Listen closely as BushCo tries to paint the Abramoff Scandal as bipartisan. Abramoff was created by

Tom DeLay’s goal to freeze-out Democrats on K-Street — to refuse to meet anyone who gave to both parties and to demand that only

Republican’s benefit from the bribes.

Key point: Abramoff was a major fund-raiser for Duhbya. LOTS more than $6,000. mjh

Bush to give up $6,000 in Abramoff gifts
President Bush plans to donate $6,000 in campaign contributions

from one-time lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the American Heart Association.

Abramoff was a Bush-Cheney Pioneer, someone who raised

more than $100,000 for the Republican presidential ticket. But The Washington Post said that the president will give up only money

donated directly by Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he lobbied for.

U.S. Newswire : Releases : “Dean: White House Must Tell the Truth About

Abramoff Ties”

One day after former Republican mega-lobbyist and major Bush fundraiser Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three

federal crimes, the White House gave back merely $6,000 in donations made by Abramoff to the President’s re-election campaign, but kept

the more than $100,000 that Abramoff personally and directly raised for Bush-Cheney ’04. Given what we now know, Abramoff’s shady

business practices and influence peddling calls into question what meetings he set up or organized for his clients with Administration

officials.

Based on news reports alone, it’s clear Abramoff’s network reached deep into the White House and was used to reap

significant fees from his clients. Specifically, Abramoff charged multi-million dollar fees to arrange meetings with Bush as well as

access to senior White House officials for his clients. …

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on the Bush

White House to come clean regarding the extent of the contact between Abramoff and senior White House officials:

“As a

Bush Pioneer, Abramoff bragged about the influence he held at the White House, as did his former lobbying partner who claimed

that Abramoff had direct access to the President. Abramoff also arranged meetings with the President and members of the Bush

Administration for his clients, who later received favorable treatment.

“Until he was charged with committing three federal

crimes, Abramoff used his Republican contacts, including his ties to the White House, to create an extensive pay-to-play system where

political money was exchanged for policy outcomes. To begin to clear the growing ethical cloud over the White House, President Bush must

disclose his Administration’s contacts and detail their relationship with this admitted felon. The American people deserve the truth.”

…

Abramoff Was A Republican Insider And Who Had Strong Pull With Bush White House. Abramoff’s lobbying partner boasted that he

is a phone call away from the President. “Jack has a relationship with the President,” Abramoff’s former spokesman and fellow lobbyist

Michael Scanlon once said. “He doesn’t have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one.” Scanlon has

since pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials. (New Times Broward-Palm Beach, 2/22/01; Washington

Post, 11/29/05)

Case

Bringing New Scrutiny To a System and a Profession By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Dan Balz

Jack Abramoff represented the most

flamboyant and extreme example of a brand of influence trading that flourished after the Republican takeover of the House of

Representatives 11 years ago. Now, some GOP strategists fear that the fallout from his case could affect the party’s efforts to keep

control in the November midterm elections.

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project,

which was initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP vaulted to power. It was an

aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an

almost seamless relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

Now Abramoff has become

a symbol of a system out of control. …

With an eye on November’s elections, Republicans have sought to limit the damage to

themselves by portraying the scandal as bipartisan, describing Abramoff as an equal-opportunity dispenser of campaign cash and largess.

So far, the public has not identified corruption as solely a Republican problem. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November

asked Americans whether they thought Democrats or Republicans were better on ethical matters; 16 percent said Democrats, 12 percent said

Republicans, and 71 percent said there was not much difference between the parties.

But Republicans worry about two possibilities.

The first is that Abramoff, known for his close ties to DeLay, mostly implicates Republicans as a result of his plea agreement. That

could shift public attitudes sharply against the GOP. “People are uneasy about what else is out there,” said one GOP strategist who

requested anonymity to speak more candidly about the possible political fallout.

GOP Leaders Seek Distance From Abramoff
By Jonathan Weisman

With … the highest echelons of the Republican Party increasingly vulnerable to charges, GOP leaders moved yesterday to distance

themselves from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prepare to combat a growing corruption scandal. …

Republican strategists

expressed some relief that the damage could be limited. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said

that if Abramoff’s revelations ensnare only one lawmaker and some unknown staff members, Democrats will have little chance of sparking a

political revolt when voters go to the polls in November to elect a new Congress.

Bush Assails Democrats Over Patriot ActBy Jim VandeHei

President Bush accused Democrats yesterday of blocking a full reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act for political reasons, as the

White House stepped up an aggressive campaign to defend the president’s terrorism-fighting authority.

“For partisan reasons, in

my mind, people have not stepped up,” Bush told reporters, with 19 federal prosecutors by his side. “The enemy has not gone away;

they’re still there, and I expect Congress to understand that we’re still at war and they’ve got to give us the tools necessary to win

this war.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, speaking to reporters earlier in the day, said Senate Democrats are simply doing

the bidding of liberal special interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the broad surveillance power

authorized by the act. Democrats are trying to “appease” the ACLU “because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act,” McClellan

said. …

Adopting campaign-style tactics, Bush and his aides plan to accuse Democrats of jeopardizing national security to

further their political agenda, a tack that worked well for the White House in the 2002 and 2004 elections. But the political environment

is different now, with Bush less popular and Democrats better organized in opposition.

Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before Authorization By

Dafna Linzer

Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants,

such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews

with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.

Safire is more a libertarian conservative than a

Neocon-artist. Note how he speaks from experience — being told to leak a story and being spied on because of that “leak.” Don’t

overlook his point that Duhbya has “made out to believe” some misleading statements — that’s Duhbya’s way with everything. “Mislead”

— you mean lie? mjh

Transcript for

January 1 – Meet the Press, online at MSNBC – MSNBC.com

MR. SAFIRE: OK. I have a thing about wiretapping. …

I was

writing a speech on welfare reform, and the president [mjh: Raygun?] looks at it and says, “OK, I’ll go with

it, but this is not going to get covered. Leak it as far an wide as you can beforehand. Maybe we’ll get something in

the paper.”

And so I go back to my office and I get a call from a reporter, and he wants to know about foreign affairs or

something, and I said, “Hey, you want a leak? I’ll tell you what the president will say tomorrow about welfare reform.”

And he took it down and wrote a little story about it.

But the FBI was illegally tapping his phone at the time, and so

they hear a White House speechwriter say, “Hey, you want a leak?” And so they tapped my phone, and for six

months, every home phone call I got was tapped. I didn’t like that. And when it finally broke–it did me a lot of good at the time,

frankly, because then I was on the right side–but it told me how easy it was to just take somebody who is not really suspected

of anything for any good reason and listen to every conversation in his home–you know, my wife talking to her doctor, my–

everything.

So I have this thing about personal privacy. And I think what’s happening now is that the–as a result of that

scandal back in the ’70s, we got this electronic eavesdropping act stopping it, or requiring the president to go before this court. Now,

this court’s a rubber-stamp court, let’s face it. They give five noes and 20,000 yeses.

MR. RUSSERT: The Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act, FISA.

MR. SAFIRE: Right. But the very fact that the FBI has to do a little paperwork beforehand slows

them down and makes them think for a minute. It doesn’t slow them down as much as the president has made out to

believe ….

[T]hat’s why I offended a lot of my conservative and hard-line friends right after September 11th when

they started putting these captured combatants in jail, and said the president can’t seize dictatorial power. And a lot of my friends

looked at me like I was going batty. But now we see this argument over excessive security, and I’m with the critics on

that.