Ring's Motion to Acquit and the Government's Response

Last night, attorneys for Kevin Ring filed a Motion to Acquit. The basic premise of this document is that no reasonable jury could find that the government has proven its case against Mr. Ring. Tonight, the Justice Department filed its response.

These documents have w-a-y too much case law for the author of the ACR Blog. We'll leave the discussion of the merits of these filings to others.

The only point we'd like to make is that it doesn't appear that the defense means for U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to be the intended audience for the Motion to Acquit. The ACR Blog thinks that the entire motion is simply intended to lay the groundwork for an appeal.

Here's what we mean. On page 19 of the Motion to Acquit, the defense writes:

The evidence presented at trial is insufficient to establish any sort of [conspiracy] agreement, much less that Mr. Ring knowingly and intentionally joined it. Mr. Volz did not describe any sort of agreement to act unlawfully between Mr. Ring and anyone -- not even on that involved implicit winks and nods. For his part, Mr. Boulanger described any agreement to “win at all costs” and his own beliefs that the rules did not matter in such an environment. But other than this evidence, there simply was no evidence that lobbyists at Greenberg Traurig, including Mr. Ring, joined any conspiracy of the type described by the government.

Does the defense really think Judge Huvelle will find that there is no conspiracy? Less than a week ago, Judge Huvelle identified 12 people as conspirators. We rather doubt that Judge Huvelle can see that many conspirators but no conspiracy.

Did John Doolittle Sign a Tolling Agreement?

We've long known that former Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Tom DeLay (R-Ft. Bend County) signed tolling agreements. Basically, a tolling agreement waives the statute of limitations. A person under investigation may sign a tolling agreement as part of a strategy to continue discussions and negotiations with prosecutors instead of facing an immediate indictment. We've never had any evidence that John Doolittle has waived the statute of limitations through a tolling agreement.

So today, I'm reading the incoherent ramblings of Tom Hudson, the President of the Placer County (Calif.) Republican Party, as reported by Gus Thomas of the Auburn (Calif.) Journal:

Tom Hudson, president of the Placer County Republican Party, said that any connection after several years of Justice Department scrutiny is more about “bad-mouthing” John and Julie Doolittle than about justice.

“I think the fact that they have never been indicted after an extensive witch hunt is about the best proof of their innocence that we can get,” Hudson said.

What? The best evidence of innocence is the lack of an indictment? We wonder what Mr. Hudson said during the investigation into lies under oath by President Clinton. There was no indictment back then, either, but the lack of an indictment certainly doesn't imply innocence. In fact, President Clinton himself admitted acting unlawfully and that he testified falsely under oath. (Of course there are undeniably Democratic partisans, like Mr. Hudson today, who will deny that President Clinton broke the law because there never was an indictment.)

Getting back to Mr. Hudson, though, there is something to be divined in his statements to the Auburn Journal:

“It’s shameful,” Hudson said. “If there was a case, they should have indicted [Mr. Doolittle] within the statute of limitations.”

Normally when the statute of limitations has passed, there can be no indictment. But Mr. Hudson merely says that prosecutors "should have indicted [Mr. Doolittle] within the statute of limitations." Mr. Hudson seems to leave the door open for an indictment beyond the statute of limitations.

Let's assume for the moment that Mr. Hudson has knowledge that isn't widely known. Let's also assume Mr. Hudson knows that Mr. Doolittle has signed a tolling agreement. That would make Mr. Hudson's statement that prosecutors should have indicted Mr. Doolittle within the statute of limitations make more sense, since Mr. Hudson would know that it is possible that Mr. Doolittle will be indicted after the statute of limitations has expired.

The ACR Blog simply finds it odd that Mr. Hudson mentioned the statute of limitations in this manner. If Mr. Hudson had said, "Mr. Doolittle has not been indicted and can not be indicted due to the expiration of the statute of limitations," we wouldn't be so suspicious. Mr. Hudson's sentence construction gives us a little more confidence that Mr. Doolittle has indeed signed a tolling agreement extending the statute of limitation.

One more quick point: The clock starts on the statute of limitations when the last act in the conspiracy was committed. If the conspiracy involved concealment of these crimes, the statute of limitations may not have begun when the Washington Post blew up this story in February 2004. In that case, the statute of limitations may not have completely run its course.

An enterprising reporter ought to ask Mr. Doolittle if he's signed a tolling agreement. Let's hope Gus Thomas at the Auburn Journal is our guy.

Tim Carney to Kevin Ring's Defense

Tim Carney writes for the Washington Examiner. We used to read him when he wrote for National Review, a publication we once praised a few years ago as being anti-corruption. Mr. Carney doesn't think Kevin Ring isn't guilty of anything more than being a lobbyist:

A federal prosecutor said of Ring this month, "He was a lobbyist in name but a corruptor in reality. ... Ring is the sugar daddy, giving out the goodies to public officials over and over again."

The prosecution needs to employ such nebulous claims because they apparently cannot prove that Ring ever offered an actual quid pro quo. They are not alleging, for instance, that Ring ever gave Abramoff's MCI Center luxury box to an official on the condition that the staffer insert an earmark for a client.

Mr. Carney misstates the law here. It is enough for us to wonder if Mr. Carney's description of the law was provided by the defense. If Mr. Carney had given an accurate description of the law, it wouldn't be so easy for him to dismiss the charges against Mr. Ring.

The prosecution need not prove that a specific thing of value was traded "on the condition" that a staffer perform an official function for Mr. Ring or Team Abramoff. Yes, that is what the defense would like the law to be. But it isn't the law.

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle has signaled that she will employ case law that finds the purchase of influence is a corrupt act. So if Mr. Ring's tickets influenced a public official to perform an official function, the jury can find Mr. Ring guilty. Mr. Carney is fully aware that Team Abramoff tickets influenced a public official's official actions:

One prosecution witness, convicted former Senate staffer Ann Copland, was brought to the stand to explain how she reacted to the generosity of one of Ring's convicted colleagues: "I did not feel like I could tell Todd [Boulanger] 'no' ... because he treated me very well, which included, in large part, the tickets."

If Mr. Carney's understanding of the law was accurate, he'd have a point. Unfortunately, he didn't apply the appropriate standard, and his conclusion is consequently fatally flawed.

Boulanger: 'Trevor Blackann is like FedEx'

Yet another interesting piece of information came out while Todd Boulanger was on the witness stand last week in the case of USA v Kevin Ring. Our Washington Correspondent reports that during an exchange with Kevin Ring's attorney, Andrew Wise, Mr. Boulanger likened Trevor Blackann to "FedEx" ... As in Federal Express, which of course is the overnight package delivery service.

Mr. Wise asked Mr. Boulanger why he referred to Mr. Blackann as "FedEx". Mr. Boulanger's response:

"Because he was rapid. There was no filter." (paraphrased)

Since this wasn't particularly clear, Mr. Wise pressed further. Mr. Boulanger continued:

"He just did things quickly. He didn't even always check in with his boss. There were times he even vetted amendments for us behind the scenes without his boss's knowledge." (paraphrased)

Mr. Boulanger did not specify whether the most egregious of these activities occurred during the period Mr. Blackann worked for Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), or whether it was during his stint as a Legislative Assistant for Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.).

Mr. Blackann, an admitted felon, is married to Laura Blackann (nee Brookshire), an alleged conspirator and former PR flack for Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). We wonder what the dinner table conversations are like in the Blackann household, especially since unlike Mr. Boulanger, Mr. Blackann either did not ask or was unable to secure a non-prosecution agreement for his wife. (We have written more about Mrs. Blackann here and here.)

Mr. Blackann is reportedly cooperating with prosecutors. That said, because it is timely information relevant to Mr. Ring's case, I want to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post:

However, this email indicates that Mr. Blackann was actively helping Team Abramoff in its effort to increase funding from $9 million to $16 million for a jail for the Mississippi Band of the Choctaw Indians 1:

From: Boulanger, Todd [Dir-DC-Gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:17 PM
To: Abramoff, Jack [Dir-DC-Gov]; Ring, Kevin [Shld-DC-Gov]; Rudy, Tony [Shld-DC-Gov]; Vasell, Shawn [Dir-DC-Gov]
Subject: Choctaw Jail Intel
Importance: High

Tracey Hanke [sic] was at the Sen. [redacted, but very short name ... perhaps Bond] staff retreat today. My friends over there weighed in with her pretty hard and told her that [redacted] was aware and supportive of the project - which wasn't true because he doesn't know what is going on, really - but he wanted to feel her out how adamant her position was with regard to increasing the $9 million figure.

They also played the political angle up with her ... she didn't seem overly impressed.

Trevor said that she is 100 percent not going to budge with what we've hit her with thus far. Her excuse was that they are already taking 1/3 of the budget -which isn't totally true because of the unobligated FY01 funds -and because "they're one of the richest tribes in the country" yadda yadda yadda, which does not mean anything because of the Feds trust responsibility.

What does that mean? Well, going after her directly won't work because she's protected and was placed in that position to "be a bitch".. I'm not really sure how to approach this, but it may take a meeting with Ashcroft and a call from [redacted] and/or/both from [redacted] to the AG and getting his verbal committment [sic] so she doesn't have a choice but to release the money.

She knows that we're gonna go above her and trevor [sic] didn't think that would bother her, but as long as the decision is hers and hers alone to make, you can be certain that $9 mill is all we're getting.

Thoughts? Kevin, this is your turf ...

This email seems to corroborate, contemporaneously, Mr. Boulanger's testimony that Mr. Blackann's "boss" - in this case almost certainly Sen. Bond - had no idea what his "rogue" staffer was up to. It also confirms for us that just because a Congressional staff member gets caught up in the web of Team Abramoff's scandal, you should not automatically assume that the "boss" is corrupt too. On the other hand, when a large number of your staff are identified as conspirators, and that description is even used to describe you and your wife, well...

Final point: The email also points out the credibility problems Tracy Henke would have no matter who called her to the stand - and since both Mr. Wise and the prosecutors are smart, no one did.

'Nearly Endless' and 'Endless': Redux

Almost a week ago, Beth Sussman at the National Journal reported:

A staffer-turned-lobbyist [Todd Boulanger] said the "endless expense account" and "nearly endless tickets" at "Team Abramoff" gave him and other former members of the lobbying team, including Kevin Ring and Jack Abramoff, greater access to public officials than other lobbyists.

[Material in brackets added for clarification. Emphasis in original.]

The ACR Blog provided some perspective on what these nebulous terms meant:

Hmmm. "Endless expense account" (meaning meals and drinks) and "nearly endless tickets" gave him "greater access to public officials". What does "nearly endless" mean to our gentle readers? Exhibit GX50, an email between Susan Ralston and Jack Abramoff, reveals the answer. In this email, which prosecutors almost certainly introduced as evidence during this testimony, reveals that Mr. Abramoff budgeted more than $1 million just for tickets in 2001. If that is the definition of "nearly endless", imagine what Mr. Boulanger meant by "endless".

Gentle readers, in a new article today, Ms. Sussman provides us with an update on thie matter:

The lobbying team headed by imprisoned ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff spent more than $5.1 million on suites at D.C.-area sporting venues from 2000 to 2004, according to an estimate by the FBI.

Please note that the $5.1 million figure is for a multi-year period (and does not include all ticket purchases - go to Ms. Sussman's post for clarification). The earlier $1 million estimate was only for 2001. Also keep in mind that only the tickets were described by Mr. Boulanger as "nearly endless", leaving us to again wonder at the astronomical sum of money spent by Team Abramoff on meals, alcohol, etc. that made Mr. Boulanger characterize those expenses as actually being "endless."

John Doolittle, Good Cop. David Lopez, Bad Cop?

Attorneys for Kevin Ring, in an oral motion¹, have offered evidence purportedly impeaching some government exhibits. The government responded Sunday night. While the defense seeks to impeach a number of the government's exhibits, we're just going to focus on just the one we find most interesting.

GX 385 is a September 11, 2002 email from Jack Abramoff to Maury Litwack, a person indentified in the Ring Indictment as a "consultant" to Capital Athletic Foundation, Mr. Abramoff's "non-profit". Mr. Abramoff tells Mr. Litwack that he doesn't want Julie Doolittle (the alleged conspirator wife of former Rep. and alleged conspirator John Doolittle, R-Calif.) to work very hard for the $5,000 per month job Mr. Abramoff had just given Mrs. Doolittle²:

“I want [Mrs. Doolittle] to help, but not be overburdened with work. 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."

Mr. Ring's attorneys want to show, among other things, that Mr. Doolittle did not pressure Mr. Abramoff into hiring Mrs. Doolittle. Mr. Ring's attorneys want the jury to consider what it views as impeachment material that would contradict Mr. Abramoff's statements. We're not 100% sure of the origin of the material defense attorney Andrew Wise wants to use, but it may be from an Abramoff interview report dated May 18, 2006:

"Abramoff recalled the circumstances surrounding Julie Doolittle working for him at Greenberg Traurig. He said Doolittle called him and said he was calling as a friend and made it clear there was no obligation but that Julie Doolittle was looking to expand her work portfolio and described the type of work she did. Abramoff said Doolittle made it clear there was no obligation. Doolittle was insistent there was no pressure."

The DoJ claims that the above statement refers to an earlier effort by Mr. Doolittle to get his wife a job in 2000 and isn't relevant to the actual "job" offered to Mrs. Doolittle in 2002. (If the DoJ is accurate, it makes the reference of "Julie Doolittle working for [Mr. Abramoff] at Greenberg Traurig" confusing. Mr. Abramoff worked at Preston Gates in 2000.) The DoJ also claims that the above statement does not impeach Mr. Abramoff's credibility when he said he didn't want Mrs. Doolittle to work hard for her paycheck.

In the event that U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle allows the above statement that Mr. Doolittle did not pressure Mr. Abramoff to hire Mrs. Doolittle, the government would like to respond. The government has a couple of statements it wants to use that originate, we think, from the same May 2006 interview report. The first statement suggests that Mr. Doolittle may have pressured Mr. Abramoff to hire Mrs. Doolittle after all:

• “Abramoff also speculated that Doolittle and Lopez were playing 'good cop, bad cop,' and explained Doolittle would say 'no pressure,' but Lopez would stay on him."



• "Abramoff said after he was asked, it was clearly his intention to find a job for Julie Doolittle. Abramoff said he was being pushed by Lopez and he (Abramoff) wanted to get it done. Abramoff explained that he could not just say he was unable to find a job for Julie Doolittle."



• "Abramoff said Doolittle was doing things for his client, so it would be good for Abramoff to be sure the job for Julie Doolittle got done."

The last statement may indicate that the job for Mrs. Doolittle was part of an illicit stream of things of value Mr. Doolittle received from Mr. Abramoff. Recall that we think we may have identified an official action performed by Mr. Doolittle in response to a request by Team Abramoff. According to Todd Boulanger, Mr. Doolittle wrote a June 2003 letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on behalf of the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa in an effort to help the tribe re-open its casino. Mr. Ring represented the Sac & Fox, and June 2003 was during the $5,000 per month job for Mrs. Doolittle.

If there is a connection between an illicit stream of things of value received by Mr. Doolittle and official action performed by Mr. Doolittle, things could get very ugly for the former Congressman.

Be sure to read the entire government filing. The ACR Blog is reporting only one of many items in it.

===

¹ Ackkk! Oral motions and no Hebrew National hot dogs! The ACR Blog prefers written motions.

² The ACR Blog finds it odd that Mrs. Doolittle was being paid $5,000 per month by Greenberg Traurig, but the "work" she purportedly performed was for Capital Athletic Foundation, an entity Mr. Abramoff controlled.

Government Exhibit #1226

Todd Boulanger (L) and Kevin Ring (R) enjoy red cup libations.

A source for the ACR Blog informed us that federal prosecutors sought to introduce the above photo as evidence in USA v Kevin Ring last week. Without objection from the defense, it became GX1226. Honestly, we don't know why anyone would object to the photo; it shows two co-workers enjoying some down time on a couch at a 4th of July party in 2000 at the "House of the Homies", Mr. Boulanger's former F Street residence. (We believe the precise date this photo was taken is July 1, 2000.)

Unfortunately for our curious and always gentle readers, neither the prosecution nor the defense grilled Mr. Boulanger while he was under oath to ask what was in that notorious red cup of his. However, in other testimony, Mr. Boulanger admitted a preference for Tanqueray, so those of you that were thinking beer may not be correct. Whether Mr. Ring had "gone K. Ring" at the time this photo was taken (while the two worked at Preston Gates) is unknown.

We applaud the investigators at the Justice Department for tracking down this photo.

'Cotton-Pickin' Peckinpaugh'

Tim L. Peckinpaugh is currently a lobbyist at K&L/Gates. While this large legal and lobbying firm may not sound familiar to some of our readers, others will recognize it as the successor company to Preston, Gates & Ellis - the firm that originally hired Jack Abramoff, Kevin Ring, Todd Boulanger and others, all of whom ultimately coalesced into "Team Abramoff."


Tim Peckinpaugh, K&L/Gates
(Click thumbnail for larger image)

In 2000, Mr. Peckinpaugh was listed as a registered lobbyist for several lucrative Team Abramoff clients, including the Western Pacific Economic Council (WPEC), Saginaw Chippewa tribe, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Peckinpaugh worked side-by-side with Messrs. Abramoff, Ring, and Boulanger on matters pertaining to these clients, and in court this week, Mr. Boulanger confirmed it. It is equally clear that Mr. Peckinpaugh did not become a member of Team Abramoff. And that's an important fact for our gentle readers to know.

Recall that in January 2001, Team Abramoff left Preston Gates and joined Greenberg Traurig - a firm with ambitious plans to expand its lobbying business in DC. Unfortunately (?) for Preston Gates and Mr. Peckinpaugh, Team Abramoff took many of their clients with them to their new firm, including the CNMI and the 'Sag Chips' (WPEC did not renew with either firm). Since Preston Gates was (and still is) a large firm, this loss of business probably didn't impact the bottom line too badly, but still...losing well-paying clients cannot be fun.

So why did Team Abramoff jump ship from Preston Gates? According to the testimony of Mr. Boulanger on Thursday, part of the reason was Tim Peckinpaugh, otherwise known to Team Abramoff as:

Cotton-Pickin' Peckinpaugh

Any why was that? Again, Mr. Boulanger: "Because he picked at every detail of what we did" (paraphrased). This statement was made in the context of Mr. Boulanger's testimony describing the contrast with the Team's scheming to get around the Senate ethics rules in January 2001 immediately after their arrival at Greenberg Traurig, when they wanted to figure out a way to justify the travel of Will Brooke, Ryan Thomas and others to the Superbowl in Florida. Recall that Beth Sussman has already reported related aspects of Mr. Boulanger's testimony:

"I will not put names on a receipt ever," Boulanger wrote in a 2002 e-mail to Abramoff regarding a Greenberg Traurig request to fill in information on accounting forms about guests at expensed lunches.

We suspect such practices were not tolerated at Preston Gates, and it appeared to our Washington correspondent that a big part of the reason why was Tim Peckinpaugh. The ACR Blog salutes you, Mr. Peckinpaugh. Like Paul Morrell, you presented an ethics problem for Team Abramoff -- you have them.

Defense Finished Up With Boulanger Today

Todd Boulanger. Another day. Lost his shirt.
The cups are getting bigger.

Kevin Ring's defense attorney, Mr. Andrew Wise, had another chance to rattle Mr. Boulanger's cage today. Our Washington correspondent reports that Mr. Wise turned in an impressive performance himself on Thursday, even though he did not succeed in his efforts to discredit Mr. Boulanger's testimony to any substantial degree. You simply cannot rattle a lowlife by trying to portray him as "amoral pond scum" when he knows and agrees he is amoral pond scum. Unfortunately, we won't be getting a report from our Washington correspondent today because he wasn't able to attend the trial.

In remaining scheduling news, the jury was released early on Friday after Mr. Boulanger finished up, and they will have Monday off before reconvening on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle warned the jurors not to discuss this case with anyone or go on to the internet to read blogs about it. Cripes, beyond Beth Sussman's excellent reporting, it is hard for us to find any news on the internet about this case. What would the jurors be able to find on the internet if even if they tried?

Nevertheless, we here at the ACR Blog completely agree with Judge Huvelle's advice. We have made no secret that we are biased in favor of the prosecution even as we want for Mr. Ring to get a fair trial. But quite frankly, it's past time to purge the Republican Party of these corrupt miscreants and get back to the task of winning elections.

Defense Witness List Due Today

The ACR Blog has long anticipated seeing a list of the witnesses the defense intends to call in USA v. Kevin A. Ring. We fully expect attorney Andrew Wise to mount a vigorous defense of his client.

The ACR Blog has no idea who will be on the defense's witness list. If we were forced to guess at one name, though, we'd guess Kevin Ring would call David Mielke, the tribal lawyer for the Sandia Pueblo. His testimony would be relevant to paragraphs 152-163 of the indictment.

===

***UPDATE***
September 25, 2009; 5:58 p.m. CDT

Beth Sussman at National Journal reports that the defense is likely to call no witnesses. Ms. Sussman tells us to expect the trial to go to jury at the end of next week and a lot more. Be sure to click through.

Four Take the Fifth?

L-R: David Ayres, Peter Evich and David Lopez. Photo not available for Laura Ayres

On September 3, the ACR Blog noted that David and Laura Ayres intended to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination if the defense called them to testify in USA v. Kevin A. Ring. Mr. and Mrs. Ayres formally asserted the Fifth Amendment on September 17.

As a result of a report from our Washington correspondent, the ACR Blog is comfortable enough to name two other people who have indicated they will assert their Fifth Amendment rights if called by the defense. Both are staffers to former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.): Former Chief of Staff David Lopez and former Legislative Director Peter Evich. (You may recall that Mr. Evich recently decided that he is no longer proud of his association with Mr. Doolittle.)

The ACR Blog is admittedly puzzled as to why Mr. Lopez feels the need to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. In August, we learned that Mr. Lopez has received immunity. The only plausible explanation the ACR Blog can come up with is that Mr. Lopez received some sort of limited immunity and that Mr. Lopez feels he is criminally liable for some acts not covered in the limited immunity agreement. Of course, that is just speculation.

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle suggested today that it doesn't make a lot of sense to fly Mr. Lopez into Washington from his home in Northern California if he intends to plead the Fifth. That means, at least in Mr. Lopez's case, that he may not have to formally invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Mr. Evich lives in the Washington, DC area and works for the lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates. Like Mr. and Mrs. Ayres, Mr. Evich may formally assert his Fifth Amendment rights in open court.

Our Washington correspondent also tells us that the government says it won't grant immunity to any more scandal figures. Justice is now playing hardball. Other scandal players ought to strongly consider a plea deal before the lawyers at Justice lose any more patience.

======

Wendy at Unheard No More! connects more dots.

Todd Boulanger: Cool and Steady Under Pressure

Todd Boulanger: Another day, another shirt. But we still want to know: What's in that red cup?¹

Mr. Boulanger strode as briskly into the courtroom after lunch as he did in the morning, eyes focused straight ahead on his destination: the witness chair. The prosecutors were almost done with him, but first they wanted him to tell the jury about the Superbowl trip planned by Team Abramoff for January 2001.

Mr. Boulanger testified that the original intent of this trip was to bring "high value" folks that "we were seeking to influence" down to Florida in a private jet. New ones, however, not ones they already owned (like Congressman Doolittle). The lobbyists floated the idea of a fundraiser for a "big fish". Unfortunately, Team Abramoff couldn't hook a big fish, so they started going after smaller fry. In the end, Mr. Boulanger named five individuals who actually did fly down to Florida in a private jet:

• Todd Boulanger


• Tony Rudy (Team Abramoff)


• Will Brooke (staffer to Senator Conrad Burns, R-Mont.)


• Ryan Thomas (Senate Appropriations Committee staffer)


• Tim Berry (staffer to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land)

The participants went out on a Sun Cruz gambling boat and were provided with what our correspondent thought he heard as $100 in gambling chips and told that whatever they won was theirs. However, Mr. Boulanger said Team Abramoff struggled with their attempts to even remotely justify this trip under the then more stringent Senate ethics rules. Kevin Ring suggested at one point that perhaps it could be portrayed as a tribute to one of the Senators. (Since no Senators were present, perhaps that's the reason why that idea did not play that well.)

After that testimony, it was time for the Defense Team. Defense attorney Andrew Wise fired a series of questions at Mr. Boulanger, pointing out that in the end it was not Mr. Ring's "friends" who went to the Superbowl, but his. Mr. Boulanger answered this barrage of questions matter-of-factly, but concisely. He was almost flippant at times, according to our correspondent, even when Mr. Wise pointed out that again it was his friend - Trevor Blackann - that went to the 2003 World Series game in New York, rather than any of Kevin Ring's. Absolutely true, replied Mr. Boulanger. Mr. Wise's strategy appeared to be to make Mr. Boulanger the bad guy to the jury, which of course he is, but what seemed to surprise Mr. Wise is that Mr. Boulanger was willing to freely admit it. In his admission, Mr. Boulanger seemed all the more credible to our correspondent.

Mr. Wise was not yet done trying to crack our favorite UNH Frat Boy. He asked Mr. Boulanger whether he really knew how deep Mr. Ring's friendship was with Mr. Coughlin, and pointed out that Mr. Coughlin even arrived at Mr. Ring's house one day with a birthday present for his daughter. A personal friendship was intended justify Mr. Ring's offers of food/drink/tickets to Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Wise pointed out that Mr. Boulanger's definition of "doing dirt" for clients meant one thing in one of his emails and another thing in a second email. Mr. Boulanger agreed. Mr. Wise tried to make him draw distinctions between "reward", "thank", and "celebrate" - to which Mr. Boulanger replied: "They're all the same to me." In short, Mr. Boulanger was making an impressive performance, as impressive as his appearance.

Mr. Wise decided to try a different line of questioning, trying to personally discredit Mr. Boulanger based on his sordid past (well-documented on this blog). Describing him as in his late 20's, single, a free spirit, running around Capitol Hill with a fast crowd, shutting down bars, having "rough edges", etc. Mr. Boulanger could only reply: "All true. Rough edges? Sure I had some rough edges. We all did" (paraphrased).

"In fact, you were known as the "Mayor of the Capitol Hill Lounge," asked Mr. Wise (paraphrased). Yes, replied Mr. Boulanger. Mr. Wise juxtaposed this description by then bringing forward Mr. Boulanger's admission that Mr. Ring had given up the party life after his daughters were born and ultimately, even gave up drinking (though in fairness to Mr. Ring, Mr. Boulanger said he was not the animal he was anyway). So "straight" had Mr. Ring become, that his colleagues even had a saying that the remaining "partakers" used around the office:

Don't go K. Ring on me.

To go "K. Ring" meant to give up staying out late, drinking, and/or partying. Again, Mr. Boulanger held his own, and try as he might, Mr. Wise could not crack the witness on this one as well. So Mr. Wise changed tack again, next switching to an attempt to discredit Mr. Boulanger on the basis that he did not leave his initial Hill job on good terms with his boss, Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.). True said Mr. Boulanger, but I left with many friends on his staff.

Mr. Wise then fired a number of questions in a row at Mr. Boulanger related to Trevor Blackann, culminating in "You even took him on a deep sea fishing trip to Florida" (paraphrased). Without missing a beat, Mr. Boulanger replied: "I took him on a deep sea fishing trip, but it wasn't to Florida. It was from Maryland (paraphrased). According to our correspondent, it almost seemed that Mr. Wise had tried to set a trap, but Mr. Boulanger was simply unflappable.

Seemingly reaching, Mr. Wise then had Mr. Boulanger read an email he wrote where the f-word appeared several times. Mr. Boulanger's response: "There was alot of testosterone in our office at times" (paraphrased). The jury was rapt, and from their expressions, Mr. Wise seemed to be making little headway.

Again and again, Mr. Wise tried to rattle Mr. Boulanger's cage (all paraphrased).

"Why did your wife get a non-prosecution agreement?"

"What do you really know about Mr. Ring's relationship with Congressman Doolittle? David Lopez? Peter Evich? Greg Orlando? Alisha Perkins?"

"Why do you think it was strange for Congressman Doolittle to get involved in a casino dispute in Iowa?"

"Why was it inappropriate for Congressman Doolittle to first block water projects in Montana for six years only to reconsider after the primary party pushing them hired Greenberg Traurig as their lobbying firm?"

Through all this, Mr. Boulanger held firm. Our correspondent reports that he was one heck of a witness; the Government was as pleased as the Defense seemed rattled.

====

***Update***
September 25, 2009
10:49 a.m. CDT

Beth Sussman at National Journal reports on the cross-examination of Todd Boulanger.

====

¹ In the first contest ever on the ACR Blog, the first person to answer this question in the comments wins public praise: In the picture above, who is the person to Mr. Boulanger's right?

The Mayor of the Capitol Hill Lounge

Todd Boulanger
Why have just one cup?

Todd Boulanger's testimony continued today in the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring, and as we expected, it was quite a day. Our dedicated Washington correspondent eagerly anticipated Mr. Boulanger's testimony and decided to take a vacation day from work in order to witness the proceedings first hand. He was not disappointed, and gentle readers, we suspect you won't be either.

Mr. Boulanger strode briskly into the courtroom and went straight to the witness stand, while his somber-looking attorney found a seat along with the many other observers present (including at least one F Street Gang member). Nattily dressed (as you'd expect), he had a sky blue handkerchief carefully folded in the chest pocket of his pin-striped suit which perfectly matched the blue diagonal stripes on his tie. When he had to pause later to blow his nose, a second white handkerchief deftly came out of his pants pocket. An impressive appearance - and appearance means everything, you know.

The prosecution began their questioning of Mr. Boulanger as they did with John Albaugh, using email after email to describe the inner workings of Team Abramoff. They often asked Mr. Boulanger to read excerpts from these emails, and then orally add context and background information. He started out describing Robert Coughlin's provision of "intelligence [from DoJ] to inform our lobbying strategy" with respect to Team Abramoff's attempt to bump up the Choctaw jail grant from $9 million to $16.3 million. He testified that Mr. Ring provided many event tickets and meals to Mr. Coughlin as this process played out, and as we all know by now, Team Abramoff was successful. In addition to Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Boulanger testified that Jennifer Farley and Jack Oliver (RNC) also helped in these efforts, but as far as Lori Sharpe Day¹ (Justice Department) and Don Trigg (Commerce Department) were concerned, he honestly didn't know.

After Team Abramoff secured the increased funding for the Choctaw jail grant, they thought they had achieved "total victory". Mr. Boulanger testified that it was time to celebrate! And don't forget to reward the participants! Mr. Coughlin continued to receive goodies from Mr. Ring. Team Abramoff hosted Messrs. Trigg and David Ayres and others in the "owners suite" at the then-MCI Center for the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament on March 15, 2002 (with others present too). Mr. Boulanger was also there, and he got a chance to thank them first hand. This prompted the following exchange with DOJ Prosecutor Michael Ferrara:

Mr. Ferrara: Was there food in the suite?
Mr. Boulanger: Oh yeah.
Mr. Ferrara: Was there drink?
Mr. Boulanger: Plenty.

But not enough apparently, because Mr. Boulanger testified that the suite ran out of alcohol and he had to order more. Approximately $700 more, according to the bill he submitted to Greenberg Traurig for reimbursement, along with an email stating that "I spent a lot of money last night." (To be fair, there were numerous other people present in the suite; Mr. Boulanger said he didn't recall the exact number but that it might have been 20 to 40). The celebration wasn't over yet; Mr. Boulanger testified that after the game, he ran up another bar bill for $220 or so at a local "dive bar near my house".

Mr. Boulanger also briefly described Mr. Coughlin's efforts on behalf of the Hopi Tribe, which was involved in a land dispute with the Navajo, and also the Saginaw Chippewa tribe of Michigan. Take it from our correspondent, if the DoJ remains unhappy with Mr. Coughlin's cooperation in this case, he could be in some mighty big trouble.

Mr. Coughlin subsequently left DoJ headquarters (2003) and became a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. Almost immediately, the tickets and dinners became less frequent. According to Mr. Boulanger, this was because Mr. Coughlin was now "less valuable to us." In fact, in June 2005, Messrs. Ring and Coughlin exchanged emails in which they observed that it had been two years since they had last talked. "Don't be such a stranger," wrote Mr. Coughlin, before he asked Mr. Ring about his daughters.

And then it was time for lunch...

=======

Note: The colorful title of this post comes from a nickname for Mr. Boulanger that was revealed in court today, as Mr. Boulanger admitted that he and his friends often shut down the bar. We are seeking confirmation that Mr. Boulanger is known to his tribal clients as "Todd Many Cups".

¹ Today, Lori Sharpe Day is a Managing Director at The Ashcroft Group. Recall that two figures who prominently figured into the Choctaw jail decision, David Ayres and Tracy Henke work at The Ashcroft Group, too.

Justice Department: Former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is a Conspirator

Headline only ... more later

In a court filing today, the Justice Department named 12 public officials as co-conspirators in the Kevin Ring trial:

1. John Albaugh¹
2. Laura Blackann²
3. Ann Copland¹
4. Robert Coughlin¹
5. John Doolittle²
6. Julie Doolittle
7. Peter Evich²
8. Jennifer Farley
9. Will Heaton¹
10. David Lopez²
11. Greg Orlando²
12. Ryan Thomas

¹ Pled guilty
² Worked in the Congressional office of Mr. Doolittle

.... more to come ....

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle apparently asked the Justice Department to produce a list of public officials identified as co-conspirators. The DoJ complied with this request in today's Government's Answers to Court's Questions. There is also a whole lot of legal strategy and legal theory in the document. Words, words, words. If any reader likes that kind of stuff, please read the document yourself. Also feel free to post interpretations in the comments -- even if you're not a lawyer.

We've got a lot of facts to present to everyone. Even though we have not yet written a dedicated post to Mr. Ryan Thomas, we know enough to. We even think we know why the DoJ has identified him as a co-conspirator. Also, two of the four Doolittle staffers have something in common that is quite interesting. It's going to take several posts. Bear with us as this may take a day or two.

John Doolittle's Official Action

It's hard to keep up with National Journal's Beth Sussman. In a second report today, Ms. Sussman describes Todd Boulanger's afternoon testimony.

We're not going to tell you a lot about this report; please click through to read all the facts. We just wonder if Ms. Sussman didn't bury the lede:

Boulanger also described Ring's relationship with former Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., for whom Ring worked as a staffer before becoming a lobbyist. Boulanger said Doolittle helped Ring on issues that were not relevant to his constituents and that were not consistent with his philosophical beliefs -- like reopening a Native American casino in Iowa -- "because of Kevin's involvement." The prosecution claims that members of Doolittle's staff, though not Doolittle himself, received tickets and meals from Ring.

Emphasis in original

The ACR Blog disagrees with Mr. Boulanger's statement that Mr. Doolittle's assistance to Mr. Ring was not consistent with his philosophical beliefs. As Mr. Doolittle's underlying philosophy was to look out for good ol' #1, his actions were 100% in line with his philosophical beliefs. We know that Messrs. Doolittle, Boulanger and Ring styled themselves as philosophical conservatives. They weren't. When it comes to the Abramoff scandal, it is virtually impossible to find any act that was philosophically conservative. Morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt are certainly more appropriate descriptors.

In the opinion of the ACR Blog, Todd Boulanger's testimony seems to describe a specific instance (intervening to reopen the Iowa casino) where Mr. Doolittle performed an official action in response to a request from Team Abramoff. We just need to connect that official action to an illicit stream of things of value. Ms. Sussman reports that, unlike many other people in this scandal, Mr. Doolittle didn't receive tickets¹. I wonder if prosecutors will be able to prove Mr. Doolittle received an illicit stream of things of value. Since it may not have been tickets, maybe Mr. Doolittle convinced Jack Abramoff to hire his wife for $5,000 per month while doing little or no work. Naw ... that would be absurd!


A 2004 check from Greenberg Traurig to Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, Mrs. Doolittle's "company". Amount: $5,000

::

Be sure to visit our friend Wendy at Unheard No More! She's writing about the Ring trial, too, with a special emphasis on the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.

::

¹ The ACR Blog believes that Mr. Doolittle may have actually received tickets from Team Abramoff. In GX398, Mr. Ring suggests to Mr. Abramoff that Mr. Doolittle deserves tickets to an Eagles concert over Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.). We don't know if Mr. Doolittle actually attended the concert. However, when attorneys were discussing GX425 at the August 13 status conference, U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle asked if Mr. Doolittle had received "tickets and meals". Prosecutors confirmed that Mr. Doolittle had received such items.

'Quid Pro Quo' or 'Squid Pro Quo'?

Todd Boulanger: Different day, different shirt. But we still want to know -- What's in the cup?

Todd Boulanger tries very hard to be "hip". Fashionable. A man-of-the-world even. But in reality, he is just a sleazy, corrupt, immature poseur and felon who'll do or say anything to save his Brooks Brothers-covered rear end. Or to get his next drink. And yes Counselor, that is the opinion of this witness. And yes, we consider ourselves to be a well-informed one at that.

Mr. Boulanger took the stand again today in the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring. We predicted here back on September 9:

• Mr. Boulanger will provide background information on how Team Abramoff operated, especially the ways and means in which it sought to curry favor with Congressional staffers and Senators/Representatives.

In an article appearing today headlined "Witness Details Team Abramoff's Methods", Beth Sussman at the National Journal describes exactly that. As always, we encourage our readers to visit the original to read her reporting first-hand, but count on the ACR Blog for in-depth analysis, perspective, and commentary.

We also predicted Mr. Boulanger would be utilized by the Prosecution to:

• Mr. Boulanger will testify that it was the intent of the conspiracy to provide things of value ("getting the joke") in exchange for access/favors, both immediate and as "future paybacks".
  
  
• Mr. Boulanger will provide specifics on Mr. Ring's myriad roles within Team Abramoff.

Ms. Sussman starts her article with this:

A staffer-turned-lobbyist said the "endless expense account" and "nearly endless tickets" at "Team Abramoff" gave him and other former members of the lobbying team, including Kevin Ring and Jack Abramoff, greater access to public officials than other lobbyists.

Hmmm. "Endless expense account" (meaning meals and drinks) and "nearly endless tickets" gave him "greater access to public officials". What does "nearly endless" mean to our gentle readers? Exhibit GX50, an email between Susan Ralston and Jack Abramoff, reveals the answer. In this email, which prosecutors almost certainly introduced as evidence during this testimony, reveals that Mr. Abramoff budgeted more than $1 million just for tickets in 2001. If that is the definition of "nearly endless", imagine what Mr. Boulanger meant by "endless". None of this can be good for Mr. Ring. Ms. Sussman continued:

"I will not put names on a receipt ever," Boulanger wrote in a 2002 e-mail to Abramoff regarding a Greenberg Traurig request to fill in information on accounting forms about guests at expensed lunches.

"I didn't want people to find out who we were taking out," Boulanger said in explaining the e-mail, saying the team's rule of thumb was that if a newspaper item about a member of the firm having lunch with a particular individual was going to be embarrassing, it was best not to "leave a paper trail."

More on Team Abramoff's modus operandi. Team Abramoff was doing its best to conceal acts it knew could be embarrassing or ethically dubious (and maybe even illegal). But here's the part of Ms. Sussman's article we find most entertaining:

Boulanger said that Ring joked about his use of tickets and meals in lobbying. "Hello quid, where's the pro quo?" Boulanger reported Ring saying to him on several occasions.

Our belief, as we've stated before is that all humor has at least a little truth to it. This "joke" is actually very damning to Mr. Ring since even his own attorney acknowledges that quid pro quo lobbying is illegal. Of course Mr. Ring's attorneys deny any quid pro quo arrangement. In our opinion, though, the nugget of truth to be found in Mr. Ring's "joke" is that he clearly expected "pro quos" for Team Abramoff's "quids".

Mr. Ring's "joke" makes us recall another "joke" told by Mr. Boulanger. In GX935, described as an email from Abramoff to Ring and Boulanger, subject header: "RE: Ann Copland", Mr. Boulanger reportedly wrote:

I love Thad-C [Senator Thad Cochran, R-Miss.]. One of the best members out there. We need to raise him some serious squid for the June event.

Like our interpretation of Mr. Ring's statement, Mr. Boulanger and Team Abramoff almost certainly expected some "pro quos" for their "squid". But really. Squid? Thad-C? Mr. Boulanger's attempts to sound hip is as bad as the ACR Blog's attempts at comedy. Of course, we don't make any pretense of being hip ... or funny.

Todd Boulanger: Chaperone?!

What's in the cup, Todd?
Click on the picture to see Todd Boulanger sitting next to the defendant, Kevin Ring

From the Factual Basis for the Plea of Ms. Ann Copland:

18. On June 10, 2003, defendant COPLAND used the Camden Yards box suite to throw a party during an Orioles game. While at Camden Yards, defendant COPLAND emailed Boulanger to complain about the suite's food, telling him: "Ackkk. Only beer and no hebrew national hot dogs."

The Factual Basis may be, well, not entirely factual. It possible that the paragraph above contains an error.

The ACR Blog's Washington correspondent reports to us what happened in court on the afternoon of September 21 seems to contradict paragraph 18 in one important detail: Ann Copland may not have been at Camden Yards when she emailed Todd Boulanger to complain about the food. The ACR Blog has a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of the reports he gets from his Washington correspondent, and as a result, summarizes his reporting on this matter:

Prosecutor Michael Ferrara introduced Exhibit GX951, which was an email request wherein Ms. Copland asked Team Abramoff for the Camden Yards Orioles suite for her son on any of the following dates: June 10, 11, or 12, 2003. Mr. Abramoff himself concurred on this request, responding (paraphrased) "whatever Ann wants, she gets."

In GX953, Mr. Boulanger responded to Ms. Copland by email, saying (paraphrased) "you got it on the O's" (for the date of June 10, 2003).

Mr. Ferrara then revealed that in actuality, Mr. Boulanger agreed to chaperone Ms. Copland's 18 year old son and a group of his friends to the Oriole's game on June 10, which Ms. Copland greatly appreciated. According to Ms. Copland, she trusted Mr. Boulanger, who said it would be no trouble for him and that he'd be happy to chaperone the boys at the ballpark. Mr. Ferrara then asked Ms. Copland to review GX993, which Ms. Copland described as a business expense reimbursement to a vendor (Mr. Boulanger) for fuel (presumably for his car) dated June 10, 2003. This prompted Mr. Ferrara to ask (paraphrased): "Do you think Mr. Boulanger was doing this out of friendship?" Before Mr. Ring's attorney Andrew Wise could object (and rightfully so, as it called for speculation on the part of one witness regarding the motive of another), Ms. Copland replied No. Mr. Wise made a belated objection, Judge Huvelle sustained the objection, but it was sort of a moot point.

The ACR Blog cannot reconcile this version of the events with "While at Camden Yards, defendant COPLAND emailed Boulanger...", which would seem to indicate Ms. Copland's physical presence in the suite on June 10, 2003. Our correspondent's interpretation of the "Ackkk" email is that perhaps Ms. Copland emailed her chaperone (Mr. Boulanger, who was in the suite on June 10) expressing a mother's concern that there was "only beer" (no soft drinks) for a underage group of 18 year olds. Where did she get this information? Perhaps a simple cell phone call to her son as she checked in to see if he and his friends were enjoying themselves at the game.

Obviously, Ms. Copland put a great deal of trust in Mr. Boulanger, Mr. Ring, and the rest of Team Abramoff. She is likely to pay a hefty price for this trust; she has already pleaded guilty to a felony. With respect to trusting Mr. Boulanger to chaperone her 18 year old son and his friends, it is painfully obvious that Ms. Copland knew nothing of Mr. Boulanger's sordid history as a UNH Frat Boy¹ or F Street Gangbanger. If she had, we really doubt she would ever have trusted her son with this scoundrel. We don't know who the most mature person was at this birthday party, but we suspect it was one of the 18 year olds and not the chaperone.


Justin Sprinzen (L) and Todd Boulanger (R) are proud of the immense amount of alcohol consumed at a 2001 Zeta Chi reunion party at UNH.

¹ Recall that a jury determined that an underage individual purchased a beer from a soft drink machine located in Mr. Boulanger's apartment. The jury convicted the Zeta Chi fraternity Mr. Boulanger was affiliated with for the illegal sale of alcohol. Mr. Boulanger was not held personally responsible.

USA v. Kevin Ring: Access vs. Influence

Beth Sussman of the National Journal does it again! She provides another informative report on the courtroom action in USA v. Kevin A. Ring:

Though she pleaded guilty earlier this year to taking official actions because of tickets and meals given to her by lobbyists, a former Senate staffer said today in testimony that her actions would have been the same with or without the gifts. Ann Copland, a legislative aide to Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., for nearly 30 years, testified this morning in the trial of Kevin Ring, a former associate of Jack Abramoff.

"The receipt of the tickets and the meals made the lobbyists more accessible to me, and I took official actions during that time. I knew it was their job to influence me," Copland said during cross-examination by the defense. But she insisted that no single action was taken "because of the tickets." ...

Copland said that she would have taken the same actions she took for the Choctaw whether their concerns were brought to her by the lobbyists or directly from the tribe.

"I can't imagine not helping the Choctaw," she said. "They were constituents."

Emphasis in original

At first blush, this testimony might appear to be exculpatory to Kevin Ring. After all, Ann Copland clearly said that no single action was taken "because of the tickets" she received. It appears there was no quid pro quo, right?

Also notice that Ms. Copland said she'd help the Choctaw even if lobbyists such as Mr. Ring weren't involved. It might be a little harder to convict Mr. Ring if his actions didn't change Ms. Copland's behavior.

The key piece of testimony is this sentence, though:

"The receipt of the tickets and the meals made the lobbyists more accessible to me, and I took official actions during that time. I knew it was their job to influence me," Copland said during cross-examination by the defense.

Emphasis added

A couple of weeks ago Susan Crabtree of the Hill reported that prosecutor Michael Ferrara argued that the mere purchase of access could be criminal. Defense attorney Andrew Wise quickly prepared a five-page memorandum supporting his position that granting access is not crime and couldn't support the conspiracy charge against Mr. Ring. We agreed with Mr. Wise's reasoning: "Judging from the defense's memorandum, the ACR Blog tends to agree that granting access is not illegal."

A couple days later, the ACR Blog wrote about another memorandum written by Mr. Wise in which he zealously defended his client and strongly objected to a jury instruction proposed by the Court. While we didn't have the text of the disputed jury instruction at the time, we now see that the argument has changed from the purchase of access to the purchase of influence. Mr. Wise insisted that even the purchase of influence was not an unlawful act. To be unlawful, Mr. Wise said, there had to be a quid pro quo where official actions were traded for things of value.

The ACR Blog now believes that it has the text of the jury instruction that Mr. Wise vehemently objected to. From proposed jury instructions prepared by the Justice Department:

Mere Access Not Sufficient

The defendant does not commit honest-services fraud if he expected, in exchange for the things of value he provided, nothing more than increased access to a public official or the increased likelihood that the public official would take his phone call. Nor is it sufficient if the defendant merely expected that a government official would provide him with information or help him develop a lobbying strategy. You may, however, consider those actions as evidence of the defendant’s and his coconspirators’ intent to defraud.

It is enough for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant expected, in exchange for the things of value he provided, that the public official would exercise particular kinds of informal official influence as the need arose.

Emphasis added; Footnote eliminated; (pp. 47-48)

While this instruction proposed by the prosecution specifically applies to the Honest Services Wire Fraud counts (Counts III-VIII), it seems reasonable to apply the "influence" standard to the Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud (Count I). The Court and attorneys may be able to clarify the instructions a bit further. If this language is indeed the language that the Court proposed, Ms. Copland was a devastating witness to Mr. Ring. She clearly stated that it was Mr. Ring's job to influence her as she performed official actions.

There is one more instruction proposed by the prosecution that we'd like to highlight. This one, too, applies to Counts III-VIII, but it seems reasonable to apply it to Count I also:

Official Action Was Lawful Is Not a Defense

The crime of honest services fraud addresses the manner in which officials make their decisions and not the wisdom of the official action itself. Therefore, once the decisionmaking process has been corrupted, it does not matter whether a public official’s actions actually benefited the government agency or the public at large. In other words, it is not a defense to honest services wire fraud that a public official would have performed the same official action absent the payments he received. In other words, it is not a defense that the offer or promise of anything of value was made to the public official to influence an official act that is actually lawful, desirable, or even beneficial to the public.

Emphasis added; Footnote eliminated; (p. 50)

Maybe the fact that Ms. Copland would have performed the same official action even without being given tickets doesn't harm the prosecution's case. Remember that the Court seemed to have adopted the government's jury instruction proposals in an earlier decision related to jury instructions.

If we were prosecutors, we'd make sure these jury instructions were explicitly incorporated into Count I, the Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud.

One more thing. The Justice Department also presented evidence that Ms. Copland performed official actions for Primedia, another Team Abramoff client. Solely in response to a request from Todd Boulanger, one of Mr. Ring's alleged co-conspirators, Ms. Copland recommended to her boss, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), that he sign a letter promoting Primedia's interests. In another Beth Sussman article, Ms. Sussman quotes Ms. Copland as saying, "I did not feel like I could tell Todd 'no'... because he treated me very well, which included, in large part, the tickets." This statement was directly related to her actions regarding Primedia. It seems to us that Ms. Copland admitted that the receipt of gifts influenced her to change her behavior.

Ms. Copland was an outstanding witness for the prosecution.

USA v. Kevin Ring: September 21, 2009

It was good to have our Washington correspondent back in the courtroom today. The ACR Blog gets its information first hand and we pass it along to you second hand.

David Lopez



We've previously reported that the government does not intend to call David Lopez, the former Chief of Staff to former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) as a witness. That doesn't necessarily mean that Mr. Lopez won't appear on the witness stand. The defense indicated in court today that it may call Mr. Lopez as a defense witness.

The ACR Blog believes that the defense will try to claim that Julie Doolittle, wife of former Rep. Doolittle, actually did work for the $5,000 per month she received from Jack Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig. Mr. Lopez has told investigators that Mrs. Doolittle "worked hard on many projects". Mr. Lopez's opinion is contradicted by contemporaneous emails authored by Mr. Abramoff himself. From the Ring Indictment:

124. On or about September 10, 2002, Abramoff emailed a consultant [Maury Litwack] to a non-profit company Abramoff controlled and wrote, "Mrs. [Doolittle]. She is [John Doolittle]'s wife. She is on my payroll and will be available to work on [Capital Athletic Foundation]. [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." [GX 384; Defense objection overruled; Admissible.]

125. On or about September 11, 2002, Abramoff emailed [Mr. Litwack]: "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 as a mother and wife." [GX 385; Defense objection overruled; Admissible.]

Emphasis added

We tend to believe Mr. Abramoff's contemporaneous emails over Mr. Lopez's perceptions. Additionally, Mr. Lopez has another reason to downplay the significance of The Wives Club. As we noted in the comments of this post:

Apparently [Mr. Lopez] has told prosecutors in the past that the "jobs for wives" program was not a big deal. Mr. Lopez doesn't think that Frank Dinsmore, a big-time contributor to John Doolitte, hired his wife, Kathy Lopez because of Mr. Lopez's position as Doolittle Chief of Staff. Mr. Lopez has also told investigators that Julie Doolittle worked hard on projects as part of her "job" with Jack Abramoff.

.... more to come ....

Ann Copland's Testimony: Shawn Vasell

Shawn Vasell has long been a bit of a mystery to the ACR Blog. We know that the DoJ has granted immunity to Mr. Vasell. Ms. Copland testified that Mr. Vasell was her primary contact at Greenberg Traurig on matters related to the Mississippi Choctaw. However, in January 2002, Mr. Vasell left Greenberg and joined the staff of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

Ms. Copland continued. She said that on or about March 7, 2002, she met Kevin Ring and either Todd Boulanger or Shawn Vasell for lunch. That was the first time Ms. Copland ever met Mr. Ring. Ms. Copland was informed that Messrs. Boulanger and Ring would be her contacts for issues related to the Mississippi Choctaw since Mr. Vasell no longer worked for Greenberg Traurig.

The significance of this testimony is that it preemptively destroys any claim from Mr. Ring that he was personal friends with Ms. Copland and that any gifts were between friends. The relationship between Ms. Copland and Mr. Ring was a business relationship from the beginning.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Vasell will be called as a defense witness.

::

Ann Copland Changes her Tune

We know that on January 28, 2009, Ms. Copland maintained that the things of value she received from Team Abramoff did not influence any of her official actions. Today in court was revealed that Ms. Copland had a sudden change of heart with respect to that statement. Let's look at things in timeline form:

Wednesday, January 28, 2009: Ms. Copland could not bring herself to admit that the things of value she received influenced her, even in part, in her performance of official actions.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009: Todd Boulanger was formally charged by a document known as an "Information". Defendants are typically charged by an "Information" when they plan to plead guilty. (Recall that Todd Boulanger agreed to plead guilty on January 16, 2009, but it was not made public for two weeks).

Wednesday, February 4, 2009: Ms. Copland met with prosecutors again. She apologized for not being entirely forthcoming on January 28. Ms. Copland admitted that tickets provided by Team Abramoff had influenced certain of her official actions.

Thursday, February 12, 2009: Ms. Copland signed her Factual Basis for Plea.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009: Ms. Copland pleaded guilty.

From denying any criminal act to signing a Factual Basis for Plea two weeks later and actually pleading guilty a month after that. Things moved very quickly for Ms. Copland earlier this year. This is not say that we don't find Ms. Copland to be a credible witness. Indeed we do find her credible. But we'll leave it to our gentle readers to determine what caused Ms. Copland's change of heart.

USA v. Kevin Ring: September 18, 2009

Kevin Ring's jury trial continued last Friday, but no journalists seem to have filed any reports on the day's action. The ACR Blog's Washington correspondent was unable to attend. We feared that we wouldn't find out what happened Friday.

Fortunately for all of us, a report of sorts did appear on PACER in the form of a Motion in Limine giving us insights into Friday's proceedings. Let's all thank defense attorney Andrew Wise for our update.

On Friday, John Albaugh's testimony continued. Mr. Albaugh testified under oath that he had no statutory obligation to report any meals provided by lobbyists that were consumed in the Washington, DC area on his Financial Disclosure Form.¹ Ring's attorney, Mr. Wise, ran with this assertion, using it as evidence that the law did not require the disclosure of locally-consumed meals. Obviously, the law regarding which gifts must be disclosed and which ones don't does not rest on Mr. Albaugh's understanding of the law. That said, Mr. Wise proceeds to make a coherent case that gifts of local meals need not be disclosed.

Let's take a step back and try to explain the specific acts that Mr. Wise is trying to defend. From the Ring Indictment:

30. In order to facilitate and perpetuate the conspiracy, defendant RING and his coconspirators attempted to conceal, concealed, and aided and abetted the concealment from the public and, to some extent, from their clients, their practice of providing things of value to certain public officials as a means of influencing and securing their official actions and rewarding those official actions. Defendant RING and his coconspirators at times filed expense reports seeking reimbursement from Firm B [Greenberg Traurig] that attempted to conceal the true identity of the recipients of the things of value. Defendant RING and his coconspirators did so to reduce the likelihood that a public official would be identified as the true recipient of a thing of value, which could be in violation of the applicable gift, travel or financial disclosure rules. Defendant RING and his coconspirators understood that the public officials to whom they provided things of value were materially failing to report those items as gifts on their required financial disclosure forms and were filling out materially false financial disclosure forms, because to fill out the forms truthfully would reveal that they had accepted gifts in violation of the applicable ethical rules and federal law.

Basically what government is alleging is that Mr. Ring took steps to help public officials conceal the gifts that they were receiving from Team Abramoff.

Mr. Wise proceeds to refer to the language related to gifts on Mr. Albaugh's 2003 disclosure form. The ACR Blog does not have Mr. Albaugh's 2003 disclosure form, but OpenSecrets.org kindly provides us with the 2003 disclosure form for Mr. Albaugh's boss, former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.). The ACR Blog believes the gift language on Mr. Albaugh's 2003 disclosure would be identical.

Schedule VI -- Gifts

Report the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts totalling more than $285 received by you, your spouse, or a dependent child from any source during the year.

Exclude: Gifts from relatives, gifts of personal hospitality from an individual, local meals, and gifts to a spouse or dependent child that are totally independent of his or her relationship to you. Gifts with a value of $114 or less need not be added to toward the $285 disclosure threshold.

Bolded emphasis in original
Highlighted emphasis added

The instructions on this form seem to support Mr. Albaugh's understanding that he didn't need to report "local meals". Mr. Wise takes this a step further. He points out that the plain language on this form suggests that gifts with a value of $114 or less, and that the statutory language is similar, but with different threshold values.

With respect to the "local meals", we conclude that the government's claim that Mr. Ring helped Mr. Albaugh conceal gifts is on shaky ground. Specifically to the "local meals", it appears to us that Mr. Albaugh had no obligation to report them. Furthermore, based on Mr. Albaugh's testimony, it appears he would not have reported the "local meals" regardless of Mr. Ring's actions, meaning that Mr. Ring did not aid Mr. Albaugh's failure to report the "local meals". It still appears that Mr. Albaugh should have reported tickets worth more than a certain amount ($114 on the disclosure form; $134 according to Mr. Wise's reading of the statute). And we would argue that three tickets to a single event with a value of $50 each would trigger the threshold as a single $150 gift and not three separate $50 gifts.

Even if the government can't use the failure to report "local meals" as part of the conspiracy, in the grand scheme of things it isn't material. The "local meals" could certainly be part of an illicit stream of things of value meant to influence official action, the core of the conspiracy. And the government still may be able to show that Mr. Ring helped Mr. Albaugh conceal gifts other than "local meals".

==

Robert Coughlin's Discussions about getting a job at Greenberg Traurig

According to Mr. Wise, the government has just recently provided notice that it wants to pursue a theory that discussions of a job at Greenberg Traurig for Bob Coughlin triggered an honest services fraud violation. Mr. Wise says that the government should not be allowed to advance this theory for two basic reasons:

1. There is nothing in the indictment mentioning Mr. Coughlin's job discussions. Therefore Mr. Ring has not been provided notice of this allegation as required by the 5th Amendment's Indictment Clause.

2. Mr. Coughlin never sent a resume to Greenberg; he never interviewed at Greenberg; he never engaged in salary discussions with Greenberg. Mr. Wise says that because any discussions for a Greenberg job for Mr. Coughlin didn't progress very far, they could not trigger any honest services fraud violation.

We will be interested in how the government responds to Mr. Wise's arguments, particularly the Indictment Clause argument, because Mr. Wise seems to have raised some good points.

===

¹ Interestingly, in paragraph 13 of Mr. Albaugh's Factual Basis, he "intentionally failed to disclose" meals received from Mr. Ring on his 2003 Financial Disclosure Statement. While we believe that Mr. Albaugh intentionally "failed to disclose" the meals, it isn't clear why this appears in his Factual Basis for Plea when Mr. Albaugh didn't think he was required to disclose such meals.

USA v. Kevin Ring: September 17, 2009

There is much to report from U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle's courtroom today, and because scheduling conflicts continue to prohibit the attendance of the ACR Blog's Washington correspondent, we will once again rely on the first-rate reporting of others. Let's look at today's developments:

Beth Sussman - National Journal

After earning a Thank You from the ACR Blog yesterday for her two informative articles, Ms. Sussman surprised us by publishing yet a third article last night. Ms. Sussman reported that federal prosecutors questioning John Albaugh not only brought up the subject of campaign contributions (presumably for Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.), but they also wanted to present evidence about fundraising help Kevin Ring allegedly provided to the Congressional Spouses Club, an organization important to Rep. Istook's wife.

Ms. Sussman followed up her three articles yesterday with one more today, describing the remaining testimony provided by John Albaugh and his cross examination by the defense. Unlike some scandal figures, Mr. Albaugh apparently managed to maintain his conscience even as he knew he had been corrupted. As Ms. Sussman reported:

After the investigations into Abramoff started, "I began to be concerned I may have broken the law," Albaugh said in his testimony. "I had terrors in the night.... I suffered. I knew I had broken the law."

"Terrors in the night" - how many other scandal figures and F Street Gang members do you suppose go to bed each and every night worried that they will be indicted next? After all, there are many co-conspirators yet to be named in this case. But holding himself accountable is what set Mr. Albaugh free:

After agreeing to cooperate with the government in their investigation, Albaugh regained a "peace in my soul I didn't have for a number of years," he said.

There's one other blockbuster described in Ms. Sussman's article:

Wise also questioned Albaugh's loyalty to his former employer in describing a phone call Albaugh made to Istook that was secretly recorded by the FBI as part of his cooperation with the government. Istook did not make any incriminating statements during the call, Albaugh confirmed.

Albaugh wore a wire? This tells us several things. (1) The DoJ thought Mr. Istook committed a crime and wanted to use the wire to get evidence. (2) Mr. Albaugh must have thought it was possible to get Mr. Istook to say something incriminating. (3) Our July speculation that there will be no prosecution of Mr. Istook may be on target.

::

Nedra Pickler - Associated Press

Ms. Pickler reported that David Ayres, former Chief of Staff to John Ascroft, invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, declining to testify as a witness for the defense. Mr. Ayres' wife, Laura, also pleaded the Fifth. To fully understand the reason that Mr. Ayres refused to provide testimony related to the Choctaw jail grant, please click here, here, and here.

::

Joe Palazzolo - Main Justice

Mr. Palazzolo also reported that Mr. and Mrs. Ayres invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, and he adds additional details. Apparently Judge Huvelle suggested that the defense could call Tracy Henke to testify about the Choctaw jail. In our opinion, defense attorney Andrew Wise is too smart to call Ms. Henke to the stand. The very idea of Ms. Henke under oath must fill federal prosecutors with delight. Charitably, she would not be a credible witness. She may even have to invoke the Fifth herself in order not to contradict the web she has weaved for herself in previous testimony.

Mr. Palazzolo reports that Mr. Ring's team did get a few exhibits thrown out, but in our opinion, such exhibits are not critical evidence in the case. The exhibits related to tickets provided by Mr. Ring to Mrs. Ayres for a surprise birthday party for her husband. The critical evidence related to Mr. Ayres was his role in increasing the Choctaw jail grant. Prosecutors can show that Mr. Ayres accepted other tickets from Team Abramoff.

::

Daniel Newhauser - Blog of Legal Times

Mr. Newhauser from the Blog of Legal Times also reported on the Fifth Amendment plea of the Mr. and Mrs. Ayres. Newhauser reported that DoJ prosecutor Michael Ferrara declined to comment on whether the couple will face any charges.

That's the round up for the day - thank you for reading, and I thank all the reporters for the privilege of excerpting from their work.

Team Abramoff: Sugar Daddies in Full Splendor!

Or is this a DC police line-up? An anonymous source provided the photo above to the ACR Blog and asked if we would be so kind as to share it with you, my gentle readers. How could I say no?

Our source says the photo is from early 2001, immediately following Team Abramoff's move to Greenburg Traurig from Preston Gates. It precedes the arrival of Neil Volz to the team, and its also noteworthy that scandal figure Susan Ralston had not yet jumped from Team Abramoff to join Karl Rove in the White House.

Still - how many current and future felons can you pick out? Here's some help...

Front row, left to right: Pat Wilson, Sara Rizzo, Kevin Ring, Julie Plocki, Susan Ralston.

Back Row: left to right: Michelle Diedrick, Shawn Vasell, Tony Rudy, Alan Slomowitz, Todd Boulanger, Jack Abramoff, Amy Berger.

A note on photos: The ACR Blog welcomes your photos of scandal figures [please send to gregintx22-at-yahoo-dot-com], but we use our discretion to decide when they are timely and/or relevant to our readers. At times we will not post photos for good cause, or even no cause, at our sole discretion but regardless we will always guarantee the privacy of our providers.

Thank You, Beth Sussman!

The ACR Blog tips its hat to Beth Sussman at the National Journal, who is doing a fantastic job reporting what is going on in Judge Ellen S. Huvelle's courtroom in the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring. Yesterday we highlighted and excerpted from two of her articles that:

• Provided fresh information about the witness list where she reported that the Government does not plan to bring to the stand either David Lopez or Greg Orlando - both former staffers of scandal-plagued Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.).



• Summarized the first day of Neil Volz's testimony, revealing that Mr. Volz - like Mr. Ring - viewed himself as a "Sugar Daddy" and described the "corrupt relationship" he had with former Rep. (and admitted felon) Bob Ney (R-OH) and his staff.

We here at the ACR Blog are sure that each of you have found and read Ms. Sussman's reports on your own. But in case you haven't ...

Ms. Sussman follows up on her previous articles with two more excellent posts describing what happened in the courtroom today. In the first one, she briefly describes the remaining damaging testimony provided by Mr. Volz, while in the second she summarizes the first day of testimony of John Albaugh, a former staffer to Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) who helped Mr. Ring execute on his client's earmark requests. Rather than excerpt from these short but very informative pieces, I encourage my readers to view them in their entirety by clicking on the links and showing your support for Ms. Sussman's - and the National Journal's - coverage of this important case.

Thank you Ms. Sussman; we applaud you for being the only person to report the developments in the courtroom on a daily basis. Keep up the great work!

David Lopez & Greg Orlando

Beth Sussman at National Journal provides us with the latest witness list in USA v. Kevin A. Ring:

John Albaugh, former chief of staff to Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.
Michael Deaver, Department of Justice
Ann Copland, former staffer for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Su Daly, Department of Justice
Greg Harris, Department of Justice
Todd Boulanger, former lobbying associate of Ring and Abramoff
Tim Peckinpaugh, former lobbying associate of Ring and Abramoff
Jason Hickox, former vice president of company that owned Abramoff's Signatures Restaurant

Emphasis in original

Ms. Sussman notices a couple of conspicuously absent names:

Several anticipated witnesses were not on the list, most notably David Lopez, former chief of staff to Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Greg Orlando, Doolittle's former legislative director.

Emphasis in original

We know that Mr. Lopez has received immunity for any Abramoff-related crimes. Mr. Orlando is more of a mystery. We don't know of any immunity or plea deal involving Mr. Orlando, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Orlando would have appeared on the government's witness list without some sort of certainty regarding his legal status. But that isn't what we find most interesting.

Back in July, an adroit commenter observed that neither Jack Abramoff nor Mike Scanlon would testify in Mr. Ring's criminal trial. Here is a point I made at that time:

Great catch! The defense's claim that neither Jack Abramoff nor Michael Scanlon are likely to testify is right there in black and white. I can't explain how I missed it.

I think this is rather significant, Anon. This is a clear signal that the DoJ is not done with prosecutions. They are saving Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon for the highest value targets .... CONGRESSMEN. The government doesn't want to expose Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon to cross examination yet. No need to let future defense teams see what works and what doesn't work in impeaching the two men.

If, as some commenters in the past have suggested, Kevin Ring's trial is the last one, there wouldn't be a reason to hold Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon back. We'd see these big guns come out to nail Mr. Ring.

Emphasis in original

The ACR Blog thinks something similar is going on with Messrs. Lopez and Orlando. The government is saving the two men for a higher value target than Mr. Ring. The government doesn't want to expose Messrs. Lopez and Orlando to cross examination yet.

Where is this going? Well, there's no way to be 100% certain. But John Doolittle ought to be afraid. Very afraid.

Team Abramoff: A Bunch of Sugar Daddies

It seems as if Kevin Ring isn't the only person to have referred to himself as a ""Sugar Daddy". In an article yesterday, Beth Sussman of National Journal reported that former Rep. Bob Ney staffer turned Team Abramoff lobbyist Neil Volz saw himself in exactly the same way:

A former congressional-staffer-turned-lobbyist called himself a "sugar daddy" as he described the type of lobbying that went on within "Team Abramoff" in today's testimony in the trial of Kevin Ring, an associate of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"I got calls: 'Let's go drinking.' To me, that meant 'bring the credit card,'" said Neil Volz, a former lobbyist with Ring and Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig and a former chief of staff to former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, when the prosecution asked him why he described himself as a "sugar daddy" for Ney's office.

Emphasis in original

Ms. Sussman reports that Mr. Volz testified that he and Mr. Ring apparently discussed how difficult it would be to "defend the idea of getting the joke" - no surprise there to any of my gentle readers. Besides being bad news for Mr. Ring, Mr. Volz's testimony was hardly good news for former Rep. Doolittle either:

Volz compared the relationship he had with Ney's office to the relationship Ring had with the office of California Republican John Doolittle. Ring was an aide in Doolittle's office before leaving Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist with Abramoff. Volz called Doolittle one of Ring's "champions," just as Ney was his own.

Emphasis in original

Hmm. Mr. Ney was a champion to Mr. Volz. And Mr. Volz was a "sugar daddy" to Ney's office. The judicial system has determined that Messrs. Ney and Volz are criminals.

Mr. Doolittle was a champion to Mr. Ring. And Mr. Ring was a "sugar daddy" to Doolittle's office. We wonder how the judicial system will judge Messrs. Doolittle and Ring. Trust us, the parallels implied by the Justice Department were not coincidental.

And besides self-described Sugar Daddies Ring and Volz, former Frat Boy and Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger apparently saw himself as a sugar daddy as well. From Mr. Boulanger's Factual Basis for Plea:

On December 17th, 2003 Staffer F [Kevin Koonce] emailed [James] Hirni that he and another were going to be at Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures, the following day, quote, "If you're around, likewise to Boulanger," unquote. After Hirni forwarded Staffer F's email to Boulanger, Boulanger responded to Hirni that Staffer F should just have written, quote, "buy me some drinks," unquote.

After reading these comments, one might think all these guys wanted to do was drink - and you wouldn't be far from the truth! But we're not going to go off on a tangent discussing the F Street Gangbangers, at least not now. More on these scoundrels will be posted in the future as time permits. Let's just go back and conclude with a quote from Ms. Sussman's article that pretty much summarizes the maturity of these faux-conservatives who made a mockery of our democratic republic:

"Really we just wanted to party," Volz said about a trip he took to New Orleans with Ney, former Ney chief of staff Will Heaton, and other lobbyists. He said the group met a client and toured some homes, but those were not the main objectives of the trip, which he described as "part of the corrupt relationship" he had with Ney and his staffers.

Emphasis in original

Messrs. Ring, Boulanger, and Volz - three sugar daddies - the economy pack for sale from Greenburg Traurig. And a disgrace to real conservatives and the GOP no matter how you slice it.