Burns took more money from this guy than any other congressman or senator. I think Burns received about $150,000 whereas Baucus and Rehberg both received about $20k each.

[Ponycat]

I don't think Montana voters would just re-elect Burns with 60% of the vote if he gets indicted for a federal felony. He barely beat Brian Schweitzer in 2000. If this Abrahmoff thing blows up, Conrad Burns is in trouble, even more depending on who the Democrats run in 2006.

Depends how close to the election the inditement comes to the election. If it comes a couple months it will affect him negitively. If he has 6-9 months to spin it it will not effect him at all. Remember when he came out in favor of the asphestos companies during the last time he was up for election. His approval rating plumitted, until he decided to represent the citizens of Libby and Montana instead of the Asphestos companies.

For the record I do not like Conrad........ not at all, but I know their are a lot Montana voters out there who don't care what he did, but will go out their way to look for a reason to vote for him.

not trying to weigh in on this but burns wasnt the only congressmen from mt that took money from abramhoff, look at rehberg and baucus also

btw I met burns once, i really like the guy

I could be wrong about this, but I believe Burns took more money from this guy than any other congressman or senator. I think Burns received about $150,000 whereas Baucus and Rehberg both received about $20k each.

Burns, I think did take the most and the Minority leader Harry Reid is a close second.

[SonomaCat]

My understanding is that it isn't so much about accepting money, but rather changing votes based on the acceptance of money (being bribed).

So as long as these guys can prove that there wasn't a vote for contribution arrangement, they should be fine legally (although I may well be vastly oversimplifying the whole issue).

Either way, though, the Abramoff name is so tainted right now that it's certainly bad PR for anybody who accepted money, and politics is unfortunately too often based on perception that reality.

[mslacat]

Hey guys and Gals
I have been looking over some news paper article over lunch to feret out what possible (reported) involment Montana's 3 congresmen connection to Abramoff. Has anyone found an article(s) that may indicate their involvement. What I have found out is some people link Burns to money and votes. Baucus linked to money that he returned. Not a lot on Reberg, although I here he may have also accepted money. Is their a report/article/summary of "donation", "junkets" with dollar amount and /or votes. Most of what I am finding on the net is national based media and Burns get mentioned always and Baucus get a mentioned as returning money.

[GOKATS]

Burns also returned the money.


AP
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-MT
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Interior Subcommittee, which controls the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budgets.
Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records are reported to show Burns received more in donations from Abramoff and various tribes than any other member of Congress. In 2003, Burns co-signed a letter asking to have the Saginaw Chippewa tribe's eligibility for a $3 million school construction program reinstated. The tribe was one of Abramoff's clients. Burns's office has said his actions were consistent with his support for improving conditions for Indian tribes. In a statement Dec. 16, 2005, Burns said he will return about $150,000 in donations that he received from Abramoff, his clients and associates, saying, “The

[BWahlberg]

Didn't Burns and his staff also accept travel rewards and superbowl tickets too?

I'm a little green in this area, would a congressperson or senator be in trouble if they'd taken lobby money, even if they returned it? I know that the money given to Conrad and the others was most likely given through an outside source so not to raise any eyebrows, but I was just wondering. Anyone else with more knowledge on this subject know?

[BWahlberg]

I wonder if the Montana Republican Party is looking for a backup to Conrad for the upcoming election in case Burns does get in deep doo doo...

[Ponycat]

I wonder if the Montana Republican Party is looking for a backup to Conrad for the upcoming election in case Burns does get in deep doo doo...

They'd have to decide by March as that is the filing deadline.

[BWahlberg]

Puts them in a tough spot. This Abramhoff thing might help the Dems take congress back in 2006.

[Grizlaw]

The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on this today, and Burns was one of four members who was mentioned as being under investigation. Unfortunately, the online version is only available to subscribers (I have a subscription to the print version, but not to the online version), so I can't paste it or post a link, but the article is worth reading if you have access to a WSJ.

The article also mentions that Abramoff claims to have evidence that implicates over 60 members, including members of both parties. It will be interesting to see how this will shake out...

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

Who is this Abram dude, and why would anyone do that to him?


I knew Burns when he first ran. He used to frequent where I bartended. My first thought was, who in their right mind would vote for that idiot. Then he went out and won... Sinse then, I'll never be surprised of any election outcome. Billings elected Tussing (mayor) for crying out loud, and that guy comes with more baggage than Paris Hilton.

[wbtfg]

Here's a decent article from the Helena IR.

Plea agreement could be problem for Conrad Burns
By MARY CLARE JALONICK - Associated Press Writer - 01/04/06
WASHINGTON — Montana Sen. Conrad Burns on Tuesday pledged to cooperate with the Justice Department as lobbyist Jack Abramoff reached a plea deal that could implicate a number of lawmakers in an influence-peddling probe.

Burns, a Republican up for re-election this year, said he has not been contacted by federal investigators, but would ‘‘cooperate in any way possible’’ if they do reach out to him.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Abramoff won any undue influence through donations and favors to members of Congress, and the investigation is believed to involve up to 20 lawmakers and aides.

Under an agreement with federal prosecutors Tuesday, Abramoff pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, and agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department probe.

Burns recently gave away about $150,000 in donations from Abramoff and his associates after originally saying he would keep the money. In a news release Tuesday, Burns said Abramoff had ‘‘massively deceived and betrayed his clients.’’

‘‘Abramoff appears to have deliberately lied to dozens — maybe hundreds — of members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike,’’ Burns said.

Regardless of what happens, Burns aides say he has every intention of running again.

Burns’ campaign chairman, Mark Baker, said Tuesday that the campaign hopes to focus on the positive as the campaign year gets under way. But the Abramoff scandal appears to have already hurt the Republican.

A poll conducted for Lee Newspapers and released Dec. 25 showed Burns with less than 50 percent of the vote against the two frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, State Auditor John Morrison and state Senate President Jon Tester. The poll also showed 58 percent of Montana voters said they had concerns with Burns’ connection to Abramoff.

Morrison had the most impressive showing against Burns, running at 40 percent to Burns’ 46 percent.

Both Democrats have remained relatively quiet so far as the state Democratic party has pressured Burns on the Abramoff issue. With a primary in June, the two are expected to be more visible in coming months.

Tester said Tuesday that it is ‘‘unfortunate that we’ve come to this point’’ with Abramoff, though he declined, as did Morrison, to speculate whether Burns did anything wrong.

An Associated Press review found that in 2001, Burns and his staff met Abramoff’s lobbying team and collected thousands of dollars in donations around the time that Burns took legislative action favorable to Abramoff’s clients in the Northern Mariana Islands. Burns also helped arrange congressional funding for an Indian school building program sought by Abramoff’s tribal clients.

Some of Burns’ staffers also had connections to Abramoff. His former chief of staff, Will Brooke, left Burns’ office to work for the lobbyist’s firm after taking a trip to the 2001 Super Bowl in Abramoff’s jet.

Another staffer, Shawn Vasell, worked with Abramoff at the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm of Greenberg Traurig until 2002, when he quit to be Burns’ statewide director in Billings.

[SonomaCat]

I think the part that the article leaves out is that those votes would have gone that way regardless of the cash, so they are just casting a dark cloud over Burns without digging into whether any real wrong doing was done.

[HelenaCat95]

I think the part that the article leaves out is that those votes would have gone that way regardless of the cash, so they are just casting a dark cloud over Burns without digging into whether any real wrong doing was done.

Very good point.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I believe Abramoff has committed some serious ethical and legal violations....and for that he should be severely punished. In my mind, one of the more eggregious "sins" that he has committed is contributing to cynics view of politics and politicians, and thus he has contributed to the tarnishing of reputations of some very good people, and our great democracy.

I have personally known many, many people involved in our legislative process (both at the federal and state level...with most of my relationships at the state level), and I can say that in my mind, 99.9% of the people I know get involved because they just want to make their lives, their childrens lives, and their communities lives better. Jack Abramoff has made it easier for the uninformed to say that "all politicians are evil", and made it tougher to prove that viewpoint wrong.

Let me address the issue of money in politics. I am only referring to the donations that are alleged. I am not talking about trips/sporting events/dinners/etc.

Now to my point. Remember, that most elections are won and lost through effective media campaigns. In order to be effective, they have to be the right message, and there has to be enough media/airtime. You need money to develop well-written, and well-produced media, and you need even more money to buy the air time in order to conduct your media campaign.

Unless you are independently wealthy, like a Steve Forbes or even John Kerry (to a certain extent), there is no way that an average middle class, or even mildly wealthy candidate can self-finance their own campaign and still keep their own financial stability. In fact one would have to question anyone who is willing to spend millions of their own dollars in order to have a 50/50 shot to get an approximately $150K/year job.

Thus, a candidate needs to reach out to supporters and convince them to donate. In most if not all cases, a candidate reaches out to those who are already ideologically aligned with them. The donor believing that most of the time, the candidate if elected will vote the way that the donor believes - not because he donated, but because they believe the same things in the first place.

Let me use an example to illustrate my point in the above paragraph. When it is time for MSU to expand facilities, or support the Athletic program, they don't usually solicit Grizzly fans - they come to us, because there is a tie already, we already believe in what the University and/or Athletic Department is trying to do, and we are more likely to give. I have received many solicitations for money to MSU, but never received one from UM. The same holds true for Republicans and Democrats. It is foolish for them to solicit money from those that they know don't at least lean their way ideologically. And from a political donors perspective, it is even more foolish to contribute to a candidate/elected official with whom you never agree (why would you want them to continue to serve?).

The question here is whether the money led to a vote being switched, or was the money given to help keep someone in office who was already inclined to vote to support those issues in the first place - and I don't think this question has yet been answered. The other question, is whether unlawful/unethical/illegal gifts of trips/tickets/dinners/etc ever took place between Abramoff, and any Congressmen or their staffs - a discussion that I am not addressing in this post.

Now let me touch on something that is not my main point, but one I want to raise anyway. Given the premise outlined above that one needs money in order to run successful campaigns (by the way, I don't believe public financing is a good idea either, but that is a topic for another thread), this premise holds true not just for the candidate/elected official who received the donation, but for all those seeking elected office. One of the things that Abramoff is accused of doing, is giving money to a Political Action Committee supported by Sen. Burns, and also I believe to a separate one supported by Sen. Baucus. Once again, I don't believe that there was any breach in actually giving the money, unless there was a quid pro quo. What do Senator Burns and Senator Baucus do with the money that is in their Political Action Committee? They gives it to other candidates, who have the same financial needs in order to win an election. If these candidates win, who are they going to thank, and who are they going to have relationships with when they get to DC? Senator Burns or Senator Baucus. And who do Senator Burns and Sen. Baucus represent? Montana. The more influence Senator Burns, Senator Baucus and Represenative Rehberg have in DC, the more opportunities Montana has to succeed in the Federal legislative process. You can argue about how they use that influence, but having influence is better than not having it. And right now Montana is fortunate to have two very influential Senators, and one very influential Congressman.

I don't usually weigh in on these topics, so if you've made it this far through this long rambling post, thank you for indulging me.