Horace Cooper & Dennis Stephens

Today, in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, there is a status conference in the case of U.S. v. Horace Cooper.

A month ago, we examined Mr. Cooper's links to Edwin Buckham. Upon further inspection of the Preston Gates billing records, there seems to be another lobbyist with an extraordinary amount of contacts with Mr. Cooper: William Dennis Stephens.


Horace Cooper and Dennis Stephens

According to the Preston Gates billing records, Mr. Stephens met with Mr. Cooper on the following dates:

March 7, 1996
March 12, 1996
March 13, 1996
March 14, 1996 [Kill Gallegly amendment]

April 11, 1996
April 15, 1996
April 19, 1996 [Manase (Mansur? Aide to Don Young?)]

June 10, 1996
June 17, 1996

July 1, 1996 [Pam Rigg]
July 9, 1996

August 20, 1996
August 28, 1996
August 29, 1996

November 6, 1996

February 7, 1997
February 24, 1997

March 6, 1997
March 11, 1997
March 25, 1997

April 2, 1997
April 6, 1997

May 12, 1997
May 13, 1997

August 8, 1997 [Miller legislation]

September 4, 1997

Clearly, Messrs. Stephens and Cooper worked closely on a number of items. Immigration and minimum wage issues at the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) figure prominently in the billing records. In fact, Mr. Cooper also reportedly went on one of Team Abramoff's earliest junkets to the CNMI in April 1996. Other interesting notations seen in the billing records are indicated above.

Count II of Mr. Cooper's indictment is a concealment scheme charge. This is the only charge that alleges acts during the period that Team Abramoff operated at Preston Gates. The indictment lists a myriad of tickets allegedly provided to Mr. Cooper during this period (paragraph 6). None of the events mentioned in the indictment go back to 1997; the earliest event we see is a Washington Capitals hockey game on June 13, 1998. We can not connect Mr. Cooper's receipt of tickets to his joint appearances with Mr. Stephens in the Preston Gates billing records. However, we don't believe that the billing records available to the ACR Blog are complete, so we can't draw any definitive conclusions about this matter.

One additional piece of information worth noting is that Messrs. Stephens and Cooper were both employed by former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), so there could well be personal connections operating here as well as business connections. But if some of the lobbying contacts listed above were personal in nature, they should not have been billed to clients.

The ACR Blog is still uncertain about how Mr. Cooper's indictment fits in with the larger Abramoff scandal. Will his indictment or any of the information above lead to the prosecution of "bigger fish"? Or is it another blind alley? The information we've discovered about Messrs. Stephens and Buckham is factual, but the connections to the wider Abramoff scandal are more speculative. Admittedly, the ACR Blog has no information that Mr. Stephens did anything wrong with respect to Mr. Cooper. Perhaps we'll learn more in today's status conference.

Judge Huvelle Brings a Defiant Bob Coughlin to Tears

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle held a sentencing hearing today in U.S. v. Robert Coughlin. According to National Journal's Beth Sussman, Judge Huvelle sentenced Mr. Coughlin to 30 days in a halfway house, three years probation, a $2,000 fine and 200 hours of community service on a single conflict of interest charge. The Justice Department didn't make a forceful case for any prison time in its Sentencing Memorandum -- DoJ lawyers merely noted that guidelines called for a 0-6 month prison term. The ACR Blog had hoped for a more substantial sentence.

Defiance

Yesterday, the ACR Blog sensed that Mr. Coughlin was not willing to take full responsibility for his crime. Judge Huvelle appears to have had the same perception:

The sentencing was at times contentious, with Judge Ellen Huvelle suggesting that Coughlin may want to withdraw his plea because he seemed not to be accepting guilt for his actions. "I have never been at a sentencing where there was so much debate about what somebody pleaded guilty to," Huvelle said. "I have to have a higher degree of confidence in his acceptance of what he did."

Mr. Coughlin's lawyer seemed to minimize his client's role, too:

Coughlin's attorney, Joshua Berman, reiterated several times that Coughlin saw "in hindsight" that his actions were not acceptable, but "it didn't cross his mind at the time."

Eventually, Mr. Coughlin broke, admitting his crime in tears (Devlin Barrett; Associated Press):

Coughlin, who now lives in Kansas with his wife and daughter, bowed his head and cried as his wife implored the judge to spare him a jail sentence, and cried again when he spoke to the judge.

"I stupidly gave (Ring) preference because he was a longtime friend," Coughlin told the judge. "I take absolute full responsibility for my actions."

Gentle reader, you be the judge. In the end, the ACR Blog still believes Mr. Coughlin deserved a harsher sentence, if for no other reason than deterrence. What in this sentence would possibly incent some possible future miscreant to stay on the straight and narrow?

If Kevin Ring is Not Guilty, the Pope is not Catholic

So says one of the Ring jurors. From Beth Sussman of the National Journal:

Marshall Schreier, a juror in Ring's trial, said that he voted for conviction on all counts. Schreier said he's confident that another jury will be able to come to a conclusion in the retrial, and he predicted the eventual verdict will be guilty.

"After the case concluded, I said, 'Wow. If this guy is not guilty, the pope is not Catholic,'" Schreier said. He said that during jury deliberations, the jurors who voted for acquittal wanted to see a direct link between the tickets and meals Ring gave to public officials and the acts those officials then took. But Schreier thought that expectation of evidence was excessive.

Emphasis in original

So some jurors wanted to see a direct link between the things of value Kevin Ring gave to public officials and the official acts those officials then took. The jurors Mr. Schreier described applied the bribery statute to this case. Mr. Ring was on trial for Honest Services Fraud¹ (HSF) which required prosecutors to show that the things of value influenced the official acts.

Mr. Schreier applied the appropriate standard in this case. Let's hope that Mr. Schreier's insight is also on-target when he predicts Mr. Ring will be found guilty in a retrial.

==

¹ The indictment alleges six counts of HSF, one count of conspiracy to commit HSF and one illegal gratuity charge.

Bob Coughlin Deserves Prison

Robert Coughlin
Felon

Former Justice Department official Robert Coughlin pleaded guilty to a single conflict of interest charge in April 2008. Mr. Coughlin admitted accepting thousands of dollars worth of tickets, meals and other items in exchange for helping clients of Kevin Ring and Team Abramoff.

Could Mr. Coughlin possibly have been charged with far more serious crimes? In the Government's Sentencing Memorandum, the DoJ seems to go further than the simple conflict of interest charge and accuses Mr. Coughlin of accepting illegal gratuities (page 1). The government even seems to suggest that Mr. Coughlin may have conspired to commit honest services fraud:

Coughlin conspired with Ring to deprive the DOJ of Coughlin’s honest services and to accept gratuities from Ring. (Page 6)

Moreover, U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle came to the conclusion that Mr. Coughlin was a co-conspirator in Mr. Ring's trial.

In our opinion, Mr. Coughlin admitted to elements of a crime far more serious than the one the DoJ got Mr. Coughlin to plead guilty to. Remember what Mr. Coughlin told Judge Huvelle during his plea hearing:

THE COURT: And it provides here that [Kevin Ring] provided you with a stream of things of value for and because of your official actions in connection with the successful lobbying efforts you failed to report these things of value as gifts on your financial disclosure forms for the three years of 2001, 2002, 2003. Is that accurate?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

Emphasis added

In our opinion, this seems to meet the elements of Honest Services Fraud ... it even has the element of material misrepresentation!

Mr. Coughlin does not deserve a lenient sentence. He remains defiant¹ to this day, saying that he did not intend to violate the law and that the government unfairly singled him out for prosecution. Frankly, we don't understand this claim. According to Mr. Coughlin's version of events, the DoJ convicted the only person at the Justice Department (himself) that committed a crime, meaning no crimes² were committed by anyone associated with the Mississippi Choctaw jail grant.

Most importantly, though, Mr. Coughlin did not provide the government with substantial assistance in its investigation into details of the Mississippi Choctaw jail grant that figured so prominently in the trial of Mr. Ring. In a January 26, 2002 email, Mr. Ring reported that Mr. Coughlin had said Justice Department Chief of Staff David Ayres would "get the joke". The government clearly showed that this statement was in reference to efforts by Mr. Ayres to increase funding for the jail from $9 million to $16.3 million. Mr. Coughlin's fuzzy memory of his role in these events led the government to remove him from the witness list in Mr. Ring's trial. The government rightly characterizes Mr. Coughlin's cooperation as having "limited value" (Govt Sentencing Memo; page 7).

The public has a right to expect that the government will act in a manner free of corruption. This expectation is greatest when it comes to the Department of Justice. Mr. Coughlin's conflict of interest violated the core of the public's trust. The government says that sentencing guidelines advise a range of 0-6 months in prison for Mr. Coughlin (Govt Sentencing Memo; page 19). This is not nearly enough.

==

¹ The ACR Blog wonders if Mr. Coughlin's defiance originates from himself, or his lawyer, Joshua Berman.

² The ACR Blog is not prepared to accept Mr. Coughlin's version of events related to the Choctaw jail.

November 19, 2009: Kevin Koonce News -- Investigation Dropped

Jennifer Yachnin of Roll Call ($) reports that the Justice Department has dropped its investigation into Kevin Koonce, a former Legislative Director to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.):

“[The Justice Department] indicated that they are declining prosecution and they are closing [Mr. Koonce's] case,” said Josh Berman, an attorney at the firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal ...

“We certainly feel Mr. Koonce is entitled to ... an apology. He hasn’t received one,” Berman added. “Because of the allegations that found their way into Todd Boulanger’s charging documents, unfortunately Mr. Koonce lost his job and suffered greatly because of the government’s actions.”

A statute of limitations deadline reportedly passed on November 12, and Mr. Koonce has received formal notification that the DoJ will no longer pursue his case.

The ACR Blog never understood why the DoJ gave Mr. Koonce's case so much attention. Earlier this month, we wrote (in the comments):

There are ... people that seem to be on the edge of this scandal that the DoJ seems to be giving an extraordinary amount of attention to. For example, Fraser Verrusio has been indicted. Who can he provide evidence against? Maybe Todd Boulanger, but Boulanger has already pled guilty. Although he hasn't been indicted, Kevin Koonce (Staffer F) seems to be in the same boat. Who can he provide evidence against?

I'd prefer to see the DoJ build cases against people who can help them climb the metaphorical ladder. I've opined that Peter Evich and David Lopez should be indicted if the evidence is there. Those two could provide info against John Doolittle.

As usual, the ACR Blog will show deference to the DoJ. We believe that declining to prosecute Mr. Koonce serves the interests of justice.

Although Koonce's attorney, Josh Berman, says his client lost his job, Mr. Koonce's former employer, Sorini, Samet & Associates, still has Mr. Koonce's bio page on its website. Perhaps Sorini, Samet & Associates should review its decision in light of this development. And perhaps Mr. Koonce will be more faithful to conservative values in the future.

Who is Todd Ehrlich?

Although we haven't posted every court document from USA v. Fraser Verrusio, we have been watching for them. The government recently responded to various defense motions that the ACR Blog read but did not find interesting enough to blog about. In fact, the government's response is largely unremarkable¹ except for fact that we learn about one individual. We learn who Lobbyist F / Person #1 is. Lobbyist F / Person #1 had previously been identified only as a lobbyist for United Rentals. Today, we have a name to report: Todd Ehrlich.

From last week's government response (page 22):

In request 1(a) Verrusio seeks, “The identity of the ‘others known ... to the grand jury’ to have allegedly also participated in the conspiracy.” (Docket No. 15 at 4). The other person known to have participated in the conspiracy is Todd Ehrlich, who is referred to in the indictment as “Person #1.”

Notice that Mr. Ehrlich is "known to have participated in the conspiracy". According to the DoJ, Mr. Ehrlich conspired in a scheme of "accepting illegal gratuities (by the legislative staffers) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B); and offering and providing illegal gratuities (by the lobbyists) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A)." (Gov't Response, p. 2).

According to a footnote on page 19 of the government's response, all of Mr. Verrusio's co-conspirators have signed cooperation agreements and will be able to testify at trial. Page 2 of the government's response lists the co-conspirators by title. In addition to Mr. Ehrlich, the other co-conspirators were Trevor Blackann, Todd Boulanger, and James Hirni. Messrs. Blackann, Boulanger and Hirni have pled guilty to felonies and, as part of their plea agreements, have agreed to cooperate with the government. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Ehrlich has not pled guilty to any crime. Nevertheless, Mr. Ehrlich has signed a cooperation agreement. The ACR Blog wonders if Mr. Ehrlich has been immunized from prosecution, and, as part of the immunity package, Mr. Ehrlich has pledged his cooperation.

Let's review other court documents in USA v. Fraser Verrusio and other cases related to the Jack Abramoff scandal to see what exactly Mr. Ehrlich did.

October 18 and 19, 2003, defendant VERRUSIO, together with Blackann, Hirni, and [Ehrlich], used a chauffeured, seven-passenger sport utility vehicle, which took defendant VERRUSIO and the others to points throughout the city of New York, with defendant VERRUSIO's pro-rata share costing approximately $275. (Verrusio Indictment; paragraph 18b)

During the dinner² on October 18, 2003, defendant VERRUSIO, Blackann, Hirni, and [Ehrlich] discussed the Federal Highway Bill and [United Rentals]. (Verrusio Indictment; paragraph 18e)

October 18, 2003, defendant VERRUSIO, Blackann, Hirni, and [Ehrlich] attended Game One of the Baseball World Series using tickets provided by [Ehrlich] with an individual face value of $110. (Verrusio Indictment; paragraph 18f. The plain language says that Mr. Ehrlich provided World Series tickets to public officials Fraser Verrusio and Trevor Blackann.)

October 30, 2003, [Ehrlich] instructed defendant HIRNI to submit expenses from the World Series Trip to [United Rentals]. (Jim Hirni Factual Basis; paragraph 17)

November 5 through November 11, 2003, defendant HIRNI, [Boulanger], Blackann, and [Ehrlich] sought to identify a Member of the EPW Committee who would be willing to offer Equipment Rental Amendment and Liability Insurance Amendment to the Federal Highway bill. (Jim Hirni Factual Basis; paragraph 18)

November 2003, Blackann, Boulanger, Hirni, and [Ehrlich] caused the three amendments sought by [United Rentals] to be inserted into the Senate version of the Federal Highway Bill. (Verrusio Indictment; paragraph 21)

January 2004, defendant VERRUSIO, Blackann, Boulanger, Hirni, and [Ehrlich] took steps to protect the [United Rentals] Amendment, which by that time had been inserted into the Senate version of Federal Highway Bill, from a challenge being mounted by small business owners and companies which sold and distributed - rather than rented - construction equipment (the "Equipment Distributors"). The steps taken to protect the [United Rentals] Amendment included, among other things, the following:

a. On January 13, 2004, [Ehrlich] forwarded to others at the Equipment Rental Company an email that a representative of the Equipment Distributors had sent to Blackann, alerting his colleagues to the Equipment Distributors' lobbying effort to remove the [United Rentals] Amendment from the Federal Highway Bill, and informing them, "Our guys don't think it is going to be a problem. We have a much stronger relationship and we are already in the bill, and soon to be in the house bill too."

Mr. Ehrlich's title at United Rentals was Director of Security, but court documents clearly allege that Mr. Ehrlich performed actions that the ACR Blog would consider to be lobbying of public officials.

Mr. Ehrlich was not a man who had the misfortune of attending the World Series with three people who either pled guilty to felonies and, in the case of Mr. Verrusio, currently under indictment. Mr. Boulanger's Factual Basis reports that Mr. Ehrlich was the primary contact at United Rentals for both Mr. Boulanger and Mr. Hirni (paragraph 9). Mr. Ehrlich repeatedly performed lobbying-related acts. According to Mr. Blackann's Factual Basis:

[Hirni and Ehrlich] lobbied defendant BLACKANN for official action beneficial to [United Rentals] before, during and after the [World Series] trip. (Paragraph 9)

At the time [Blackann] received these things of value from [Boulanger, Hirni and Ehrlich], defendant BLACKANN knew the lobbyists gave these things of value because of official action they were seeking from him or had obtained from him, and defendant BLACKANN knowingly accepted the things of value for or because of official action the lobbyists were seeking or had been provided. (Paragraph 10)

Since Mr. Ehrlich was so deeply involved in this aspect of the Abramoff scandal, the ACR Blog wonders why the Justice Department did not hold Mr. Ehrlich to the same level of accountability as his co-conspirators.

==

Even outside of events related to the Abramoff scandal, Mr. Ehrlich is a colorful figure. He is a former Navy SEAL, and the ACR Blog respects his service to the country. Mr. Ehrlich was also a witness in a murder case where he testified about his knowledge of an instance of group sex involving the two murder defendants.

=========

¹ OK, maybe not entirely unremarkable. Notice that public defender A.J. Kramer is the only defense attorney listed as receiving the government's response. What happened to Sabita Soneji, Mr. Verrusio's pro bono attorney from Baker Botts?

² The Verrusio indictment does not make it clear who paid for the October 18, 2003 dinner. However, the Jim Hirni's Factual Basis for Plea states that Mr. Ehrlich paid for the meal (paragraph 11d).

Side Payments

Counts IX and X of the Kevin Ring indictment relate to side payments received by then-Greenberg Traurig lobbyist Kevin Ring from the Sandia Pueblo via Mike Scanlon's firm, Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS). The indictment alleges that Mr. Ring repeatedly lied about the circumstances of the side payments to investigators. Later court documents reveal that Mr. Ring eventually told the truth about the payments, but the Justice Department still has two obstruction of justice charges pending related to the alleged materially false statements to investigators.

Counts IX and X were severed from the indictment and were not the subject of Mr. Ring's recent trial.

The ACR Blog is comfortable with the status of Counts IX and X against Mr. Ring. However, Mr. Ring was not the only person to receive side payments while working at Greenberg Traurig:

Four former Greenberg Traurig lobbyists besides disgraced former colleague Jack Abramoff took improper side payments in violation of company policy and have been referred to the Justice Department, a top law firm executive has disclosed.

All were asked to resign.

The disclosures were made by Fred Baggett, the firm's Tallahassee, Fla.-based chief of governmental relations, in recent testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee ....

The four other lobbyists now being questioned are Kevin Ring, John Van Horne, Michael Smith and Stephanie Leger ....

As Schul[k]e's investigation continued, the four other Greenberg lobbyists were found to also have taken side compensation and asked to resign, according to top sources at the law firm. Ring left Oct. 13, 2004; Michael Smith, Jan. 3, 2005; Van Horne, Feb. 6, 2004; and Leger, April 30, 2004.

Notice that Mr. Van Horne left Greenberg on February 6, 2004. This is a curious date. This is just three days after the venerable Susan Schmidt of the Washington post interviewed several members of Team Abramoff on February 3, 2004 (Ring Indictment, p. 42) in preparation for her February 22, 2004 article widely recognized as exposing Team Abramoff's corruption at Greenberg Traurig. According to the linked article, Mr. Van Horne's side payment came from the Louisiana Coushatta Indian tribe through CCS.

For some reason, Greenberg representatives minimized the role of Stephanie Leger (now Stephanie Leger Short):

In a statement this week, Greenberg spokeswoman Jill Perry sought to distance Leger from the other four lobbyists as having taken merely a small bonus from Abramoff.

"While Stephanie Leger received a small bonus outside normal firm procedures, we have no information, nor do we believe, these monies relate to the improprieties that are the subject of the Senate's investigation," Perry said.

Our interpretation of the assertion that Ms. Leger Short's side payment was not "the subject of the Senate's investigation" is that Ms. Leger Short's side payment did not originate from a tribal client. After all, it was the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that performed the investigation. If that is the case, there doesn't seem to be any meaningful reason to minimize side payments received by Ms. Leger Short.

Receipt of these side payments is a serious matter. All involved were asked to leave Greenberg. All were referred to the Justice Department. Yet only Mr. Ring has been indicted on charges relating to the improper side payments. Perhaps only Mr. Ring obstructed justice by lying about his receipt of such payments. The ACR Blog believes that all persons -- including Mr. Van Horne, Mr. Smith and Ms. Leger Short if they lied to investigators -- who obstructed justice by concealing similar side payments should be held responsible.

OUR VIEW: Call Jack Abramoff in Kevin Ring Re-Trial

Joe Palazzolo of Main Justice reports that two-thirds of the jury were in favor of convicting Kevin Ring on most of the counts he faced in his recent Abramoff-related trial. Here are some stray thoughts on Mr. Palazzolo's piece:

==

A juror who voted to acquit said:

He could have had a lot of intentions, and those emails weren’t enough to spell them out. He could have just been plying them with everything he needed to continue his access and influence, as lobbyists do ... Even though [the government] had a mountain of evidence, it wasnt helpful in showing us what Kevin Ring was thinking.

The use of the word "influence" caught my eye. If this juror had determined that the gifts were part of the effort to influence, that would have been enough to convict. The juror seems to say that he just couldn't determine Kevin Ring's intent through the emails alone. Jack Abramoff would have been a convincing person to describe the intent of his "COO" Kevin Ring. The ACR Blog has been deferential toward the DoJ up to this point when it comes to the strategy of not placing Mr. Abramoff on the witness stand. The DoJ can win this on retrial if Mr. Abramoff testifies against Mr. Ring, and we recommend precisely that.

==

The juror who favored acquittal had different view of the mechanics in the deliberation than a juror who voted to find Mr. Ring guilty:

JUROR FAVORING ACQUITTAL:
This was a really intelligent group and they were great to work with. We ended up being a hung jury because we had irreconcilable differences, but everyone was respectful. We had an outstanding foreman.

JUROR FAVORING CONVICTION:
[Deliberations were] really heated at points. One gentleman, an attorney, he got up and he paced the floor and he was adamant that we could not prove Mr. Ring was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He and three or four others. There was an older lady…who just couldn’t see herself taking people out to dinner or to a game to influence them and so she couldn’t see Mr. Ring doing it. Overall, we formed relationships. We became friends. But some people took it personally ... It got to the point that [some of the jurors who favored acquittal] would fold their hands or read the paper. They would have side conversations while we were trying to deliberate. They weren’t even trying to change their minds.

We find it interesting that jurors favoring acquittal just closed their minds and withdrew from the deliberations. Ultimately, though, we recognize that these are only two data points, and the ACR Blog won't place too much weight on them.

==

We really don't know what to make of this part of the interview:

Juror No. 1: We went through each count without a unanimous decision. Then we tried to do what we thought was the easiest one, which was count eight. [On the sixth day of deliberations, the jury informed Huvelle it had reached a verdict on this count, which involves a payment of $5,000 to a credit union account controlled by the wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). The jurors voted to acquit but later split.] We reached a tentative verdict, but as we talked more and we better understood our own thoughts, some people just changed their minds on how they voted.

MJ: What was the vote on count eight?

Juror No. 1: It was really close. I think it was five [convict], six [acquit] and one [undecided].

One day there was a unanimous decision to acquit, and the next it was almost as evenly divided as it can get? We just find this bizarre, and we can't offer any explanation on how it happened.

Sen. Conrad Burns: Justice Dept. Interviewed Staffer

KTVQ-TV in Billings, Montana interviews former Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) (Click video box to play video):



Mr. Burns' already thin credibility gets stretched even further in this interview. He says:

The Justice Department, if you call them up today and say, 'Well, is Conrad Burns under investigation?' they'll say 'Well, we can't confirm it, we can't deny it.'

This statement is in conflict with the reporting two years ago of the great Susan Schmidt formerly of the Washington Post:

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday that prosecutors had notified Burns's attorney, Ralph J. Caccia, that "the department has concluded its investigation of former senator Burns."

Anyone but Mr. Burns would read that as a pretty definitive statement - it's hard to believe he didn't read the Washington Post or listen to Justice Department spokesmen on the day his legal jeopardy ended.

Mr. Burns next proceeds to claim that the Justice Department, when asked what to do with documents from Burns' office, told a staffer to "shred" them. [We here at the ACR Blog find this difficult to believe. We can't see the DoJ telling anyone what to do with their documents. The DoJ might say, "Do what you want with your stuff," but we can't see the DoJ advising Mr. Burns' staff to shred documents. That's absurd.]

At this point, how much faith can anyone put in this statement from his interview either?

Justice or Ethics, nobody ever interviewed me. They didn't interview anybody in the office with the exception of one person.

Mr. Burns admits one staffer was interviewed. Who might that be? Well, we already know of one:

WILLIAM BROOKE: Chief of Staff / General Counsel in Mr. Burns' office from 2000-2003. Will Brooke was hosted by Team Abramoff on a trip to the 2001 Super Bowl. Todd Boulanger mentioned this trip in his testimony in the Kevin Ring trial. Mr. Brooke joined Team Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig in December 2003, two months before the Washington Post exposed the corruption at the firm. Tough timing for Mr. Brooke. The Helena (Mont.) Independent Record reports that Mr. Brooke has been cooperating with federal investigators.

But here are two other highly likely candidates:

SHAWN VASELL: Former State Director for Sen. Burns in 2002. Also Team Abramoff member. Shawn Vasell is currently a lobbyist for Hewlett Packard. The DoJ has granted Mr. Vasell immunity. It seems a sure bet that Mr. Vasell was interviewed by the DoJ - after all, why give someone immunity if you're not going to talk to them?!

RYAN THOMAS: Professional Staff Member on the Senate Appropriations Staff (Sen. Burns, Chairman) from 2000-2006. Team Abramoff also hosted Ryan Thomas at the 2001 Super Bowl. A recent commenter says that, "Ryan Thomas did alot more for Todd and friends as Sen. Burns' appropriations staffer than a half a dozen of the other people who have been caught up in this career booster for the DOJ."

Ultimately, the ACR Blog concludes that Sen. Burns' statement that only one of his staffers was interviewed by the DoJ is not credible. The former Senator from Montana is still a disgrace, and he should hold himself personally responsible for the fact that the seat is now held by the Democratic Party.

::

"Every appropriation we wanted [from Burns's committee] we got. ... Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used Signatures as their cafeteria. I mean, it's a little difficult for him to run from that record." -- Jack Abramoff

Horace Cooper & Ed Buckham

Horace Cooper and Ed Buckham

EDWIN BUCKHAM: Long time ACR Blog readers know that we believe the route taking the Abramoff scandal to our former Congressman, Tom DeLay, goes through his former staffer and spiritual adviser Edwin A. Buckham. On more than one occasion, we've been a little too optimistic that federal prosecutors were nearing charges against Mr. Buckham. In the late 1990s, Mr. Buckham was a senior aide to Rep. Tom DeLay.

HORACE COOPER: The Justice Department indicted Horace Cooper on Abramoff-related charges back in August. The ACR Blog hadn't given Mr. Cooper any pixel space until last week because we simply couldn't figure out how Mr. Cooper is connected to the broader scandal. At that time we promised that we'd point out an unusual set of coincidences involving Mr. Cooper. During the late 1990s, Mr. Cooper was a senior aide to Rep. Dick Armey.

::

The ACR Blog has been given access to a large number of documents related to Mr. Cooper. We were particularly interested in Team Abramoff billing records from the days at Preston Gates. Be aware that these documents are over ten years old; the DoJ may not be able to pursue the events described in them due to statute of limitations constraints.


Click on billing records for the full .pdf

The billing records show that Jack Abramoff met with both Mr. Buckham and Mr. Cooper on the following 14 dates:

March 12, 1996
March 13, 1996
June 14, 1996
July 2, 1996
July 12, 1996

September 12, 1996
September 17, 1996
September 19, 1996
September 26, 1996
September 27, 1996

January 30, 1997
September 19, 1997
September 20, 1997
September 26, 1997

We obviously don't know if Messrs. Cooper and Buckham had separate meetings with Mr. Abramoff or if they attended the same meeting. We will conclude, however, that Messrs. Cooper and Buckham were working on the same projects for Team Abramoff.

In all, we spotted Mr. Cooper's name in the Preston Gates billing records 49 times.

Jack Abramoff billed clients for 14 of those meetings. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE that Mr. Abramoff billed clients for meeting with Mr. Cooper, Mr. Abramoff also billed clients for meeting with Mr. Buckham on the very same day.

Of the 35 billings by other Team Abramoff members, there are no similar meetings with Mr. Buckham.

We don't want to make more of this than there is. First of all, we'd like to reiterate that these billing records are over 10 years old. Secondly, the fact that Messrs. Cooper and Buckham appear together in Team Abramoff's billing records may simply be a huge coincidence.

We're prepared to find that, once again, we're overly optimistic that Mr. Buckham is about to re-enter this scandal. But we wanted to point out this possible connection of Mr. Cooper to the broader scandal.

Make of it what you will.