home

Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:02:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff reports to prison Wednesday.

The feds wanted him to stay out longer, because as part of his cooperaton bargain, he is still providing dirt on others.

Abramoff has been meeting almost daily in secret locations around Washington with Justice Department investigators who are examining thousands of e-mails and documents, according to sources close to the investigation.

Abramoff will report to FCI Cumberland, in Maryland, where he will be close enough to prosecutors to continue his cooperation.

As to who he's cooperating against now, ABC reports Karl Rove is on the list.

The sources say Abramoff was about to provide information about Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, "accepting things of value" from Abramoff.

To be continued....

< O.J.'s Back | The "Experts" on Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Corruption is endemic (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:57:43 AM EST
      in both parties at all levels of government. Speaking realistically, a certain level of individual corruption is probably ineradicable. As in society at large, greed and dishonesty can only be "managed" and made more difficult to act upon and more easy to detect.

       The best we can probably hope for is  that institutional or systemic shift so that the tolerance for corruption is reduced. A good start would be for  people to exercise their ability to sanction corruption regardless of whether it is corruption on "their side" or the "other side."  Excusing, rationalizing, minimizing or even ignoring corruption simply because it is politically expedient takes place across the board. I have little reason to believe that any shift will come from the top down and that politicians will become less tolerant unless the voters someday make clear even being tolerant of it carries a price in elections.

       This election might be viewed as a baby step toward voters demanding accountability but there are miles and miles to go.

    well said (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    Decon...well said.  Only voters can minimize the corruption...it's habitual at this point.  "The way things are done" as they say.  It's reason #1 for my personal vow to vote against every incumbent in every election.  

    Even the occasional elected official who is somewhat on the level is part responsible, since they look the other way when the guy with the same letter after his/her name is up to no good.

    Parent

    molly (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:04:06 AM EST
      I know the threading can be confusing, but his post with the link came AFTER your post mentioning Reid and after my post in response to it.

      As for the quid pro quo, that will indeed be difficult be difficult to establish in terms of proof sufficient for a criminal prosecution, but as I recall the timing was that Reid received contributions from tribal groups withing days after confirming he had personally contacted Interior to express his desire that interiot act favorably on the casino issue.  

    I gather you don't know the difference between (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:58:45 AM EST
    AM & PM. The former means between 12 Midnight and 12 Noon and the latter means between 12 Noon and 12 Midnight. In the commonly accepted scheme of things AM precedes PM. That is to say on November 15, 2006 (just like every other day) AM preceded PM.

    Immediately below is the date and time stamp of Jim's comment in question. Below that is the date and time stamp of my comment. Both are dated Wednesday November 15, 2006. The only issue is the time.

    I have embolden the pertinent part to aid your understanding.

    Seriously corrupt (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:45:42 AM EST

    Sensational Unfair Reporting & Reid's history (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:05:24 PM EST

    Next time you have the urge to be snide, try to be correct.



    Parent

    Seriously corrupt (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:45:42 AM EST
    He also said he had information about
    six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

    Maybe we actually will see some good things and new faces come out of this.

    Why the push to place Abramoff in prison now? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Rick B on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    Is there a legal reason for not letting him stay out and work with the investigators, or is this some Justice Department internal politics to hamstring Fitzgerald's investiagations?

    Or is there an alternative I am not aware of?

    tghe reason is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:48:08 AM EST
      He has been convicted and sentenced  and people who are sentenced are usually required to begin serving their sentences as soon as they are designated by BOP. In the absence of a stay granted pending appeal (which requires a strong showing of a likelihood of prevailing on appeal and is obviously not present here as he entered a plea), it is highly unusual (but not totally unknown) for a convicted defendant to be allowed to remain free to continue cooperation and that is done where it can be shown the cooperation is impossible, not slightly less convenient, if the defendant begins serving his time. If DOJ had plans to send him around wearing a wire (obviously not possible here)  that would be impossible once he is locked up but talking to him is not.

      In any event, I fail to see how his being incarcerated complicates things much. Cumberland is a 20 minute flight or 3 hour drive from DC. Documents can be scanned onto a laptop and brought to the FCI where DOJ can meet with him as much as they want.

       

    Thanks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rick B on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    I appreciate the answer.

    If I were Abramoff, I would NOT get on any plane for the next few years, though. Even one that was BOP or Fed Marshalls. People who are dangerous to the right-wing seem to have a nasty habit of riding in planes that don't make it to the destination in one piece.

    Parent

    i assume he was allowed to self-report (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:18:59 AM EST
     usually defendants such as that who are free on bond pending designation are allowed to self-report to the USP or FCI. they are just given a date and time at which to present themselves.

     But, any travel for grand juries or other court appearances will be in the custody of the U.S. Marshalls pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus.

      I don't buy the conspiracy theories about people dangerous to the "right-wing" any more than I buy them about Ron Brown. Talk like that serves no good purpose.

    Decon (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    Speaking realistically, a certain level of individual corruption is probably ineradicable. As in society at large, greed and dishonesty can only be "managed" and made more difficult to act upon and more easy to detect.

    I doubt I would be able to keep squeaky clean, so I agree with you. Can we tell that to the media? It's not a national scandal every time somebody's brother-in-law gets a government contract. Oversight is sorely lacking, and the MSM is not my idea of oversight.

    that's not what I meant, or even close (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:12:38 PM EST
      I do want to know when a politicians relative receives a government contract and I want to know all the surrounding facts. I want to know when a relative is hired by a corporation or interest group or lobbying firm. I want to know when politicians are involved in transactions with people with direct interest in their votes and actions as representatives. I want reporters to connect the dots between votes, etc. and campaign contributions.

     Occasionally, such things are just coincidence. Often, they do not prove any crime has been committed. They are almost always indicative of politicians using their position to benefit themselves and their family and friends. If some choose to rationalize that (as long as it is "their" side, of course) that's up to them, but it all should be reported without regard to in which  wing of what party someone stands.

      The position here seems to be it is a scandal when a Republican does it and it's sensational unfair reporting when a Democrat does it. Oddly enough that exactly mirrors the position in the right-wing captive media.

       

    Sensational Unfair Reporting & Reid's history (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    The position here seems to be it is a scandal when a Republican does it and it's sensational unfair reporting when a Democrat does it. Oddly enough that exactly mirrors the position in the right-wing captive media.

    Don't think I saw anything like that in the 8 previous responses on this thread.

    I will point out that Casino Jack was a GOP true believer and the odds of him giving any "goodies" to a Democratic politican seem slim. Reid's personal history regarding past bribe attempts included assualting his would be briber (the FBI had Reid war a wire so this is on tape). If the mob couldn't bribe/blackmail/threaten  Reid, I don't think Casino Jack could do any better. That is just my opinion.

    It could be Reid is in trouble or it could be Jack is willing to say anything at this point. That could help the GOP politicals who are implicated by Jack. Certainly they will say Jack will say anything to save himself.

    Parent

    both sides (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    Molly, we are plowing old ground here. Jack A was hired as a consultant by the tribes to tell them how and who to influence to assist them in their casino activities. This is neither surprising or unknown.

    But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

    Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

    Washington Post

    You know, it is a funny thing about fires. You start one to burn your enemies, the wind changes and you also wind up getting burned.

    In this case it may be that we get some cleaning done on both sides.

    Parent

    Where's the quo to the quid (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    or are you just blowing smoke with your "fire"?

    Parent
    molly (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:42:16 PM EST
     this is not the only thread at this site. You need look no further than the Murtha one on this very front page to see extreme examples of people here defending a Democrat for what they criticize Republicans.

      Apparently, you have subconscious concerns about Reid because I haven't seen anyone here breathe a word of his situation with Abramoff and the Indian tribes.

       I doubt he broke any laws although ?i certainly wouldn't be stunned.

      One thing I found revealing of the "culture" on the hill, though was when his receipt of the questionable donations first came to light, his response was along the lines of "I've never met Abramoff and I've been on the Indian Affairs sub-committee forever." Implicit in that is the belief that is business as usual for interested parties to pay congressmen for favors and as long as he didn't deal directly with a crooked lobbyist, it's just business as usual.

     Well, it is business as usual, but a lot of people think it shouldn't be.

    Clairvoyant are we? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    Tell me what am I thinking now?

    Jim linked to a line in an ABC news story that specifically named Reid as someone fingered by Casino Jack, which is why I mentioned Reid. You, may, of course, read whatever you like into it.

    I don't think it likely that Reid did anything. I could be wrong and it is just my opinion.

    As for Murtha and Hoyer, I am not particurally fond of either. I give Murtha some credit for speaking out about the war, same as I give NC congressman Walter Jones (R-Freedom Fries) but  you shouldn't  read much into it, your penchant for reading the tea leaves notwithstanding.

    Parent

    corruption and favors (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    There are varying degrees, as Decon alluded too.  I recall an editorial I read about the 2 types of corruption....one where a little gets skimmed or a qualified buddy gets the contract/position but the job gets done, another where the whole lot gets looted or an unqualified buddy gets the contract/position and the job is left unfinished.

    You can live with the former....not the latter.  Too much of the latter lately.    

    As always, my personal estimate, Dems 10% less corrupt.

    That link was to an article that made no mention (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:09:07 AM EST
     of Reid by name. in fact, it was to the same article linked in the post by JM. jim was just pointing out that JM specifically mentioned the article mentioned Rove without also mentioning that it mentioned 6-8 Democrats.

    the link no longer works for some reason (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:13:44 AM EST
    but here's a link to the cached page.

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:FsKZfiCaoUsJ:blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/+abramoff+six+to+eight &hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

      Next time you you accuse me of being wrong, check your facts.

    Factually my response was correct (none / 0) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    My response was to this:
    I know the threading can be confusing, but his post with the link came AFTER your post mentioning Reid and after my post in response

    Clearly you were wrong as to the order.

    You apparantly found the acorn, so  I'll spot you the point regarding whether or not Jim's link mentioned Reid.

    You're (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:35:14 PM EST
      not spottiong much of anything until you simply concede you were entirely wrong and the WHOLE point was who first mentioned Reid. That was YOU.

      No one including jim had mentioned him or linked to an article mentioning him wwhen YOU out of the blue came to his defense. that revealing defensiveness is what motivated my post teasing you for defending someone who no one had mentioned. THEN Jim followed with the Post link.

      You were simply 100% wrong and incapable of admitting it.

    Parent

    Since I wasn't 100% wrong (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    I can't concede 100%. I concede you found the acorn in that Jim's original link did not include a mention of Reid. I know what I was responding to when I wrote my original post.  I get my news in a lot of places and I read more than this blog. I suspect I had confused Jim's link with another yesterday.  I know you are clairvoyant, but your Carnac hat is not working. Be happy, you found the acorn this time.  

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:20:32 PM EST
     given that people here rarely concede an inch when they are wide by a mile. I'll accept that as progress.

    Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment