The Republicans say liberals are “criminalizing

conservatives.” There is no doubt Abramoff is both a conservative and a criminal. Now his “victims” cry they were duped — what’s that

about “the party of personal responsibility”? Reminds me of Krusty the Klown crying that he didn’t want to lend his name to cheap

products but “they dumped a truck full of money in my driveway. What was I supposed to do?!” mjh

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Lawmakers

pressured Interior while taking donations from Abramoff tribes By John Solomon, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — While

Congress investigated Jack Abramoff’s efforts to win influence inside government, its members held a secret: Nearly three dozen

lawmakers pressed to block a Louisiana Indian casino while collecting large donations from the lobbyist and his tribal clients.

Many, including leaders in both parties, intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton within days of receiving money

from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist’s restaurant for fundraising, an Associated Press review of campaign reports,

IRS records and congressional correspondence found.

Lawmakers said their intervention had nothing to do with Abramoff and that

the timing of donations was a coincidence. They said they wrote letters because they opposed the expansion of tribal gaming,

even though they continued to accept donations from casino-running tribes.

Many of the lawmakers involved lived far from

Louisiana and had no constituent interest in the casino dispute.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., held a fundraiser

at Abramoff’s Signatures restaurant in Washington on June 3, 2003, that collected at least $21,500 for Hastert’s Keep Our Majority

political action committee from the lobbyist’s firm and tribal clients.

Seven days later, Hastert wrote Norton urging her to

reject the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians’ request for a new casino. Hastert’s three top House deputies also signed the letter. …

In the midst of the congressional letter-writing campaign, the Bush administration rejected the Jena’s casino on technical

grounds. …

The Coushattas wrote two checks to Rep. Tom DeLay’s groups in 2001 and 2002, shortly before the GOP leader

wrote Norton. But the tribe was asked by Abramoff to take back the checks and route the money to other GOP groups. In

all, DeLay received at least $57,000 in Abramoff and tribal donations between 2001 and 2004. [mjh: this is known as

“money laundering”]
—–

Big

Donations From Abramoff’s Tribal Clients Probed – Los Angeles Times By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The

head of a Republican environmental organization clashed repeatedly today with senators who accused her of trying to use her friendship

with an Interior Department official to further the business interests of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients.

Italia

Federici, president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, told an incredulous Senate Indian Affairs

Committee that she believed Abramoff’s tribal clients donated $500,000 over a three-year period to her organization

because they were generous, not because they hoped she would help them thwart the efforts of competing tribes to open

casinos. …

Echoing other Abramoff associates who have testified before the committee in hearings that began more than a year

ago, Federici insisted that she had been duped by the lobbyist.

“I had no reason in 2002 to believe that Mr. Abramoff was anything

other than a truthful, friendly, charismatic, well-liked and well-respected Republican advocate in Washington,” Federici

said.

When she found out that Abramoff had funded the anti-casino campaign, Federici said, “I felt tremendously manipulated.”

—–

Committee on Indian Affairs

Exhibits

released to the public as part of the Oversight Hearing on Lobbying Practices.

Yet another in a series of abusers of power and access. They’re starting to fall from the trees

like rotten fruit. mjh

A Detour in The Corridor Of Power By Thomas B. Edsall, Washington Post Staff

Writer

Indictment Snaps Rapid Rise of Republican Star

Before he was indicted on five felony counts of lying to

investigators, David H. Safavian was positioned to break out of the pack of Republican operatives working in Washington.

Just 38, he was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the president’s Office of Management and Budget, with the

authority to make the rules governing $300 billion in annual expenditures, including those in response to Hurricane Katrina.

But

that was before federal agents appeared at his home on Sept. 19 and arrested Safavian in connection with the investigation of

Jack Abramoff, charging that Safavian lied about his dealings with the onetime powerhouse lobbyist and misled investigators from

the General Services Administration and the Senate.

Knowing the indictment was imminent, Safavian had resigned his post three days

earlier….

Safavian set out a decade ago to win the backing of influential conservative Republicans such as Abramoff and anti-tax

crusader Grover Norquist. In the intense competition for power in Washington, Safavian climbed the political ladder in the relatively

short span of 10 years. …

On Sept 28, 2004, The Washington Post disclosed that in August 2002, Safavian, who was then at the

GSA, had gone on a golfing trip to Scotland arranged by Abramoff. House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and

lobbyist and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed were also on the trip.

Safavian told GSA officials when he took the trip

that he had no business dealings with Abramoff. The federal affidavit filed when Safavian was arrested says Abramoff had asked Safavian

about acquiring property controlled by the GSA, butSafavian’s lawyer contends the inquiries did not constitute “doing business,” and

said Safavian paid his share of the $120,000-plus trip by giving Abramoff a check for $3,100.

Moderates Unhappy but Sticking With GOP for Now By Claudia Deane and Chris

Cillizza

One potential wedge is the role of conservative religious groups in determining the party’s agenda. In the most recent

Post-ABC News poll, 44 percent of GOP moderates said that conservative religious groups have “too much influence” in the Bush

administration, compared with 17 percent who thought those groups didn’t hold enough sway [mjh: how can one be a

moderate and think that?]. About a third saw religious conservatives as appropriately influential. …

The poll offered a

couple of consolations for the Republican leadership: First, conservatives in their party still outnumber moderates (55 to 39

percent in the most recent survey). Second, few moderates currently see the Democrats as an appealing alternative. Asked which

party they would support if the midterm elections were being held now, 13 percent of Republican moderates chose the Democrats, and 80

percent stuck with the GOP.

The

Political Center Makes a Comeback By David S. Broder

In Congress and in constituencies across the country, last week

demonstrated a powerful and welcome trend: After a long eclipse, the people in the political center, the moderates, have regained

their voice and are reasserting themselves. [mjh: yeah, all 39% of them] …

Now that public mood — which was amply

demonstrated in last Tuesday’s off-year voting — has stiffened spines in the Capitol. On Thursday at least 22 House Republican

moderates balked at cutting programs for low-income people and at opening portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil

drilling. They forced the leadership of their party to pull a budget bill endorsed by the president and containing those provisions.

It was the second successful rebellion by the long-scorned Main Street Coalition [mjh: aka RINOs to their disdainful cohort], which also nudged the Bush administration to reverse itself

on encouraging pay at less than prevailing local wages for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

This is the FBI, not the CIA. But now that those

troublesome walls between departments have been removed for efficiency, are their also secret FBI prisons? mjh

Checking FBI Spying

IN THE PAST FEW weeks there have been

two significant disclosures concerning the rules that govern domestic spying, just as the House and the Senate are preparing to reconcile

versions of a bill to reauthorize key provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

The first was a release by the FBI of internal reports

documenting violations of the rules of domestic surveillance in national security cases.

The second was a story by Post staff

writer Barton Gellman revealing that the number of “national security letters” — a kind of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to

obtain normally private records — has exploded since the passage of the Patriot Act and now reaches 30,000 per year.

These

reports open a timely window onto the question that animates the debate over the Patriot Act: How responsibly is the government

using its spying powers? Though they don’t provide a complete answer, the new disclosures are troubling. …

… at least 13 cases between 2002 and 2004 of violations serious enough that the FBI itself determined they must be reported to

an executive branch agency called the Intelligence Oversight Board. Moreover, the case numbers on the released documents suggest that

there were hundreds of potential violations examined by the bureau during that period. This is cause for concern.

Rising Support Cited for

Limits On Patriot Act By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer

Congress edged closer yesterday to limiting some of the

sweeping surveillance and search powers it granted to the federal government under the USA Patriot Act in 2001, including a provision

that would allow judicial oversight of a central tool of the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts, according to Senate and House aides.

Much Ado About Tuesday

Scott McClellan went to great pains to try

to prevent Voice of America reporter Paula Wolfson from reading aloud from this section of the U.S. criminal code.

US CODE: Title 18,1001. Statements or entries

generally

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,

legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or

covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or

representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or

fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.