How Much Smoke, How Much Fire?
Washington is abuzz with discussion of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea yesterday. The background on Abramoff's downfall includes a transaction in which he and a partner defrauded another party in connection with the purchase of a gambling boat. The fraud, which, as described in the press, seems impossibly crude, was a purely private matter that did not involve any public officials. Nevertheless, the authorities had Abramoff dead to rights, and they bargained for what they really wanted: information about Congressmen and their staffers.
How much information Abramoff actually has remains to be seen. The information that was filed yesterday, which can be accessed here, seems surprisingly thin. It deals mostly with allegations that Abramoff defrauded clients, principally Indian tribes, by paying fees to vendors secretly controlled by him. Again, bad news for Abramoff, but of little public interest.
Only one Congressman is mentioned in the information, Bob Ney of Ohio. Paragraph 22 of the information alleges that Abramoff provided "a lavish trip to Scotland to play golf on world-famous courses, tickets to sporting events and other entertainment, regular meals at Abramoff's upscale restaurant, and campaign contributions" to Ney and his staff in exchange for Ney's "agreement to perform a series of official acts," most notably, "advancing the application of a client of Abramoff for a license to install wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives."
As far as Congress is concerned, that's the only allegation in the information. Yesterday Congressman Ney's office released the following statement on the charges:
Congressman Ney has never done anything illegal or improper and the allegations in this plea agreement do not change this fact.Today’s criminal information agreement for Jack Abramoff references a “license to install wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives.”
For your background, I wanted to make you aware of the attached and below information regarding this project. As has been previously reported, Congressman Bob Ney, as House Administration Committee Chairman, had the sole authority to award this license however he chose not to do so. Instead, the Chairman solicited and received the choices from the six wireless companies that would actually be incurring the costs of this project.
The first attached document is an October 2000 memo from Foxcom to then-Committee Chairman Bill Thomas. This document is noteworthy because it shows that Foxcom was already under consideration and meeting with Congressional staff prior to Ney assuming the Chairmanship in 2001. In fact, on page 3 please note that it was the Democrat Minority Staff who arranged the first meeting with Foxcom in 2000.
The second attachment is a letter from the House General Counsel’s office to LGC wireless responding to false allegations that were made by that company. The House General Counsel’s office is the non-partisan legal entity that represents the institution of the House. You will note that this letter reiterates that it would be the wireless companies, and not the Committee or the Chairman, who would ultimately choose the vendor provided that both vendors met the criteria required for the project which both companies did. Please further note that the Democrat minority was copied on this letter.
The third attachment includes the ballots received by the Committee from the six wireless companies. You will note that three companies chose Foxcom and three chose no preference - not a single company chose LGC. Subsequently, the license was awarded to Foxcom. It is also important to note that the following year, the U.S. Senate also chose Foxcom for the same wireless enhancement project.
Finally, please note the below story by The Hill newspaper from earlier this year which contradicted several inaccurate points previously reported by the Washington Post on this matter - note the final paragraph in particular. Please also be aware that Cingular Wireless has also released a statement validating their choice of Foxcom for this project.
The story in The Hill referred to above, which covers Sprint's issuance of a statement supporting Ney in the wireless infrastructure controversy, is here.
From listening to the press coverage, one almost gets the impression that campaign contributions and Congressional junkets are illegal. They are not. (As I understand the rather arcane law surrounding junkets, their legality depends on the identity of the entity that ultimately paid for the trip,) It is possible, of course, that Abramoff has lots more to say, and that the prosecutors, for some reason, chose to showcase only one of their less substantial claims in the information. Time will tell how much of the Abramoff story is smoke, and how much is fire.
Meanwhile, Gay Patriot West offers a personal reminiscence of Abramoff in happier times.
