Abramoff Cops a Plea; Let the Hijinks Begin
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff has copped a plea today to charges of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion; he'll cop more pleas tomorrow. He'll get 9.5 to 11 years--and he'll start cooperating in earnest with a federal probe into all sorts of stuff that will likely embarass many, many people in DC and beyond.
From Reuters via the Boston Globe:
Abramoff's plea was sure to send shockwaves through Congress, where many Republicans and Democrats have benefited from campaign contributions from him or his clients. Lawmakers seeking to distance themselves from him have returned more than $200,000 in recent weeks.
Abramoff faces a maximum sentence of 30 years, but under the terms of the plea deal it will be reduced to between 9 1/2 and 11 years. The sentence could be reduced even further if Abramoff cooperates fully, a Justice Department official said.
As part of the plea deal, Abramoff agreed to pay at least $25 million in restitution.
Whole thing here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We need one of these blood lettings every once in a while. It's good for the heart.
...I'll know I'll be sick of the scandals before long, but, right now, I can't wait 'til...
For libertarians, this should be fun.
How do libertarians feel about their (erstwhile?) friends, the conservatarians?
Sometimes, I wonder if the glee I feel at scumbags like Abramoff and his partners getting their just desserts is healthy for me. Just sometimes, though. There, I'm over it. The motherfuckers...
This scandal has shaken my bedrock faith in our hard-working lawmakers.
[Snicker. Snicker. Soda coming out of nose.]
It's bipartisan! Both parties! Democrats, too! Jack Abramoff worked with both parties! No way this is a Republican scandal! He was never really associated with the Republicans, who barely knew him, actually.
The ref-workers have been spinning overtime, and the media is caving before them, as usual.
joe, while I agree that the GOP is working overtime to spin this as equally bad for both parties, it simply isn't true that Abramoff didn't funnel money to quite a few Democrats, too. Famed right-wing rag The Washington Post has noted that the taint isn't limited to the GOP, and that article was published prior to Abramoff's likely long list of confessions, which will surely zap a number of people from both parties.
L'affair d'Abramoff should hurt the GOP much more than the Democrats, given that the GOP is the more attractive lobbying target (as the party controlling everything) and given his direct affiliation with the party, but don't get too smug just yet. There's a lot more to come. Or not, if someone out there decides to "protect" America from a scandal. Sort of like someone did with the Keating Five. Frankly, I wish we could indict every member of Congress who has done something unethical. The five members left afterwards could run things until the next election, I'm sure.
The article is absurd in how it strains to pain this as both a Democratic and Republican scandal in saying "many Republicans and Democrats have benefited from campaign contributions from him or his clients." The illegality largely involves Abramoff and it's unfair to assume that all contributions from his clients were questionable. When looking specifically at contributions from Abramoff it's clear that all of them went to Republicans and no Democrats.
I just saw on CNN that the top 5-10 guys are Reps, but there are (CNN claims) about 200 people involved in this, many of whom are Dems.
This should be fun.
LoganFerree:
I'm guessing you crossed posts with Pro Libertate, who put just about the right spin on that.
Plus, he said "taint" *snicker*
LoganFerree:
I'm guessing you crossed posts with Pro Libertate, who put just about the right spin on that.
Plus, he said "taint" *snicker*
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be "spinning", but I'm sick and tired of people viewing political corruption through partisan lenses. If someone were stupid enough to bribe libertarians, I'd want them to go down, too. I really could care less whether Democrats or Republicans or representatives of both get hurt by this scandal.
We know next to nothing about how far reaching this is, and I, for one, intend to wait and see how this all plays out. Like I said before, I expect the GOP to get hit probably twice as hard as the Democrats by the scandal, but the implication that's popped up here a couple of times now that Abramoff was pure in his relations with the Democrats but corrupt in those with the Republicans is a lot closer to "spin" that anything I've said. Jeez Louise.
Pro Libertate:
Sorry for my use of the word "spin", but I was complimenting your excellent rebuttal to joe's post.
Than anything I've said, I mean.
jf, am I getting cranky? Tell me if I am 🙂
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be "spinning", but I'm sick and tired of people viewing political corruption through partisan lenses.
Don't stress. The only people who aren't sick and tired are partisans who hope more shit sticks to the other guys.
Party people, both Democrat and Republican, will get all hot and bothered about who gets the worst of this. Regardless, I see this mess as a great example of something Gillespie hit on over at C-Span the other day. ...That the reason people are so interested in corrupting politicians is because they're given so much control over our money and our lives. ...If they had little control, people would have little incentive to corrupt them.
...if you back government solutions for any given problem, the corruption just comes with the scenery. When you put people in a position to make decisions arbitrarily, there's no accounting for the arbitrariness of their decisions. When we find someone with their hand in the cookie jar, we should put 'em up in the stockades, no question.
...but that isn't the solution to the problem of corruption. The problem is that there's little substantive difference between corruption and the arbitrary manner in which government does business as usual. It's the nature of the beast.
I would think that a libertarian would be weary of automatically assuming guilt by association. The only way to drag Democrats into this mess is to look at all contributions by tribes that had hired Abramoff. Doesn't that strike anyone else as absurd? If I'm a tribe in South Dakota, why am I viewed as responsible if the lobbyist I hired does corrupt and illegal things with the money I gave him? And why do all of a sudden are all of the contributions I've given assumed to be signs of corruption?
...but that isn't the solution to the problem of corruption. The problem is that there's little substantive difference between corruption and the arbitrary manner in which government does business as usual. It's the nature of the beast.
Sad but true. If your house is stolen through Eminent Domain to make way for a new shopping mall, what difference does it make to you, if the mall owners bribed City Council to vote you out, or if the Council voted out of an honest belief that a mall is better than your house?
I've always thought results mattered far, far more than motivations.
You're dead on, Ken. That whole argument is why Republicans are likely more corrupt today than the Democrats are. Why give most of your money to someone who can't do anything for you?
If our government were as limited as it was meant to be, I daresay that the amount of influence peddling at the federal level would be about nil. Naturally. A politician can be as corrupt as he wants to be, but it won't matter if he can't do anything. Or if we can plainly see his corruption and can immediately do something about it.
Not to go off on another rant, but the lack of accountability, transparency, and limits on authority are taking us dangerously close to the point where our government will lose one of the most important things a government can have: legitimacy. Letting the spinmeisters of either party distract us from the greater problem(s) is a terrible error. Make no mistake--the people running the government are our enemies in many respects, not our friends, and should be treated accordingly.
Dang it, I did go off on another rant. Must be due to having to work again after the holidays 🙁
Party people, both Democrat and Republican, will get all hot and bothered about who gets the worst of this.
And this will be another one of those scandals nobody outside of DC cares about because it isn't exactly surprising.
Politicians corrupt? Why I never!
Jennifer, you, you, utilitarian!
It's really hard to argue with a results-oriented political philosophy. Human beings are black boxes, and it's impossible to know for sure whether one is honest, corrupt, or somewhere in between. It's in our collective best interest to rig the system so that the motivations of the people administering it are irrelevant. Which is how our system was meant to work, though we can clearly see that we aren't quite there just yet.
"That whole argument is why Republicans are likely more corrupt today than the Democrats are. Why give most of your money to someone who can't do anything for you?"
Who says the Dems can't do anything for you? There's still a lot of horse trading over items of non-idealogical importance. Listen to Sen Stevens' complaint when the ANWR drilling was defeated. He whined that should not have happened as he had not refused anyone their appropriations requests, it was not directed merely at the GOPers who knocked it down. Furthermore, senators and congressmen
are quite influential with their state and local governments. The idea that the Dems are powerless is one that only exists in their fevered imaginations.
"...the lack of accountability, transparency, and limits on authority are taking us dangerously close to the point where our government will lose one of the most important things a government can have: legitimacy."
Sorry, Pro, but we've already crossed that line, I believe. I can't trust those pricks.
MJ, I exaggerated for dramatic effect. No Congressmen is powerless, except for maybe Ron Paul 🙂
Make that Congressman. I grow more prone to error as I age, that's for sure.
Okay. So who gets the $25 million in restitution? The government? Seems kind of like paying a hooker for sex, then stealing it back and having her arrested. Nice!
I'm of the mind that any congressman in jail is a good one, regardless of party affiliation. It's a good idea to jail on every once in a while, "pour encourager les autres."
That having been said, there was a post at Talking Points Memo that claimed that the Abscam investigation was terminated early because the FBI decided it wasn't their business to upset the balance of power in American politics. The belief was that as many as a third of the Congress could have been stung. So they grabbed a few and burned them to let them know they were watching and left the rest of it up to the voters. That's the theory, anyway.
I'd hate to be the person who has to prosecute the people that Abramoff names.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we know the defendant is guilty based on testimony from the sleaziest sack of shit on the planet, who testified in order to save his own ass."
Yeah, not the most convincing summation.
I'm of the mind that any congressman in jail is a good one, regardless of party affiliation. It's a good idea to jail on every once in a while, "pour encourager les autres."
James Traficant must be overjoyed. He went it alone for a few years, but now he's got Duke Cunningham on the way, and now this..! (and here's an unofficial Tuesday fun link: FreeTraficant.com)
I'd hate to be the person who has to prosecute the people that Abramoff names.
I'd think an indictment would be enough to ruin some of 'em. Who needs a trial?
Does anyone else remember Abscam? If we could only get another one of those on TV...
Wait, I've got a great idea for a new reality show! It's 60 Minutes meets Cops! ...all shot from the perspective of the FBI!
I can only hopes that there are only a few politicians are actually involved in this scandal, for the sake of America and our political system. I guess this is what happens when one political party acquires too much power.
jw has a very interesting question. Does the plea agreement specify to whom the $25 million restitution is to be paid? If so, who determined the recipient(s)?
The Republicans wanted so much power they implemented the K-Street Project. What the Republicans probably didn?t realize is that this could lead to corruption.
The Republicans wanted so much power they implemented the K-Street Project. What the Republicans probably didn?t realize is that this could lead to corruption.
More likely, like anyone else, they didn't think they'd get caught. They could use a man like Newt about now...
And nice to see that joe has become a full-on, without a doubt partisan hack troll. It was only a matter of time.
Hot and bothered? More like tickled pink.
You want hot and bothered, check out the conservatives on this thread. Hi, RC! Hi, jf! How's your week going?
I, for one, can't wait for the names to be unsealed. Sure, there will be some Democrats, but there will be many, many more Republicans, and they will be guilty of much more serious crimes.
Not even the most agonized, WaPo, Washington insider "pox on both their houses" spin job is going to conceal what happened here, and that is that a Republican lobbyist ran a corrupt operation to boost his longtime buddies in the Republican Party. It's going to be a great winter.
If you guys are so sure that joe is wrong, there's no need to get upset. Just patiently wait for the facts to come out.
You guys aren't worried, are you?
Surely, there's nothing fundamentally Democrat or Republican about corruption.
Surely not, Ken.
This is not about the Republican Party as a whole, or even about the entirety of the Republican Congressional caucus.
This is about the current leadership of the Party. Gingrich, Dole, Reagan, Howar Baker - none of them would have tolerated this crap.
This is about a clique of Nixon Republicans. That there are so very many uninvolved Republicans working so hard to defend them goes to their appreciation for the power they've accrued for the party, not to involvement in bribery and fraud among the GOP as a whole.
Maybe we'll get a clean GOP out of this episode, which could only serve to make the country stronger.
"oe's getting called a partisan hack troll? Say it isn't so...
Actually, while joe may be a bit of a partisan hack, at least he's not a troll. Even if he DOES accuse people who disagree with him of being a troll because he's painted himself out of room to maneuver.
Oh, did I mention I absolutely can't WAIT to see the outcome of all this?
"Politicos nuts roasting over an open fire... Jack A nipping at their heels." (It helps to sing it to "The Christmas Song [Chestnuts Roasting]").
It's a no lose situation, regardless of which party takes the worse beating, IMO.
--"I would think that a libertarian would be weary of automatically assuming guilt by association."
I think you mean wary, not weary. The implications of the latter are quite different...
In any case, this looks like it has great potential for amusement. Between watching the SCO vs everyone case(s) implode and this, this is shaping up to be a most entertaining year.
When did I become a conservative? RC occasionally is as annoying as joe, but joe's first comment in this thread was about the most uselessly partisan I've seen.
rob,
"...Incriminating stories, being sung, to the feds
Folks lawyered up, filing appeals.
Everbody knows, a summons and some old emails..."
David Brooks on Abramoff:
"That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us."
What a terrible, partisan, Democratic shill David Brooks is.
Piling on? Me? Why I never!
Anywhere, here is a comprehensive list of the political donations made by Jack Abramoff. Or, as his friends call him, "Bipartisan Jack."
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-that-about-abramoff-giving.html
joe - Nice lyrics!
joe,
Here's the thing that struck me about that list you linked to... It's $261,198.
That's all it takes to buy the US gov't?!?
Considering how much money in taxes they determine how to spend, that seems like one heckuva fire sale of a good deal.
Hell, I'd give up five years worth of salary to buy a gov't that would do what I'd like it to, rather than what someone else would like... Of course, I'd expect not to pay taxes, so that would kind of even it up.
He didn't buy the government, exactly, rob.
It was more like renting it.
Or timeshare.