Robert Coughlin: GUILTY

James Grimaldi at the Washington Post reports:

A former high-ranking official in the Justice Department pleaded guilty yesterday to accepting thousands of dollars worth of meals and sports tickets from Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping a variety of Abramoff's clients.

Robert E. Coughlin II, the former deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department's criminal division, became the latest of more than a dozen public officials, lobbyists and congressional staff members to be convicted or to plead guilty in the wide-ranging federal investigation of Abramoff's activities.

As part of his plea agreement, Coughlin, 36, agreed to cooperate with investigators, making him a potentially important witness in the ongoing scrutiny of Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). Coughlin acknowledged performing a variety of official acts for Kevin A. Ring, a key member of Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig and a former legislative aide to Doolittle. Coughlin and Ring are longtime friends who worked together on Capitol Hill a decade ago.

Coughlin admitted violating the federal conflict-of-interest statute while he served in the department's offices of legislative affairs and public liaison between March 2001 and October 2003. According to court papers filed yesterday, he leaked department information, attended meetings and contacted his Justice colleagues to help clients of Abramoff and Ring.

First observation: Robert Coughlin is a little fish. The Justice Department clearly believes that Mr. Coughlin will help them nail bigger fish.

I first mentioned Mr. Coughlin a year ago. Back in April 2007, it was unclear to me what Mr. Coughlin had done wrong. Accepting meals and tickets to sporting events would not be anywhere near an ethical violation at my organization, but I'm not a public servant either (I accepted two meals today). Employees of the federal government seem to have much stricter rules under the aforementioned "federal conflict-of-interest statute". Even though I didn't understand what Mr. Coughlin had done wrong, I stated that "I expect[ed] more facts to emerge -- facts not exactly exculpatory to Mr. Coughlin?" It was clear to me that Mr. Coughlin had exercised his authority in a manner to help Kevin Ring, an employee of Jack Abramoff. Although I didn't know what Mr. Coughlin had done, bartering official action for a benefit (the tickets and meals) is obviously unethical and illegal. I'd get sacked for using my position to benefit someone over my organization ... not for accepting meals.

By October 2007, it was clear that the Justice Department was going after Mr. Coughlin on a conflict-of-interest charge. I stated my opinion at the time that there was a quid-pro-quo between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Ring.

The big question is where do we go from here. What information does Mr. Coughlin bring to the table? I go back to April 2007 again. I've long suspected that Mr. Ring is cooperating with the Justice Department. Now we know with certainty that Mr. Coughlin is cooperating. I'll stick to my April 2007 speculation that the ultimate big fish in this corner of the Abramoff scandal is Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). Sure, that's an easy call to make. I mean, the Washington Post puts it out there in black and white for us to see. I just want to remind everyone of a statement from Rep. Doolittle's office when we learned that Mr. Ring was likely cooperating:

"In light of the uncertainty with Mr. Ring's situation, [Rep. Doolittle's] attorney has advised him to provide no further comment on this investigation," said Richard Robinson, Doolittle's chief of staff.

Robinson directed questions to David Barger, a prominent criminal defense attorney in suburban Virginia whom Doolittle retained a year ago. Barger was not available for comment late Monday afternoon.

Uncertainty with Mr. Ring's situation. No further comment. Criminal defense attorney.

Trust me, I'm not going out on a limb here.

Superceding Filing: In Re: Corwin Teltschik

Recently, I've been getting some relatively high quality hits from DC looking for information on Corwin Teltschik. I've long felt that this story is far more interesting than the mainstream press does.

Anyway, I decided to root around and see if I could find out what's ginning up this interest. I don't have an answer to what is going on, but I did find something out. It appears that Mr. Teltschik has refiled his case in Washington, DC. I'd like to provide some insightful color into this bland fact, but I'm not sure it means anything at all.

While I'm revisiting this matter, I want to point out something Kuff noticed back in August when Mr. Teltschik originally filed his case in US District Court in Galveston. Reginald McKamie is the attorney representing Mr. Teltschik.

Finally, on a moderately trivial note, Reginald McKamie was the Democratic opponent to Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal in 2004. This case seems a bit out of his firm's normal areas of practice, but I could be wrong about that. Just thought I'd mention it since I recognized the name.

At the time, I accepted Kuff's conclusion that this odd fact was trivial. Over the course of the past eight months, my thinking has evolved. Mr. McKamie is not a natural political ally to Mr. Teltschik. For that matter, Mr. McKamie is likely not a natural political ally to any of the defendants, either. Pure speculation here, but I suppose it is possible that Mr. Teltschik didn't want to find a Republican lawyer who might feel conflicted or Mr. Teltschik couldn't find a Republican lawyer willing to buck his party and take this case. At any rate, it is certainly noteworthy rather than trivial that Mr. Teltschik's lawyer is a figure in Democratic electoral politics. See? I'm raising the significance of this fact from trivial to noteworthy.

As to the substance of this case, I can't help but wonder if the increased interest in this matter means that this lawsuit is moving forward. No matter what, I am a little more understanding of Mr. Teltschik's situation than I was eight months ago.

$324,000 and it's done

The Miami Herald reports that former Abramoff firm Greenberg Traurig has settled with the government of Guam.

The U.S. Territory of Guam has dropped criminal charges against Greenberg Traurig after Miami's biggest law firm agreed to refund $324,000 in lobbying fees it collected while disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked at the firm...

Cesar Alvarez, Greenberg Traurig's CEO, said the matter could have been avoided had prosecutors been aware that the firm has cooperated with federal authorities throughout the investigation into the Abramoff corruption scandal.

''We explained to [Guam] how we brought this case to the Justice Department,'' Alvarez said. ``They [Guam] understood that we are the good guys in this, and that Abramoff is the one that took us for a ride.''

It became clear to me last week that the government of Guam simply wanted money. I still don't understand the purpose of the criminal indictment against Greenberg. As I said last week, Greenberg would have certainly entered into good faith negotiations with Guam even without the criminal indictment.

Now I'm not sure I'd characterize Greenberg as the "good guys" like Greenberg CEO Cesar Alvarez did. But it is certainly clear to anyone following this case that Greenberg has held itself institutionally accountable with respect to its role. Greenberg has repeatedly demonstrated it will act responsibly in the aftermath of the Abramoff scandal. That said, Greenberg could have had tighter internal controls and prevented Abramoff's overbilling in the first place.

Guam prosecutor Lewis Littlepage is a little different. Mr. Littlepage said there were criminals in this matter some place. Apparently, those criminals will get away scott-free. We don't even know who they are.

It's All About Money

A month ago, I demonstrated my complete ignorance of the legal system (as I often do) in a post about the indictment of Jack Abramoff's old law firm, Greenberg Traurig, by the attorney general of Guam:

It is interesting to me that Jack Abramoff's former firm, Greenberg Traurig, was indicted. I've stated many times that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to criminally indict a company. That seems like indicting a car for drunk driving. A person must have committed the crime -- indict the person.

That said, I know this isn't the first time a company has been indicted. Remember that Arthur Andersen was indicted in the Enron scandal. The consequence of the indictment of Arthur Andersen is that the accounting firm ceased to exist. Now I'm not saying that Greenberg Traurig's very existence is threated by the Guam attorney general. Remember, I don't really understand the purpose of indicting an organization. I don't know what will happen.

Why did the Guam attorney general indict Greenberg Traurig? Money of course! From the Daily Business Review:

Greenberg’s alleged offense — billing Guam for services that had nothing to do with the lobbying task Abramoff agreed to undertake...

The firm faces felony counts of unlawful influence, theft by deception and conspiracy. “It should be something every client of Greenberg Traurig should be concerned about,” [former Guam prosecutor Lewis W.] Littlepage said.

The firm issued statements after its indictment saying it was innocent and noting the firm has cooperated with “all investigations into” Abramoff...

Greenberg said it was caught completely off guard by the charges. Littlepage said he didn’t see a reason to notify the firm when he amended a 2006 complaint to charge the firm.

“You usually don’t notify criminals ahead of time,” he said.

Who are these criminals Mr. Littlepage refers to? He doesn't say. Not in the article ... not in his indictment. The world may never know who these criminals are.

Criminal charges against a law firm — or any corporation — are unusual. The potential penalties are financial, said Brian Bieber, a white-collar criminal defense attorney with Hirschhorn & Bieber in Coral Gables.

“It’s quite rare that the government will indict a law firm, and the differences are significant because the bottom line is that an individual is not going to lose his or her freedom,” he said...

If Greenberg opted for a settlement, Littlepage said it probably would mean paying restitution of about $324,000 plus possible fines. He doubts the law firm will go to trial.

Ah! Mr. Littlepage tells us what he really wants. $324,000 in restitution. Don't get me wrong. If Greenberg Traurig were improperly enriched by fraudulent billing, Greenberg should make restitution to the government of Guam. That seems to me to be more of a civil issue than a criminal one. If faced with a civil suit, I'm sure that Greenberg would enter into good faith negotiations to settle with Guam. The criminal indictment still seems to be overkill to me.

I'm sure I'm an unlikely defender of Greenberg Traurig, but the criminal indictment seemed odd when I first heard of it. It still seems odd.

Way to Go, Bow!

The Bow (N.H.) School District has suspended its pursuit of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program:

The Bow School District will suspend its application to the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, after consideration of the program outraged a segment of the community.

"There's enough disarray in the community perception of IB that I think we need more time for us to pursue it together, in a more collaborative way," said School Board Chairwoman Pansy Bloomfield...

Recently, IB has drawn criticism from community members who called it unnecessary and a waste of tax dollars. Some said the school should focus on enhancing its Advanced Placement classes instead and should not become beholden to an outside agency.

At a Thursday night school board meeting that went until after midnight, the board voted 3-2 to hold off on the second part of the application.

Recapping: Bow parents and taxpayers objected to the International Baccalaureate Program because: (1) It is too expensive; and (2) an existing Advanced Placement program is more effective than IB.

Interestingly, the concerns of the Bow parents echo some of my own concerns. I have questioned the cost of the program. In the same post, I noted how many IB students are finding out that their first choice college does not accept credit for IB classes. (In fact, at least one school district encourages its IB students to take both the IB exam and the AP exam in order to ensure acceptance of college credit.)

The parallels don't end there. The Bow School District is cutting funding for athletics and career programs due to budget constraints while spending more for IB. Pearland ISD is also considering cutting funding for athletics and career programs while expanding the IB budget.

Lastly, I found this quote to be quite odd:

Although [Bow Superintendent Dean Cascadden] said there was a wide range of opinions, there was enough concern by "reasonable, rational" people that the board felt the community did not adequately support the program.

"Reasonable, rational" people? What does that mean? I get the sense that IB supporters are not too terribly tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Of course, I've had that sense for some time.

Dr. Shelley Sekula Gibbs for Congress

===

April 14, 2008

Welcome Texas Weekly Readers!

I want to make something crystal clear: I am not accusing Pete Olson of corruption. I stated that twice in the body of this post which remains unchanged from prior to the runoff. My concern with Mr. Olson is that he shares the same cozy relationships with lobbyists that former Rep. Tom DeLay did. (Mr. DeLay still has some very real legal problems ahead of him.)

The point of this post is that there are very few policy differences between Mr. Olson and Dr. Shelley Sekula Gibbs. Given that the two candidates were similar, I argued that the deciding factor should be based on Mr. Olson's closeness to those associated with scandal versus Dr. Sekula Gibbs' extremely mild indications that she disapproved of Mr. Olson's relationships with lobbyists.

As for the general election, I suspect this may be the first time in over a decade that I can vote a straight ticket ballot. The primary reason is that Mr. DeLay won't be on it.

===

Typically, I am loath to write posts about local electoral politics. But there is a striking difference difference between the two candidates in the Republican run-off for US Congress in the 22nd district of Texas. The clear choice is Dr. Shelley Sekula Gibbs.

My blogs originated as a response to the corruption of our former Congressman, Tom DeLay. To this day, I am horrified at the lack of concern the Republican party has toward the issue of corruption. In 2006, the party nominated the corrupt Mr. DeLay even though he had no chance of winning the general election. As a result, Rep. Nick Lampson is our Congressman for the next nine months.

There is a very obvious difference between the two remaining candidates for US Congress. Mr. Pete Olson epitomizes the lack of concern the Republican party has toward corruption. Nearly six months ago, I wrote about Mr. Olson's fundraising connection with Barbara Bonfiglio's former firm of Williams & Jensen. Now I freely admit that there's no hint of illegal activity simply because Mr. Olson received donations from the lobbyists at W&J, but there are more mosaic tiles to indicate that Mr. Olson is not sensitive enough to the Culture of Corruption.

Earlier this month, the web-based news outlet FortBendNow.com looked into who was donating to Mr. Olson's campaign:

Another notable who gave money to Olson in the most recent period is lobbyist Drew Maloney, once chief of staff to former CD-22 kingpin Tom DeLay. Maloney, of Washington D.C., gave Olson $1,000 on March 6.

Pop quiz! Who is Drew Maloney? Mr. Maloney was an energy lobbyist after his employment with former Rep. DeLay. On May 30, 2002, Mr. Maloney wrote an e-mail to ARMPAC staffer (and another former DeLay Congressional staffer) Chris Perkins that seemingly connected the legislative interests of Mr. Maloney's clients with political donations. Former Rep. Tom DeLay was admonished by the House Ethics Committee over this incident. The Ethics Committee found:

In particular, there was the timing of the fundraiser, i.e., it took place just as the House-Senate conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get underway. Indeed, one of the communications between organizers of the fundraiser – an e-mail of May 30, 2002 from [energy lobbyist and former DeLay staffer] Mr. [Drew] Maloney to [ARMPAC staffer] Mr. [Chris] Perkins that notes the legislative interests of each of the attendees – includes a specific reference to the conference. (That e-mail is included in Attachment M.) In addition, there was the fact that Representative DeLay was in a position to significantly influence the conference, both as a member of the House leadership and, by action taken about a week and a half after the fundraiser, his appointment as one of the conferees.

Furthermore, the Ethics Committee stated in a letter of admonishment to then- Rep. DeLay that:

This letter implements determinations made by the Committee that you be admonished for your conduct in two respects:

your participation in and facilitation of an energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort for your leadership PACs on June 2-3, 2002. Those actions were objectionable under House standards of conduct because, at a minimum, they created an appearance that donors were being provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy legislation.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal about Mr. Olson collecting money from someone who participated in a scheme that was "objectionable under House standards of conduct". At the same time, it doesn't give me great comfort that Mr. Olson is very sensitive to the very issues that caused Mr. DeLay to resign from Congress.

Dr. Sekula Gibbs hints at these issues in some of her campaign literature. In a recent flier found in the Anti-Corruption mailbox, Dr. Sekula Gibbs' campaign says that "some of [Mr. Olson's] biggest supporters are the lobbyists who run [Washington, D.C.]" I wish Dr. Sekula Gibbs were more vocal about this issue, but at least there is evidence that she gets it.

There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Sekula Gibbs will have a decent voting record if she wins this seat. She must know that pro-life voters will find someone better if she doesn't maintain her 100% rating from the National Right to Life organization. Her newfound opposition to immigration may be political opportunism -- but unfortunately, it is no different from Mr. Olson's position. My political worldview is summed up in five words stolen from the late Bob Bartley: "Free Markets and Free People". It seems to me that supporting an increase in legal immigration meets both of those criteria. Overall, there is little distinguishing the public policies of Dr. Sekula Gibbs and Mr. Olson. Therefore, vote for the one that is more sensitive to the threat of public corruption. Support Dr. Sekula Gibbs.

National Review Supports Challenger over Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

I've always liked the conservative National Review magazine. I've long suspected that the writers there are anti-corruption Republicans like me. Despite some strong statements against Republican corruption immediately following the 2006 general election, National Review has been disappointingly quiet on this subject since then.

Until now.

Link

When news surfaced last year that Alaska congressman Don Young was facing a federal investigation for possible corruption, it was hardly what Republicans wanted to hear: yet another member of their party under an ethical cloud, following an election in which questions about ethics had cost them dearly.

So far, Young hasn’t been charged with anything, though he has spent some $850,000 on legal fees. Still, something appears to be rotten in the state of Alaska. Earlier this month, James Clark, the chief of staff to former Republican governor Frank Murkowski, pleaded guilty to felony fraud charges involving campaign contributions from VECO, an engineering company. Last year, several Republican legislators and VECO executives were convicted of bribery. GOP senator Ted Stevens is also the subject of a probe...

By now, it has become clear that no matter what federal investigators learn about the congressman’s links to VECO, Don Young’s Way is the wrong way for Republicans.

I first wrote about Rep. Young's dalliance with scandal back in April, 2007. In fact, I later called Alaskan Republicans derelict when it appeared they would not challenge Rep. Young in the primary. I said it was important for Republicans to defeat their own corrupt representatives in the primary rather than wait for the general election. Here in TX22, 62% of the Republican primary electorate voted for Tom DeLay in 2006 despite Mr. DeLay's corruption. Hence, we're stuck with a Democrat in Congress for the next nine months. My accusation that Alaskan Republican were derelict was made in haste, however. Last month, I applauded Alaska Lt. Governor Sean Parnell for challenging Rep. Young in the primary.

Now, National Review is all but endorsing Lt. Gov. Parnell's primary challenge:

A recent poll found that 55 percent of likely voters have an unfavorable view of Young — a number that should concern Republicans who hope Alaska’s only House seat stays in GOP hands. The good news is that there’s now a viable Republican alternative. On March 14, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell announced a primary challenge to Young. Two years ago, Parnell’s gubernatorial ticket-mate, Sarah Palin, swiped the GOP nomination from the unpopular Murkowsi. She and Parnell went on to win the general election and now Palin is even discussed, in some circles, as a possible vice-presidential candidate...

Parnell, in fact, has the opportunity to do his party a favor, by forcing the retirement of an incumbent who is a walking argument for term limits and making sure his red-state seat doesn’t defect to the Democrats. He has the endorsement of Palin, and he should enjoy the strong support of conservatives.

Way to go National Review! Unfortunately, National Review seems to argue that the less than conservative policy positions of Rep. Young are a bigger problem than the stench of scandal:

By now, it has become clear that no matter what federal investigators learn about the congressman’s links to VECO, Don Young’s Way is the wrong way for Republicans. The problem goes even deeper than concerns about ethics and the addiction to handouts. Young is simply too liberal for his conservative state. In its most recent congressional scorecard, the American Conservative Union gave him a rating of 72 — a poor record that puts him to the left of most of his GOP colleagues in the House. He supports one of Big Labor’s top legislative priorities, a bill that would eliminate secret ballots in union elections. On free trade, he is a reliable protectionist who has opposed Trade Promotion Authority for the president, trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, and a NAFTA provision that would permit Mexican drivers to travel on U.S. interstates. He has also voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Does this mean that if Rep. Young's preferred public policy goals were in alignment with the National Review editorial board that National Review wouldn't have taken this stance? C'mon, National Review! I have higher expectations of you!

National Review also gives us this disturbing piece of news:

The National Republican Congressional Committee may feel compelled to prop up Young, much as the National Republican Senatorial Committee tried to do two years ago with Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, a man who ultimately survived his primary, then lost his seat and thanked the GOP by quitting it. Throwing resources behind Young would be another big mistake.

Now I wholeheartedly agree with National Review's position here. If anything, the NRCC should support the clean candidate. I know that Minority Leader John Boehner's "Clear Likelihood" explicitly applied to committee assignments, but is it too much to ask that the NRCC not actively support a dirty politician when a clean one is challenging him?