Sen. Burns (R-MT) tied more deeply into the Marianas/Sweatshop/bribery nexus.
--Josh Marshall
Everything you ever wanted to know about the Iranian nuclear program but were afraid to ask?
Iran and its nuclear program are going to be a big issue this year. So it makes sense to know something about it. Clearly, the Iranians are engaged in a major nuclear research program. Is it for weapons? If it is, how close are they to producing them?
(Contrary to the impression you'd get from reading a number of your more antic columnists, the US intelligence community believes that the Iranians are roughly a decade away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Charles Krauthammer says it's just a matter of months. You decide who to believe.)
So next week, from Monday through Thursday, we're going to have two arms control experts, Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association and Dr. Jeffrey Lewis of Armscontrolwonk.com. They'll be blogging about the technical capacity of the Iranian nuclear effort, what it's for, whether it's any near to produce a nuclear weapon and other related topics.
They also want to answer your questions. So we've set up a thread over at TPMCafe where you can pose questions for them to answer next week.
--Josh Marshall
Just a question.
Back in 1988, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) launched his jihad against House Speaker Jim Wright over his infamous book deal -- an arrangement which, while by no means kosher, seems almost quaint by today's standards.
Wright was eventually forced to resign the speakership in May of 1989.
Did Gingrich base his crusade on pushing for tighter rules on book deals?
Can we learn something from this?
--Josh Marshall
More fishy money coming in to Jack Abramoff.
This time it's $1.4 million from an oddly named outfit in Hong Kong called "Rose Garden Holdings." Only there don't seem to be any records in Hong Kong that such a company does or has ever existed.
That may be why, as the Hong Kong Standard reports, DOJ investigators recently showed up in Hong Kong to look into the company and whatever funny money business Abramoff was conducting over there.
Check out the article. It even references some of the Abramoff emails we've published here on TPM.
--Josh Marshall
Ney won't go quietly?
TPM Reader NN sent us a link to this article in the Cincinnati Enquirer about Ohio Republican Chairman Bob Bennett and the sounds he's starting to make that Rep. Ney should step down because of the ethical cloud surrounding him.
Says Ney: "I would say if he asked me to step down that he'd better look in the mirror because glass houses break easily."
--Josh Marshall
Says cheese, indeed.
Washingtonian is reporting that there are at least five photographs of President Bush and Jack Abramoff hanging out spending quality time. Not grainy, weirdly cropped photos that look like something out of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy book, but real photos of the two friends back in the good old days.
Washingtonian adds: "Sources say the photographs are being kept safe. Abramoff would tell prosecutors, if asked, that not only did he know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoff’s children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins."
--Josh Marshall
Texas prosecutors are digging into the connections between Rep. Tom DeLay and Cunningham-briber Brent Wilkes. This could get interesting.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. John Boehner wins ... the race for most ex-staffers racking in the bucks on K Street. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting.
Kane County, Illinois, the largest county in Speaker Denny Hastert's 14th congressional district, is another local government that can't get its voice heard in our nation's capital.
Last year, County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay, a close Hastert ally, signed up lobbyist David S. Thompson at $138,000 a year plus expenses to lobby the federal government on Kane County's behalf.
Thompson was a "longtime aide" to Denny Hastert. He worked for the speaker from 1993 until heading over to K Street in 2002.
--Josh Marshall
Oh tough to quit the habit, ain't it?
From the Billings Gazette: "With ethics becoming an ever hotter campaign issue, Sen. Conrad Burns on Thursday scrapped plans to hold a fundraiser next week at the headquarters of a major lobbying firm here and instead will hold it at the GOP senatorial campaign headquarters."
--Josh Marshall
Great Moments in Abramoff-Ain't-Such-A-Big-Deal Spin.
Honorable Mention for Ed Rogers, GOP lobbyist, from last night's Hardball (emphasis added): ". Look, this is going to come out. Nobody is going to keep it a secret. Jack Abramoff is so radioactive—I've got Jack Abramoff fatigue already. I mean, good grief, he didn't kill anybody. Maybe that one guy in Florida."
Gotta love that.
--Josh Marshall
In the bizarre AP piece I referenced below there's this surreal passage ...
The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.With the midterm elections 10 months away, Democrats have tried to link Abramoff to Republicans, the main recipients of his largesse.
At least half a dozen members of both parties.
That's quite a line. We're just on the outer edge of this investigation. And I'm certainly not willing to claim or predict that no Democrat, either in or out of Congress, will be taken down.
But to the best of my knowledge no credible claim has been made that any Democrat is even under investigation in the Abramoff scandal, let alone facing potential indictment. At least half a dozen Republicans have been so named in press reports, with varying degrees of specificity. The sentence is a plain statement of misinformation posing as news reportage.
Then comes the next line -- that Democrats are trying to link Abramoff with Republicans. This is like when Republicans tried to link James Carville to Democrats. Link him to Republicans? He's been a professional Republican and major GOP power-player for a quarter-century.
All the factual claims noted here in this article appear to be willful distortions, or statements with omissions so great as to be meant to confuse.
How can the public know what's happening in their government when the reporters of the news seem so bent on misleading them?
--Josh Marshall
Can someone explain this to me?
Sen. Reid's office put out a report entitled "Republican Abuse of Power." It singled out 33 Republican senators for various ethical lapses and transgressions.
Republicans are treating this as some sort of outrage. And they actually got Reid to apologize for it. "The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets."
This AP article that I'm quoting from then includes various tsk-tsking quotes from Republicans like Ken Mehlman criticizing Reid for having the temerity to call the Abramoff scandal a Republican scandal.
What was Reid thinking exactly?
The article suggests without quite saying so that the root of the outrage is that the report went out on Senate letterhead.
Are the Democrats serious about running against the systemic betrayals of the public trust under the current congressional majorities? Or is it all just a joke and just politics? If it's the latter, what is Reid apologizing for? If there is something substantively wrong in the claims made in the document, that's another matter. But the article makes no suggestion of that. The idea simply seems to be that it's poor form.
You apologize if it's just trash talk for public consumption. If it's a serious argument about the degradation of Congress under Republican rule, you don't. The latter would be a difficult argument to make if you don't actually believe it.
--Josh Marshall
New political blog from Mark Green, former New York City Public Advocate, now running for state AG.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, several of you have mentioned this. So, okay, I'll bite.
Below we noted that in a recent speech Michael Brown, ex-FEMA Chief and professional failure, now says that he too is responsible for what a fiasco the response to hurricane Katrina turned out to be.
But in the article, it notes that Brown made these remarks at "a gathering of broadcast and National Weather Service meteorologists at a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada." And as several of you ask, why is this fool addressing a conference of meteorologists?
Well, as we noted back in November, Brown went from getting canned at FEMA to setting up his own disaster preparedness consulting firm. And it seems he's not short of work. A little poking around the web revealed that we're in the midst of Operation Sierra Storm 2006 (Jan. 17-20th), "a cutting-edge meteorological conference and seminar that combines on-going education, newsworthy speakers and topics, networking opportunities, and broadcast options."
This year Michael Brown is the keynote speaker.
--Josh Marshall
My capacity to be shocked at these folks is pretty strained at this point. But I'd be shocked by this one. Rep. Louise Slaughter is saying that DeLay and Frist had staffers day-trading out of their offices, working on inside info from lobbyists and legislators. I can't wait to see if there's meat on this bone.
--Josh Marshall
No voice in Washington?
Paul Kiel and I are digging into this story I noted earlier about how the State of Texas (specifically, the governor, House Speaker and lt. governor) hired one of Tom DeLay's former Chiefs of Staff to be its lobbyist in Washington for a pretty nice chunk of money. That was in early 2003.
Before that, Texas had never had a private sector lobbyist to advocate for the state's interests in Washington.
Now, we're looking into the details of this now. And we'll report back on what we find.
But the spring of 2003 seems like a really odd time to do this. You'll note that the constitution provides Texas with two senators. They'd just seated another, John Cornyn, a few months earlier. And the new Majority Leader in the House, Tom DeLay, was a Texan too. He'd succeeded another Texas as Majority Leader, Dick Armey. And of course the president happens to be a former governor of Texas.
Why did Texas need to reach out of the private sector to gets its voice heard in DC precisely?
--Josh Marshall
Dem senators ask the president to stop stonewalling on the details of meetings and favors to Jack Abramoff. Today they sent the following letter to cabinet officials and other high-level administration officials ...
On Tuesday, we sent a letter to President Bush asking that he and officials within his Administration detail whatever contact they might have had with Jack Abramoff. Scott McClellan announced that the White House would not provide this information, despite earlier assurances. Therefore, we have no choice but to ask you these questions directly.As we are sure you are aware, the Justice Department is currently investigating the web of corruption surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Even at this early stage of the investigation, concerns have been raised that Mr. Abramoff may have had undue and improper influence within the highest levels of the Bush Administration and even the White House itself. Such accusations serve to undermine the credibility of this Administration and our government at large -- even before any indictments or convictions. As a result, it is crucial that the American people know what role, if any, Mr. Abramoff played in the highest levels of our government.
As more and more Republican officials in and out of Congress are implicated in this scandal, it has become increasingly important that the record be cleared and that any contact you or others in the Administration have had with Mr. Abramoff be fully explained to the American people. For this reason, we urge you to publicly and immediately detail all of your personal contacts with Mr. Abramoff during your time with the Bush Administration. If you know of others in the Administration who have had such contacts, please disclose those contacts as well. Please also detail any official acts that have been undertaken on behalf of or at the request of Mr. Abramoff. Perhaps there are no contacts to reveal, no favors that have been given. We hope that is the case. But it is important to set the record straight, one way or the other.
Additionally, we believe is it imperative that you reveal any involvement in the “K Street Project,” the initiative launched in recent years by Republicans close to this Administration who have worked hard to increase the ties between lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and Republican elected officials.
We urge you to respond to this letter and help shed some light on what has happened between Mr. Abramoff and this Administration. We look forward to your response.
The letter is signed by Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Stabenow.
--Josh Marshall
So did that taxpayer-funded lobbying contract that went to the DeLay soldiers down in Texas really get put out to competitive bidding as Gov. Rick Perry's spokesperson claimed?
A TPM Reader gives us some info to follow up on ...
I saw your note regarding the hiring of lobbyists in Texas. If in fact the contracts were awarded by competitive bidding, a notice of the contract and the process to submit bids would have either been published in the Texas Register or would have been posted on the Governor's web site. Also, the information regarding the bid process would be an open record that could be obtained under Texas law (Section 552.022(a)(3) provides that "information in an account, voucher, or contract relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds or taxes by a governmental body" is a public record. "Governmental body" includes an office that is within the executive branch, which would include the office of the Governor in Texas. There are about 50 exceptions to providing information under Chapter 552, but none appear to apply to this type of contract.
Sounds like something worth looking into.
--Josh Marshall
A leader of the K Street Project before it wasn't cool. Here's another Roll Call article from 2001 in which Sen. Santorum and his friends brag on what a player he is running the K Street Project.
--Josh Marshall
More of the pattern.
Before 2003, the State of Texas had never hired a private sector lobbyist to advocate its interests in Washington, DC. That year Gov. Rick Perry (R) hired Drew Maloney, a former Chief of Staff for Tom DeLay, on a contract that has since paid him $180,000 in state funds.
According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, prior to being hired, Maloney had made no more than $250 in political campaign contributions.
Since being hired he's contributed $75,000 to various Republican political committees.
Last year the state added former Abramoff associate Todd Boulanger to their lobbying stable. The Maloney and Boulanger contracts will cost the state $1.1 million through August of next year.
Texas Dems say it's money-laundering. What do you call it?
Now the three state Republicans responsible for the hires are arguing about whose idea it all was.
The national lobby office contracts are approved by Perry, House Speaker Tom Craddick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. But Craddick and Dewhurst said the hiring of lobbyists was Perry's choice, and Craddick said he opposes hiring outside lobbyists."I never approved of these contracts, I did not recommend these lobbyist groups, and I have publicly stated that I am against this decision," Craddick said. "The board on which I serve is explicitly an advisory board and the power to make those decisions ultimately rests in the hands of the governor."
Craddick on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Perry on Nov. 3, 2005, opposing extending contracts for Maloney and Boulanger's firms.
"In 2003, the Legislature agreed to cut funds for (the state-federal relations office) due to excess funding. However, there was never any intention to replace those cuts with spending on lobbyists," Craddick said.
In the letter, Craddick told Perry the power to hire the outside lobbyists "ultimately rests in your hands."
[Perry spokeswoman Rachel] Novier said the hiring of both Maloney and Boulanger was done through competitive bidding. She said state funding for the national lobby office has decreased by 15 percent since it began hiring outside lobbyists, but the flow of federal funds into Texas has increased by billions of dollars.
Competitive bidding. You just can't make this stuff up.
--Josh Marshall
For the last few weeks, I've been thinking back to something that happened back in the 2000 election cycle. The DCCC, then under the leadership of Rep. Patrick Kennedy filed a federal lawsuit against Tom DeLay, several of his allied committees and associates alleging racketeering and systematic extortion.
At the time, from my memory, the whole effort was more or less laughed off the political stage. The conventional wisdom was that, yes, DeLay played hardball but that he was nothing if not careful when it came to not crossing the bright legal lines.
Here's the introduction from the press conference Kennedy and DCCC legal counsel Bob Bauer held on May 3rd, 2000. Any of this sound familiar? Give it a read.
REP. KENNEDY: Good afternoon. Fifteen minutes ago, the DCCC filed an action in federal district court aimed at ending the massive illegal conduct by the House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay, in the raising and spending of millions of dollars for his political purposes. Mr. DeLay is, unfortunately, conducting these activities under the color of his office as he seeks, through the use of systematic -- systematic extortion to coerce the contributions of millions of dollars to Republicans and at the same time to intimidate those inclined to support Democrats.Mr. DeLay is conducting these activities without public or legal accountability by raising and spending these monies through organizations he substantially or completely controls or directs -- organizations which refuse to publicly account for their finances. Mr. DeLay hopes to carry out this scheme without public knowledge.
We cannot tolerate this conduct any longer. This legal action intends to put an end to it. Federal law provides the remedy through the anti-racketeering statute known as Civil RICO. It is specifically directed at certain types of illegal conduct such as the extortion and money laundering which constitutes the thrust of our case against Mr. DeLay and his organizations. The law provides, and we are seeking, an injunction against any further illegal conduct of this kind, as well as damages for this conduct over the past few years.
No one in this room can be surprised at the claims we're making in this suit. Tom DeLay proudly bears his nickname, "The Hammer"; has boasted about the illicit pressures that he exerts on potential contributors and the threats against those he deems unfriendly.
This, after all, is the Tom DeLay who, quote, "required lobbyists visiting congressional offices to review a book which rated their PAC as neutral, friendly, or unfriendly and then to add their initials so that they had reviewed their own organization's rating before they meet the majority whip"; threatened members of the business roundtable with an unfavorable legislative action if its members did not increase their support for Republicans or decrease their support for Democrats; threatened unfavorable action on legislation important to a major trade association if that association proceeded with plans to endorse or support the Democratic candidate in a congressional special election. These are just some of the examples. There are many others. And our action, which we'll pursue vigorously, will bring even more to light.
There is a web of organizations established by associates of Mr. DeLay and run under his direction and substantial influence that operate without public disclosure or accountability. This web of organizations is used to conceal the nature and the source of this illegal political money operation, and it includes the Republican Majority Issues Conference, Americans for Economic Growth, and the U.S. Family Network. These organizations are seeking to evade the light of day, to conceal the source of their funds, their donors, and their expenditures as well as basic operations. Our suit will let the light back in.
Now, whenever one party sounds the alarm of illegal conduct by another, particularly where money's involved, it's easy and all too typical for observers to just shrug and say, "Well, everybody does it." In this case, everybody does not do it. Never before has a senior congressional and party leader devised a scheme like this, hammering contributors for money, threatening to punish those who decline, and setting up a shadow party organization outside public view and outside our laws in order to make it possible. We have taken our case to federal court under federal law to assure that Mr. DeLay and his associates compete openly, fairly and credibly within the rules that we all have to abide by.
Thank you.
And now I'd like to introduce Bob Bauer, who is legal counsel for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to take us through this claim so that you can understand it in more detail. Bob.
MR. BAUER: Let me first of all add a little bit more detail about the filing of the suit. The suit was filed around noon today, and it has already been assigned to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and will be heard in the ordinary course, as these matters are addressed, under the federal court system. Let me also walk through the factual background leading to the decision to prepare and file this suit.
As you know, in the last several months we have seen increasing evidence developed by independent reporting of the way in which Tom DeLay and his associates have proceeded to build a shadow political party organization. They've done so in two ways: by the most extraordinarily extortionate fundraising methods we have seen, certainly in my time in Washington and the time of anyone I've spoken with; and then the use of these proceeds to attempt to influence federal elections by washing them through unregistered organizations which do not report the source of their funds or the way in which they are being spent.
This is known as DeLay, Inc. And as you can see, and as independent reporting has established increasingly over the last several months, it is a very, in some sense, simple diagram showing the way in which these organizations are tightly bound to and operate under the substantial influence and direction of Tom DeLay. Mr. Buckham (sp), Galant (sp) and Mr. Ellis, close associates, working with organizations like the U.S. Family Network, an unregistered, non- reporting 501(c)(4) organization, or so it claims; RMIC, or the Republican Majority Issues Committee, again a 527 organization, which does not report what it receives or what it spends; the Americans for Economic Growth, a Section 501(c)(4) organization, again unregistered, which does not report what it receives and spends.
These three organizations, also defendants with Mr. DeLay in our action, are at the center of what we are alleging in this lawsuit. All of the individuals, who are substantially involved in controlling these organization with Mr. DeLay, are close political associates of long standing, and they make no bones about it. Those of you who have reviewed, as I said, the independent reporting on this matter understand the relationships here enjoyed by Messrs. Buckham (sp), Galant (sp) and Ellis with Mr. DeLay.
We have alleged what is described here for purposes of the civil RICO Statute, a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of (A) the way in which the money has been raised, through extortionate methods. And we detail in the complaint, for those of you who have not had a chance to review it, and I hope that you will at some length, those instances publicly known of this extortionate fundraising activity, directed against various persons who have interests before the United States Congress. It has been consistent, flagrant and continuous.
These organizations in the meantime have been established, again at the direction of Mr. DeLay, with his associates, as a means of receiving these monies without limitation, without compliance with federal election law and with no disclosure to the public and no accountability to the legal system, to prepare themselves to influence, as they have begun already to attempt to influence, Mr. DeLay's overall project, which is to influence the House elections this fall and retain Republican control of the House of Representatives.
The complaint sets out the very specific illegal acts, which are requirements for pleading under this statute. And the specific illegal acts again specified under the statute and under which we plead today, are extortion and money laundering: extortion, which goes to the way Mr. DeLay raises his money; money laundering, the way in which he avoids public disclosure and washes the fruits of his illegal fundraising operation through these unregistered organizations, which do not disclose the source or object of their expenditures.
We are seeking in this case to make a substantial showing of the damages that we have suffered as a result of this continuing pattern of racketeering activity by Mr. DeLay and those who are defendants with him in this lawsuit. We are going to -- as you note by the reference to the "Doe"s, the unnamed parties who have been identified as defendants in this case -- going to unearth the identity of those we believe to be involved but do not yet have a substantial basis for adding to the suit. Certainly at the conclusion of this proceeding, we will know more about DeLay Inc. than we know today, and the suit will be accordingly amended, and the list of defendants will necessarily grow. And we will also see injunctive relief because, as Chairman Kennedy has said, this illegal political operation has to stop.
And let me conclude by saying that we have approached this very seriously because what we have seen and watch develop over the last couple of years is quite serious; and that is, for the first time, the development of a completely shadow political party organization, organized and directed by a senior member of Congress, funded through extortionate methods and operated through organizations which disclose as an essential element of this illegal operation -- which refuse to disclose or account for the monies that they have received and will spend.
Thank you, Chairman Kennedy.
They called it what it was five years ago, racketeering and extortion. Certainly, they didn't have all the details figured out. And when you look at what's being investigated today, in 2000, heck, the fun was only really getting started in DeLayland. But they had the nub of what the operation was about. What happened to the case? And what was the reaction at the time from the established press worthies?
--Josh Marshall
Small world watch.
Bush nominates Grover Norquist's brother David to be new Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security.
--Josh Marshall
Some thoughts from TPM Reader JU ...
Hopefully, Crooks and Liars got the segment, but if not David Dreier used his appearance tonight towards the end of MSNBC's Hardball to make a bid for top bamboozler on every issue you can think of. According to Dreier, Congress today is nothing like it was in the early 1990's--the Republicans have seriously cleaned it up and made it an idyllic place where everyone works together and has their say. He spoke ominously of Democrats who he was just sure are spending many a sleepless night worrying about the day their close working relationship with Jack Abramoff. Thankfully, he said he wouldn't name names. I thought that quite magnanimous, don't you? And the new reform package the Republicans have proposed will be a model of ethical and moral reform, the likes of which will make us all joyful to be Americans! He was very regretful, however, that he was just plumb unaware that the Democrats had proposed their own reforms. Must've been a happy coincidence that Hastert timed the release of the R's proposals to hit the news exactly the day before.Chris Matthews, of course, being the buffoon that he is played along and actually acted like Dreier had proposed real reform, helpfully pointing out that he'd noticed that the Republican reform package will ban lobbyists from buying congressmen drinks. Now that's an important piece of reform!
Did anyone else catch this performance?
--Josh Marshall
Luther, following Augustine, said that if you would sin, sin boldly -- which I thought of when I saw this quote from Sen. Santorum (R-History).
"I think I laid out a track record of reform that maybe with the exception of John McCain on the Republican side is unmatched by any other senator. I think I have done more to reform the House and Senate than just about anybody in this place and I was the logical person to go to."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, sometimes a modest proposal is, well ... a bit too modest, and thus misunderstood. Earlier today I jotted down this post ...
A bold idea from Josh Marshall, sorta-well-known scribbler!As long as we're cleaning house, can we also crack down on the pro-member of Congress cab system in DC? And down with those separate elevators in the Capitol that are only for members of Congress.
Who is so stupid or so venal as to make this whole story an issue of who can put more road blocks in the way of bagging a free meal or filling out more forms when you take your bribes?
This generated a surprisingly large number of emails defending the member-only elevators on Capitol Hill and even the DC cab system.
Folks: I was joking.
It always takes a bit of the fun out of the exercise to reel back one of these things. My point was that we shouldn't reduce a scandal about slush funds, organized bribery and various other criminal acts to picayune little administrative fixes that mean nothing to ordinary Americans and do nothing to address the problem at hand.
--Josh Marshall
By George I think we've got it, or him, our congressional Bamboozler of the Day: Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA).
Back in the district (Bucks County, PA, etc.) Fitzpatrick is posing as a strong clean-up-congress man. But he's being asked why his first vote in Congress -- back in January 2005 -- was to loosen congressional ethics rules to cover for Tom DeLay.
His answer? He did it for Homeland Security.
From today's Bucks County Courier Times ...
Murphy [who's running for the Democratic nomination to oppose Fitzpatrick] pointed to Fitzpatrick's first day in Congress last January when Fitzpatrick voted to loosen ethics rules in the House in a move meant to help then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.Those rules changes were later reversed in April and Fitzpatrick said last night that he only voted for them since they were part of a larger bill that included establishing a permanent Homeland Security Committee.
What Fitzpatrick is trying to hang his hat on here is that a bunch of rules were consolidated together into one vote. But Fitzpatrick was a loyal soldier for DeLay on this. There were a few Republicans who lamented the shame of this vote at the time. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) said "We are weakening our ethics laws. I think we've lost our minds. The power has gotten to our heads." Joel Hefley, who got purged from the Ethics Committee because he wouldn't toe the DeLay line, spoke out against it too.
As near as we can tell, Rep. Fitzpatrick never uttered a peep on this one. He just made the vote like he was told.
When contacted by TPM, Fitzpatrick press secretary Jeff Urbanchuk declined comment, but assured us he'd relay our questions to the congressman and his chief of staff.
Have you heard a lamer excuse for toeing the DeLay line? If so, send it along.
--Josh Marshall
To bamboozle or palooza. That is the question, or something like that from TPM Reader BR ...
Actually, the Bamboozlepalooza tour is worse this time and even more insulting. With Social Security, Bush was pushing his proposed change in basic program of Social Security. With Medicare Part D, the Administration and its minions are fanning out on a PR CAMPAIGN regarding a program that is currently being implemented and causing serious problems and raising a number of issues. What they SHOULD be doing, is staying in DC and fixing the problems, figuring out a way to better inform beneficiaries and the medical community, and appeasing the States who have been left holding the bag. The administration will not admit the program has serious flaws (pointed out not only in the media, but internal HHS studies as well)--shades of Iraq! Maybe if we put Condi in charge of rebuilding Part D...
Pretty much.
--Josh Marshall
It really is Bamboozlepalooza all over again.
From the Post: "President Bush's top health advisers will fan out across the country this week to quell rising discontent with a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that has tens of thousands of elderly and disabled Americans, their pharmacists, and governors struggling to resolve myriad start-up problems."
Will these events be open to the public? Who are the attendees?
--Josh Marshall
A bold idea from Josh Marshall, sorta-well-known scribbler!
As long as we're cleaning house, can we also crack down on the pro-member of Congress cab system in DC? And down with those separate elevators in the Capitol that are only for members of Congress.
Who is so stupid or so venal as to make this whole story an issue of who can put more road blocks in the way of bagging a free meal or filling out more forms when you take your bribes?
--Josh Marshall
As we noted last night, Scott McClellan first said he would arrange a list of times Jack Abramoff visited the White House over the last five years. Now he says the White House won't release details of any of the staff-level meetings Abramoff attended at the White House.
We're looking for newspapers which choose to editorialize about this. If yours does, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Have you seen this headline?
Key presidential advisor used non-profit to launder Abramoff money.
You probably haven't. But it's a key part of the Abramoff story. And really just the beginning. The individual facts are all out there, sure. Grover Norquist is one of the two or three top Republican political operatives in Republican Washington. He's a close advisor to President Bush. Among other things he used his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, as a pass-through to hide the fact that Ralph Reed was getting his money for 'anti-gambling' activism from Washington's top Indian casino lobbyist.
I don't know about the law of non-profits and 501c3s. But that's got to be an abuse of some sort.
On front after front these scandals go right into the White House. A top official at the OMB arrested? The Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department under criminal investigation? Abramoff's former chief assistant a top White House aide?
Why the unwillingness to pursue this?
--Josh Marshall
Annals of Medicare Part D ...
I'm too overwhelmed to do much with the Medicare Blog, but I think it is a great idea. I did want to offer an anecdote for you though. I have just started on the inpatient cardiology service at xxxxxx and have admitted two patients to the hospital in the past 24 hours who were unable to get important medicines as a result of the new plan (or lack there of). It is truly amazing! I don't think either is life threatening, but they both could have and will cost the tax payers and Medicare tens of thousands of dollars in needless hospital days. Moreover, we are running at 110% capacity now with some patients spending three days in the ER waiting for a bed. These Medicare admissions have obviously not helped.
Now doubt, more to come.
--Josh Marshall
There's been a lot of discussion in recent weeks of President Bush's aggressive use of so-called 'signing statements'. They got attention lately because of the one he signed which argued, in so many words, that he did not believe that the 'McCain law' barring torture was actually binding on him.
The point of these signing statements is to achieve for presidents something like what Congress does through so-called 'legislative intent'. By one measure the law is just what is down there in black letter in the legislation itself. But courts will frequently also look at what Congress thought it was doing, what it intended to do, when it passed the law. So they'll look at the debates which accompanied the legislation, stuff various members put into the Congressional Record, and so forth.
This process is easily abused. But that's a separate matter. At least in principle, some review of legislative intent seems reasonable in interpreting legislation, though divining what the intent actually was is likely much easier said than done.
But back to signing statements. Again, the idea seems to be here to allow the president his own version of legislative intent, to imbed what he thinks the law means into the record, presumably for future courts to take into consideration or to justify at some later point how he chooses to implement the law.
Sam Alito, twenty years, wrote that "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress."
(As with John Yoo, this seems to me to be another example of how the greatest threat to our constitution may be the noodling of brainiac young lawyers who ply their wizbang 'logic' in the absence of what seems like just about any serious historical grounding in the traditions and practices of our system of government.)
But as Andrew Sullivan notes here and elsewhere, the president's understanding of the law or interpretation of it is irrelevant. Indeed, to imagine that this is not so turns the whole structure of our government on its head.
Congress makes laws. The president has all sorts of power invested in him by the discretion he has in enforcing the laws. But what the laws are, what they mean, is entirely beyond his purview.
Parsing this out can just be an exercise in high school civics. And at the margins it may be a fine point. But there's something big going on here.
This is the executive invading the territory of the Congress and to an extent also the judiciary. Now, I know I'm not the first one to say or realize this. There's a body of literature and debate about this theory of the unitary executive.
But this bunkum about 'signing statements' is a good example, a good opportunity to point out how these theories are solecisms in the scheme of our constitutional structure. For all their chatter about originalism and the constitution, these folks are trying to import alien ideas into the fabric of our republican system of government.
--Josh Marshall
I'm looking for someone to write a limited duration blog about the Medicare prescription drug plan debacle -- the implementation, how the program is structured, who benefits, who doesn't and so forth. This would be a bit like the Social Security blogging we did early last year and a bit like the Special Edition Bankruptcy Bill blog. Basically, we're looking for one or two people to help walk us and our readers through how this program is working or, as it seems, isn't. The person who does this doesn't have to have fancy credentials or a bunch of initials after their name -- just a real world grasp of the nuts and bolts of how this stuff works. If you're interested, drop us a line.
--Josh Marshall
November Santorum: "The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it's a good government thing."
January Santorum: "Well, I don't know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, 'K Street Project.' I'm not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project."
--Josh Marshall
AP: "The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff. Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House."
Drip, drip, drip ...
K-ching, k-ching, k-ching ...
--Josh Marshall
Oh, and the fun continues.
K Street Project? What K Street Project. From the Santorum press conference today on the hill ...
QUESTION: Senator Santorum, you have been the Senate's liaison for the so-called K Street projects. It's been reported you hosted monthly meetings with lobbyists, the top lobbyists in town. What makes you the correct person to lead this charge to reform?SANTORUM: Well, I don't know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, "K Street Project." I'm not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project.
What I've done is I do host meetings, you know, once or twice a month with members who represent a variety of different groups in Washington, D.C.
I know Senator Hutchison hosts some, Senator Smith hosts some, all in an attempt to try to make sure that what we're trying to accomplish is communicated to those who represent organizations who could be helpful to us in getting that message out across America.
I think it's important that we communicate to people who could be supportive of us to make sure that that grassroots activity and that information gets out.
I think it's been actually very, helpful for us to be able to transmit that information and to get feedback from people who are obviously skilled in the area of legislation as to how, you know, we're coming across and what we're being perceived and what we need to do to improve our chances of being successful here.
Nuthin to see here. Just some grassroots activity ...
--Josh Marshall
Jack Abramoff, international man of mystery?
I must say, this Hastert transcript will be choice pickings for humor posts over the next day or so. Here's one question the Speaker got today at his press conference.
QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask you a question, the Abramoff scandal is what has forced you into this position. A year ago, the things that you're proposing would not have been politically possible for you to talk about.Why is the Congress reacting and why didn't it act initially if all these are good ideas?
HASTERT: Well, you know, a year ago most people around Congress couldn't tell you who Jack Abramoff was and didn't know who his associates were or what connections there are.
As this thing unrolls, people understand that we need to learn from what happened in the past and try to rectify that if we can.
That's great. People on Capitol Hill didn't know who Jack Abramoff was or who his associates were? The guy was one of the biggest lobbyists in DC, moved huge amounts of money around Capitol Hill, was close to most of the key Republican power-brokers in and out of Congress. But no one knew who he was. And no one knew who his associates were?
This is a deeper vein than it looks like on the surface. Denny Hastert is like the Mr. Magoo of DC Republican corruption. The DeLay Machine was the muscle and sinew of the House on his watch. The Abramoff clique ran deep tentacles all through the institution. But Hastert didn't know anything about it. It's all news to him.
--Josh Marshall
Day Two of our TPMCafe Book Club on Peter Bergen's new bin Laden book is well underway. Stop by and join the conversation.
--Josh Marshall
Sen Reid responds to today's GOP reformapalooza ...
“The idea of Republicans reforming themselves is like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime. I thought I’d seen the last of corruption when I helped clean up Las Vegas thirty years ago. But, while its not quite the mafia of Las Vegas in the 1970s, what is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt and the consequences for our country have been just as severe.“Some problems have no legislative fix, and the Republican culture of corruption is one of them. Today’s announcements by House and Senate Republicans should be taken at face value – minor wrist slapping and good public relation stunts by the same people responsible for this mess. Democrats will lead the tough reforms, because we owe it to the American people to stand up for their interests over special interests. Are we really going to believe that Republicans will stop answering the calls from their friends on K Street? Are they really going to put seniors ahead of drug companies when it comes reforming Medicare? Are they really going to help families over oil companies when it comes to gas prices? The answer to these questions is no, and that’s why the American people trust Democrats to clean up Washington and put their interests first.”
Criticisms below notwithstanding, I think Reid's hit on a key point. The Republican majorities in both bodies, but particularly in the House, have to start cooperating with the investigations of the criminals and corrupt officials in their midst before they get on to proposing bans of getting free meals. There's a major criminal investigation into the political operation that Denny Hastert is at least nominally in charge of. Has he pledged cooperation with that probe? Is he going to launch any sort of congressional investigation into the seemingly systemic corrupt practices that have evolved under his leadership? It's almost farcical. The mobsters want to join the Rotary Club without even passing 'go'. If Michael Corleone had only known ...
--Josh Marshall
I think congressional Republicans will have to do a lot better than this to make up for the facts they face over the next year. But let's note, at least in passing, some not-ready-for-primetime planning. Speaker Hastert held a press conference today to announce his reform package. Sen. Santorum did the same over on the senate side.
Larry Margasak on the AP wire notes: "Democrats, who have begun a "culture of corruption" theme against Republicans in an election year, were to unveil their ethics reform package Wednesday."
Who does what first isn't the biggest deal in the world. But I think the Dems just got caught off guard on this.
Better planning please?
--Josh Marshall
I was finally able to give a close read to the Al Gore's speech from yesterday. And I wanted to add my voice to all of those around the web who've been praising what the former vice president said. When I think about the Gore now, in the period since he left elected office, what stands out most about him is the way that he has become a standing rebuke to the shame and moral indolence of today's custodians of received opinion. You can see it in the sneering and bemused responses his speeches receive from the usual cast of characters.
These really aren't normal political times we're living in. And I think Gore is right to say that we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis, even though too few people are taking notice of it. Our constitution becomes the proverbial falling tree.
The point Gore makes in his speech that I think is most key is the connection between authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence.
The president's critics are always accusing him of law-breaking or unconstitutional acts and then also berating the incompetence of his governance. And it's often treated as, well ... he's power-hungry and incompetent to boot! Imagine that! The point though is that they are directly connected. Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence; the two feed on each other. It's a vicious cycle. Governments with authoritarian tendencies point to what is in fact their own incompetence as the rationale for giving them yet more power. Katrina was a good example of this.
The basic structure of our Republic really is in danger from a president who militantly insists that he is above the law.
--Josh Marshall
It's not easy being Bob Ney. But someone's got to do it. That and other news in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
I'm always on the look out for new literary forms cropping up in our daily press roundabouts. And the one I'm keyed into now is the most creative, the most outside-the-box disassociation with Jack Abramoff.
Today's prize may go to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), aspirant to the Majority Leadership ...
"I've got 11 brothers and sisters, and my dad owned a bar," said Boehner, R-West Chester, who said he met Abramoff at a fund-raiser for then-Sen. Don Nickles. "It's great training for what I do every day. You stand behind a bar, and it doesn't take long to sort of size people up. Some you like, and some you don't, and he just wasn't someone I liked. I knew it the moment I met him."
Neighborhood bar, school of character and ethics.
Late Update: This final note probably left the impression that I don't think tending bar can give you a lot of insights into human nature. Quite the opposite. I just think it's a stretch for Boehner to hang his hat on this as a way of explaining his alleged aversion to Jack Abramoff.
--Josh Marshall
More for the bonfire.
Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) was one of the "principal authors" of the Medicare prescription drug bill, according to the Washington Post. And a mere two months after the bill passed, PhRMA (the drug industry trade association in Washington) offered to make him their chief lobbyist in a deal that "would [have been] the biggest deal given to anyone at a trade association," one source told the Post.
There was such an outcry over this that Tauzin did the right thing and delayed taking the gig until later in the year.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader J on the Medicare prescription drug law debacle ...
Josh-I have been surprised by the amount of silence on Medicare Part D in the blogosphere. A fiasco of this magnitude deserves the same sort of deafening response that the FEMA response received. This has become a big, big story this month which has given many likely voters a significantly negative personal experience with Republican corruption.
Public health emergencies have now been declared in twelve states. There will be political consequences for the party responsible. There is already a wide popular conception among the affected portions of the public that the drug benefit was designed not in good faith, but to enrich insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry.
Arbitrary drug classes like benzodiazepenes and barbiturates are specifically excluded from coverage. Congress left no clue as to the legislative intent of the exclusion. Someone seems to have decided that these two drug classes are incompatible with some Biblical teaching. Or maybe the competing drug classes are much more profitable for someone's campaign contributors (as both benzodiazepines and barbiturates are cheap and produced as generics, unlike their likely treatment alternatives). As a result the nation's psychiatrists are going batshit right now, trying to figure out what to do with patients on drug regimens for things like seizures.
Just like Katrina, and Iraqi reconstruction difficulties, this is an unfolding disaster that could be seen approaching from a mile away beforehand. The government took little or no preparation before the deadline to make sure things would run smoothly. As usual, someone in charge seems to have assumed that the invisible hand of the markets would take care of everything, or something. As a result, phone lines are clogged, web sites are down or inaccessible, pharmacists and doctors have no idea what is going on after being kept out of the loop, and seniors themselves are panicked, confused, and freaking out.
Last year's Social Security discussion was abstract for most senior citizens. They were specifically told it "would not affect them" and yet they were instrumental in destroying the Bush privatization attempts.
Medicare Plan D isn't like that at all- it's right in their faces. Old people (and their adult children trying to help them) are getting hit with nasty surprises at pharmacies everywhere this month. And they are MAD. They are being snowed under by the confusing paperwork and tricky decisions they are being forced to make. Many have yet to find out that the plan they're in won't cover the drugs they're on, or that they were automatically and quietly disenrolled from superior private coverage. And later in the year, say around November, a significant portion of beneficiaries will have entered their Part-D "doughnut-holes" and will be paying a monthly premium to receive zero benefits! How do you think that will go over? Might a surprise jump in monthly expenses affect voting behavior around then, if it can easily be associated with the party that calls Medicare Part D their "signature domestic achievement"?
Yes, yes and I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks later to say yes again.
--Josh Marshall
I was away from any reliable connectivity over the weekend. So I'm just catching up now with my reading. And I note that Kevin Drum and Greg Sargent at The Prospect are both pushing the point that Democrats need to tie their arguments about Republican corruption to real world policy failures and costs to ordinary Americans.
Along those lines, what about the increasing signs that the implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug plan -- and probably the underlying program itself -- appears to be more or less an unmitigated disaster?
This clunker embodies the whole story. It was conceived in sleaze, midwifed with lies and saw its first light of day in a burst of incompetence and corporate handouts.
Remember Nick Smith getting bribed on the floor? It was to cast his vote for this new program. Remember how Thomas Scully, former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (now Scott McClellan's brother has the job), threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster if he told Congress the actual estimated cost of the program?
These are not, admittedly, the choicest examples. The biggest is too broad and thorough to capture in a single nugget: the fact that the entire bill was written as a pay-off to big ticket campaign contributors from the pharmaceutical industry. But they make a start at desription why public corruption has a more direct effect on people's lives than whether Bob Ney gets to jet over to Scotland to play a game of golf.
--Josh Marshall
Another thread of Iran story: North Korea.
In its policy on the Korean Peninsula, the White House came in talking tough and making threats, but then proceeded to do nothing over five years as the North Koreans proceeded to build a small nuclear arsenal (at least that seems to be the present consensus of where they are). The Bush administration policy on North Korea has been the worst sort of policy failure. Better to cower from the start than make threats and draw lines in the sand and then cower and make excuses later, which sums up what the administration has done.
Is it any different with Iran?
As many others have argued, we don't seem to have any good military options in Iran. The physical arrangement of the Iranian nuclear facilities does not appear to leave it vulnerable to the sort of program-decapitation the Israelis dealt the Iraqis back in 1981. Nor do we have the land resources to mount an invasion of Iran even if we were inclined to.
The White House may see this problem as a means to game the 2006 elections with a bunch of talk that will be conveniently forgotten after November. But where was the White House on this issue in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005?
--Josh Marshall
To the post below, TPM Reader AB responds thus ...
Sorry -- completely disagree with your post on Iran policy. Democrats and the media were too scared/naive/stupid to put up any serious questions about going into Iraq before the war. (for bias interpretations, I was with Dean on this, but it didn't matter.) So there really was no substantial debate. But that was the point of Iraq.The really important point here is that the neocons wanted into Iraq regardless of WMD. They wanted the inspectors out before it became obvious that the main rationale for the war was fictional. They never guarded any of the potential WMD sites (probably) because they were pretty sure that the WMD case was way overblown. This was about democracy dominos in the Gulf. Draining the swamp. With our troops there to protect our interests (oil, Israel) and put a massive stake in the aground against our enemies (terrorists, Iran, Syria...).
Remember this? 'One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the invasion, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."'
But Iran is something completely different now. It's closer to N. Korea in its ability to defend itself. Very large army, WMD, and a president who just might be itching for a war.
More importantly (to your point) the neocons are out of power on foreign policy. We don't have the ability to confront Iran on the ground. We're talking sanctions or special forces/air strikes either by ourselves or Israel.
The public setting is so different now that the Bush admin does not have the free reign it had in 2003 with Iraq.
My point? An Iran policy in the abstract is exactly what we should be talking about because the choices are so limited and the administration is so hamstrung. With strong involvement by the democrats and the media (due in large part to the polls on Iraq -- backbone supplied by voters) we may actually force the administration's hand on how to deal with Iran. They're already doing the diplomacy thing even if Iran is unimpressed.
The starting point should not be the incompetents of the Bush administration. It should be level headed ideas on what would work.
Hope you can find someone who's got some of those ideas...
Regards,
Andy
I wrote back: 'I'm really not sure how this contradicts anything I've said. Did you think I'm saying we just shouldn't discuss Iran at all?'
I'm printing this response because perhaps others are thinking the same and I wanted to address the point.
My point is certainly not that we should be digging our heads in the sands or refuse all discussion of the matter because President Bush is in office. My point is that the correct policy can't be arrived at without taking the implementer into account. Say you have a certain physical infirmity. The best thing to do is to have an operation. But what if there's no surgeon? What if the best you can do is round up someone who once took college anatomy? Maybe then surgery isn't such a good idea. Yes, this is a broad brush analogy. But this is the sort of calculus I'm getting at.
Meanwhile, another TPM Reader KB says ...
You know I'm one of your biggest fans, but I have to disagree with your early throat-clearing on the "Iran Question." Why? Because it really is not a question. That is how the GOP and the White House want it framed, and I'm afraid you are buying into that framing. The truth is much simpler: Iran will have the bomb if they want it. It's a done deal. There is no realistic military option. None. We're stretched too thin. There are no good sites to bomb that would insure we could deny them the bomb. Their program is too hidden and dispersed. It would be an endless campaign of bombing and lead to endless war and terror attacks on us. The question is not how to stop Iran. They will get it. The question is: Who lost Iran? How did it come to this? Who left us in the position? Who ignored the REAL threat? That's what the White House doesn't want you asking. Please don't become Joe Leiberman on this "Iran Question." There is no question. They will get the bomb and there's nothing we can do except learn to live with them and contain them, as we did the Soviets.
I'll leave this for another post.
--Josh Marshall
So here we are again -- I'm speaking of course of the brewing crisis with Iran -- only this time with a country that pretty clearly does have a nuclear program, and a fairly ambitious one at that. For good measure, let's throw in the fact that Iran really does have genuine and meaningful ties to international terrorist groups, though more of the Hezbollah variety than al Qaida.
Regular readers of this site know I've been focusing on other issues. So I haven't yet taken the time to delve into the particulars of this question to the degree I plan to. But let me offer a few observations based on the lessons I think we've learned from the experience in Iraq and those I have myself.
Let me start with one: I'll call it the fallacy of foreign policy abstraction.
During the two years between 9/11 and March 2003, there was a group of commentators (I'd include myself among them) who bought into the basic argument about the danger posed by the Iraqi regime (though not the extremity of it), were willing, at a minimum, to put military force on the table as a means of resolving the problem, were perhaps willing to go as far as supporting an invasion, but were adamant critics of administration policy in the Middle East.
Looking back on that debate, what didn't make sense about 'my' position was that folks like myself were debating Iraq policy in the abstract. How would I deal with Iraq if I were president? What would be the sensible approach if we had a president and foreign policy team which we thought was acting in good faith and competent at handling the issue.
The problem was that there was no Iraq policy in the abstract. That was just a fantasy. There was Iraq in 2002 and 2003 with President Bush et al. calling the shots. Any discussion of the issue which didn't take those key facts into account was just a parlor game, no more than words. What's more, the existence of a cadre of commentators from the political opposition who espoused a policy that looked a lot like the president's actually gave him a great deal of cover. It made his policies look more reasonable. It greased the skids for its implementation.
So with Iran.
The prospect of a nuclear