Well, looks like the songbirg is changing his stripes to jailbird tomorrow. Jack-in-the-Hat reports to lockup tomorrow.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061114/D8LD4T600.html

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist known for lavishing politicians with football tickets or whisking them away on exotic golf junkets, will start life Wednesday with a new identity: federal inmate No. 27593-112.

Abramoff is to report to federal prison to begin serving a nearly six-year prison sentence for a fraudulent deal to buy a fleet of casino ships in Florida. He also is awaiting sentencing for corrupting government officials and their staff members.

If it were up to the Justice Department, Abramoff wouldn't be heading to prison - at least not yet. He could hold the key to a sweeping corruption case involving Congress, members of the Bush administration and their aides, and prosecutors said putting their star witness behind bars would impede the investigation.

But a Miami federal judge refused to delay the sentence, meaning Abramoff's cooperation will have to continue from prison. Abramoff's lawyers had no comment.

Well, looks like the songbirg is changing his stripes to jailbird tomorrow. Jack-in-the-Hat reports to lockup tomorrow.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061114/D8LD4T600.html

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist known for lavishing politicians with football tickets or whisking them away on exotic golf junkets, will start life Wednesday with a new identity: federal inmate No. 27593-112.

Abramoff is to report to federal prison to begin serving a nearly six-year prison sentence for a fraudulent deal to buy a fleet of casino ships in Florida. He also is awaiting sentencing for corrupting government officials and their staff members.

If it were up to the Justice Department, Abramoff wouldn't be heading to prison - at least not yet. He could hold the key to a sweeping corruption case involving Congress, members of the Bush administration and their aides, and prosecutors said putting their star witness behind bars would impede the investigation.

But a Miami federal judge refused to delay the sentence, meaning Abramoff's cooperation will have to continue from prison. Abramoff's lawyers had no comment.

Let's hope he keeps singing... :wink5:


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report.html


Abramoff Reports to Prison Tomorrow; Offers Testimony on Democratic Senators
November 14, 2006 4:13 PM

Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz Report:

Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is scheduled to report to federal prison tomorrow, over the objections of federal prosecutors who say they still need his help to pursue leads on officials he allegedly bribed.

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

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

Rove has denied any wrongdoing in his dealings with Abramoff. But the lobbyist visited the White House at least seven times, according to Secret Service logs obtained by Judicial Watch.

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. The convicted lobbyist was spotted in downtown Washington, D.C., yesterday, carrying a computer laptop case.

But the prosecutors' easy access to Abramoff has now ended.

After granting several delays, the federal judge in Florida, who sentenced Abramoff to six years for fraud in a casino boat gambling scheme, has ordered him to report to prison tomorrow.

ABC News has learned that the court has granted a request from prosecutors that Abramoff be incarcerated at the closest prison to Washington, D.C., the Federal Correction Institute in Cumberland, Md., where Abramoff is expected to report tomorrow.

[QUOTE=d'oh_boy]Let's hope he keeps singing... :wink5:


Ya know, I gotta say partisanship aside, I agree. I'm tired of this crap. If he's got the goods on folks in my party, let's get the info out and deal with it aggressively. Now.

Just a question...but why did you feel the need to highlight the section that you did.

Doesn't it just sicken everyone to the core of their democratic ideals to think that anyone of any political affiliation is a crook?

Should it matter that "some democrats" are in on it? Shouldn't we be shouting as an electorate about ANYONE being a crook in Washington?

There is no need for partisanship when they are nothing but crooks...if they are acting for themselves and not for those who elected them...they are much lower than simple partisan hacks.

Is that supposed to be a zinger? Tit for tat of some kind?

Hopefully, someday you'll come to the realization that corrupt politicians of any party must be exposed and thrown out of office, and ideally, they will go to jail. But I don't expect that will happen for you any time soon.

but if you took a poll here of Progressives asking them "Should the book be thrown at lawbreaking democratic politicians?"
you'd wind up with 95% plus saying Hell yeah toss the book at them

toss em all.

but I guess that is where we differ

Just a question...but why did you feel the need to highlight the section that you did.


Because spyderman and others have been treating this as a R-only scandal.

It isn't a "see, they all do it so my side isn't so bad" comment, it's a "people who live in glass houses..." comment.


Doesn't it just sicken everyone to the core of their democratic ideals to think that anyone of any political affiliation is a crook?

Should it matter that "some democrats" are in on it? Shouldn't we be shouting as an electorate about ANYONE being a crook in Washington?

There is no need for partisanship when they are nothing but crooks...if they are acting for themselves and not for those who elected them...they are much lower than simple partisan hacks.

Absolutely. I'm on the side of "throw them all out". Rather than being partisan, I think I'm pointing out partisanship. (or does that make me a partisan to do so?)

A question for you. Doesn't it sicken you that one party would run against the corruption of the other party when they might have been involved themselves, even if to a lesser degree?

Hopefully, someday you'll come to the realization that corrupt politicians of any party must be exposed and thrown out of office, and ideally, they will go to jail. But I don't expect that will happen for you any time soon.

When have I given you the impression that I think otherwise?

Because spyderman and others have been treating this as a R-only scandal.
It isn't a "see, they all do it so my side isn't so bad" comment, it's a "people who live in glass houses..." comment.

Absolutely. I'm on the side of "throw them all out". Rather than being partisan, I think I'm pointing out partisanship. (or does that make me a partisan to do so?)

A question for you. Doesn't it sicken you that one party would run against the corruption of the other party when they might have been involved themselves, even if to a lesser degree?

you musta missed all the Libs saying toss the book at the Conressman from LA with the cash in the freezer.
D'oh boy you miss the point. It's not the individual corruption people voted against. It is the INSTITUTIONAL corruption of the Republican Party. Everyone knows there are gonna be cheats on both sides. Delay made it a revolving door racket with K-Street. Now we have numerous Congressmen and Lobbyists serving time and NONE were ever investigated or brought up on house ethics violations.
Having corruption in a system is expected
Having a party that accepts it as SOP is not.
Had the Cons done their own housecleaning this would have never been an issue.
You had what 3 Congressmen on the ticket who were awaiting sentencing or full charges?

you musta missed all the Libs saying toss the book at the Conressman from LA with the cash in the freezer.
D'oh boy you miss the point. It's not the individual corruption people voted against. It is the INSTITUTIONAL corruption of the Republican Party. Everyone knows there are gonna be cheats on both sides. Delay made it a revolving door racket with K-Street. Now we have numerous Congressmen and Lobbyists serving time and NONE were ever investigated or brought up on house ethics violations.
Having corruption in a system is expected
Having a party that accepts it as SOP is not.
Had the Cons done their own housecleaning this would have never been an issue.
You had what 3 Congressmen on the ticket who were awaiting sentencing or full charges?

You talk the talk, but it isn't looking like your party intends to walk the walk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401230.html


Unfit for Majority Leader
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; Page A21
The videotape is grainy, dark and devastating. The congressman and the FBI
undercover agents -- the congressman thinks they represent an Arab sheik willing
to pay $50,000 to get immigration papers -- are talking business in the living
room of a secretly wired Washington townhouse.

Two other congressmen in on the deal "do expect to be taken care of," the
lawmaker says. But for the time being -- and he says repeatedly that he might
change his mind and take money down the road -- he'd rather trade his help for
investment in his district, maybe a hefty deposit in the bank of a political
supporter who's done him favors.

"I'm not interested -- at this point," he says of the dangled bribe. "You know,
we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know."
Indeed, he acknowledges, even though he needs to be careful -- "I expect to be
in the [expletive] leadership of the House," he notes -- the money's awfully
tempting. "It's hard for me to say, just the hell with it."

This is John Murtha, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi's choice to be her
majority leader, snared but not charged in the Abscam probe in 1980. "The
Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in
history," Pelosi pledged on election night. Five days later she wrote Murtha a
letter endorsing his bid to become her No. 2.

Not the most promising start.

For years Murtha has relied on the Abscam bottom line to argue that the case is
not a problem for him: He wasn't indicted. But he was named a co-conspirator in
the bribery scheme. The feckless House ethics committee didn't take action
against him, though the outside investigator it hired quit in disgust after the
panel rejected his recommendation to file misconduct charges.

"I am the guy that didn't take the money," Murtha said this summer when his
opponent raised the issue.

Yes, but: He's the guy who, brought into the deal by two other House members --
Frank Thompson (D-N.J.) and John Murphy (D-N.Y.) -- agreed to meet with men
offering money in return for official action. He's the guy who knew these two
colleagues expected a payoff and even vouched for them with the would-be bribers
("Both of them are solid.").

He's the guy who, when offered a bribe, still wanted to do a deal. "I'm
delighted to do business with him and do every goddamn thing I can within
bounds, you know, so I don't get myself in jail, in order to get him into the
country and whatever needs to be done," he says on the video, unearthed by the
conservative American Spectator. (You can watch at http://www.spectator.org/.)

He's the guy who -- as a member of the House ethics committee-- did nothing to
stop the scheme.

Sorry, but I'm not buying Murtha's argument that he's the victim of a
"Swift-boating attack" over "unfounded allegations that occurred 26 years ago."
On its own, Murtha's Abscam conduct is disqualifying.

Even if it weren't, though, everything in Murtha's post-Abscam life is of a
piece with the back-scratching, dealmaking style on display in the video. In a
story last month, the New York Times described how Murtha has operated "a
political trading post" in a back corner -- the Murtha corner, it's called -- of
the House floor, where Democrats and Republicans alike come to get Murtha's
blessing for earmarks or his help on close votes. As Pennsylvania Democrat Paul
Kanjorski told the Times, "nobody ever leaves completely disappointed."

Murtha is one of 12 Democrats who voted against the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance reform bill. He's one of four who killed a strong Democratic ethics
package earlier this year. He is a one-man earmarking factory whose
beneficiaries have included a lobbying firm that employed his brother and
another founded by a former top aide.

The biggest puzzle, and biggest disappointment, in all this is Pelosi, who was
pitch-perfect in her first several days as speaker-elect. Now comes this
lose-lose move.

If she gets her way and helps Murtha win a come-from-behind victory against
Maryland's Steny Hoyer in tomorrow's leadership election, she's buying herself
-- and the Democratic caucus -- endless news stories about Murtha's ethics. If,
as he says, Hoyer has the votes, Pelosi has made herself look weak within the
caucus -- not a smart move for any new leader, and certainly not for the first
woman in the job. Perhaps the late timing and measured phrasing of Pelosi's
endorsement were meant to ensure that it would have little impact. If so, Pelosi
failed to recognize that once she weighed in, the vote for majority leader would
inevitably be seen as a gauge of her clout.

I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi's first test as speaker would be whether
she picks Florida's Alcee Hastings -- who was removed from his federal judgeship
for agreeing to take a bribe -- to head the intelligence committee. As it turns
out, I was wrong. Pelosi's first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens
tomorrow, she flunked. Whether she'll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen.


On the other hand, the GOP just elected Trent Lott (Mr. pro-earmarks) as the Senate minority Whip. Guess they didn't learn anything last week. :mad2:

I think the statue of limitations ran out on that one. yes he should have been hit with a ethics violation.
if he does anything like this now, by all means toss the book.
murtha is (has been) a hawk (I know you Cons try to apint it otherwise), there is no doubt he may have some Cunningham-esque bones, if they get dug up, by all means lets investigate.
Again, no Dem here is pro corruption of any kind. We're not blindly partisan, and it seems we've stolen the mantle of "Don't trust the govt" from the Cons a long while ago.

I think the statue of limitations ran out on that one. yes he should have been hit with a ethics violation.
if he does anything like this now, by all means toss the book.
murtha is (has been) a hawk (I know you Cons try to apint it otherwise), there is no doubt he may have some Cunningham-esque bones, if they get dug up, by all means lets investigate.
Again, no Dem here is pro corruption of any kind. We're not blindly partisan, and it seems we've stolen the mantle of "Don't trust the govt" from the Cons a long while ago.

It isn't a matter of investigating Murtha, Pelosi is backing him for the number 2 spot in your leadership. You'd think that if you were running on "cleaning up Washington", you could do better than someone with Murtha's history. Unless it was all just a marketing slogan. :rolleyes:

Murtha may have been a hawk at one point, but it isn't spin that he called for an "immediate redeployment", it's just a fact. And an immediate redeployment (pullout) is something that would have been (and still would be) a complete disaster.

I hope it's Federal "pound me in the arse" prison and not some pansy federal "country club" thing.

Because spyderman and others have been treating this as a R-only scandal.

It isn't a "see, they all do it so my side isn't so bad" comment, it's a "people who live in glass houses..." comment.



Absolutely. I'm on the side of "throw them all out". Rather than being partisan, I think I'm pointing out partisanship. (or does that make me a partisan to do so?)

A question for you. Doesn't it sicken you that one party would run against the corruption of the other party when they might have been involved themselves, even if to a lesser degree?

Right now, corruption is/was an (R) problem. When the evidence comes out that Dems have been involved they too will be thrown in jail. But right now, there aren't a lot of Democrats being charged with crimes of corruption.

Your attempt to say "My party's not so bad, see the Dems do it too." is just an attempt at justification and deflection.

The fact is, there just aren't a lot of Dems on trial for corruption, or going to Fed prison, as there are Reps.

I don't even know if Jefferson in LA has been officially charged with a crime yet. Boy, the Republican candidate down there must've really stunk it up big if he couldn't unseat Jefferson...

The way I hear it, if you have to go, federal prison is definitely where you want to go. That stuff doesn't usually happen there. State prisons are the "pound me in the arse" prisons.

for abscam. kinda hard to punish a guy for something he was never convicted of.

and spyder is right, dems got a few scumbags, Cons got em by the truckload

...
Even if it weren't, though, everything in Murtha's post-Abscam life is of a
piece with the back-scratching, dealmaking style on display in the video. In a
story last month, the New York Times described how Murtha has operated "a
political trading post" in a back corner -- the Murtha corner, it's called -- of
the House floor, where Democrats and Republicans alike come to get Murtha's
blessing for earmarks or his help on close votes. As Pennsylvania Democrat Paul
Kanjorski told the Times, "nobody ever leaves completely disappointed."

Murtha is one of 12 Democrats who voted against the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance reform bill. He's one of four who killed a strong Democratic ethics
package earlier this year. He is a one-man earmarking factory whose
beneficiaries have included a lobbying firm that employed his brother and
another founded by a former top aide.
...

What does this really mean? Do politicians make deals about the pork they allow to go into bills? Duh...

Do politicos get cushy jobs for their family members? I'm sure. Do aids leave and become lobbyists by selling their access to the highest bidder??? I'm shocked... I've never heard of this before???

When you come back and show something on the level of ties to Abramoff, or the K-street gang, or Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Delay...et al. Then maybe you'll have a point.

But guilt by insinuation doesn't hold water in my book...

When you make non equivocating remarks such as "draining the swamp." Your first decision CANNOT be to back an unindicted co-conspirator for a the house majority leader.

Pelosi's first decision is an amateur mistake. She put personal feelings of friendship ahead of ensuring the party leadership all had clean "bills of health." With what happened to the Republicans, my thought would have been..."well we better make sure that we don't hand them any bullets to reload their guns with."

Instead, everyone is looking up Abscam in Wiki with their goggle functions of the internets tubes.

Hope it gets better for her and the Dems...but they certainly havn't made me forget why I left that party with this decision...

for abscam. kinda hard to punish a guy for something he was never convicted of.


Let's see, the guy was caught on tape TURNING DOWN A BRIBE, and that is supposed to show he was corrupt? No crime, no ethics violations. Why? Because he turned down a $50,000 CASH bribe, that's why.

Kinda hard to punish a guy for turning down a bribe.

Let's see, the guy was caught on tape TURNING DOWN A BRIBE, and that is supposed to show he was corrupt? No crime, no ethics violations. Why? Because he turned down a $50,000 CASH bribe, that's why.

Kinda hard to punish a guy for turning down a bribe.

I bet he thought about it, that's a crime isn't it?