The Noose Tightens On The Hammer
Tom Delay has a hearing tomorrow regarding a motion to dismiss the charges brought onto him by Ronnie Earle. While Tom Delay may be going to bed thinking positively about tomorrow’s hearing, another problem looms. That problem is named Mike Scanlon. Today Scanlon pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges. He has not been sentenced yet […]
Tom Delay has a hearing tomorrow regarding a motion to dismiss the charges
brought onto him by Ronnie Earle. While Tom Delay may be going to bed thinking
positively about tomorrow’s hearing, another problem looms. That problem is
named Mike Scanlon.
Today Scanlon pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges. He has not been
sentenced yet but has been ordered to pay $19 million in restitution to Indian
tribes he helped defraud.
According to the
AP, one of Scanlon’s attorney did disclose that his client has been
cooperating with federal investigators for more than five months. When Scanlon
was charged last week, the federal information sheet disclosed his activities
along with those of “lobbyist A”. That lobbyist is said to be Michael Abramoff
who is facing charges in Florida on a separate crime.
Scanlon served as a top aide to Tom Delay prior to becoming one of
Washington’s top lobbyists. The
Financial Times has now reported this story tying Delay into the case:
Mr Scanlon and Jack Abramoff, a Republican with close ties to Mr DeLay,
earned more than $80m from Indian tribes from 2001-2004. Those transactions
are being examined by the Senate Indian affairs committee, and by federal
investigators.Mr Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on fraud and conspiracy charges
involving gambling boats.Court papers in Mr Scanlon’s case also allege that a congressman received
campaign contributions and valuable gifts, including a trip to Scotland to
play golf, in exchange for official acts to benefit clients of Mr Scanlon
and Mr Abramoff.The case against Mr Scanlon is being led by the department’s Public
Integrity office, a division that oversees the prosecution of elected and
appointed public officials.Most prosecutions by the DoJ involve large-scale fraud or corruption and
hinge on the co-operation of relatively minor players who agree to plea
bargains, and to testify against others, in return for more lenient
sentencing.
View complete article
here.
Now Mr. Delay may be facing federal charges which he would not be able to
make a political attack argument out of. His defense for his charges in Texas
has been that the prosecutor is a Democratic hack out to get him. This
investigation is lead by the Justice Department and that is ran by a Bush
appointee.
Last week numerous emails were released in a Senate investigation into the
lobbyists which also stands to implicate numerous other Republicans. The
following is from the
DNC
website:
- Dennis Hastert Signed Letter to Norton on Gaming Issue. In June
2003, House Speaker Dennis Hastert authored a letter co-signed by
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric
I. Cantor sent to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, said the House
leaders opposed a plan by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to open a
casino at a non-reservation site, expected at the time to be outside
Shreveport, La., not far from a casino owned by the Coushattas.
Approving the Jena application or others like it would “run counter to
congressional intent,” Hastert’s June 10, 2003, letter warned Norton.
[Washington Post, 9/28/04; AP 11/16/05]Letter Was Very Unusual. “V. Heather Sibbison, a lobbyist at the time
for the Jena Band, said: ‘I do this for a living, and I have never seen
a letter like that before. It was incredibly unusual for that group of
people, who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues, to express such a
strong opinion about a particular project not in any of their home
states.'” [Washington Post, 9/28/04]Hastert Received $118,500 From Abramoff’s Tribal Clients. Hastert
received $118,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners, and tribal
clients between 2001 and 2004, including $21,500 during the period in
which the letter was sent. [AP, 11/17/05]- Roy Blunt Intervened Three Times on Behalf of Abramoff Clients,
Received $41,000 from Tribes. House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, a
Missouri Republican, signed three letters to Norton. Blunt received
$41,000 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners, and tribal clients between
2001 and 2004, including $25,000 during the period in which the letter
was sent. He also used Abramoff’s restaurant for a fundraiser or other
event. [AP, 11/17/05]- SENATOR TRENT LOTT Signed Letter, Received $147,000 From Tribes.
Senator Trent Lott the former Senate GOP leader, wrote Norton on March
1, 2002, to “seriously urge” she reject the Jena casino. Lott received
$147,000 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners, and tribal clients
between 2001 and 2004, including $65,000 during the period in which the
letter was sent. [AP, 11/17/05]- SENATOR THAD COCHRAN Signed Letter, Received $94,500 From Tribes.
Senator Thad Cochran wrote Norton on June 14, 2001, one of the first
such letters. Cochran received $94,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying
partners, and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, including $6,000
during the period in which the letter was sent. [AP, 11/17/05]- SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY Signed Letter, Received $66,500 From Tribes.
Senator Chuck Grassley wrote Norton on March 4, 2002, one of the first
such letters. Grassley received $66,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying
partners, and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, including $1,000
during the period in which the letter was sent. [AP, 11/17/05]- SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN Signed Letter, Received $16,293 From Tribes.
Senator Ensign received $16,293 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners,
and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004. [AP, 11/17/05]
View complete article
here.
Numerous others are also implicated and those implications go all the way up
to the White House and even to former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
A caller on Air America today said this could be one of the biggest scandals
to rock our country in more than 100 years. The way it is shaping up he could
very well be right. At the least I would hope this sparks a debate for a need of
more campaign laws and reform including a limitation on the roll lobbyists play
in policy making.