U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: Superseding Indictment (Part 2)

Original Post:
U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: Superseding Indictment


Fraser Capone Verrusio

While we often quote MSM sources and other reputable blogs, ACR Blog readers know that we rely on primary sources - and often provide them to our gentle readers so you can read them yourself. No exceptions today. Here is your redlined version of Fraser Verrusio's superseding indictment. The basic charges remain the same:

COUNT ONE: Conspiracy to Obtain Illegal Gratuity;
COUNT TWO: Illegal Gratuity;
COUNT THREE: False Statement.

We're going to focus on what we believe to be the most significant change in the superseding indictment. This is something that helps us better understand the allegations against Mr. Verrusio. Paragraph 15 is a newly inserted paragraph:

15. In or about October, 2003, defendant VERRUSIO advised Blackann that VERRUSIO and Blackann should wait to insert the amendments sought by Equipment Rental Company until later in the legislative process, and Blackann understood that VERRUSIO would insert the amendments at the conference committee stage of the Highway Bill.

When we first heard that the Justice Department was seeking a superseding indictment, we speculated that "the purpose of the new indictment is to incorporate the allegations that Mr. Verrusio offered to insert amendments favorable to a Jack Abramoff client in a Transportation Bill." Not to pat ourselves on the back, but this speculation looks spot on.

We would have thought that the offer to insert the amendments would have been made to United Rentals' Todd Ehrlich or one of the company's lobbyists (Todd Boulanger or Jim Hirni). Based on the language of the superseding indictment, though, it appears that this alleged statement/offer/pledge was made to Mr. Blackann. No worries, though, as according to the indictment, Mr. Blackann was a conspirator. It seems to the ACR Blog making an offer/pledge to Mr. Blackann would place Mr. Verrusio in the legal jeopardy as making it to any of the other conspirators.

Based on seemingly well informed comments on the ACR Blog, the factual basis of the allegation in Paragraph 15 will almost certainly be disputed by the defense. Did Mr. Verrusio actually make such a statement? Did Mr. Verrusio actually follow through and insert amendments at conference committee? The indictment doesn't say. It only says that "Blackann understood that VERRUSIO would insert the amendments at the conference committee stage of the Highway Bill."

We're actually surprised that the superseding indictment didn't provide any more clarity than it did. But let's go out on a limb here and speculate some more. If it was just Mr. Blackann's word against Mr. Verrusio's, it seems like the defense would have a chance. But Messrs. Blackann, Boulanger and Hirni have, as a condition of each of their plea agreements, pledged their cooperation with the DoJ and presumably will be called to testify on the witness stand. Almost certainly, this includes Mr. Blackann. It is also highly likely that Messrs. Boulanger and Hirni knew of the alleged shady arrangement with Mr. Verrusio. Since we already know Todd Boulanger is unflappable on the witness stand, add in another corroborating witness or two (Mr. Hirni? Mr. Ehrlich?) and Mr. Verrusio may have a tough time convincing any jury that he's telling the truth while everybody else is lying. Whether he actually inserted the amendment in the actual bill may even be irrelevant.