The Cooperation of Neil Volz

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports that prosecutors in the wide-ranging Jack Abramoff case have files a substantial assistance memorandum suggesting a light sentence for scandal figure Neil Volz. Neil Volz was a former CoS to convicted Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and later, Volz worked in the lobbying business with Jack Abramoff. In the memorandum, which BLT paraphrases but doesn't provide, prosecutors are asking US District Judge Ellen Huvelle for merely home detention for Mr. Volz. Personally, I find this quite shocking. Another aide to Rep. Ney, Will Heaton, wore a wire to help snare his boss. And Mr. Heaton only played one side of the scandal -- that of government official. Mr. Volz, on the other hand, played both sides of the scandal -- that of government official and that of corrupt lobbyist. Mr. Volz appears to me to be more criminally culpable than the young naive Heaton. Perhaps this passage from BLT explains why Mr. Volz is getting off easy:

“The government would have been able to successfully prosecute Ney without Heaton’s assistance, but not without Volz’s,” wrote prosecutors Mary Butler and Nathaniel Edmonds.

I'm sure Ms. Butler and Mr. Edmonds know what they're talking about.

==

Other Lawmakers

The Hill newspaper has another article on this same topic. I'm a little puzzled by a certain sentence in this article. In order to give it maximum context, I'm including full paragraphs on either side of the sentence:

In the memo, prosecutors said Volz “has spent and continues to spend countless hours providing information about other matters under investigation by the Department of Justice, as well as insight into how staff members and lobbyists conduct business before Congress and the Executive Branch.”

They also said that Volz’s cooperation is ongoing, and could involve other separate DoJ investigations. His cooperation could help prosecutors snare other lawmakers under FBI investigation and those who prosecutors believe may be implicated in the Abramoff bribery scandal.

At one point, after the investigation became public, the memo says, Ney became suspicious that Volz was cooperating and left two “abusive” phone calls on his voicemail, which Volz turned over to prosecutors. The recordings would have been “powerful evidence of Ney’s consciousness of guilt had Ney elected to fight the charges against him and proceed to trial,” the document says.

[Emphasis mine]

Boy, I'd like to have the primary source here. It is clear to me that prosecutors asserted that Volz's cooperation is on-going and could help other separate DoJ investigations. But what about that mention of helping prosecutors "snare other lawmakers"? Is that in the substantial assistance memorandum? Or is that speculation by The Hill? I guess I won't know until (if?) I get to read the substantial assistance memorandum myself.

Let's assume Volz is helping prosecutors with their cases against other lawmakers. Any guesses on which lawmakers Volz may be able to provide testimony against? I have a couple of guesses. Mr. Volz is connected to Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) through colleague Kevin Ring. Mr. Volz is also connected to former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-here) through Russian energy executive Alexander Koulakovsky. Keep in mind that these are only guesses. I have no clue where the cooperation of Mr. Volz may lead.

Who is Ted Gaines?

Rep. John Doolittle (Left); Assemblyman Ted Gaines (Right)

==

The Auburn (Calif.) Journal reports that a third Republican, Assemblyman Ted Gaines, may run for the seat currently held by Jack Abramoff-linked Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). Like Eric Egland, another Republican candidate for this seat, Mr. Gaines has newfound respect for character and ethics. Mr. Gaines had no problem with Rep. Doolittle's corruption just nine months ago as the Sacramento Bee reports:

Assemblyman Ted Gaines ... campaigned with Doolittle last year. Gaines held a joint victory party with Doolittle after the November elections, in which the congressman barely nudged out Democratic challenger Charlie Brown.

Now I agree with Mr. Gaines when he says we need an individual who has a good moral and ethical compass. But where was this conviction last year? I even question whether this is a strongly held conviction by Mr. Gaines this year:

Auburn Journal

"I'd be interested in the seat if it were to open up in the future," Gaines said Wednesday. "A choice like this is the choice of a lifetime and is something that takes serious consideration."

Gaines said he thinks Doolittle's chances of winning have dwindled, and that voters in the district deserve an elected official focused on ethics.

"We need an individual who has a good moral and ethical compass," Gaines said. "John Doolittle creates a problem for our party in terms of being victorious and keeping a seat in 2008. Even if he wins the primary, I think it will be very difficult for him to win the seat in November."

Why is Mr. Gaines' decision dependent on Rep. Doolittle's decision? If Mr. Doolittle does seek re-election, it is all that more critical for an ethical candidate to oppose him. It doesn't appear that Mr. Gaines is the person CA-04 needs with a good moral and ethical compass. I'm still looking for that person.

Kid Nation, Pearland Style

On one of the cable all-news channels, I saw a story about an upcoming program on CBS called "Kid Nation".

"Kid Nation," scheduled to premiere Sept. 19, takes reality television into another realm by placing 40 kids, ages to 8 to 15, in the desert near Santa Fe for 40 days to build a society without any contact with their parents. Although a CBS spokesman said the network acquired a proper film permit to film on the Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch, Atty. Gen. Gary King is examining whether the network and producers lawfully avoided applying for work permits for the children.

The potential of violations of child labor laws may not be the only unlawful acts related to this show.

Of the four children interviewed by The Times, a 15-year-old boy from Reno is home-schooled; a 10-year-old boy from Miami Beach said he had to make up all the work; a 12-year-old from Pearland, Texas, said he took homework to the location and made up the rest of the work; and a 12-year-old girl from Boston said she missed 19 days of school and had "to un-enroll from school and then re-enroll, so I didn't have to make up any work, which was awesome."

"That's illegal," Henry said. "The rules vary in each state and each district so the rules for each child are going to be different, but in no state in this country is it legal for a parent to remove their child from school for a lengthy period of time just because they want to."

Emphasis mine.

Other news outlets have named the 12-year-old from Pearland, but you'll have to dig that info up on your own without my help.

The Pattern

Back in April, I noticed an emerging pattern of behavior among the corrupt Republicans. It is time to update the list with Rep. Rick Renzi meeting two of the criteria I identified:

Bob Ney
Jan 2006: Resigns from House Administration Committee
Aug 2006: Announces that he won't run for re-election
Oct 2006: Pleads Guilty
Nov 2006: Resigns from House of Representatives

Tom DeLay
Jan 2006: Resigns as Majority Leader
Apr 2006: Announces that he won't run for re-election
Jun 2006: Resigns from House of Representatives
??? ????: Pleads Guilty

John Doolittle
Apr 2007: Resigns from House Appropriations Committee
??? ????: Announces that he won't run for re-election
??? ????: Resigns from House of Representatives
??? ????: Pleads Guilty

Rick Renzi
Apr 2007: Resigns from all House committee assignments
Aug 2007: Announces that he won't run for re-election
??? ????: Resigns from House of Representatives
??? ????: Pleads Guilty

Will Heaton's Cooperation

Back in May, I made an entry entitled Will Heaton has been 'Yapping'". I observed a joint motion filed by prosecutors and Heaton's defense team that indicated that Will Heaton cooperated with prosecutors even before he pleaded guilty. I couldn't reconcile all those facts:

I've never claimed to know precisely how the criminal justice system works, but for some reason, I thought that plea bargains came before the cooperation. This motion clearly indicates that Mr. Heaton was cooperating prior to his February plea bargain. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that it is most likely that Mr. Heaton provided information on his former boss, Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty in September 2006.

Mystery solved. While I was on vacation, Mr. Heaton was sentenced for his role in the Abramoff scandal. Many news reports (example) indicated that Mr. Heaton was recording telephone calls and conversations with his boss, Rep. Ney. Do you think that Rep. Ney would have been loose-lipped if Mr. Heaton had already pleaded guilty in relation to the Abramoff scandal? Of course not. That is why Mr. Heaton had to substantially complete his cooperation *before* he could plea.

Anyway, to many of my readers, this is old news. It happened last week. I won't spend much time on what the press reported. I'll focus on what the press didn't report.

As those who have followed me from the old site know, I love primary sources. Today, I give a hat tip to the Washington Post for providing us the United States' Substantial Assistance Memorandum (pdf). (I'll refer to this document simply as "the memo" in the rest of this post.) Prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section prepared the memo to encourage the sentencing judge to go easy on Mr. Heaton due to his cooperation.

Here are things I found interesting:

While Heaton was the last to begin cooperating in the investigation of Congressman Ney, his assistance was timely and quickly proved substantial.¹ Prior to his direct cooperation in June 2006, Heaton had cooperated through his counsel by providing documents that the government has been unable to obtain from other sources, namely the unfiled travel disclosure reports for Heaton and another staff member from the August 2002 Scotland trip.

==

¹Prior to the start of Heaton's direct cooperation, [Neal] Volz, Tony Rudy, [Jack] Abramoff, Michael Scanlon and other staff members in Ney's office were cooperating in the investigation of Ney.

Page 3

So Mr. Heaton provided travel disclosure reports for himself *and* another staff member? Just who might that staff member be? Let's look at what I wrote in February:

Of the four government employees who went on the 2002 Scotland golfing junket with Abramoff, three have pleaded guilty to felonies:

1. Rep. Bob Ney - GUILTY
2. Will Heaton - GUILTY
3. David Safavian - GUILTY
4. Paul Vinovich - Not charged

Umm ... David Safavian wasn't a staff member for Rep. Ney, Paul Vinovich was. Smart money says that it was the travel disclosure form for Paul Vinovich that Mr. Heaton provided to prosecutors. OK, that part was easy. What do federal prosecutors want out of Mr. Vinovich since Rep. Ney has already pleaded guilty? I dunno. For that matter, I'm not even sure prosecutors care about Mr. Vinovich anymore.

Given my uncertainty of prosecutors' interest in Mr. Vinovich, I have trouble explaining this passage from the memo:

As part of [Mr. Heaton's] direct cooperation, Heaton acted proactively in the government's investigation of Ney and another at the direction of the FBI and the Public Integrity Section.

Page 4, Emphasis mine

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here. We know Mr. Heaton provided prosecutors with Mr. Vinovich's travel disclosure forms. That must be what prosecutors are referring to here, right? I'm not so sure. If prosecutors wanted to nail Mr. Vinovich, what are they waiting for? All the other travelers on the 2002 Scotland trip have already been convicted. And what is to gain by going after little fish Vinovich? Consequently, judgment is suspended with respect to who else Mr. Heaton provided evidence against.

==

Back in January, I wrote about how both Rep. Ney and Rep. Tom DeLay inserted statements helpful to Jack Abramoff into the Congressional Record. Unfortunately, this Substantial Assistance Memorandum indicates to me that nailing Rep. DeLay for his Congressional Record statements may be a tall order:

As the Court is well aware, the separation of powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution raise certain complications in a prosecution of a Member of Congress by the executive branch.² Given these evidentiary challenges and potential delays, Ney's agreement to plead guilty and Heaton's role in bringing about that agreement proved exceptionally important to the just and efficient resolution of the charges brought against Ney.

==

²One set of commonly mentioned complications is raised by the Speech or Debate clause in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which precludes the introduction of direct evidence of legislative action by a Member of Congres and renders some of the legal issues arising under the clause subject to pre-trial appeal. For example, Ney admitted in his guilty plea that, as part of his corrupt relationship with Abramoff, he twice inserted statements into the Congressional Record that benefitted Abramoff and his gambling business. Had Ney proceeded to trial, the prosecution could have established Ney's agreement to insert Congressional Record statements, but the prosecution could not have shown that Ney actually inserted those statements. See, e.g. United States v. McDade (1994) (noting that the prosecution could not show that a legislative act had been performed, but it could show a promise to perform a legislative act in the future); United States v. Brewster (1972) (acknowledging that evidence a Congressman had actually followed through with his illegal agreement would strengthen the case, but such evidence would be precluded under law). Thus, testimony and documents corraborating a legislator's corrupt agreement to take official action are crucial to a successful prosecution of a member of Congress.

Some lawyerly citations omitted

I'll be honest here. I don't really know what all that means. But it is obvious to me that Members of Congress have used the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution to protect themselves from criminal liability. Mr. Heaton's cooperation severely limited Rep. Ney's ability to use the Speech and Debate clause as a shield. I won't pretend to know what exactly Mr. Heaton did to limit Rep. Ney's Speech and Debate clause defense, but I hope that it doesn't require someone to record telephone calls and other conversations. I have to believe that we won't see that kind of evidence against any other Congressman. On the other hand, we do know that prosecutors have been offering immunity to aides to Tom DeLay.

==

I'm sure this isn't the easiest post to read, but there is a lot in the memo. Read it for yourself.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz) to Retire

From the AP:

Three-term Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican facing a federal inquiry into his family's insurance business, said Thursday he will not seek re-election next year. Renzi becomes the fifth GOP House member in recent weeks to announce retirement plans, giving Democrats hopes of possibly picking up seats next year that otherwise would not be in play . . .

Leaders of both parties viewed Renzi as seriously damaged politically by the allegations against him, and several Republicans had let it be known they hoped he would step down. They were particularly concerned because Renzi represents a district Democrats have long thought they could win.

FBI agents in April raided a Sonoita, Ariz., business owned by Renzi's wife, Roberta. Law enforcement officials confirmed in October that they were scrutinizing a land swap that netted Renzi's former business partner, friend and campaign donor $4.5 million.

Back in April, I predicted that Rep. Renzi would not run for re-election.

With respect to this news that Rep. Renzi will not run for re-election, I will reiterate what I said when the East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Ariz.) reported that Rep. Renzi was considering resignation: No Tears Shed Here.

Too bad our own corrupt Tom DeLay didn't seek re-election in 2006.

Book Recommendation: The War Against Excellence

I encourage all Carleston Elementary School parents to read "The War Against Excellence" by Cheri Pierson Yecke. Dr. Yecke has headed the state education agencies in Virginia, Minnesota and Florida.

I have yet to read the book myself, but I have ordered it from half.com, the best place to buy books. Order it for yourself Hardcover or Paperback

According to this book review from Jonathan Butcher (Chief of Staff, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas), Dr. Yecke rails against so-called “heterogeneous grouping”. What is "heterogeneous grouping"? It is the practice of placing high performing students in the same classroom as low performing students. The goal is to have the high performing students tutor their lower performing peers. This is precisely the new philosophy advocated by the new principal at Carleston Elementary.

Here is a quote from Mr. Butcher's book review:

Heterogeneous grouping is a staple of cooperative learning -- one of the many educational fads that have seeped into middle-school education over the past 50 years. Cheri Pierson Yecke, former secretary of education in Virginia and commissioner of education in Minnesota, describes this movement to make all middle-school students equally mediocre in her book, “The War Against Excellence.” She decries the effort to “promote social egalitarianism by coercing students who are gifted/high ability to be like everybody else” as well as the way educators tend to use middle schools as laboratories in which to conduct their perverse social experiments . . .

[Dr. Yecke] considers “heterogeneous grouping” merely the most destructive of these trends. Gifted students who understand the material don’t find themselves challenged, and students less far along take a back seat in the project to the more gifted, whom they figure can do the work quicker and more competently. This, of course, only widens the gap, academically and socially, between the top students and the rest. Other exercises, such as peer tutoring and cooperative learning, lead to similar results.

It appears that Dr. Yecke only contemplated the use of "heterogeneous grouping" in middle schools. At Pearland ISD, this destructive practice is being introduced in the elementary schools ... as early as 2nd grade and maybe even earlier.

Anyway, read the whole book review. Then buy the book, and read that, too.

===

I'm always amazed at who reads my blog. Today, I received a hit from someone in a Northeastern state using the rather specific search term of "pearland isd carleston class roster".

"Exemplary" or "Recognized"?

An eagle-eyed Carleston parent pointed me to the most recent issue of the Pearland Journal (not available on-line) which was published while the Anti-Corruption family was on vacation. In the most recent school accountability ratings, Carleston has already dropped from "Exemplary" to "Recognized". I had inaccurately stated that Carleston was an "Exemplary" school in a previous post.

Pearland ISD says that this change in accountability status is due in large part to changing standards at the Texas Education Agency. I suppose that this explanation carries some weight, but it decays rapidly. I'd compare this to the performance of the Houston Texans. At first, little was expected of the Texans since they were an expansion team. Now, that excuse is no longer valid. The poor performance of the Texans is a disappointment. Schools like Carleston that dropped one level in the accountability ratings have a short-lived excuse. The expectation is that Carleston and indeed the district as a whole will return to their previous higher status even under the new standard. The good news is that Pearland ISD seems to understand this.

Mutiny on the Carleston

I've been gone for the past week and a half. This year's family vacation took us to Monticello, Williamsburg and Yorktown. My wife drove to Tennessee to visit her family for a week, then I flew to Nashville and we all drove on to Virginia. We arrived back in Pearland last night after two long days of driving.

Around midnight, my wife and elementary school aged son went up to Carleston Elementary School to look at the class rosters which had been posted Friday. At that time, we learned that Pearland ISD had effectively discontinued the practice of offering an advanced class at each grade level. Mrs. Anti Corruption has already contacted several parents of advanced kids. She planned on creating a loosely organized front to oppose this decision by Pearland ISD. She didn't have to. The confederation had already started.

Now neither Mrs. Anti Corruption nor I are malcontents. In fact, when Pearland ISD made some incoherent zoning decisions, Mrs. Anti Corruption went to the neighborhood meeting to partially defend Pearland ISD. Some parents were suggesting that Jamison Middle School was inferior to our neighborhood school, Rogers Middle School. Mrs. Anti Corruption went to the subdivision meeting and asserted that Jamison Middle School is a fine school.

But effectively eliminating advanced classes is making Carleston Elementary a less desirable school -- at least for the parents of the kids who are talented.

Many students including many advanced students have been zoned out of Carleston due to overcrowding. With respect to the kids in my son's advanced class last year, I personally know of two parents who moved to Friendswood ISD due to Pearland ISD's bungling of the Rogers/Jamison zoning issue. I've told my wife that if Pearland ISD doesn't resolve this problem to our satisfaction, we'd put our elementary aged son in private school and move to Friendswood ourselves within 12 months. Since then, my wife has discussed this matter with two other parents of advanced kids. One is already househunting in Friendswood, another is seriously considering private school.

Fully 20% of the kids in my son's 2006-2007 advanced class have left or are serious considering leaving Pearland ISD. If one considers the kids zoned out of Carleston or who moved for reasons unrelated to the poor decisions at Pearland ISD, that 20% probably approaches 40%.

I will assert that this brain drain is not good for Pearland ISD. And even though Carleston Elementary is a "Exemplary" campus this year, I will take bets that Carleston will not maintain that status next year. In my opinion, mismanagement at Pearland ISD is to blame.

===

Update
August 22, 2007

An eagle-eyed Carleston parent pointed me to the most recent issue of the Pearland Journal which was published while the Anti-Corruption family was on vacation. In the most recent school accountability ratings, Carleston has already dropped from "Exemplary" to "Recognized". Pearland ISD says that this change in accountability status is due in part to changing standards at the Texas Education Agency. I suppose that this explanation carries some weight, but it decays rapidly. I'd compare this to the performance of the Houston Texans. At first, little was expected of the Texans since they were an expansion team. Now, that excuse is no longer valid. The poor performance of the Texans is a disappointment. Schools like Carleston that dropped one level in the accountability ratings have a short-lived excuse. The expectation is that Carleston and indeed the district as a whole will return to their previous levels even under the new standard. The good news is that Pearland ISD seems to understand this.

WEEK ZERO is three weeks away!

Texas high school football is the most exciting segment of the sport. No other state compares to Texas when it comes to football, and this is coming from someone who went to high school in Michigan. Long time readers know that I am a dedicated Pearland Oiler fan. Even though Pearland splits into two high schools this year, I still live in the Pearland High attendance zone.

Now you may think I'm exaggerating. You may think that NCAA football is more exciting. Or maybe you think the NFL is more exciting. Well, you're wrong. This 1994 playoff game won one of ESPN's Espy awards and it is "the greatest comeback of all time . . . OF ALL TIME ! ! "

We pick up the action with 2:42 left in the game. Tyler John Tyler (white) leads Plano East (black) 42-17 (or maybe 42-16).



Spend $5 and some time under the Friday Night Lights. Texas high school football upholds its reputation each and every year.

In Re: Corwin Teltschik

I'm probably going to be the only person on the planet that gives this story two cycles, but I have finally read the lawsuit. My readers know how much I like primary sources, and Courthouse News provides the goods.

I first wrote about this story yesterday, and Tex Parte Blog fairly characterized the substance of the case. Mr. Teltschik was the treasurer for Tom DeLay's PAC, ARMPAC. ARMPAC's law firm, Williams & Jensen, conceded to the FEC on Mr. Teltschik's behalf and without his knowledge that Mr. Teltschik had violated some campaign laws. This has caused harm to Mr. Teltschik's personal and professional reputation.

Blah, blah, blah. I don't care.

As Tex Parte Blog indicated, Christine DeLay personally asked Mr. Teltschik to accept the role of Treasurer at ARMPAC. Also, Mr. Teltschik's wife, Carolyn Teltschik is (or was at one time) the president of the DeLay Foundation for Kids Board of Directors. Edwin Buckham was also a Director at the DeLay Foundation and many of his Indian tribe clients donated to the charity. Any doubt on why I have said that DeLay Foundation "stinks to high heaven"? The Teltschiks aren't exactly clean. As the saying goes, "When you lay down with the dogs . . . "

The most puzzling part of the lawsuit is paragraph 29 on pages 13-14:

Also contained within the documents that [Williams & Jenson Managing Partner Robert] Martinez faxed to Plaintiff [Corwin Teltschik] was an email that purports to be from James W. Ellis, "Executive Director Americans for a Republican Majority - ARMPAC", dated April 20, 2004 and directed to [former Williams & Jenson attorney and former ARMPAC assistant treasurer Barbara Wixon] Bonfiglio. By this email, Ellis requested Bonfiglio to adjust the payroll figures to reflect the following monthly amounts: Jim Ellis - $9,000; Chris Perkins - $5,500; and Dani DeLay Ferro - $4,500. Ellis also requested some retroactive payments to the same individuals, to be handled via a lump sum payment. Plaintiff was not aware of these payments until November, 2006, and might not have approved same in the first instance.

My question from yesterday has been answered. Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio wrote checks for ARMPAC. I also find it highly unusual that Corwin Teltschik specifically mentions very few checks in his lawsuit. But Mr. Teltschik specifically refers to a check from ARMPAC to Dani DeLay Ferro and immediately suggests that he might not have approved the check if he had known about it. That tells me that Mr. Teltschik believes the check to Dani DeLay Ferro was improper in some way. Could the "retroactive" "payroll" payments have been a way to convert ARMPAC assets into the personal assets of Jim Ellis, Chris Perkins and Dani DeLay Ferro? Trust me, this isn't the last we've heard of this matter.

Also notice the timing of Mr. Teltschik's discovery of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro. It was November 2006, just nine months ago. The investigation into suspicious payments from ARMPAC to DeLay family members including Dani DeLay Ferro was well underway by then. I'm betting that Mr. Teltschik learned of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro when the Justice Department asked him about it. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Teltschik is unhappy about that check. Mr. Teltschik is obviously disgruntled, and if he's telling the truth, his disgruntlement is justified. I just wonder how cooperative he's been with the Justice Department -- if he knows anything at all.

I have focused on the Abramoff side of this scandal to the detriment of the ARMPAC side. I need to make an appeal for information from people who have followed ARMPAC more closely than I have. And I need to start paying closer attention. I suggest that you do too, gentle reader.

===

Update
June 1, 2008

I no longer believe it is possible that Mr. Teltschik learned of the "retroactive" "payroll" checks from the Justice Department. See explanation here.

Who Wrote Checks for ARMPAC?

A new blog has caught my attention. The Tex Parte Blog makes observations on the Lone Star State's legal community. Today, Tex Parte Blog reports on a curious lawsuit:

Houston attorney Corwin L. Teltschik, who served as treasurer of former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay’s Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, has sued a Washington, D.C.-based firm that represented ARMPAC. Teltschik alleges in his complaint in Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen, et al., filed on Aug. 6 in U.S. District Court in Galveston, that the firm, acting without his knowledge or consent, conceded in filings with the Federal Election Commission that Teltschik, in his capacity as ARMPAC’s treasurer, “had violated various federal election laws – some of which laws are felonies.” According to the complaint, Christine DeLay, wife of the former congressman, asked Teltschik to serve as ARMPAC’s treasurer in 1995. But Teltschik alleges that he never had authority to sign checks for ARMPAC. . . .

I'm not a lawyer and I have no position on the merits of this case. But I'm sure that it will soon be relevant who *did* have the authority to sign checks for ARMPAC.

Sen. Ted Stevens is "Toast"

Hugh Hewitt shows me this article from the Wall Street Journal's John Fund. Fund's piece is a long criticism of the two-thirds of the all-Republican Alaska Congressional delegation. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young are neck-deep in scandal involving oil services company VECO. I've known about this scandal for some time, but I've been trying to limit my posting to the Abramoff scandal since that is the one that will send my former Congressman, Tom DeLay, to prison. If you want to learn more of the VECO scandal, click through to Fund's article. All I'm going to show you is what I found interesting:

Privately, many Republican senators believe Mr. Stevens may be forced to retire next year. "The suspicions are great," one GOP senator told me. "He's toast. You start out thinking you are representing your state and you take one step after another until suddenly you're primarily representing your friends in the state." That's a path many others in Congress have trod--which is why real earmark reform is necessary now.

Emphasis mine

I'll bet a nickel that our critical Senator is Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). Coburn has long been an Integrity Republican.

I found this segment from Hewitt vaguely familiar:

Over at OpinionJournal, John Fund warns the Congressional GOP that it is still deaf to the demands for reform. He also notes that the scandal engulfing Alaska's ted Steven's may just be beginning. "If you thought Jack Abramoff was a symbol of Washington sleaze," Fund writes, "see what happens if Mr. Stevens is further embroiled in scandal." . . .

But the GOP base won't have it, and if the Congressional GOP circles the wagons around its compromised members, the base will be on the outside firing in.

Long ago, I characterized the battle between anti-corruption Republicans and those who tolerate corruption as a "battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party."

I even brought up the imagery of corruption-tolerant Republicans (the Fort Bend County Republican Party?) circling the wagons around their compromised members. For the record, I've long been shooting in.

Hugh Hewitt used to be the only radio talk show I'd listen to. I liked the intellectually honest positions he took. Hewitt lost me back in October when he defended former Speaker Denny Hastert's actions surrounding the Mark Foley scandal. I hadn't listened to him in ten months. I tuned in 1040 AM on the drive home this afternoon. Hewitt had an interesting discussion with Bill Kristol. Even if he hasn't combed through the archives at my old place, it is obvious Hewitt and I are on the same wavelength. I'll give him another chance.

The "Nifong Syndrome"

A couple of weeks ago, columnist Kathleen Parker used a term new to me to describe the eagerness of The New Republic (TNR) to believe its "Baghdad Diarist" correspondent. That term is the "Nifong Syndrome". Parker defines the Nifong Syndrome this way:

the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief

This malady is named after notorious Duke "rape" case prosecutor Mike Nifong. Despite no evidence other than the alleged victim's troublesome testimony and plenty of exculpatory evidence, Nifong brought all the weight of his office on the Duke lacrosse players. See, the case fit Nifong's preconceived notions -- that rich white Duke athletes would violate a black stripper given half a chance. That a rape never actually occurred was irrelevant to this narrative.

I liked the phrase Parker used. It certainly applied to Mike Nifong. And it certainly looks like it applies to the target of her article, The New Republic, for believing Scott Thomas Beauchamp a.k.a. the Baghdad Diarist.

But come on! How often do otherwise intelligent people believe something so contrary to reality just because it fits a preconceived notion? Yes, the Nifong Syndrome is real, but, I thought, it was thankfully quite rare.

I also concluded that the Nifong Syndrome afflicted only those on the left. How else to explain how lefties defended President Clinton's perjury (it was all an attempted Republican coup, you know.) Or CNN's Tailwind story (the military is evil is a common theme.) Or the fabrications of Stephen Glass in TNR (maybe TNR violates the "otherwise intelligent" requirement for the Nifong Syndrome.)

Well, it has only taken me two and a half weeks to figure out that many Republicans are afflicted with the Nifong Syndrome. Anyone paying attention to the guilty pleas of Jack Abramoff or Tony Rudy could see precisely what was going on with a small segment of the GOP Congressional delegation. I've never claimed to be the smartest guy in the world, and even I figured out that the bribes were going to Congressional spouses even before I saw the term "The Wives Club". See, I am anchored in reality. Yes, I firmly believe that over the long term, Democrats have been more corrupt than Republicans. But so far this decade, Republicans have jumped out nearly an insurmountable lead. That pains me, but I also know that Republican voters are more serious about rooting out corruption than their Democratic counterparts.

Too many of my fellow Republicans seem chronically affected by Nifong Syndrome. At some level, it is encouraging to see some people like Eric Egland recover from Nifong Syndrome. Unfortunately, the only example of recovery I can cite may not be what it seems. In a report by Bob Novak, GOP strategist Karl Rove advised Republican candidates to demonstrate that they are not connected to Washington's Culture of Corruption:

WASHINGTON -- Karl Rove, President Bush's political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections. Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington.

Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley.

. . . or John Doolittle.

A week after Mr. Rove gave his advice, Mr. Egland attempted to distance himself from Rep. Doolittle. Mr. Egland's "recovery" seems to be little more than political opportunism. I suppose opportunism rooted in truth is better than the raging case of Nifong Syndrome exhibited by California State Senator Sam Aanestad and a majority of the Placer County (Calif.) Republican Party who still can't handle the truth.

I'll make my plea again, isn't there a single conservative in CA-04 who is immune to Nifong Syndrome?

Eric Egland: Ignorant and/or Gullible

A couple of weeks ago, I looked at the nascent campaign of Eric Egland, a potential primary opponent to John Doolittle (R-Calif.). At that time, I said, "It is obvious to me that Mr. Egland is not nearly as sensitive to corruption in government as I am."

Mr. Egland has staked out a position on why he is not so sensitive to corruption. We find the details in the Roseville (Calif.) Press Tribune. Mr. Egland defends his lack of vigilance with respect to corruption and government on the fact that he was ignorant and/or gullible in 2006:

"I share the deeply held conservative values of the majority of the people in this district, but our elected officials need a higher ethical standard than barely avoiding a federal prison," Egland said.

Egland was a vocal Doolittle supporter during the 2006 election, which the congressman won with 49 percent of the vote over Democratic challenger Charlie Brown, also of Roseville.

"I believed him then when he claimed he was not under federal investigation, but since then it's clear he's the subject of not only one but two serious investigations based on behavior that, at the very least, could be described as ethically outrageous," Egland said.

This is probably a very honest assessment by Mr. Egland. It's just not exactly inspiring to hear someone essentially say, "Vote for me! I'm ignorant and gullible!"