Kevin Ring
July 1, 2000
Kevin Ring's defense team has argued that the government must prove that Mr. Ring entered into a corrupt agreement to exchange things of value (TOVs) for official acts. Without such an agreement, the defense says, the government cannot prove Mr. Ring had corrupt intent and he must be found not guilty.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle rejected Mr. Ring's argument. She said that a jury could "infer" a bribery-style quid pro quo agreement from the evidence.
Let's review some of the evidence on which such an inference could be drawn:
1. A March 14, 2002 email from Mr. Ring to John Albaugh, a staffer to Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.):
You're going to eat free off of our clients. Need to get us some abstinence money.1
2. A February 10, 2004 email from Mr. Ring to Laura Blackann, a staffer to Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). Mrs. Blackann had been helping Mr. Ring with some tax legislation benefiting a Team Abramoff Client:
Mrs. Blackann: [J]ust earning my Sigs[*] Sushi ;)
Mr. Ring: Exactly. I will keep you occupied.
Mrs. Blackann: Keep it coming -- this is the fun stuff.
[*] This is an apparent reference to Signatures, the restaurant owned by Jack Abramoff.
3. A March 16, 2002 email from Mr. Ring to a fellow Team Abramoff lobbyist who had treated Justice Department official David Ayers to an NCAA basketball tournament game. Mr. Ring needed Mr. Ayers' assistance in securing funding for the full $16.3 million grant for the Choctaw jail:
Glad he got a chance to relax. Now he can pay us back.
One simple question, gentle readers: Do you infer than Mr. Ring intended to exchange things of value for official acts?
===
1 The above wording comes from the Kevin Ring indictment (paragraph 33). Another government filing (p. 2) offers this slightly different verbiage: “You are going to eat free off our clients. Now get us some abstinence money.”
2 comments:
Yes. Some of those do not sound that great, but when all combined together the picture becomes clearer. Certainly Number 3 qualifies in and of itself.
However, realistically speaking, I dont know if free meals will cut the cake in front of a jury presumably full of the same type of morons seated in round one, but number 3 is pretty bad.
How much more proof could you need or ever get? The judge allowing the inference to be made in lieu of direct evidence is therefore a fair ruling.
I dont know what "abstinence" money is supposed to mean.
You should check the national conviction rate on retrials. I cant recall it.
New Hampshire-ite,
All three examples have their weaknesses, but taken together, they seem to paint a complete picture.
I agree with your assessment of the meals. Who hasn't accepted a meal in the course of their job? The big difference, though, is how the jury will weigh Kevin Ring's intent. I liked the first two quotes because: (1) Mr. Ring was communicating directly to the public official while (2) Offering a thing of value and (3) Simultaneously asking for an official act.
The weakness of the third quote is that the email was between two Team Abramoff lobbyists. In my opinion, Mr. Ring's intent was clear, but was that intent communicated to David Ayres? The DoJ has a little work remaining there.
Regarding the "abstinence" money, one of Team Abramoff's clients was a company that planned to run abstinence ads. Mr. Ring was asking for John Albaugh's help in securing money for that client.
~ACR
Post a Comment