TX22 - "Leans Democratic"

So says Greg Giroux at Congressional Quartlerly as he gives a roundup of competititive House races in the South:

• Texas’ 22nd District (Southeast Houston and southern suburbs — Sugar Land, Pearland, part of Pasadena)

2006: Nick Lampson (D) 52%, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs write-in (R) 42%

None of the 30 districts that the Democrats won from the Republicans in 2006 voted more strongly for Bush in 2004 than Texas 22, the longtime stronghold of Tom DeLay. Lampson, who represented somewhat different turf in the House from 1997 through 2004, was greatly abetted in 2006 by the downfall of the former House majority leader, who resigned under a barrage of ethics controversies, and a ballot snafu that forced Sekula-Gibbs to run an unlikely write-in campaign.

Are you kidding me? Mr. Lampson is only renting this seat. Yes, Mr. Lampson "was greatly abetted in 2006 by the downfall of" Tom DeLay. But what caused that? It was because thousands and thousands of Republican voters just like me refused to vote for a corrupt guy. Mr. DeLay knew he couldn't win when there still was Republican division after his narrow primary victory. Look, I am a reliable Republican voter. I've voted Democrat less than five times in my life. As long as the Republicans nominate someone who isn't saddled with ethical, moral or legal baggage, I'm voting for the Elephant before the Donkey. So to get my vote, the Republicans basically need to nominate someone from outside of Sugar Land.

Dr. Sekula Gibbs would have easily won this seat if she were on the ballot against Lampson. She came within ten percentage points of an unlikely victory in a write-in campaign.

I'd rate this seat "Leans Republican". The only reason that I don't think it is "Probable Republican" is that I still harbor some doubts that the local party will insist on a clean candidate. They still don't seem to know what happened in 2006.

Doolittle's Subpoena Strategy

There's been some news about Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) that I've been negligent in mentioning. First, Rep. Doolittle has been named by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (a liberal group) as one of the most corrupt Members of Congress again! Woo-hoo! Another year and northern California can claim a dynasty of corruption! From the Roseville (Calif.) Press Tribune:

U.S. Rep. John Doolittle is a repeat member of a Washington watchdog organization's list of the most corrupt members of Congress.

The list by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington names 18 Republicans and four Democrats...

"I just really think it's unfair and wrong for an underhanded and vile organization like CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington], who disagree with me because I'm a conservative Republican (sic), to attack me on that," [Rep. Doolittle] said. "Because of the atmosphere right now, it's a very impactful thing..."

Doolittle said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington should live up to its name.

"What they do flies in the face of the name of the organization itself," he said. "There's nothing responsible or ethical about it. It's the sort of bare-knuckle politics Democrats have decided to practice."

I hate seeing that excuse. I really do. Are we really supposed to dismiss CREW just because they're a bunch of lefties? Of course not! An intellectually honest person needs to evaluate the allegations anyway. I've seen this tactic employed too many times. Unfortunately, it must work.

We also read this:

[Doolittle is] also facing questions within his own party from some former supporters about his ability to win again, given the cloud of uncertainty hanging over legal issues in Washington...

Doolittle's plans for a run at a 10th term in Congress representing the Fifth District are being challenged by Auburn City Councilman Mike Holmes and Eric Egland, a Air Force reservist from Roseville. Also expressing an interest in running, state Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, has questioned Doolittle's effectiveness because of the continuing ethics questions hanging over him.

It is not clear to me if Rep. Doolittle thinks that weasels like Mr. Egland and Mr. Gaines are also upset at him for being a "conservative Republican". More likely, Rep. Doolittle's Republican challengers have belatedly evaluated his character ... and don't like what they see.

Oh, one last thing:

"Every year CREW creates this compendium of corruption to expose and hold accountable those members of Congress who believe they are above the law," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW and a former member of Democratic Sen. Joe Biden's staff.

Sloan added that Congress persists in abdicating its constitutional responsibility to law enforcement.

"Luckily for the public, at least the Department of Justice still believes that political corruption is worth pursuing," Sloan said.

Ms. Sloan and I are in alignment. I particularly liked her praise for the Department of Justice. The DoJ has diligently pursued these corruption cases. They are still investigating Tom DeLay even though he resigned in hopes the DoJ would leave him alone. Some people have criticized the Justice Department as politicized or slow. That is wrong. They have racked up some serious convictions and more are ahead. Ms. Sloan is right to praise the Justice Department. More lefties should.

==

Now to the issue the title suggests. From the Sacramento Bee:

Rep. John Doolittle said Thursday that prosecutors investigating the political corruption scandal of Washington, D.C., lobbyist Jack Abramoff have issued subpoenas to him and five staff members, seeking office records going back more than a decade.

While Doolittle declined to elaborate on the developments, his criminal defense attorney indicated he would fight subpoenas that could allow government prosecutors to comb through "virtually every record including legislative records for the congressman for the past 11 years."

Very Serious. Eleven years? 1996? The genesis of Republican corruption may be earlier than I thought. Rep. Doolittle needs to resign now. Of course, I said that in May when we learned prosecutors tried to get him to plea. Heck, in June 2006, I hoped Republican voters would nominate someone else in CA-04.

My preference that Rep. Doolittle remove himself from office aside, I must admit that the description of the scope of the subpoenas is troublesome. "Virtually every record including legislative records for ... the past 11 years"? That sounds too broad. But the truth is, I don't believe it. That description was provided by Rep. Doolittle's attorney. Not exactly an unbiased source in my humble opinion.

Last month, I described a legal strategy among corrupt Congressmen that appears to be becoming more common. Congressmen are using the "Speech and Debate" clause of the US Constitution to shield themselves from legal liability. This is what Rep. Doolittle is doing:

Attorney David Barger argued that the U.S. Constitution protects Congress from legal inquiries into legislative acts.

"These efforts raise serious constitutional issues going to the very core of our separation of powers created by the Founding Fathers," Barger said in a statement.

Ultimately, I'm optimistic that the courts will be in alignment with the thinking of Sacramento lawyer Donald Heller:

Yet Sacramento lawyer Donald Heller, a former federal prosecutor, said the U.S. Supreme Court has held that such "legislative immunity" can be waived in investigations of alleged criminal conduct by office holders.

"The government has a right to pursue bribery of an elected official, which is an incredibly serious offense, if it has cause to believe he accepted something of value for the exercise of his official position," Heller said.

I certainly hope that the courts won't allow Congressmen to use the Constitution to protect themselves from a criminal investigation. But as an admirer of the Founding Fathers, I also know that the "Speech and Debate" clause was necessary to prevent abuses of Congress like the abuses perpetrated by the English crown against parliament. I fear that Rep. Doolittle's abuse of the "Speech and Debate" clause will cheapen and damage it. Any damage to the Constitution is intolerable. Rep. Doolittle is harming the country more and more. He needs to go.

Who is Brent Wilkes?

OK, so I've mentioned Brent Wilkes in passing many times. I've never created a post specifically about him, though. Whenever I make a post about a scandal figure that doesn't have universal name recognition, I like to entitle it "Who is . . .?". This construction began over a year and a half ago when I entitled an entry "Who is Tony Rudy?", which for some reason, still generates a lot of hits. For those of you wondering, yes, I appropriated this construction from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Anyway, Brent Wilkes is one of the the defense contractors who bribed admitted felon and former US Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-Calif.). Former Rep. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November 2005. Despite the fact that Rep. Cunningham acknowledges that he received bribes from Mr. Wilkes, Mr. Wilkes denies bribing Rep. Cunningham. The bulldogs at the Justice Department apparently can't reconcile this contradiction. Therefore, Mr. Wilkes faces trial beginning this Wednesday.

The attorney for Mr. Wilkes is one Mark Geragos. Name sound familiar? Sure it does! Mr. Geragos was the attorney for double murderer Scott Peterson. (That wasn't meant to bias you.)

Mr. Geragos has filed some motions to exclude evidence that will be considered on Tuesday. From "The Hill":

Geragos filed several motions to deny evidence Friday. One seeks to exclude all testimony and evidence regarding the alleged patronage of prostitutes by Wilkes and Cunningham on the grounds that it would unfairly prejudice the jury and would deny Wilkes the right to a fair trial under the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution.

To back up his argument, Geragos cited federal rule of evidence 403, which states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

In his motion, Geragos said the government’s purpose in presenting testimony regarding the alleged hiring of prostitutes during a trip to Hawaii is to “sully Mr. Wilkes in the eyes of the jury.”

“Mr. Wilkes was married during the alleged incident, and the government seeks to drag out a dirty story of adultery and vice, not to prove any element of the alleged offense here, but to tar Mr. Wilkes as an adulterer and criminal of the most tawdry sort,” Geragos wrote in the motion.

Wow! That sounds prejudicial doesn't it? Why bring up the fact that Mr. Wilkes hired prostitutes when this is a bribery case? We have to read on to figure that out:

In the government’s trial memorandum summarizing the case against Wilkes, prosecutors accused Wilkes of paying for Cunningham’s stay at the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, as well as for “lavish catered meals, rounds of golf and diving trips.”

“He also provided Cunningham with two nights with prostitutes for which Wilkes paid $300 a night,” prosecutors wrote in the memo.

Oh! So Mr. Wilkes hired prostitutes for Rep. Cunningham as part of the bribe. Of course evidence about the prostitutes will be allowed in court. Otherwise, why not prohibit testimony about the cash money bribes Mr. Wilkes gave to Rep. Cunningham. That seems pretty prejudicial, too. Expect the motions filed on Mr. Wilkes' behalf to be denied. Also, expect Mr. Wilkes to be found guilty. A bribe takes two, and Rep. Cunningham has already told the story. Mr. Wilkes should have cut a plea deal.

The reason I think this is so significant is that one Edwin A. Buckham was Mr. Wilkes' lobbyist. I know I've said it a million times, but Edwin Buckham is central to the corruption case of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County). Ed Buckham paid Christine DeLay for a bogus job. It is that bribe that is sending Mr. DeLay to jail. Although I strongly suspect the two cases are connected through Mr. Buckham, I've never been fully confident of a connection.

Lutheran South Academy

As part on the Anti Corruption family's on-going quest to secure an appropriate education for our children, Mrs. Anti-Corruption and I visited Lutheran South Academy (LSA) Friday week. Mrs. Anti-Corruption wanted to enroll Junior Anti-Corruption immediately. After much negotiation, I convinced her that it would be unfair to Junior to force him to switch schools after the school year had begun. Don't get me wrong. I loved Lutheran South. It reminded me a lot of my own high school.

The Admissions Director was an extremely informative man. He is obviously a quantitative thinker. In the course of giving us a thorough profile of the school, he showed me a map indicating where students lived by ZIP code for the 2006-2007 school year as well as for the 2007-2008 school year. I was shocked to see that the enrollment from 77584 (my ZIP) had increased by over 50% in the past year. (Yes, being a quantitative thinker myself, I did the math.) I looked at the enrollment for Pearland's other ZIP code, 77581, and it appeared that enrollment there had increased by 50% year-over-year as well, but I didn't actually do that arithmetic. [Part of the >50% increase is due to the addition of a pre-school program at Lutheran South. The Admissions Director was unable to separate the pre-school kids out of his analysis, but suffice it to say, the addition of the pre-school program five miles from Pearland city limits (and ten miles from my house) does not explain a 50% year-over-year increase in enrollment from Pearland.]

I asked the Admissions Director what he attributed the huge increase in Pearland enrollment to. He told me that he noticed two distinct waves of Pearland parents looking at Lutheran South

Around February 2007, he said that there were a lot of parents upset with the then-recent school zoning changes in Pearland***. That didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean, if the school district doesn't allow your kid to go to the school in your neighborhood and buses him two miles away, why enroll him in a school on I-45? Something tells me there are other issues at play there.

The second wave occurred over the summer. The Admissions Director told me that a lot of Pearland parents were showing interest in Lutheran South because Pearland was eliminating ability grouped classes. That floored me. Was he just echoing my personal motivation back to me? My evaluation of his character told me he was an honest guy. I have no reason to believe that this attribution wasn't accurate. This supports the assertion I made in my original post on this subject. Eliminating ability grouped classes will result in a brain drain that is not good for Pearland ISD. I want to know who these parents are that figured out what was going on over the summer? I must not be very smart because I didn't figure it out in time.

==

*** I'd like to illustrate how zany the school rezoning decisions were. A hypothetical student living at Rogers Middle School would not attend Rogers Middle School. He would be sent to Jamison Middle School. Strange, huh?

A second hypothetical student living at Jamison Middle School would, after brushing his teeth in the boys bathroom at Jamison, hop on a bus and go to school at Sablatura Middle School.

"I Strenuously Object" - Part Two

" 'I strenuously object?' Is that how it works? Hm? 'Objection.' 'Overruled.' 'Oh, no, no, no. No, I strenuously object.' 'Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.' "--Lt. Weinberg (Kevin Pollak) in "A Few Good Men," 1992

Back in July, I used this line from "A Few Good Men" to poke fun at Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle's Quixotic pursuit of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County). Mr. Earle had already failed in his attempt to reinstate conspiracy charges against Rep. DeLay at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), essentially the "Supreme Court" in Texas for criminal cases. There is no venue to appeal the CCA's decision. Therefore, Mr. Earle 'strenuously objected' to the CCA's finding of law. At the time, I advised my readers to:

Expect Ronnie Earle's 'stenuous objection' to essentially be ignored.

Well, the CCA refused to reconsider Mr. Earle's request as quietly as they could:

Texas' highest criminal appeals court on Wednesday stood by a decision to dismiss a conspiracy charge against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in a routine weekly listing, announced it wouldn't rehear the case. Prosecutors had asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling.

Mr. Earle's 'stenuous objection' was just another tile in the mosaic that shows me that Mr. Earle has no intention of bringing former Rep. DeLay to trial. The 'strenuous objection' fulfilled its purpose of wasting two months. That's all. It is frightening to me that anyone still thinks highly of Mr. Earle. I'm an unlikely defender of Rep. DeLay, I'm sure. But Mr. Earle is using the power of his office to unfairly attack a private citizen. That is injustice.

I must admit that my NFL picks are a little more dicier than my legal predictions. For the record, in the football pool, I'm giving the points and taking Atlanta to beat the Houston Texans. If I'm right, I promise not to crow about it. If I'm wrong, expect me not to mention it next week.

Ronnie Earle and Tom DeLay

There are several on-line trading exchanges that allow people to predict the outcome of current events. The predictive ability of these exchanges is quite remarkable:

Intrade, in other words, isn’t just an entertaining Web site. It is the latest iteration of one of the most important economic developments of modern times. It has also been remarkably clairvoyant. Heading into the 2004 presidential election, Intrade’s odds correctly forecast the outcome in all 50 states.

So let's look how Intrade's markets view the case of partisan Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle against our former Congressman, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County):

Tom DeLay to be found guilty of conspiring to launder money & money laundering


Do you notice what I do? The collective predictions of large numbers of people suggest that Tom DeLay will not be convicted by Ronnie Earle. In fact, at 18.5%, fewer people think that Ronnie Earle will be able to secure a conviction than at any time since 2005, when the indictment was issued.

Through the course of my blogging, I have had the opportunity to meet some interesting people. At one point, I met a fellow blogger on the left side of the spectrum over a beer. During that meeting, I made a prediction to my friendly acquaintence. My prediction: Ronnie Earle has no intent on prosecuting Tom DeLay. (Recall that Ronnie Earle indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and refused to proceed at trial.) I anticipate that Ronnie Earle will keep this case alive long enough for Tom DeLay to be indicted and convicted by the Department of Justice. At that point, Ronnie Earle will drop the charges that he brought against DeLay and publicly preen that he could have convicted DeLay, too.

Now I don't know if the collective prediction on InTrade reflects my thinking. More likely, the InTrade prediction indicates that Ronnie Earle's case is nothing but Mr. Earle criminalizing a political opponent. (I'd be negligent if I didn't mention that a guilty plea by Mr. DeLay is treated as a not-guilty verdict by InTrade. It is possible that people believe that Mr. DeLay will plead guilty, leading them to sell the InTrade contract. I don't think that outcome is very likely, though.)

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska): Target ???

Back in April, I briefly mentioned the travails of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). He's in a bit of a pickle due to his own corruption, but since I haven't determined that Rep. Young's transgressions are related to the Jack Abramoff scandal, I've deemed them to be beyond the scope of this blog. Sure, they deserve to be investigated and prosecuted, but I won't spend a lot of time writing about it.

The reason Rep. Young has caught my attention again is due to a John Fund piece on opinionjournal.com. (I didn't see it in my hard copy of the Wall Street Journal either yesterday or today.):

[T]he Associated Press reported that the FBI has recorded two phone calls between Sen. Ted Stevens, who sponsored the bridge, and Bill Allen, a Stevens patron who dominated state politics as the head of the oil-services firm VECO until he pleaded guilty to bribing state legislators this year. Mr. Allen has also testified in open court that he paid some of the bills incurred in the expensive remodeling of Mr. Stevens's Alaska home. Last month, FBI agents raided the senator's home to secure evidence about the remodeling work. Few expect Mr. Stevens, who has served since 1968 and rose to become chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, to survive politically...

The arrogance Alaska congressmen displayed in pursuing their taxpayer largesse was stunning. Rep. Don Young, the former Transportation Committee chairman and the state's lone House member, became famous for trying to secure funding for another dubious bridge near Anchorage, this one costing $223 million. Art Nelson, Mr. Young's son-in-law, is part owner of 60 acres of what he described as "beautiful property"--land that would be opened up to development by the new bridge. He admitted discussing the project with his father-in-law. Mr. Young said he saw no conflict of interest...

Adding to Rep. Young's woes, The Wall Street Journal reports that he has become a target of the same federal investigation that's been looking into connections between Sen. Stevens and VECO. Mr. Young has a lot more to worry about than whom to bite on the House floor. The same can be said for Mr. Stevens, whose pork-barreling days are likely numbered.

Emphasis added

I find Mr. Fund's columns to be extremely informative, but I suspect that we have a case of imprecise language here. In the lingo of the Justice Department, a "target" has a specific meaning:

The Department of Justice has special policies when the subpoenaed person is either a "target" or a "subject" of the grand jury investigation. A "target" is someone the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence to link to a crime, and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is likely to be indicted. A "subject" of a grand jury investigation is someone whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.

In short, I doubt the Justice Department has notified Rep. Young that he is a target. Rep. Young is nevertheless in serious legal jeopardy. It certainly is possible that Rep. Young's status has changed. Keep an eye out for developments.

Ed Buckham Rejects Plea Bargain

So says Peter Stone at National Journal as reported by TPMmuckraker.

[Edwin] Buckham, as DeLay's bag man, has long been considered the key to prosecutors building a case against DeLay as part of the Jack Abramoff investigation. The vise has been closing on him for quite some time. But Peter Stone reports in this month's National Journal that Buckham finally turned down a deal offered by prosecutors to plead guilty, and that "he expects to be indicted soon."

I suppose this information corroborates my revised speculation (the revision begins after the == break) following a subpoena of Buckham-related payroll records reported in the House of Representatives. My revised speculation last week was that prosecutors are building a case against Buckham right now and not Tom DeLay, his wife or daughter.

==

Compare and Contrast

OK, I admit it. I was too optimistic in hoping that federal investigators were close to indicting Tom DeLay some time soon. It isn't the first time I've been too optimistic and it certainly won't be the last.

Since I've settled on the Ed-Buckham-is-going-to-trial theory, let's try to peer into our crystal ball and predict the timing of some future events. There has only been one jury trial in the Abramoff case. Former Abramoff lobbyist and General Services Administration official David Safavian was convicted in June 2006. I didn't write much about him then because I didn't (and still don't) know why Mr. Safavian was so important. Here is what I did write in September 2006:

Honestly, David Safavian is a little bit of a mystery to me. He worked in the administration and appears to have gotten caught up in this due to his own greed. Against whom can he testify? Remember that Safavian went on the St. Andrews junket. Bob Ney has already been caught lying about that trip. Maybe Safavian is supposed to testify against Ney. If so, the DoJ has a little work left. Safavian did not plead. He was convicted in a jury trial and is still appealing. But going to such lengths (jury trial) to nail little fish Safavian still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

A little Q & A

Q. Based on the experience of the Safavian trial, how long after Edwin A. Buckham's indictment should we expect his trial to begin and a verdict heard?

A. Mr. Safavian was indicted on October 5, 2005. His trial began May 25, 2006, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on four felony counts on June 20, 2006. So, assuming that Ed Buckham gets indicted in the next two weeks, we're still looking at verdicts in June 2008. Expect various appeals even after the verdicts. I'm not patient enough for this stuff.

Q. Is it really worth taking Ed Buckham to trial? Or should the Justice Department offer him immunity to speed things up? After all, you said that it didn't make a whole lot of sense to take little fish David Safavian to trial.

A. I've seen some lefty sites appear to approvingly advocate giving immunity to Edwin Buckham. That's nuts! Unlike Safavian, Buckham is central to the corruption we've seen at the federal level for nearly a decade. Buckham needs to go to jail! Any resources thrown at a jury trial for Ed Buckham are resources well spent.

I have a nagging fear that Ed Buckham won't cooperate with prosecutors since he seems committed to going to trial. Even after his trial, Buckham may not have any incentive to help investigators. Don't expect Tom DeLay to be indicted in the next 12 months (until the Buckham case is over). And when DeLay is indicted, don't expect Buckham to provide any meaningful testimony.

I was too optimistic last week when I heard of the Buckham payroll subpoenas. I hope to be able to look back on this post someday and say that I was too pessimistic.

Edwin Buckham: Target?

UPI reports on developments in the corruption of our former Congressman, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County). Edwin A. Buckham, a former aide to Rep. Delay and former Abramoff associate, has had some of his records subpoenaed by a grand jury. The most significant thing the UPI tells us is that this subpoena indicates that Edwin Buckham is a target of a criminal investigation:

The subpoena, which was read into the Congressional Record, suggests that Buckham is a Justice Department target.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but this development certainly doesn't augur well for Ed Buckham.

The AP gives us more substance to this matter:

A House official said that the subpoena sought payroll records and e-mails written by Buckham when he was DeLay‘s chief of staff. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue with reporters.

Buckham is a key figure in the Justice Department‘s investigation of DeLay, a Texas Republican. He left DeLay‘s office in 1998 and started his own lobbying business, Alexander Strategy Group, where DeLay‘s wife once worked.

Buckham‘s firm was tied to Abramoff, receiving referrals from Abramoff‘s office. Buckham also accompanied DeLay and his wife on a Scotland golfing trip in 2000 that was partly paid for by Abramoff.

Buckham also was referenced in court papers last year when DeLay‘s former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and promised to cooperate in the Abramoff probe.

Emphasis and link added

In early April 2006, I posted about Tony Rudy's plea agreement. It was Rudy's plea deal that crystalized in my mind where this scandal was going. Ed Buckham tried not to directly bribe Tom DeLay. Instead, Buckham hired DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay in a bogus job. Christine's "salary" was the bribe. Do you see why Buckham's payroll records are significant?

Another odd "payroll" issue remains unresolved in my mind. Remember the curious case of Corwin Teltschik? According to Telschik's lawsuit, Dani DeLay Ferro (Tom DeLay's daughter) received "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC (Tom DeLay's political action committee). Forgive me if "retroactive" "payroll" payments seem stinky on the surface. Also humor me when I remind you that Edwin Buckham was deeply involved in ARMPAC, too.

My current thinking is that the payroll records subpoenaed by the grand jury are related to Christine DeLay's "employment" with Alexander Strategy Group. While it is possible that Buckham's subpoena is related to ARMPAC, I question whether or not Buckham would be in possession of ARMPAC's records.

==

As I was reading my Dead Tree version of the Houston Chronicle, I saw the AP article on page A12. The first sentences read this way:

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed House records connected to a one-time aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who has been caught up in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal.

The subpoena involving Edwin Buckham was issued to the chief administrative officer of the House by a grand jury in Washington.

Emphasis added

Hmm. This throws a wrench into my thinking. It appears that the records held by the House of Representatives were subpoenaed. If true, we're not looking at Alexander Strategy Group payroll records related to Christine DeLay's bogus "job". Also, this isn't related to ARMPAC.

The only explanation I have is that prosecutors are building a case against Ed Buckham. Why would Buckham's payroll records be significant? There is a one-year cooling-off period for Capitol Hill employees. Hill staffers may not engage in lobbying efforts with their co-workers for a year after they leave their government jobs. This must be where the Department of Justice is going, and the House payroll records will establish when Buckham left Capitol Hill. It seems there would be an easier way to determine when Buckham left than issuing a subpoena for his House payroll records. If my revised interpretation is right, we are a lot further away from DeLay that I initially thought.

Oh well, we can hope that the Justice Department nails Buckham fairly quickly, can't we?

Greenspan: Tom DeLay was Big Spender

Legendary journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame reviews a new book by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in today's Washington Post:

Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.

"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.

He adds three pages later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

Yes, Tom DeLay was a big spender. I made two indictments of DeLay when I first started at the old place. First, Tom DeLay was corrupt. Second, Tom DeLay was fiscally irresponsible.

Pearland Oilers Quietly Racking up Ws

Pearland has defeated the Spring Branch Memorial Mustangs 21-0, running their record to 3-0. Despite this success, the Oilers keep dropping in the Chronicle Houston area poll:

Preseason Poll
Ranking: #6
Record: 0-0

Week Zero Poll
Ranking: #9
Record: 1-0 (def. Fort Bend Kempner)

Week One Poll
Ranking: #10
Record: 2-0 (def. Houston Madison)

Week Two Poll
Ranking: ???
Record: 3-0 (def. Spring Branch Memorial)

If Pearland keeps winning like this, sooner or later, they'll be unranked.

In all seriousness, Pearland's toughest game of the regular season will be next week against State 4A Champion La Marque. Pearland tagged La Marque with their only "L" of the 2006 season. This year, the game will be played on La Marque's literal home turf. Pearland isn't intimidated by La Marque, and La Marque certainly has revenge on their mind. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Pearland-La Marque game is tentatively ESPN Radio 97.5's game of the week. Good luck Oilers!

==

Update: ESPN Radio 97.5 now has the Port Arthur Memorial - Lamar game as their game of the week.

House Lawyers

The Associated Press has a follow-up report on the grand jury testimony of aides to Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two aides to GOP Rep. John Doolittle who appeared before a federal grand jury last week were accompanied by House attorneys rather than private lawyers, The Associated Press has learned.

A third aide did not use House counsel. The grand jury is investigating ties between Doolittle, R-Calif., his wife, Julie, and jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The participation by the House General Counsel's office comes in the wake of a federal court ruling last month that said federal investigators violated the Constitution by reviewing legislative documents as part of a different congressional corruption case involving Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.

Doolittle's chief of staff, Ron Rogers, was accompanied by David Plotinsky, a House General Counsel attorney, when he appeared last Friday before the grand jury at U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Two days earlier, Doolittle's deputy chief of staff, Dan Blankenburg, also had House representation at his grand jury appearance, but Doolittle's scheduler, Alisha Perkins, did not.

The House counsel generally only represents aides after the Justice Department has disclosed that they are only witnesses in a case and not subject to potential criminal scrutiny. Rogers and Blankenburg both are relatively recent arrivals to Doolittle's staff while Perkins has worked there for more than five years, including years when Doolittle was lobbied by Abramoff associates.

Big Takeaway: The Justice Department doesn't think that Messrs. Rogers and Blankenburg have been involved in any criminal activity. Otherwise, the House General Counsel wouldn't have represented them.

Big Mystery: Why didn't Ms. Perkins have a lawyer from the House General Counsel? Am I to infer that she might face criminal scrutiny? Also recall that the grand jury subpoena of Ms. Perkins wasn't announced to the House of Representives like the subpoenas of Messrs. Rogers and Blankenburg. I don't have an explanation on why the experiences of Ms. Perkins are different from those of her colleagues.

The AP indicates that the House General Counsel lawyers were there to represent the interests of the House of Representatives as an institution. They were not there to represent Messrs. Rogers and Blankenburg. The House of Representatives wants to defend the Speech and Debate clause of the US Constitution. Since the Justice Department (part of the executive branch) and a US District Court (part of the judiciary branch) were both participants in the grand jury proceedings, the House lawyers were there to ensure that there were no intrusions on the principle of separation of powers.

Weasels, Gadflies and Traitors

Rep. John Doolittle has resorted to insulting his base:

Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., denounced his GOP critics as "weasels" Friday even as his chief of staff appeared before a federal grand jury investigating Doolittle's ties to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff...

Prosecutors are investigating connections between Doolittle and Abramoff including payments that Doolittle's wife, Julie, got from Abramoff even after a fundraiser she was paid to plan got canceled.

I view this as a sign of desperation on behalf of Rep. Doolittle. If Rep. Doolittle miraculously survives his primary challenge, do you think those "weasels" such as Eric Egland or Ted Gaines would be supportive of his general election campaign?

This desperation reminds me of the pressure our own former representive, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County) must have felt after his poor showing in the Texas primary of 2006. I referred to former Rep. DeLay's temper tantrum as the Chicken Republican Offensive after DeLay attacked those in the Republican Party who valued ethics, integrity and character as "Chicken Republicans". Rep. DeLay later called his primary opponents "gadflies and traitors".

Because I see amazing similarities between the behavior of Rep. Doolittle and Rep. DeLay, I'm offering even odds that Rep. Doolittle announces that he won't run for re-election by Halloween.

Neil Volz and Alexander Koulakovsky

For some reason, the mainstream press is reporting several day old news. The AP is just getting around to reporting the Substantial Assistance Memorandum prosecutors filed urging US District Judge Ellen Huvelle to give Jack Abramoff linked figure Neil Volz a light sentence due to his cooperation.

In addition to a gratuitous reference to the AP getting the story late, I wanted to point out this passage in the AP's article:

Volz, who left government to work for Abramoff, was accused of arranging for the congressman to personally resolve a passport dispute for the daughter of Russian energy executive Alexander Koulakovsky, an Abramoff client. Prosecutors said Volz served as a conduit to provide Ney trips from Abramoff.

Emphasis added

Earlier reports indicated that Volz's cooperation could "snare other lawmakers". Here's what I wrote on August 31 shortly after this story broke:

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.

I still haven't seen the Substantial Assistance Memorandum, but I assume the AP has. I find it extremely coincidental that Naftasib's Alexander Koulakovsky is mentioned in the AP article. I'm drawing some inferences based on what I wrote last week. Are you?

Doolittle Aides Testify Before Grand Jury

First, I'll state the obvious. Having a grand jury investigate Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) doesn't augur well for him. From Roll Call:

A grand jury has subpoenaed Rep. John Doolittle’s (R-Calif.) chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to testify about evidence uncovered in an FBI probe into his and his wife’s ties to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia subpoenaed Chief of Staff Ron Rogers and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Blankenburg. As House rules mandate, Rogers and Blankenburg notified Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the subpoenas, which House aides say were announced on the House floor Tuesday, the day Congress returned from its recess.

It turns out that three of Mr. Doolittle's aides were subpoenaed:

Alisha Perkins, who has worked for six years as the congressman's scheduler, testified before the grand jury Wednesday morning, said the congressman's press aide, Gordon Hinkle.

Hinkle said Perkins was served a grand jury subpoena about the same time as was Ron Rogers, the congressman's chief of staff, and his deputy chief of staff, Dan Blankenburg.

If House rules require the staffers to notify Speaker Pelosi of subpoenas as The Hill indicates, I can't figure out why Ms. Perkins didn't notify the Speaker at the same time Mr. Rogers and Mr. Blankenburg did. Maybe a scheduler isn't high enough on the totem pole to be covered by the requirement. Oh well, I won't spend too many brain cells trying to find an explanation. It is just odd.

==
Update

Other press reports indicate that Ms. Perkins did notify the Speaker of her subpoena.

==

More from the SacBee:

Unlike Blankenburg, who started working for the congressman in 2005, and Rogers, who joined the office only in May, Perkins' work in the office dates back long enough that she would have been there when Abramoff and his associates, most notably Kevin Ring, were seeking to meet with the Roseville Republican.

I have no clue where prosecutors are going with this. Maybe Ms. Perkins has personal knowledge of Rep. Doolittle's dealing with Abramoff/Buckham. But what about Messrs. Blankenburg and Rogers? According to the SacBee, they weren't even around for the corruption -- and Mr. Rogers has only been an aide to Rep. Doolittle since May. Has there been more criminal activity since then? Has there been a cover-up? I'm not smart enough to figure this out. Mr. Blankenburg is the only one to issue a statement so far, and it is so unremarkable, I won't even quote it.

Of course I want to tie this back to my own corrupt former representative. I didn't know that Congressional staffers had to report any subpoenas to the House. Could this have been a motive for Tom DeLay to resign so abruptly just days after Tony Rudy pleaded guilty? Mr. Rudy admitted "coordinating activities" with former Rep. DeLay's staff. At the time, back in March 2006, I speculated that this would mean that more of former Rep. DeLay's staff could become witnesses. Since Mr. DeLay resigned, subpoenas to his staff members would no longer have to be made public because they wouldn't have to be reported to the Speaker. I suspect that Mr. DeLay's curiously timed resignation was intended, in part, to make any subpoenas of his staff less public.

Possible Motivation of Pearland ISD

I've been writing about the decision of my neighborhood elementary school to effectively eliminate accelerated classes. Since I moved to Pearland in the 1990s, Carleston Elementary School has had what I've learned is called a "tracked class" "ability grouped" class. In short, the highest performing kids were identified through objective and subjective means and placed in a single class. Colloquially, this class was known as the "accelerated class". I don't know if that was the formal nomenclature or not.

Now, Carleston Elementary is experimenting with something called "heterogeneous grouping" where students of all abilities are placed in the same class. The idea is that higher performing kids will be an additional resource for the school district to use and these higher ability kids will somehow be expected to help their lower performing peers to meet minimum proficiency standards on the TAKS test.

There is one non-heterogeneous class called a "GT Cluster" class at each grade level. Despite the fact that I have spent some time trying to determine how students are selected for the "GT Cluster" class, I have yet to figure that out. I swear it seems that Pearland ISD wants to keep this selection process a secret. I do know that the selection process for the current "GT Cluster" class is not the same as the process used for the old accelerated classes. Consequently, today's "GT Cluster" classes SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED with the past years' accelerated classes.

Anyway, I have been surprised with the level of interest in this subject. I will continue to write about it from time to time. Also, I will label posts on this subject with the keyword "Carleston". This label should appear in blue at the bottom of this post. It will allow a reader to skip all posts except those related to this subject.

====

Last week, the Washington Post had an extremely interesting article that I thought was on point:

With reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act high on the agenda as Congress returns from its recess, lawmakers must confront the fact that the law is causing many concerned parents to abandon public schools that are not failing.

These parents are fleeing public schools not only because, as documented by a recent University of Chicago study, the act pushes teachers to ignore high-ability students through its exclusive focus on bringing students to minimum proficiency. Worse than this benign neglect, No Child forces a fundamental educational approach so inappropriate for high-ability students that it destroys their interest in learning, as school becomes an endless chain of basic lessons aimed at low-performing students.

Emphasis and link in original.

I personally know two families that have moved to Friendswood ISD due to disagreements with Pearland ISD. The Anti-Corruption family is probably the next to go to Friendswood. Speaking for myself, this decision is not based on a belief that Carleston is a failing school. No one could make that case. Instead, just as the WaPo article suggests, my wife and I believe that Carleston does not provide an appropriate education for high performing children.

Why would Carleston fail to challenge its high performing students? The University of Chicago study says that it is because schools are evaluated on how many students pass minimum proficiency standards. In other words, a school is judged on how may low performing students it has -- not how many high performing students it has. In order to earn a higher status, Carleston needs improve the performance only of the lowest ability students. Having the high performers improve doesn't matter.

Carleston routinely has 90+% of its students pass the TAKS test. Of course, until all students pass the test, there's room for improvement. Consequently, Carleston Elementary focuses virtually all of its efforts on the lowest performing 10% of the student population -- those children who might not pass the TAKS test or are on the bubble. High performers don't need such attention since they will pass the test anyway. In fact, high ability students are treated as another resource for the school district to use to get the low performers to do better on the TAKS. That is my basic philosophical difference with Pearland ISD. My child is a student - a consumer of education; he is not an additional resource for the district to use to get someone else's kid to pass the TAKS. Pearland ISD should challenge the high performers to their ability.

Another quote from the WaPo article in order to encourage you to read the whole thing. (Also read at least the abstract to the University of Chicago study.)

[A]s long as No Child requires that every student reach proficiency by 2014 and it continues to focus only on grade-level material, teachers will lack incentives to appropriately educate students who can master their grade's curriculum well before spring testing. Nor will growth modeling prompt schools to provide an enriching curriculum that goes beyond the basics.

The response of many parents to this situation was summed up succinctly by one of our numerous friends, colleagues and family members who have pulled their children from neighborhood schools: "We've learned that the real solution is called 'private school.'"

. . . or Friendswood ISD. My perception is that Friendswood ISD is able to walk and chew gum at the same time. FISD can work hard with the lower ability students to get them to minimum proficiency levels while simultaneously challenging high performers to their ability.

====

There was also an interesting article in Time Magazine a few weeks ago. While not entirely on topic (I don't think Carleston parents think their kids will challenge Einstein), the Time article had its moments:

Many school administrators oppose ability grouping on the theory that it can perpetuate social inequalities, but at the Davidson Academy, even the 45 élite students are grouped by ability into easier and harder English, math and science classes. The school poses blunt questions about American education: Has the drive to ensure equity over excellence gone too far? If so, is the answer to segregate the brightest kids?

Now I can't get into the minds of Pearland ISD administrators, and they don't seem to want to share with me their motives. I truly believe that Pearland administrators are responding to the perverse incentives to focus only on those students who may not meet the minimum proficiency standards. I certainly hope that the opposition to ability grouping (the opposite of heterogeneous grouping) isn't based on some sort of social inequity theory.

"More Indictments"

The Chicago Tribune reports on an Iowa campaign stop by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Sen. McCain had some comments regarding the scandal problems of the Republican Party:

McCain also said the public's distrust of Washington, and scandals that have befallen the Republican Party, may continue. He noted that the cooperation of once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff with federal prosecutors could lead to more
indictments.

[Emphasis Mine]

While Sen. McCain is speaking specifically about the Jack Abramoff scandal when he predicts "more indictments", it is not clear whether Sen. McCain anticipates that elected officials will be on the receiving end of these indictments.

So ... With a big "if" ... IF Sen. McCain's prediction of more indictments involves elected officials (past and present), my readers won't be surprised if I attach the names of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) and former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County) to this prediction. After all, I have written about the bribes received by Rep. Doolittle and Rep. DeLay since April 2006.