Dancing with the Devil

The Chronicle has acquired some promotional photos of our former congressman, Tom DeLay, from Dancing with the Stars. Notice the "Rio Bend" logo on Mr. DeLay's shirt.


Tom DeLay rehearses "The Robot" for Dancing with the Stars.

Kevin Ring Exhibits: GREG ORLANDO

We continue our examination of the Kevin Ring Exhibit List. Last week, we looked at exhibits that related to Peter Evich, a Legislative Director (LD) who worked for former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). As we noted, Mr. Evich left Doolittle's office in January 2003. A Doolittle Legislative Assistant (LA), Greg Orlando, was promoted to fill the vacancy. Mr. Orlando appears in a number of the exhibits in USA v. Kevin A. Ring. We mentioned two (GX-352 and GX-381) in the "Kevin Ring Exhibits: PETER EVICH" post. Today, we look at many more:

EXHIBIT 351: 06/20/2001 Orioles vs. Toronto Camden Yards event Roster

The ACR Blog believes Mr. Ring provided tickets to this event to Mr. Orlando. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 366: 12/02/2001 Redskins vs. Dallas FedEx Field event roster

The ACR Blog believes Mr. Ring provided tickets to this event to Mr. Orlando. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 369: 01/01/2002 Caps vs. NY Islanders MCI Center event roster

The ACR Blog believes Mr. Ring provided tickets to this event to Mr. Orlando. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 389: 02/19/2003 Email from Orlando to Ring, "RE: second notice, sir"

The ACR Blog believes that, in this email chain, Mr. Ring wanted to discuss a client's project with Mr. Orlando. Mr. Ring wrote, "[I] also think we should discuss a [municipal client's] post office soon. [T]hey didn't do what they said they would." The ACR Blog can only speculate what the client didn't do, but we are of the opinion that it has to do with making sure lobbying fees arrived at Greenberg Traurig. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 393: 03/07/2003 Email from Abramoff to Ring and Bowers, "RE:"

The ACR Blog believes that in this email chain, Mr. Orlando asked Mr. Ring for tickets to the first NFL game of the season. Apparently, Mr. Orlando had previously promised not to ask for anything ever again. Mr. Ring forwarded this email to Mr. Abramoff saying, "So much for not asking for tix .... [Doolittle]'s LD is looking for 2 tix for the Skins-Jets game." The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 394: 03/13/2003 Email from Orlando to Ring, "Lincoln TEA-21" and attachment

The ACR Blog believes that in this email chain, Mr. Ring discussed an earmark request for an "interchange project" for a client, likely Lincoln (Calif.) bypass-State Route 65 Ferrari Interchange. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 399: 04/21/2003 Email from Ring to Orlando, "VA-HUD answers for form" and attachment

The ACR Blog doesn't know with certainty what this email is about, but we do know that on this day, Mr. Ring asked Mr. Orlando for a $1 million appropriation for a municipal client's cultural and business center. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 400: 04/21/2003 Email from Ring to Lopez, Orlando and Robinson, "Ellen Valentino"

The snippets of this email that the ACR Blog knows about are simply bizarre. Mr. Ring describes himself to the three male Doolittle staffers as a "sugar daddy so people can use and abuse me". The defense objected to this email due to hearsay, relevance and the fact that the email "contains a remark that could be perceived as in poor taste." Ring's attorney, Andrew Wise successfully argued in court that a reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassin Sirhan Sirhan should be redacted, but not the "sugar daddy" comment. RESULT: Admissible with redaction

::

EXHIBIT 402: 05/01/2003 Email from Ring to Rounsaville, "RE: Gold Medal bill"

The ACR Blog believes that in this email, Mr. Ring told a LA for Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) that Rep. Doolittle would support a Congressional Gold Medal for the Chief of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a Greenberg Traurig client. Mr. Ring told Pickering's LA that Mr. Orlando would be the point of contact, "but you don't need to call him." The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 406: 06/12/2003 Email from Ring to Orlando, "follow-up" and attachments

Mr. Ring sent an email to Mr. Orlando that included a draft letter for Mr. Doolittle to sign and send to the Department of Interior that supported Ring's tribal client, the Sac and Fox, in a tribal governance dispute and the reopening of the Sac and Fox tribal casino in Iowa. Later on June 12, 2003, Mr. Doolittle did send a letter to the Department of Interior asking the Bureau of Indian Affairs to intervene in the tribal-governance dispute. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 410: 07/08/2003 Email from Ring to Orlando, "RE:"

The ACR Blog believes that in this email chain, Mr. Orlando asked Mr. Ring if he could "score" "that box for ozzfest at merriweather post". Mr. Ring said he'd check into it and asked Mr. Orlando if he had heard anything more on an appropriations request they had been working on. As we hinted in our examination of exhibits related to Peter Evich, not everyone in this scandal has good taste in music. (Mrs. Anti-Corruption would disagree with us, though.) The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 412: 07/14/2003 Email from Orlando to Ring, "thanks"

Mr. Orlando thanked Mr. Ring for tickets to a Bruce Springsteen concert for staffers for two other Representatives. One of those staffers eventually emailed Mr. Ring and stated, "Please don't hesitate to contact me if the [Representative's] office can ever be of assistance. Also, my girlfriend ... is a counsel to [another Representative]. I'm sure she would be happy to be of assistance[ ]in the future as well." The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 415: 07/22/2003 Email from Ring to Doolittle, "Greg"

Mr. Ring sent this email to Mr. Doolittle praising Mr. Orlando as an incredible asset to Doolittle's office. Mr. Ring wrote that Mr. Orlando had been "tenacious on the appropriations front to the benefit of the [Ring's municipal client]" and concluding, "It was good to see you today and I hope we can get together soon." The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 416: 09/05/2003 Email from Ring to Orlando, "Re: THANK YOU"

The ACR Blog has no information about the content of this email. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 420: 07/22/2003 Email from Ring to Orlando, "Mashpee follow-up" and attachment

Mr. Ring wanted Mr. Orlando to get his boss to sign a letter benefiting the Mashpee Wampanoag, one of Ring's clients.

Text of Email
Assuming [Mr. Doolittle] never called [a high level DOI official] after our meeting last week, I thought the attached letter would be okay to send to [Interior Secretary Gale Norton]. Pretty non-controversial -- says he doesn't take position on their [the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe's] petition for recognition, but thinks they deserve an answer. Assuming this is fine, please fax signed copy to me at [deleted]. Thanks. You the man.

Mr. Doolittle signed the letter asking Secretary Norton to respond to the Mashpee Wampanoag's recognition request expeditiously. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

======

We know that many Doolittle staffers have been subpoenaed or otherwise questioned by the Justice Department. (The tenure of some of these staffers did not overlap):

Chief of Staff David Lopez
Chief of Staff Ron Rogers
Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Blankenburg
Legislative Director Peter Evich
Scheduler Alisha Perkins (wife of Tom DeLay employee Chris Perkins)

The ACR Blog does not know if Mr. Orlando has been responsive to the Justice Department. Given how involved he is in this case, it seems to us that the DoJ would be interested in what Mr. Orlando has to say.

The ACR Blog is not sure where Mr. Orlando works now. In the second half of 2008, Mr. Orlando worked for FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. Ms. Tate resigned in January 2009, and President Obama nominated Mignon Clyburn to take her place. It seems unlikely to us that Mr. Orlando remained in his position at the FCC.

If anyone could tell us about Mr. Orlando's whereabouts today, we'd be deeply grateful.

Shh! Don't Mention that Pete Evich worked for John Doolittle

An eagle-eyed commenter noticed that Peter Evich's bio at Van Scoyoc Associates has been scrubbed of any mention of his work for former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.).

Old Evich bio¹ (Prior to Friday, August 28, 2009)

New Evich bio (After Friday, August 28, 2009)

For the sake of posterity, we reprint below the portions of the old Evich bio that mention Mr. Doolittle:

Mr. Evich spent five years in the office of Rep. John T. Doolittle of California, a Member of the House Republican leadership and Appropriations Committee. As Legislative Director, Mr. Evich provided advice on all legislative areas, with a special focus on appropriations. He was responsible for coordinating and managing Rep. Doolittle’s appropriations initiatives for 10 of the Committee’s 13 subcommittees, including Energy and Water Development, Transportation, VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce-State-Justice, and Treasury-Postal Service.

Mr. Evich was closely involved in constructing and developing the Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA) of 1999 and 2002. He also worked with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff during consideration of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21). Other responsibilities included serving as personal office liaison on issues related to Rep. Doolittle’s position as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and as lead staff to the House Western Caucus, a group of House Members from Western states who focus on environmental and natural resources policies. In 2002, Mr. Evich organized and executed Rep. Doolittle’s successful leadership bid for Secretary of the Republican Conference, the sixth highest-ranking position in the House Republican Leadership.

Prior to his work in Rep. Doolittle’s office, Mr. Evich served for four years in the office of Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., then Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, assisting in the development of policy positions and legislative initiatives for issues including transportation, budget, tax, health care, business and labor, and Social Security.

We are all just left to wonder why Mr. Evich isn't proud of his connection to Mr. Doolittle anymore. Any ideas?

==

***UPDATE***
August 30, 2009 6:03 p.m. CDT

CONFIDENTIAL TO PETE EVICH

In order to help you scrub your bios clean of any mention of Mr. Doolittle, I'd like to point out a bio you missed. You might want to purge any mention of Mr. Doolittle from your Spoke.com bio. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. ~ACR

==

¹ As of this posting on August 29, 2009, the Google Cache of the Evich bio is dated July 31, 2009. We expect that over time, the Google Cache of the old Evich bio will be replaced with the new Evich bio.

Kevin Ring Exhibits: PETER EVICH

UPDATE (9:25 a.m. CDT): The ACR Blog began drafting this post on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. At that time, Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. had a profile page for Mr. Evich on its website (See: Google Cache). Van Scoyoc Associates has since taken that page down.

FURTHER UPDATE (10:48 a.m. CDT): Van Scoyoc Associates has put the profile page for Mr. Evich back out.

==

Begin original post:




When the ACR Blog ran its series of posts examining the Kevin Ring Indictment this spring, we noticed that the Legislative Director (LD) of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) earned a lot of ink. While we were comfortable enough to name David Lopez as the Doolittle Chief of Staff mentioned in the indictment, we just couldn't identify the Doolittle LD to our satisfaction.

Since we've been able to examine the Kevin Ring Exhibit List, though, the mystery of the Doolittle LD became a little bit clearer. Two individuals, Peter Evich and Greg Orlando, held the position of Legislative Director during the period of time covered by the indictment. We are now confident enough to describe what the evidences shows these two men did.

First, we'll look at the exhibits related to Peter Evich. According to Legistorm, Mr. Evich served as Mr. Doolittle's LD until January 5, 2003. Today, Mr. Evich is a lobbyist at Van Scoyoc Associates Inc.

==

EXHIBIT 305: 02/02/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: letter re: Carmencita"

Mr. Ring reported to Mr. Abramoff that Mr. Evich had been calling the INS seeking a response to a letter Mr. Doolittle had sent to the INS. Mr. Doolittle's letter called for an investigation into the immigration status of Carmencita Abad, a woman who advocated for a minimum wage and other labor reforms in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). To learn more about Carmencita Abad, read this post at Unheard No More! The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 309: 04/05/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Reconnaissance Studies request"

In this email chain, the ACR Blog believes that Mr. Evich told Mr. Ring that Mr. Doolittle had asked another U.S. Representative to write a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers in support of several appropriations requests for the CNMI. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 310: 04/24/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ralston, "RE: Sun, June 11"

The ACR Blog believes that this email chain shows that Mr. Ring gave Mr. Evich four club-level seats to a June 11, 2000 Baltimore Orioles baseball game. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 325: 07/13/2000 Email from Ring to Abramoff, "FW: HELP" and attachment

We believe that in this email chain, Mr. Ring sent a draft of a "Dear Colleague" letter to Mr. Evich and David Lopez, Mr. Doolittle's Chief of Staff. The "Dear Colleague" letter opposed an anti-gambling bill that adversely affected an internet gambling client of Mr. Ring's. Mr. Ring wanted one more congressman to sign the letter. Mr. Ring wrote, "DO YOU THINK [JOHN DOOLITTLE] COULD DO THIS LAST FAVOR (WE HOPE)". The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 330: 09/12/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Doolittle/HR 1814"

The ACR Blog believes that in this email chain, Mr. Ring justified to Mr. Abramoff why Mr. Evich deserved tickets to an October 30, 2000 Washington Redskins game. Mr. Ring wrote, "As he is an enormous help, I hope we can accommodate him." Mr. Evich got two suite tickets. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 352: 06/22/2001 Ring calendar entry re: lunch with Pete and Greg at the Capital Grille

The ACR Blog believes that the "Greg" mentioned in this exhibit is Greg Orlando. Mr. Orlando was a Legislative Assistant at the time of this lunch. He became Mr. Doolittle's LD after Mr. Evich left Doolittle's office in January 2003. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 357: 08/30/2001 Email from Ring to Evich, "port funding"

Mr. Ring asked Mr. Evich to encourage a committee staffer to put funding for a CNMI port project in an appropriations request. We don't know if Mr. Evich actually had this conversation or if the committee staffer acted on Mr. Evich's request. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 368: 12/16/2001 Redskins vs. Philadelphia FedEx Field event roster

Mr. Evich received three tickets to this game. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 371: 01/20/2002 Elton John/Billy Joel MCI Center Concert event roster

We believe that Mr. Evich received two tickets to this concert¹. At least Mr. Evich has good taste in music, unlike other scandal participants. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 381: 08/13/2002 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Skins"

Mr. Ring had asked Mr. Abramoff for three tickets to a September 16, 2002 Washington Redskins for Mr. Evich and, we believe, Mr. Orlando. The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 386: 09/16/2002 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Mistake?"

Mr. Evich complained that alcohol was not available in the suite for the September 16, 2002 Washington Redskins game. Mr. Evich also complained that he was "in a really low box in the end zone. View is obviously not very good." The defense did not object to this exhibit. RESULT: Admissible

====

The ACR Blog knows that former Doolittle staffer David Lopez has received immunity. We don't know if Mr. Evich has also received immunity. Without a doubt, though, Doolittle staffers were extremely involved in advancing the interests of Team Abramoff's clients. They also got to attend a lot of sporting events and concerts on Team Abramoff's nickel, too.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Evich testifies at Mr. Ring's trial (if there is one). Because Mr. Evich figures so prominently in Mr. Ring's indictment, if he does not testify at the trial, it will suggest to us that Mr. Evich may be an uncooperative co-conspirator.

=====

¹ The ACR Blog believes that admitted felon Robert Coughlin also attended this concert.

Upcoming Events in USA v. Kevin A. Ring

Kevin Ring

The ACR Blog still doesn't know whether Kevin Ring accepted the plea bargain offered by the Justice Department. The offer reportedly expired last Thursday. The ACR Blog expressed our opinion that it was in Mr. Ring's best interest to accept the government's offer.

Let's look at some upcoming events scheduled in Mr. Ring's trial:

Monday, August 31, 2009
Questions for voir dire are due to U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Thursday, September 3, 2009
The parties are scheduled to meet in Judge Huvelle's courtroom at 9:30 a.m. to discuss jury selection.

If either of these events does not occur as scheduled, the ACR Blog will gain confidence that Mr. Ring and the Justice Department have come to an agreement.

Copland to Testify About Quid pro Quo

Ann Copland

In the beginning of June, we discussed a status report related to Ann Copland, a former staffer to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). The language of the status report suggested that Ms. Copland had not yet fully discussed her role in the Abramoff scandal with government investigators.

Well, it appears that Ms. Copland has been talking. In last Thursday's status conference in USA v. Kevin A. Ring, Justice Department lawyers told U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle that they wanted to add 14 new exhibits into evidence. These exhibits largely (if not totally) relate to a number of specific actions Ms. Copland took to benefit the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, including her actions to help Mr. Ring and Team Abramoff secure funding for their new jail. During discussion of this matter in court, DoJ lawyers further stated that Ms. Copland will testify at trial that she "took these actions in exchange for things of value" -- in other words, a quid pro quo.

This really isn't unexpected. After all, Ms. Copland did plead guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud. In her Factual Basis for Plea (.pdf), Ms. Copland said she "solicited and received numerous things of value, and took and agreed to take multiple official acts." Ms. Copland's expected testimony that she exchanged things of value from Mr. Ring for official actions beneficial to Mr. Ring's clients will be devastating to Mr. Ring if he has made the decision to take his case to trial. And that's only one of the government's witnesses ...

Kevin Ring Exhibits: JULIE DOOLITTLE

John and Julie Doolittle

This is the second installment of our review of the Kevin Ring Trial Exhibit List. Today, we look at those exhibits related to Julie Doolittle, alleged Abramoff co-conspirator and wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.).

EXHIBIT 10: Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler Draft Memorandum from Fourth Meeting with Kevin Ring 7/1/2004 and attachments:

Government's Basis for Admission
The memo reflects Ring's statements including statements concerning his role in getting a job for Julia H. Doolittle. The attachments will be offered not for their truth, but for the fact that they were shown to Ring and his responses to them.

Mr. Ring and his lawyers object to this exhibit based on the claim that it is hearsay and that the attached emails focus primarily on the severed counts of the Ring indictment. (Two counts related to alleged false statements Mr. Ring made to the Schuelke investigation were severed.) While the ACR Blog has no insight into the attached emails, we do know that Mrs. Doolittle's job is the one area where the remaining counts I-VIII and the severed counts IX & X intersect. It doesn't matter. U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle won't allow this exhibit at trial. RESULT: Inadmissible

::

EXHIBIT 311: 5/20/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring; RE: Doolittle

The defense objected to this email because it mentions fundraisers. During the courtroom discussion, the government mentioned that this email also includes information regarding the job for Mrs. Doolittle. Judge Huvelle made a comment during the discussion that the job for Mrs. Doolittle was an important part of this case. Judge Huvelle's statement is very similar to a statement the government made in support of Exhibit 328: "The job for Julia Doolittle is central to the indictment." That can't be good for Mrs. Doolittle. RESULT: Admissible because of the reference to the job, but the government is instructed to redact the reference to fundraising.

::

EXHIBIT 312: 5/24/2000 Email from Abramoff, Jack; To Abramoff, Jack; Subject call David Lopez re job for Julie Doolittle

The defense did not object to this exhibit and the government doesn't provide any background on it. After Mr. Abramoff (who was on the Host Committee) and Mr. Ring attended a fundraiser for Mr. Doolittle at the Capital Grille, Mr. Abramoff sent this email as a reminder to himself to call Mr. Lopez about a job for Ms. Doolittle. RESULT: Admissible

::


EXHIBIT 328: 8/16/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Julie Doolittle"

Government's Basis for Admission
[T]he email chain begins with Ring writing to Abramoff, "David Lopez asked me if we had come up with anything regarding [Julia Doolittle] and employment. Ugh. Any ideas?" Abramoff replied, "Yes. Confirm with him that she only needs $2k/month and I'll set it up." The job for Julia Doolittle is central to the indictment.

The defense objects on the grounds that the email mentions a legal fundraiser. RESULT: Presumably admissible; fundraiser reference will likely be redacted.

::

EXHIBIT 382: 8/22/2002 Abramoff calender entry re: meeting with Julie Doolittle

The defense did not object to this exhibit and the government doesn't provide any background on it. Mrs. Doolittle subsequently received payment of $1,612.90 from Greenberg Traurig for the rest of August and $5,000 per month thereafter until February 2004. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 383: 8/29/2002 Letter from Julie Doolittle to Abramoff

Government's Basis for Admission
Though Ring is not on every exhibit regarding the job for Julia Doolittle, he is on several. Those he is not on, such as this exhibit in which Julia Doolittle wrote that she looked forward to working with Abramoff, place Ring's involvement in procuring the job in context and show the end result, that Abramoff in fact hired Julia Doolittle. Moreover, Ring is responsible for acts of his coconspirators taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. His coconspirators include Abramoff and Julia Doolittle.

The defense objects to this exhibit claiming it isn't relevant because this letter was not sent by, to, or carbon copied to Mr. Ring. Judge Huvelle wasn't impressed. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 384: 9/10/2002 Email from Abramoff to Litwack, "Mrs. Julie Doolittle"

Same legal arguments as GX 383. Mr. Abramoff wanted to hire Mrs. Doolittle to "work" for his "non-profit" organization, Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF). He wrote this email to Greenberg Traurig legislative assistant and CAF "consultant" Maury Litwack:

Text of Email
Mrs. Julie Doolittle. She is [John Doolittle]'s wife. She is on my payroll and will be available to work for [CAF]. [C]an you call her to get her involved? Her home phone is the best place to reach her. I want her to help, but not be overburdened with work. [P]lease refer to me when you call her.

Interestingly, Mr. Litwick appeared on Mr. Doolittle's payroll about three months later. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 385: 9/11/2002 Email from Abramoff to Litwack, "RE: Mrs. Julie Doolittle"

Same legal arguments as GX 383. Mr. Abramoff reiterated to Mr. Litwack that Mrs. Doolittle need not work too hard:

Text of Email
I am not sure what role she should play and it does not have to be significant. She should just be helpful to you as you need her. I don't want her to have to do too much, though, since she has responsibilities at home as a mother and wife.

RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 396: 3/19/2003 Email from Abramoff to Lane, "RE: The Spy Event"

Same legal arguments as GX 383. The ACR Blog doesn't know any specifics about this particular email. Rodney Lane worked with Mr. Abramoff in a variety of capacities: as (1) an assistant at Greenberg Traurig, (2) CEO of Signatures, Abramoff's restaurant; and (3) Board member of CAF. The Spy Event was a CAF fundraiser organized by Mrs. Doolittle that was canceled due to Operation Iraqi Freedom which began on the date of this email. Even though the event was canceled, Mrs. Doolittle continued to get paid. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 409: 7/7/2003 Email from Abramoff to Julie Doolittle, "RE: Retainer"
EXHIBIT 411: 7/11/2003 Email from Lane to Julie Doolittle, "RE: New Project"

Same legal arguments as GX 383. Nothing else is known about these emails. RESULT: Admissible

::


EXHIBIT 422: 2/19/2004 $5000 Check from GT to Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, Inc.

Government's Basis for Admission
This check is one of the payments Abramoff caused GT to make to Julia Doolittle and is the basis for the interstate wiring predicating Count VIII.

Mr. Ring objected to this exhibit claiming it isn't relevant. Mrs. Doolittle deposited this check on February 23, 2004. RESULT: Admissible

::

EXHIBIT 425: 3/30/2004 Email from Julie Doolittle to Schaut, "SDFS, Inc. Retainers Received 2002-2004" and attachment.

Same legal arguments as GX 383. Nothing else is known about this email. RESULT: Admissible

===

The ACR Blog believes that when you consider the totality of 1) "The job for Julie Doolittle is central to the indictment" (Exhibit 328); 2) "His [Ring's] coconspirators include Abramoff and Julia Doolittle" (Exhibit 383), 3) Judge Huvelle allowing the Government to use essentially all of the information in the Exhibits above pertaining to Team Abramoff's role in securing a job for Mrs. Doolittle that things don't look good for Mrs. Doolittle. We are glad we're not in her shoes, but we're looking forward to the possibility of learning more about Mrs. Doolittle's "job" if Mr. Ring doesn't plead guilty.

Update on Kevin Ring Plea Offer

We have worked our (limited number of) DC contacts trying to get information on Kevin Ring's decision regarding the plea offer that expired on Thursday. Our contacts tell us that no one is talking.

We don't want leave our readers wondering what happened, but this kind of silence shouldn't be unexpected. In the six most recent Abramoff-related plea bargains, the DoJ and defendant came to an agreement at least a week before it was made public.

Starting the clock when the defendant signed a Factual Basis for Plea or a Plea Agreement and stopping the clock when the plea deal was announced publicly, the chart nearby shows that, historically, plea deals are struck 7 to 88 days before they are announced. Consequently, the ACR Blog does not draw any negative inferences due to the fact that there has been no announcement of any kind.

Defendant	Facts/Plea	Made Public	Days
Albaugh	24 May 2008	2 Jun 2008	9
Blackann	24 Aug 2008	20 Nov 2008	88
Boulanger	16 Jan 2009	28 Jan 2009	12
Copland	12 Feb 2009	19 Feb 2009	7
Coughlin	8 Apr 2008	21 Apr 2008	13
Hirni	14 Nov 2008	21 Nov 2008	7

The ACR Blog would like to see Mr. Ring accept the government's offer because such offers typically require the defendant to cooperate with government agents on other cases. Mr. Ring would be in a very good position to provide evidence / testimony against former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and his alleged co-conspirator wife, Julie Doolittle.

We remain optimistic that Mr. Ring has accepted a plea deal. We do have some very weak circumstantial evidence that he has. Ultimately, though, we don't know if Mr. Ring has accepted the government's plea offer.

David Ayres got the Joke

DA!



Beginning in paragraph 179 of the Kevin Ring indictment, we read:

179. On or about January 26, 2002, while out with Coughlin before a Washington Wizards game, defendant RING sent an email to Abramoff and another lobbyist stating that Coughlin just told him that a senior DOJ official "will get the joke. We'll see Monday," referring to a scheduled telephone conference between defendant RING and the official, regarding the [Mississippi Choctaw] jail grant. The other lobbyist responded, "I love it when they get the joke."

180. On or about January 28, 2002, defendant RING had a teleconference with the senior DOJ official.

181. On or about January 30 or 31, 2002, the DOJ reversed its prior decision and decided to award a $16.3 million federal grant to defendant RING's tribal client for construction of the jail. Thereafter, defendant RING continued to lobby the DOJ seeking a waiver of the DOJ's requirement that the contract to construct the jail be competitively bid....

186. On or about March 14, 2002, defendant RING asked for approval to give NCAA men's basketball tournament tickets to the senior DOJ official whom defendant RING had lobbied regarding the tribal jail. Abramoff approved the request.

187. On or about March 16, 2002, defendant RING sent an email to another member of the lobbying team, who had been present at an NCAA men's basketball tournament game with the senior DOJ official, indicating that RING needed the official's further assistance regarding the lobbying efforts on the $16.3 million grant. Defendant RING wrote, "Glad he got a chance to relax. Now he can pay us back.

The ACR Blog believes the unnamed lobbyist in paragraphs 179 and 187 is Todd Boulanger.

We briefly discussed this matter in the post entitled Who is Tracy Henke? At that time, we thought we knew who "got the joke" and overruled Ms. Henke's decision fund only $9 million of the Mississippi Choctaw's $16 million jail request. We tried to leave a couple hints that we thought the senior DOJ official was David Ayres, a founder of the DC-based lobbying firm The Ashcroft Group. (Notice Mr. Ayres' initials in the answer to our "question from the audience".)

The ACR Blog's intrepid Washington correspondent decided he hadn't got enough out of Mr. Ring's status conference last week. He wouldn't have missed today's status conference for the world. And today, in open court, it was revealed that Mr. Ayres was indeed the senior DoJ official who "got the joke".

But what exactly does it mean to "get the joke"? Prosecutors said that Todd Boulanger will tell the court what it means to "get the joke" in his testimony at Mr. Ring's trial. To "get the joke", prosecutors said, was a somewhat vague term meaning to receive something of value from Team Abramoff in return for access, taking an official action or granting some other favor. It is possible that the thing of value could have been legitimate campaign contributions. If that is the case, "getting the joke" may not be unlawful under McCormick v. United States. Given the vague nature of this term, it would be inappropriate to assume that Mr. Ayres violated the law when he "got the joke". But during the hearing it was revealed that Mr. Ayres did receive tickets of substantial value from Team Abramoff. After one of these events, Mr. Boulanger submitted a lounge bill for $220 for drinks, though it isn't clear that Mr. Ayres was present at the lounge.

DoJ Cites 30 Conspirators

DoJ: Padgett Wilson - and 29 Others - Conspired in Abramoff Case



The author of the ACR Blog has just been extensively debriefed on today's status conference in DC District Court in the case of USA v Kevin Ring by our trusted and venerable Washington correspondent. As we stated earlier, the purpose of the hearing was to hear arguments from the government and Kevin Ring's defense team regarding exhibits that the government wants to introduce as evidence at Mr. Ring's upcoming criminal trial.

Our correspondent reports enough "news" to keep us blogging right up to the day of trial (September 8) - assuming Mr. Ring did not cop his plea today. The first item we want to report is some fascinating information that came out during the discussion over Exhibit 566:

Exhibit 566: Email from [Pat, full name Padgett] Wilson to Ring, "RE: dave mattthews band"; 2/4/2002

Government's Basis for Admission:
This email chain is highly relevant and clearly demonstrates Ring and his coconspirators use of tickets and other things of value as illicit inducements and rewards. Specifically, Ring wrote, "I have the suite filling up with DOJ staffers that just got our client $16 million," to which a coconspirator replied, "As for DOJ staffers, those guys should get anything they want for the rest of the time they are in office - opening day tickets, Skins v Giants, oriental massages, hookers, whatever..." (ellipsis in original). The beginning of the email chain is also relevant, in that it shows a different public official thanking Ring for tickets and offering her Member's help.

Mr. Ring's defense team objected to the inclusion of this Exhibit on the basis of relevance (FRE 403), and Ring attorney Andrew Wise made a spirited case to Judge Huvelle extending far beyond relevance. Mr. Wise made it clear that he felt that the inclusion of "oriental massage" and "hookers" would be very prejudicial to his client. Mr. Wilson had been interviewed previously on this matter and had stated that he had only been joking and that no massages or hookers were ever offered up to anyone. Judge Huvelle asked the government who Mr. Wilson was, and whether the government planned to use him as a witness. DoJ attorney Michael Ferrara said the government did not intend to call Mr. Wilson as a witness. In fact, Mr. Ferrara said, "The government considers Mr. Wilson to be a co-conspirator ."

Judge Huvelle asked, "Just how many co-conspirators do you have in the Abramoff case?" [paraphrased] Mr. Ferrara answered that there are 30 co-conspirators. He said 17 have already been named. This leaves another 13 individuals still to be formally identified as co-conspirators in the case. Based on the government's Exhibit List and today's status conference, we can now name 4 of these conspirators:

1. Julie Doolittle
2. Padgett (Pat) Wilson - Team Abramoff (named today)
3. Jennifer Farley - White House Intergovernmental Affairs (named today)
4. Susan Ralston - Karl Rove's assistant (named today)

It would be interesting to speculate on the remaining nine. Of course we have no way of knowing how many of these individuals may face charges in the future, but it is clear that the Abramoff scandal has not yet fully played out. Not by a long shot!

With respect to Exhibit 566, Mr. Ferrara responded to Mr. Wise's objection by saying, "Your Honor, we have no intention of arguing whether anyone provided hookers to anyone in this matter. But this email provides a look at the culture that operated at this place (Greenberg Traurig)." [paraphrased]

Judge Huvelle overruled the objections of Mr. Wise, and Exhibit 566 will be admitted.

Our correspondent reports that Mr. Ring's attorneys, Mr. Wise and Mr. O'Toole, were vigorous in their defense of Mr. Ring, but at all times were courteous and professional not only to the prosecutors but also to the ACR Blog's Washington correspondent. A tip o' the hat to them.

Kevin Ring Plea Offer Expires Today

In DC District Court today it was revealed that Kevin Ring has until the end of business today to decide whether to accept the plea deal offered by the Justice Department on July 1, 2009. Presumably, any plea agreement would require Mr. Ring to cooperate with the Justice Department in the investigation of other scandal participants such as John Doolittle (R-Calif.). An observer at today’s proceedings tells the ACR Blog that Judge Ellen S. Huvelle asked Mr. Ring if he had talked about the offer with his attorneys. Mr. Ring acknowledged that he indeed had discussed the matter, but gave no indication, verbal or non-verbal, whether or not he has made a decision.

The purpose of the hearing was to make determinations regarding exhibits that the government wants to introduce at trial. Mr. Ring and his attorneys now have a relatively clear picture of the evidence the government will be able to present. On balance, Judge Huvelle’s decisions and statements must be considered a victory for the government. In fact, Judge Huvelle seems to have pivoted on whether the government will be allowed to use evidence / testimony related to political fundraisers. Last week, she leaned toward ruling virtually all such items as inadmissible. Today, she seemed to lean toward allowing fundraiser evidence provided that the jury is given appropriate instructions regarding the legality of legitimate political fundraising.

Mr. Ring and his attorneys now have a good idea about the strength of the government’s case. You can bet that right now they are weighing the pros and cons of accepting the government's offer.

===

UPDATE
August 20, 2009; 11:52 p.m. CDT

The ACR Blog does not know whether Mr. Ring accepted the DoJ's plea bargain offer. We are optimistic, though, that he did.

Justice Department wants to use Fundraising Evidence

Last Thursday, the ACR Blog reported that U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle appeared ready to rule that evidence in USA v. Kevin A. Ring related solely to fundraising would be inadmissible. Judge Huvelle seems to be relying on McCormick v. United States to help her make that decision. My reading of McCormick says that political fundraising is a legal activity even if the politician takes action to benefit the donor right before or right after the donation [1(b)]. Using McCormick, Judge Huvelle doesn't seem to want to allow evidence of fundraisers to be presented in Mr. Ring's trial.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department indicated today that it still wants to show the fundraising evidence to the jury:

On August 13, 2009, the Court directed the government to set forth its position on those exhibits to which defendant Kevin A. Ring objected based on the fact that they reflect campaign contributions and political fundraising. The government seeks to admit those exhibits to give the jury a comprehensive and accurate picture of the legal and illegal ways in which Ring and his coconspirators created relationships with public officials.

The DoJ relies on United States v. Lukens. In Lukens, the government was allowed to present evidence of loans to an elected official as an "overt act" in a conspiracy to commit bribery. The Lukens court determined that an "act need not be independently illegal in order to qualify as an overt act for the purposes of a conspiracy charge."

The DoJ would like Judge Huvelle to allow evidence of political fundraising provided that the jury is instructed not to consider such fundraising "as part of the illicit stream of value that Ring" provided to certain public officials. Presumably, though, the fundraisers can be one of those Lukens-style acts that "need not independently illegal in order to qualify as an overt act for the purposes of a conspiracy charge." Apparently, Judge Huvelle left the door open for this argument:

That instruction would be very similar to the one proposed by the Court when considering GX522, in which Jack A. Abramoff emailed Ring about client contributions to the Republic [sic] National Committee (RNC) and the likelihood of the RNC chairman helping the lobbyists dislodge money from the Department of Justice. To summarize, the Court ruled GX 522 admissible with an instruction that the jury will not consider the contributions to the RNC as part of the illicit stream of things of value.

GX 522 is a November 8, 2001 email from Mr. Abramoff to Mr. Ring with the subject line "RNC Check". As indicated above, Judge Huvelle has determined that this email is admissible, but that the jury will be told not to consider the contributions mentioned in it as part of the illicit stream of things of value. To the best of our knowlege, this email is not available publicly. A person familiar with the case tells us that this email deals with a lot more than just contributions to the RNC. In the email, Messrs. Abramoff and Ring discuss having RNC Deputy Director Jack Oliver go above Tracy Henke's head and convince David Ayres (Chief of staff to then-AG John Ashcroft) to fully fund a jail for the Mississippi Choctaw, one of Mr. Ring's clients. Prosecution witnesses Robert Coughlin and Todd Boulanger will testify about this matter.

The ACR Blog can truly see both sides of this argument. We're glad we're not in Judge Huvelle's shoes. Our sense, though, is that Judge Huvelle absolutely does not want her decision to be second guessed in a higher court.

Dirty DeLay Dancing

Channel 13 tells us that our former Congressman, Tom DeLay, has signed up for the upcoming season of "Dancing with the Stars":

DeLay is one of the most unlikely names ever to be announced as a contestant on ABC's "Dancing with the Stars."

DeLay wasn't supposed to speak with us because of restrictions placed on him by the show, but he did graciously. He says he's excited about dusting off his old dancing shoes, and he's not the least bit concerned that he is eleven years older than any other contestant on the show.

Outside his Sugar Land home Monday, we found DeLay walking his dogs.

"I'm excited about this! I really am. I love to dance & all my life," said DeLay ...

The "Hammer" as DeLay came to be known on Capitol Hill for his ability to get votes, says the show will help him show off a side of him that most haven't seen.

"That's copyrighted stuff," said DeLay when we asked him to bust some moves.

Former Congressman Chris Bell, who filed an ethics complaint against DeLay in 2004 alleging abuses of house ethics rules, told us by phone, "I hope he'll work out a number to "Jailhouse Rock."

Out walking his dog, eh? Good thing there were no process servers looking to serve him with a subpoena.

Seriously folks - we here at the ACR Blog would certainly not argue that he loves to dance. After all, he's been dancing around the law ever since he was first elected. (Hasn't he already done The Hustle on our entire nation?)

It truly sounds like Mr. DeLay is excited about the competition. We understand that contestants rehearse approximately 20 hours a week and earn $200,000 just for competing. This is a timely opportunity for Mr. DeLay since he hasn't had a lot to do since his Coalition for a Conservative Majority shut down due to financial difficulties. A guy has to pay his legal bills, you know.

We'll resist making some sort of snarky comment about how we'd like to see Mr. DeLay take on former House Speaker Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) in a bruising celebrity boxing match next. We're above that. We hope Mr. DeLay is able to settle into a perfectly honorable job such as being an owner/operator of a small pest control business.

Who is Tracy Henke?

A Tale of Two Tracys



Good Tracy

Tracy Henke served as a staffer to Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) for seven years prior to joining the Department of Justice under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft in 2001. At the Department of Justice, Ms. Henke served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Judicial Programs. In this capacity, Ms. Henke had a degree of authority over the funding of a jail for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, one of the major issues in the upcoming criminal trial of Kevin Ring.

Staking out what can only be described as a conservative Republican position, Ms. Henke saw no need for one of the richest Indian tribes in the country to suck off the teat of the federal government. According to Kevin Ring, Ms. Henke was "not impressed" by letters from the leadership in both houses of Congress urging the DoJ to raise funding for the Choctaw jail from $9 million to $16 million. In Orwellian fashion, Jack Abramoff called Ms. Henke a "liberal R" for not spending enough of the taxpayers' money for his taste. Lastly, Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger talked about how Ms. Henke was placed in her position to "be a bitch". Ms. Henke was truly a headache for Team Abramoff and a champion for the U.S. taxpayer.

On January 31, 2002, things were moving quickly. As Kevin Ring predicted, a senior Justice Department official was going to "get the joke"¹ (see: Kevin Ring Indictment, paragraph 179) and work on behalf of Team Abramoff to release the full $16 million. Ms. Henke was going to be overruled by a superior and the Mississippi Choctaw were going to get full funding for their jail. Ms. Henke scrambled to keep the Choctaw grant at $9 million. On January 31, 2002, Ms. Henke emailed at least one of her colleagues to try to stop the increase in funding. The ACR Blog has not seen this email, but it has been described to us. In it she tells her colleagues (paraphrased) "Hold off on the appropriation until I give it one more try." Ms. Henke failed and the Choctaw received the full $16 million grant.

Ms. Henke served in more and more responsible positions in both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that Ms. Henke served the government honorably throughout her tenure. She left government service October 31, 2006.

Bad Tracy

Immediately after leaving government service, Ms. Henke joined the lobbying firm The Ashcroft Group, founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft and his Chief of Staff David Ayres.

On June 20, 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform deposed Ms. Henke regarding, among other things, the Choctaw Jail funding. Ms. Henke had a terrible recollection of the Choctaw Jail issue (pages 22-42). To be sure, the Committee investigators were asking about events that had occurred five and a half years earlier. However, previous investigators had shown Ms. Henke many documents to refresh her memory. And remember how Ms. Henke scrambled at the last minute to prevent the full $16 million grant from going to the Choctaw. Someone went over her head to the tune of $7 million in additional funding, and Ms. Henke couldn't remember a thing.

The ACR Blog can't explain Ms. Henke's poor recollection. But we do believe that to this day Ms. Henke works at The Ashcroft Group with the senior Justice official who "got the joke".

::

We have time for one question from the audience:

Q: You mentioned a "JDA Bribe" that was somehow connected to John Ashcroft. You don't think that Mr. Ashcroft is the senior Justice Department official that "got the joke", do you?

A: DA! That is not what we're saying. In fact, the ACR Blog does not think Mr. Ashcroft is the official who got the joke.

=====

¹ To "get the joke" was some sort of code talk among Team Abramoff lobbyists. The senior Justice Department official who, according to the Ring indictment, "got the joke" in January 2002 is not the only person to "get the joke". According to a source familiar with this case, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) was supposed to "get the joke" in October 2001.

The author of the ACR Blog must be of a humorless sort. Although we don't get the joke (we would prefer to have it explained to us), we have a good idea of what the joke is. Indeed, we think we also know who got it ...

Kevin Ring Exhibits: KEVIN RING'S BOOK

Earlier this week, the Justice Department submitted a partial list of exhibits (.pdf) it intends to use in USA v. Kevin A. Ring. Mr Ring and his lawyers objected to over 100 of these exhibits for various reasons. Over the next several posts, we'll review Judge Huvelle's decisions on several of those exhibits.

Six of the government's proposed exhibits were derived from a draft of a book that Mr. Ring was writing.

EXHIBIT 60: Pages of book draft:

In this exhibit Ring described professional friendships and references and attempt to bribe a senator.

Discussion at the status hearing referred to a "JDA bribe" which all participants seemed to agree related to former Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who later became attorney general. It was not entirely clear to the ACR Blog's Washington correspondent that the "JDA bribe" and the "attempt to bribe a senator" are the same event. U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle said that the book's bribe reference was vague. Even if there was an attempt to bribe a senator, it doesn't mean that Mr. Ring made the attempt. RESULT: Judge Huvelle deferred making a decision Unknown¹.

::

EXHIBIT 61: Pages of book draft, introduction:

Ring demonstrates his consciousness of guilt and motive. Among other things, Ring wrote that one purpose of the book was "to provide a cautionary tale about what can happen when you make a corrupt bargain for early success and money." Ring also described professional friendships in this exhibit.

The government viewed this as an admission of guilt. Discussion in court related to this exhibit also revealed that Mr. Ring wrote that he feared becoming "a felon at 36". Judge Huvelle said that the "corrupt bargain" was vague. Some acts, she said, could be unsavory or corrupt, but not necessarily illegal, therefore she wouldn't allow this exhibit to be admitted. The ACR Blog views the fear of becoming "a felon at 36" to refer to criminal activity. Most people do not refer to felonies without referring to actual crimes. We can not square the "felon at 36" comment with Judge Huvelle's statement that this exhibit may not be referring to criminal activity. RESULT: Inadmissible

::

EXHIBIT 62: Pages of book draft, "Jack things":

In this exhibit, Ring wrote about the coconspirators' lobbying strategy.

The ACR Blog has no information on this exhibit. RESULT: Unknown

::

EXHIBIT 63: Pages of book draft seized from Ring's computer, "Backup of Book Proposal.wbk"

[T]his exhibit demonstrates that this was in fact a book Ring was writing. Furthermore, Ring wrote that as a "professional lobbyist," his book would "provide better context for the Abramoff scandal and how the crimes of those involved compare and contrast with how business is done every day in Washington."

The government again thought this was an admission of guilt. Judge Huvelle said this was vague and that Mr. Ring may not have personally committed the crimes he mentioned. RESULT: Inadmissible

::

EXHIBIT 64: Pages of book draft seized from Ring's computer, "GT intro.doc"

No further information on this exhibit. Similar arguments as those made above. RESULT: Inadmissible

::

The government had already withdrawn the last book exhibit on the exhibit list, Exhibit 65 (Scandal in Context.docx). Please be aware that all exhibits may not appear on the exhibit list. The purpose of this hearing was to make determinations regarding exhibits that Mr. Ring objected to. The exhibit list includes a number of uncontested exhibits, but many sequential exhibit numbers don't appear on the list at all.

This entry is the first in a number of entries the ACR Blog plans to make on yesterday's status hearing. Don't assume that the government only faced setbacks in yesterday's hearing based on this sample alone. The government did score some key victories. If we ever had a chance to say something to Nathanial Edmonds, Michael Ferrara and all of the other prosecutors in this case, we'd tell them that we appreciate all the work that they do.

====================

¹ The notes of the ACR Blog's Washington correspondent are not clear with respect to Judge Huvelle's decision.

~FLASH~ Kevin Ring Status Conference - August 13

According to a trusted third party, there is a lot of newsworthy stuff coming out of today’s status conference in USA v. Kevin A. Ring:

1. It appears that Judge Ellen S. Huvelle will not allow exhibits that relate only to fundraising for elected officials. Her reason is that fundraising is a legal activity.

2. No exhibits related to Michael Scanlon will be used at trial

3. As recently as July 1, 2009, the Justice Department offered a plea deal to Mr. Ring. The deal required Mr. Ring to plead guilty to a single conspiracy charge. He declined.

Hopefully, I’ll find time for a more complete roundup tonight.

==

Also see Jennifer Yachnin's article in Roll Call. The ACR Blog still intends to add to the facts tonight.

==

UPDATE
August 13, 2009
10:34 p.m. CDT

Sorry ... no update tonight. The ACR Blog's Washington correspondent provided us with a lot of information, though. Many of you may consider it minutia, and to fully report this information will take several posts. We'll get to it when we have time.

Congressmen Named in the Kevin Ring Exhibit List

John Doolittle (L), Ernest Istook (R)

Several Congressmen are mentioned in the government's preliminary Exhibit List for the case of USA v. Kevin Ring. Here is a list of those Congressmen and the exhibits in which their names appear:

Former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 13, 30, 304, 308, 311, 313-316, 319-320, 323, 327, 329, 330, 334-335, 337, 339, 364, 373, 375-376, 378, 390, 398, 407-408, 415, 418, 424, 426-432

Former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 107, 112, 115-116, 118, 124, 130, 138-140, 145-146, 148, 151, 153, 159, 170, 186, 190

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 920, 923, 935, 980

Former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 531, 1070

Former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 1044-1045

Former Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 929, 972

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 1000, 1016

Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 530, 929

Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 704, 706

Former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.)
Mentioned in Exhibits: 112, 118

Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 514

Former Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 530

Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 531

Former Sen. Pete Dominici (R-N.M.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 812

Former Rep. Denny Hastert (R-Ill.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 531

Former Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 168

Former Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 31

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 117

Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.)
Mentioned in Exhibit: 150

Also noteworthy is the number of exhibits that reference Kevin Ring co-conspirator Julie Doolittle, wife of former Rep. John Doolittle.

Julie Doolittle
Mentioned in Exhibits: 10, 312, 328, 382-385, 409, 411, 422, 425

Lastly, a number of exhibits mention unidentified Representatives:

Unidentified Representatives
Mentioned in Exhibits: 361, 398, 1017

The ACR Blog cautions readers not to assume that an elected official has committed a crime simply because his name appears in a prosecution exhibit. The sheer number of references to Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Istook, though, causes the ACR Blog to draw inferences.

We Have Immunity

In the Exhibit List in the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring, we learn of two individuals who have been granted immunity for crimes related to the Jack Abramoff scandal:

Exhibit 75: David Lopez Immunity Package
Exhibit 76: Shawn Vasell Immunity Package

Mr. Lopez served as Chief of Staff for former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). The ACR Blog finds it unlikely that Mr. Lopez was granted immunity in order to secure his testimony against Kevin Ring. We believe this revelation doesn't augur well for Mr. Doolittle.

Mr. Vassell was a Team Abramoff lobbyist.

Julie Doolittle: CO-CONSPIRATOR

The ACR Blog is reviewing a list of government exhibits (.pdf) to be used in the trial of USA v. Kevin Ring that appeared on PACER today. This document is 61 pages long and full of information to be mined. We'll be looking at this document over the next few weeks and posting when we have time. We encourage ACR Blog readers to read it for themselves. If anything appears particularly interesting, please email me or mention it in the comments - even if isn't all that relevant to what is in the post.


(L-R) John Doolittle, Kerrie Ring, Kevin Ring, Julie Doolittle

The first item we'd like to point out relates to Julie Doolittle, wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). Mrs. Doolittle held several jobs that required little or no work. One of her "employers" was Greenberg Traurig, the law firm where Kevin Ring and Jack Abramoff worked.

The government wants to introduce a letter from Mrs. Doolittle to Mr. Abramoff (Exhibit 383) into evidence. Mr. Ring and his lawyers are objects to the letter claiming that it isn't relevant. Here is how the government describes its basis for admission:

Though Ring is not on every exhibit regarding the job for Julia Doolittle, he is on several. Those he is not on, such as this exhibit in which Julia Doolittle wrote that she looked forward to working with Abramoff, place Ring's involvement in procuring the job in context and show the end result, that Abramoff in fact hired Julia Doolittle. Moreover, Ring is responsible for acts of his coconspirators taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. His coconspirators include Abramoff and Julia Doolittle.

Emphasis Added

The fact that Mrs. Doolittle has been named a co-conspirator is significant. The government basically accused Mrs. Doolittle of a crime. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that Mrs. Doolittle will be indicted. After all, there is such a thing as an unindicted co-conspirator.

While we're on the topic of Mrs. Doolittle, we'd like to draw your attention to the government's discussion of Exhibit 328:

Moreover, the email chain begins with Ring writing to Abramoff, "[Doolittle Chief of Staff] David Lopez asked me if we had come up with anything regarding [Julia Doolittle] and employment. Ugh. Any ideas?" Abramoff replied, "Yes. Confirm with him that she only needs $2k/month and I'll set it up." The job for Julia Doolittle is central to the indictment.

Emphasis Added
[Bracketed comments in original]
[Bolded bracketed comments added]

Mrs. Doolittle's job "is central to the indictment". This echoes a statement that the DoJ made back in a February court document when the government said the payments to Mrs. Doolittle were "at the heart of the fraud".

These revelations don't bode well for Mr. and Mrs. Doolittle. Recall that the Justice Department recommended that Mr. and Mrs. Doolittle hire separate legal counsel. The ACR Blog doesn't know if the Doolittles have followed the DoJ's advice. Better late than never, we suppose.

... and a Representative to be Named Later

Last week, we examined Kevin Ring's preliminary objections (.pdf) to the government's preliminary exhibit list. An emailer finds it interesting that Mr. Ring makes several objections claiming that certain exhibits refer to a US Representative not mentioned in the indictment. Mr. Ring objects to exhibits 31-34, 36, 117, 131, 569, 1031 and 1070 for this reason. To be sure, Mr. Ring objects to other exhibits because they refer to other people, including Congressional staffers, not mentioned in the indictment. But the emailer's focus was appropriately on the Representatives.

First, let's identify the Representatives who are mentioned in the Ring indictment.

(1) Former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is Representative 5 (paragraph 7)
(2) Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) (paragraph 12)
(3) Former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is Representative 4 (paragraph 15)
(4) Unidentified Representative allegedly asked by Rep. Doolittle to write a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers in support of appropriation requests for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) (paragraph 67)
(5) Unidentified Representative who allegedly met "face-to-face" with Rep. Doolittle to discuss a CNMI project (paragraph 100)
(6) Unidentified Representative who was urged by Rep. Doolittle to "take care of" a tribal client of Mr. Ring's firm. (paragraph 107)
(7) Unidentified Representative mentioned by one of Rep. Doolittle's aides. The girlfriend of the Doolittle aide worked for this Representative and the staffer said she "would be happy to be of assistance". (paragraph 138)
(8) Unidentified Representative whose office received the "Camden Box" (paragraph 147)
(9) Former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) mentioned as the New Mexico tribe's U.S. Representative. (paragraph 156)

Our emailer suggests that former Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land) and Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) are the two most likely Representatives not named in the indictment but appearing in documents on the government exhibit list. The ACR Blog agrees. Those two names are good guesses.

Feel free to offer your own guesses in the comments. Also, we'd like to hear any guesses as to the unidentified Representatives in the list above.

Kevin Ring Objects

[Kevin Ring objects. The ACR Blog ought to save that title. We're sure it can be recycled.]

Yesterday, in the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring, Mr. Ring and his lawyers object to over 130 of approximately 1,100 items on the government's preliminary exhibit list.

The document (the "Objections") is ten pages long and gives only a brief explanation of each of the objections. There is some information to be mined from the Objections, but much of the document is too vague to draw conclusions.

Here is what I found interesting.

1. Mr. Ring objects to the testimony of witnesses 8, 10, 12 and 13 on the grounds that their testimony is no longer relevant after Counts IX and X of the indictment were severed. Counts IX & X related to alleged lies that Mr. Ring told investigators hired by Greenberg Traurig. The severed counts dealt with alleged instances of excessive billing and kickbacks received by Mr. Ring.

The government seems to have an awful lot of witnesses lined up, but I'm wondering who witnesses 8, 10, 12 and 13 are. Greenberg Traurig employees? Henry Schuelke and / or other investigators hired by Greenberg? Sandia Pueblo tribal members?

We'll have to wait and see.

::

2. Among the major categories of objections:

A. Campaign contributions / political fundraising. Literally dozens of Mr. Ring's objections are based on the assertion that contributing to political campaigns and hosting political fundraisers are legal activities. Mr. Ring doesn't come out and say it, but it seems his argument is that prosecutors shouldn't be able to show evidence of this activity because it is irrelevant. Something tells me that Mr. Ring and his lawyers aren't telling the full story on these exhibits.

b. Inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial. These are items that Mr. Ring alleges are devised to appeal to the jury's sympathy, passions, or prejudice. The ACR Blog views this argument as a subset of the more common claim that many exhibits are irrelevant. We think that when Mr. Ring says exhibits are inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial that it means Mr. Ring is arguing that the exhibits are irrelevant and have a high likelihood of being extremely embarrassing to Mr. Ring.

::

3. The government wants to present information about a no-show job for Julie Doolittle, the wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif), also known as Representative 5. Exhibits 383-385, 396, 409, 411, 413 and 425 refer to this matter. Mrs. Doolittle had more than one no-show job and other discussions for such jobs. The ACR Blog believes that these exhibits relate to Mrs. Doolittle's no-show job at Greenberg Traurig.

::

4. Very few individuals are named in this document. One name that appears repeatedly is that of Todd Boulanger. It isn't unexpected, so let's consider this document to be confirming our earlier speculation that Mr. Boulanger will be a star witness against Mr. Ring.

Other than Mr. Ring, every person named in this document has already pled guilty (Mr. Boulanger, Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon). Names noticeably missing from the document are Ann Copland, Jim Hirni and Trevor Blackann, all of whom have already pled guilty themselves. The ACR Blog believes that Ms. Copland and Mr. Hirni will testify. We're not so confident about Trevor Blackann.

Even though Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon are mentioned in the document, a previous filing indicates that the government does not intend on calling them as witnesses.

::

I encourage my eagle-eyed readers to take the time to review the Objections. Please let all of us know if you're able to divine anything from the brief explanations of the objections.

Gen-X Mourns

Rest in Peace John Hughes

From the Associated Press

Writer-director John Hughes, Hollywood's youth impresario of the 1980s and '90s, who captured the teen and preteen market with such favorites as "The Breakfast Club," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Home Alone," died Thursday, a spokeswoman said. He was 59.

Hughes died of a heart attack during a morning walk in Manhattan, Michelle Bega said. He was in New York to visit family.

Call it a Gen-X rite of passage. Mr. Hughes is the first cultural icon to pass that provoked an emotional reaction out of me. I'm old enough to remember my mother cry over Elvis, but too young to understand why. I was too old to know who Kurt Cobain was when he died in the mid-1990s - he was an idol of the younger Xers. Michael Jackson's Thriller album came out during the heart of "my time", but as a New Wave kid, I never cared for Mr. Jackson. EVERY Gen-Xer loved Mr. Hughes though.

I do have a test today, that wasn't bull----. It's on European Socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So, who gives a crap if they're Socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car. - Ferris Bueller

All good Xers are able to name at least a dozen residents of Shermer, Illinois, the fictional suburb of Chicago that served as the setting for virtually all of Mr. Hughes' movies.

A little bit of Gen-X died today, but the legacy of Mr. Hughes survives his death as his movies are enjoyed even by the newest generation.

IB Program is "Waste of Time", "Shocking Mistake"

It's been a while since I've commented on the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program, the latest fad to dumb down schools. So let's look at a recent article from the Santa Ynez Valley (Calif.) Journal. In a pattern repeated around the world, parents seem to see that the IB Program is not what is advertised, but administrators and school boards seem to love it:

One parent at the meeting said certain students shouldn’t be forced to participate and deemed the program a “waste of time.”

Board member Jeffrey Little disagreed, noting that big-name colleges such as the University of Texas are impressed by students with International Baccalaureate credentials. If money is a problem, he said, perhaps it’s time to prioritize the budget.

Some might find it odd that Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District board member Jeffery Little touts how the University of Texas is impressed with IB Program. Since the Santa Ynez Valley is in California, why didn't Mr. Little mention how the highly regarded University of California system views the IB Program? I suspect the answer is because parents in the Santa Ynez Valley know that the UC schools give more valuable credit to students who go through the Advanced Placement (AP) Program. Mr. Little hopes that no one will check his assertion on how the University of Texas treats the IB Program. Like California's public universities, public universities in Texas universally prefer the AP Program. Let's compare:

CREDIT EARNED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

English:
AP English Comp./Lit.: RHE 306 (writing), E 316K (literature)
IB HL English: E 316K (literature)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

Math
AP Calculus BC: M 408K, 408L
IB HL Math: M 408C

Commentary: M 408K and 408L are the first two semesters of calculus in a three semester sequence that can be used by engineers. M 408C is the first semester of a two-semester sequence that can be used by engineers.

MODERATE ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

History
AP US History: H 315K, 315L
IB HL History of the Americas: H 317N

Commentary: The AP student earns credit for two semesters of history, both of which are required to earn any degree at the University of Texas. The IB student earns only one semester of credit in an elective. The IB student still needs to take H 315K and 315L to graduate.

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

Physics
AP Physics C: A choice of several courses, including physics courses which may be applied to engineering and science degrees.
IB HL Physics: A choice of several courses, but does not include physics courses required by engineering and science majors.

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

University of Texas Credit Schedules: AP / IB

The University of Texas prefers the AP Program. Someone fed Mr. Little factually inaccurate information, and he repeated it without checking the facts. But if money is indeed a problem, it is time to prioritize the budget. Santa Ynez Valley can simultaneously save money and improve the academic rigor of the school district. Dump the IB Program and focus on the AP Program.

===========

The same article highlights an IB Diploma Program graduate:

While the [IB] program may be nixed, [Allan] Aho said the hard work paid off for him.

“It’s pretty rewarding. I was actually sort of reluctant at first, but the (IB) program was worth it. Some of the exams got me college credits,” said Aho, who plans to attend Chapman University in Orange.

I bet the poor kid doesn't even know he's been misled by his high school IB Coordinator. Some of the exams got Mr. Aho college credits? Let's see how Mr. Aho will fare at Chapman University compared to his peers who went through the AP Program. We don't know which IB classes Mr. Aho took, but lets assume they are the same as our hypothetical student at the University of Texas:

CREDIT EARNED AT CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY

English:
AP English Comp./Lit.: ENG 103, 104
IB HL English: ENG 103

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

Math
AP Calculus BC: Math 110, 111
IB HL Math: Math 110

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

History
AP US History: Hist 101, 103 (Six credits total)
IB HL History of the Americas: Three generic history credits

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

::

Physics
AP Physics C: Phys 101, 102 (Ten credits total)
IB HL Physics: Phys 107 (Four credits)

Commentary: Phys 101 and 102 are more rigorous courses that may be applied to technical programs like Chapman University's joint engineering program with UC-Irvine. Phys 107 is a more basic physics course with limited usefulness.

CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO THE AP PROGRAM

Chapman University Credit Schedules: AP / IB

Mr. Aho will soon learn that his peers who went through the more rigorous AP Program have earned more credit hours and more valuable credit hours than he did in the IB Program.

===================

IB proponents like to claim that IB is recognized all over the world. My sense is that the overwhelming majority of American kids attend American universities, so this claim, even if true, is irrelevant. But of course, like much of what IB proponents say, it isn't even true!

Let's go to the Telegraph (U.K.):

Ian Davies, the headmaster of Brentwood School in Essex, promised that his introduction of the International Baccalaureate (IB) would see students better educated for the 21st century.

However, the handling of the IB programme at the school - alma mater of Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary - has been described as "appalling" and a "shocking mistake"....

Another female pupil said they had been "misled" about how well regarded the diploma was.

"They were really, really pushing it," she said. "They said the IB was more highly valued than A-levels, when that didn't turn out to be true for a lot of universities," she said.

A mother agreed. "When we went to the universities, the very best reaction we got was 'it's all right'," she said. "Cambridge said they preferred A-levels because they are more focused."

A female student claimed that the IB had been a "shocking mistake".

I admit that I am biased in favor of academic rigor. Therefore, I am not inclined to be a supporter of the IB Program. In fact, long time readers may recall that I withdrew Junior Anti-Corruption from Pearland ISD because the local school district was dumbing down the schools with the IB Program.

Here is an analysis of how nearly 200 American colleges treat the IB Program relative to the AP Program. Over 88% prefer the AP Program over the IB Program. Just 12% are indifferent between the two.

Feeney Walks

Mark Matthews of the Orlando Sentinel is the first to report that law enforcement will no longer pursue its investigation into former Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.).

After more than two years, the Department of Justice this week dropped an ethics investigation into former U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney of Oviedo, who was suspected of wrongdoing after taking a golf trip to Scotland with corrupt ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The article does not indicate what led the DoJ to drop this case. Earlier in July, the DC Circuit decided that statements made by Mr. Feeney to the House Ethics Committee were protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Perhaps prosecutors thought this setback was too significant to overcome. We tend to think there is another explanation. After all, we know that the DC Circuit will hear that case en banc. It seems to us that if DoJ prosecutors are forced to roll the dice in the en banc hearing, they might as well stick around long enough to see if they get a good roll.

Former Feeney aide Jason Roe whines about this matter, making incoherent arguments:

"I don't think it was fair that [the Justice Department] left it as open-ended during his election as they did. To keep this going for more than two years and costing him a seat in Congress doesn't seem right," said Jason Roe, Feeney's chief of staff from 2003 to 2007.

"In the absence of this Abramoff situation, it was unlikely that Suzanne Kosmas would have dared to take on Tom in his last election," Roe added.

Mr. Roe is right that in the absence of the "Abramoff situation" it is unlikely Mr. Feeney would have lost his seat in Congress. In January 2007, the House Ethics Committee determined that Mr. Feeney's trip to Scotland was "contrary to House rules" because the trip may have been "substantially recreational in nature". Mr. Roe would seemingly prefer that we not remember this determination from the House Ethics Committee.

Of course an election is a political process. Voters may use whatever criteria they choose when they determine how to vote. Mr. Roe seems to argue that voters may only vote against Mr. Feeney if Mr. Feeney had been guilty of a criminal act. And since Mr. Feeney will not be held criminally responsible, voters who didn't vote for Mr. Feeney acted inappropriately. It isn't clear whether Mr. Roe thinks Orlando voters (1) aren't very smart and were tricked by the DoJ into thinking that Mr. Feeney had already been convicted; or (2) acted improperly by considering factors other than criminal convictions.

While Mr. Roe attacks voters (particularly Republican-leaning voters) in the Orlando area, the ACR Blog will take on the burden of defending them. One of the purposes of this blog is to demonstrate that, for the most part, Republican voters have higher standards than their Democratic counterparts. (Mr. Roe shows that this broad statement is not universal.) It would have been perfectly reasonable for Orlando Republicans to shun Mr. Feeney because the House Ethics Committee found Mr. Feeney's behavior in the "Abramoff situation" had violated House rules. The author of the ACR Blog believes findings of the House Ethics Committee are very serious matters even if others don't.

Let's look at Mr. Roe's other contention ... that the DoJ left the investigation "open-ended" during Mr. Feeney's 2008 re-election campaign. Here are a few facts in timeline form to help us determine why the case wasn't resolved by November 2008:

April 2007: Mr. Feeney is identified as "Representative 3" in the "Information" document filed to charge Mark Zachares.

April 2007: Mr. Feeney's office issues a statement that confirming that the Justice Department had requested documents from Mr. Feeney. The statement claims that Mr. Feeney "is pleased to voluntarily cooperate".

Prior to August 10, 2007: A government lawyer told Mr. Feeney's attorneys that the government wanted to interview Mr. Feeney about statements made in letters Mr. Feeney submitted to the Ethics Committee. Mr. Feeney refused to be interviewed. It is difficult to reconcile Mr. Feeney's behavior with his April 2007 statement about voluntarily cooperating ... The government proceeded to serve Mr. Feeney's lawyers with subpoenas for the Ethics Committee documents and related testimony.

August 2007: In response to the grand jury subpoenas, Mr. Feeney and his lawyers moved to quash the subpoenas due to, among other reasons, that the material requested was protected under the Speech or Debate Clause. Based on the District Court case number for this case (1:07-mc-00319), the ACR Blog believes this case was filed between August 7, 2007 and August 10, 2007. Again, it is unclear how the move to quash subpoenas can be squared with Mr. Feeney's assertion that he intended to voluntarily cooperate.

Sometime between August 2007 and January 2009: The District Court orders that Mr. Feeney and his lawyers comply with the subpoenas. Mr. Feeney and his lawyers appeal this decision to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

November 2008: Ms. Kosmas defeats Mr. Feeney in the 2008 Congressional elections.

January 2009: The Circuit Court hears Mr. Feeney's appeal.

February 2009: Press reports indicate that the Circuit Court has reversed the District Court, determining that testimony and documents related to the Ethics Committee investigation are protected under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause.

June 2009: The Circuit Court issues its opinion.

July 2009: Press reports indicate that the DC Circuit Court will hear this case en banc.

July 2009: Mr. Roe inexplicably blames the Justice Department for not wrapping this case up by the November 2008 election. As of November 2008, the Justice Department had a favorable opinion from the District Court and it was Mr. Feeney who was prolonging the matter with an appeal to the Circuit Court.

Let's charitably conclude that Mr. Roe hasn't been following this case very closely and is speaking from ignorance. Clearly, it was Mr. Feeney's appeal that kept this case open-ended over the 2008 Congressional election.

==

The significance of this matter can not be understated. Mr. Feeney is the first Representative given a code name (Representative 3) who will no longer be investigated.

Let's look at the complete list:

Representative 1: Bob Ney (R-Ohio) - GUILTY
Representative 2: Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land) - Not charged
Representative 3: Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) - Investigation ended; no charges
Representative 4: Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) - Not charged
Representative 5: John Doolittle (R-Calif.) - Not charged

Recall that the ACR Blog has already evaluated evidence that suggests Mr. Istook may not be charged.

=========

***UPDATE***
August 2, 2009

Orlando-based Unheard No More! writes about this same topic.

Unheard No More! reminds us of yet another shady trip taken by Mr. Feeney. Mr. Feeney took an Asian trip funded by Ed Buckham's Korea-US Exchange Council (KUSEC). Mr. DeLay, our own former Congressman, also took a Asian trip funded by KUSEC. Also, Mr. Buckham's KUSEC hired Julie Doolittle for one of those no-show jobs. The ACR Blog hopes that the end of the investigation into Mr. Feeney doesn't mean that prosecutors are giving up on parts of the scandal involving Mr. Buckham.

Recall that Mr. Buckham also operated the US Family Network (USFN). USFN received a cool $1 million from Naftasib, a Russian energy interest run by Alexander Koulakovsky. Mr. Koulakovsky famously offered a bribe in the form of a luxury car to Mr. DeLay. Mr. DeLay graciously declined the offer, but the $1 million payment to USFN shortly followed.