DoJ to Reveal HSF Strategy on Monday?

On Friday, June 25, 2010, the following notice appeared on PACER:

NOTICE OF HEARING as to KEVIN A. RING Status Conference set for 6/28/2010 at 4:15 PM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Given that the SCOTUS issued its opinion on Honest Services Fraud (HSF) on Thursday, June 24, 2010, it seems reasonable to believe that U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle scheduled this hearing to determine how the HSF decision will affect U.S. v. Kevin Ring.

Regular readers know what the author of the ACR Blog is hoping.

HSF: Once Again, Scalia Dissents!

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion today in Skilling v. United States, and, in so doing attempted to clarify its view of the Honest Service Fraud (HSF) statute. While the Court certainly narrowed the reach of HSF to the realm of "bribery and kickback schemes", it emphatically stated the law was constitutional (page 9):

Interpreted to encompass only bribery and kickback schemes, [the HSF statute] is not unconstitutionally vague. A prohibition on fraudulently depriving another of one’s honest services by accepting bribes or kickbacks presents neither a fair-notice nor an arbitrary-prosecution problem.

The decision to uphold HSF as constitutional was decided on a 6-3 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens forming the majority. Justice Scalia authored the dissent and was joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas.

On the surface this seems straightforward. But what does the Supreme Court mean by "bribery and kickback schemes"? We're most interested in how the Supreme Court's ruling affects the retrial of Abramoff lieutenant Kevin Ring, so let's explore how today's ruling might affect that case.

Bribery and HSF

Critics of the HSF statute have described the law as bribery-lite. Bribery is a very strict statute that is difficult to prosecute. Bribery requires the prosecution to show that a specific thing of value was exchanged for a specific official act -- a specific quid pro quo. On the other hand, HSF can be proven by showing that things of value influenced an official act.

When the SCOTUS says that HSF encompasses only "bribery and kickback schemes", did the SCOTUS intend for the standard to be the more difficult bribery statute quid pro quo? Or is the old HSF briberyesque definition which doesn't require the quid pro quo sufficient? It appears to the ACR Blog that the old HSF briberyesque definition is still the law. On page 49 of Skilling, the Supreme Court approvingly cites U.S. v. Kemp (2007). Kemp finds the following jury instruction to accurately describe HSF law (page 37):

[W]here there is a stream of benefits given by a person to favor a public official, ... it need not be shown that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a person gave an official a stream of benefits in implicit exchange for one or more official acts, you may conclude that a bribery has occurred. [Ellipsis in original]

When it comes to the "stream of benefits" or "retainer" theory of HSF, SCOTUS seems to have decided in Skilling to leave the key provision of the old HSF law intact. Of course we do not have a J.D. degree, but it is the opinion of the ACR Blog that Skilling provides no relief for Mr. Ring or many of the other defendants who have pled guilty to HSF charges in the Abramoff scandal. We are sure, however, that Mr. Ring's defense team at Miller Chevalier will zealously present the opposing viewpoint before U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, and we look forward to reading the defense's briefs.

An unlikely Abramoff apologist seems to have missed these crucial details. Of course, this individual has consistently predicted that the SCOTUS would strike down HSF in its entirety. The right-of-center Washington Times provides a more balanced perspective, as they included this insightful commentary:

But after the court's ruling, New York lawyer Terrence Oved said the decision will not have any effect on the cases emanating from lobbyist Jack Abramoff's conviction and cooperation, as those cases involved bribes and kickbacks. Similarly, he said, the Blagojevich trial is unlikely to be affected as his case also involves bribery and the jury will be able to receive instructions that take the decision into account. The judge in the case had previously said the Skilling decision was unlikely to help Mr. Blagojevich.

Some readers were predicting - hoping? - that HSF would be declared unconstitutional, but today's 6-3 ruling leaves the most essential provisions of the law intact. Yes indeed, Scalia dissents!

~FLASH~ Honest Services Fraud Survives

According to the Los Angeles Times, an honest services fraud conviction can be sustained if there is a "bribe or kickback".

More analysis to come ...

Jack Abramoff: No Longer Serving Up Pork

The big news from the state of Maryland today that has everyone - including the ACR Blog - trying to come up with a punny headline is this: Jack Abramoff has a new job working at a Baltimore pizza parlor. And not just any pizza parlor, but a kosher place named Tov Pizza. Our always astute readers will immediately recognize the significance of this news: Mr. Abramoff will no longer be serving up pork, and any way you slice it, that's good news for true conservatives.

Phil Jacobs at the Baltimore Jewish Times was the first to report the news. The owner of Tov Pizza, Ron Rosenbluth, says Mr. Abramoff will work there for six months or so and will focus on developing "marketing strategies." Mr. Abramoff is well-qualified for this job of course, as scandal scholars will certainly recall his signature D.C. restaurant called, well...Signatures (Motto: ''Liberal portions in a conservative setting"). ACR Blog readers are probably wondering whether Mr. Rosenbluth will also extend an offer to Mrs. Julie Doolittle to help Mr. Abramoff in these efforts, as she was the no-show marketing whiz that enabled the success of Mr. Abramoff's prior operations.

Unlike some scandal figures who have neither taken responsibility nor shown remorse for their actions, Mr. Abramoff has done both. He also served 43 months in federal prison, and by all accounts has fully cooperated with federal prosecutors. He is now taking the first step towards rebuilding his life, and is doing so with humility and courage. We applaud him for having the strength to do so. He is directly facing down his demons, and with the love and support of his family, we wish him well in turning his life around for the better. Of course we also hope he will continue to cooperate with federal prosecutors. Since Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Congressmen, he surely has a great deal to tell about the Congressmen he bribed - as well as his co-conspirators.

Mr. Abramoff is an enormously talented and extremely intelligent individual, and as one who has closely studied him and his operation for many years, we have the same kind of respect for him that a detective has for the master cat burglar who has eluded him for decades. When you are ready to talk Mr. Abramoff, the ACR Blog is ready to listen.

===

Yes, the ACR Blog has already heard the rumors swirling around the internet about Tov Pizza. As we go to press, the ACR Blog can not confirm that Horace Cooper dines at Tov Pizza, ordering the Tov Supreme Pizza while only paying for a glass of lemonade. We also put no stock in the rumor that scandal defendant Kevin Ring expensed a $2,000 meal for three John Doolittle staffers at Tov Pizza. And finally: ACK!! There is absolutely no factual basis underlying the rumor that Todd Boulanger took a group of underage teenage boys to Tov Pizza to buy some Hebrew National hotdogs and some kosher beer prior to taking them to see an Orioles game.

The *REAL* J.D. Hayworth

"Free Money" Hayworth!

Wearing a noticeable red, white and blue tie and lapel ribbon, J.D. Hayworth appeared in a bizarre infomercial making its way around the internet. We like the take of E.D. Kain of the right-of-center Washington Examiner:

So while I got a good chuckle over the whole “Free money! You never have to pay it back!” bit, I wasn’t exactly shocked.

Hayworth is a big spender with a big mouth. He voted for everything from No Child Left Behind to the bank-breaking Medicare Part D – a Bush-era expansion of Medicare likely to cost more than Obamacare that can be described as little more than blood money for the votes of senior citizens.

If you want a better understanding of Hayworth’s political philosophy, look no further than this infomercial: small government for thee, free money for me.

It doesn’t really matter if Hayworth is a conservative or not to me – I’m not that interested in purity tests and dogmatism. If you have good ideas about how to increase prosperity in America, or how to fix our political institutions, then I’m all ears. But Hayworth is selling himself as some sort of leader or mascot of the Tea Party movement, and his track record – just like his infomercial – proves that he’s just the opposite.

If Hayworth gets elected to the Senate you can expect more of the same. I’m not a fan of John McCain, but I’ll take him any day over this pork barrel salesman.

The ACR Blog admits that it is no fan of Mr. Hayworth. But the nation's best comedy writers couldn't parody the guy like this video does. This, my friends, is the "REAL" J.D. Hayworth.

===

Former Rep. Pombo Heading Back to the Ranch

John Doolittle isn't the only former Abramoff-tainted Congressman from the Golden State in the news. His buddy, the almost equally disgraced former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), has also been in the news lately because Republican voters in the 19th Congressional District of California had the good sense to nix his attempt at a political comeback.

Mr. Pombo finished third in a four-way race for the GOP nomination to succeed a retiring GOP Congressman, Rep. George Radanovich. Now I know its been a couple of weeks since the California primary elections were held on June 8, but here are the final results according to the California Secretary of State:

37.2% Jeff Denham
29.5% Jim Patterson
20.9% Richard Pombo
12.4% Larry Westerlund

I first wrote about Rep. Pombo back at the old place on June 6, 2006, the date of the 2006 California Primary:

Richard Pombo is tightly linked to both Abramoff and DeLay. But his race is a little different. Instead of an unknown, Pombo's opponent is former liberal Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey. This will test the Integrity Republicans. Will they back Pombo because of his conservative ideology, or will they be able to stomach sticking it to Pombo due to his ethical stains even if that means voting for a liberal?

Although Mr. McCloskey pulled almost a third of the GOP vote in 2006, Mr. Pombo survived his primary challenge. I next wrote about him on October 19, 2006 as we approached the General Election:

[Richard Pombo] had a narrow 48-46 lead over his Democratic challenger. Pombo's district is a ruby red district in interior California (east of San Francisco Bay). This should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate, but like TX22, not one associated with Abramoff

.

Of course not only did Mr. Pombo lose to a completely unknown Democrat in 2006, but it wasn't even close. Since then, we've written extensively about Mr. Pombo's ties to Messrs. Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Jack Victory, Dennis Stephens, Mashpee Chief Glenn Marshall, and the assorted lot of scandal figures associated with Rep. DeLay's K Street Project (e.g. Susan Hirschman and Barbara Bonfiglio). You may type "Pombo" into the search field in the upper left corner of the blog if you care to learn more about these connections. There are plenty more as well, but like the media, even I have lost interest in exposing them.

OK - let's fast forward back to 2010. In a year of voter disgust with Washington, Mr. Pombo's electoral strategy seemed to be to remind voters of his ties to Mr. Abramoff by featuring pictures of himself on his campaign website in ill-fitting clothes with disgraced Washington insiders like Grover Norquist. Brilliant, huh? But it does illustrate how out of touch these guys are with us folks out here in the hinterlands.

So now that Pombo has been soundly defeated a second time, what will he do next? According to the Stockton Record:

Pombo, 49, made it sound unlikely he would run again for office.

"I didn't plan on running this time," he said. "It was just a lot of people who approached me about getting in this race. ... My intention is to go back to my ranch."

Good. If the Republican party really wants to move forward, it can't nominate disgraced, morally-bankrupt, Abramoff-tainted, big-spending pseudo-conservatives who will remind voters of how we lost our way. Fortunately, smart Republican voters like those in CA-19 seem to understand this - that nominating losers like Rep. Pombo would probably have cost the GOP a second "safe" House seat from California. Even if Pombo can't think clearly, at least the voters can.

Mr. Pombo is not the first former Abramoff stooge to fail in his attempt at a political comeback. Let's not forget former Rep. Bob Shaffer (R-Colo.), who failed to win a Colorado Senate race in 2008 after pictures of him "investigating" Mr. Abramoff's sweatshops in the Mariana Islands on a sailboat appeared in the Denver Post.

But Mr. Pombo will probably not have the distinction of being the last either. After all, Abramoff-tainted former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) is attempting to make his political comeback by challenging incumbent Senator John McCain in the Arizona primary. While I've always said I'm not the smartest blogger out there, I'm fairly confident in my prediction that Mr. Hayworth will not be successful.

What disgraced Reps. Doolittle and DeLay will do in the future is anyone's guess.

John Doolittle Speaks!

A friend of the ACR Blog points us toward a John Doolittle interview on the Tom Sullivan show, a radio show we've never heard of. During the course of the interview, Mr. Doolittle claims that Public Integrity (PIN) chief William Welch II was on a personal vendetta against him. Mr. Sullivan asks Mr. Doolittle why Mr. Welch would want to investigate him. Mr. Doolittle doesn't think that the investigation had anything to do with the $5,000 monthly stipend paid to his wife (Julie Doolittle) by Mr. Abramoff's lobbying firm for a doo-nothing job. Mr. Doolittle doesn't mention all any of the actions he took on behalf of Team Abramoff clients. Also left unanswered is why U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle determined that Mr. Doolittle was a co-conspirator in the Abramoff scandal.

No, Mr. Doolittle has a unique take on why PIN head William Welch II investigated him:

[William Welch II] knew that I was a leading advocate of the private campaign finance system and introduced legislation to repeal all of McCain-Feingold and all of the horrid restrictions that had been put into the law up that time beginning with Teddy Roosevelt continuing with Gerald Ford and then, unfortunately, my friend George W. Bush who signed McCain-Feingold into law. My bill repealed all of it, and, you know, he didn't like the way that I was going.

He is one of those zealous reformers, quote/unquote, who want the heavy handed government public financing, you know, no private -- I'm putting words into his mouth; this is my impression -- but this type of ilk. And you know, he was the head of Public Integrity and he was going to be able to use his power by going after these individuals.

The ACR Blog holds no brief for Mr. Welch. We aren't able to independently verify Mr. Welch's view on campaign finance, either. Quite frankly, we don't think his political views really matter. With the bizarre references to McCain-Feingold, it appears to us that Mr. Doolittle merely wanted to attack Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for elevating the public profile of the Abramoff scandal.

We're still glad that true conservative Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) now occupies Mr. Doolittle's seat. Mr. McClintock is a Congressman who has sworn off the kind of pork and tainted ethics characteristic of Mr. Doolittle's legacy. Here is what a local newspaper, the Auburn Journal, recently said in an editorial:

What most of us can agree upon is that Doolittle worked hard to bring much-needed federal dollars to the Fourth District. Whether he was supporting a regional wastewater treatment plan pipeline, or securing federal dollars for Interstate 80 traffic-flow upgrades, Doolittle brought home the bacon.

Ethical shortcomings and wallowing in pork - these are the legacies of the big spending faux-conservatives, and obviously Mr. Doolittle was a master at both. We would disagree with the editors of the Auburn Journal who seem to think that bringing home the bacon implies that Mr. Doolittle "worked hard." Bringing home the bacon doesn't require hard work when you make a Faustian deal with devils like Jack Abramoff. Mr. Doolittle will always be a disgrace to true conservatives everywhere, and we will never forget the key role he and Tom DeLay played in causing the GOP to lose control of the House in 2006.

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.

Star DoJ Attorney Assigned to Kevin Ring case

In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, standout prosecutor M. Kendall Day advised the court that he will be representing the people of the United States against Kevin Ring. A champion of justice, Mr. Day is an Abramoff scandal ace, with at least five convictions under his belt including James Hirni, Tony Rudy, Michael Scanlon and Neil Volz. Mr. Day even signed off on the plea agreement for Jack Abramoff himself. The courtroom field general has also been called upon to clean up the mess left behind after the severely flawed prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ak.).

The ACR Blog is pleased to see a lawyer of Mr. Day's skill and ethics join the Kevin Ring prosecution team.

Patton sound bite  College Marching Bands sound bites

U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: Superseding Indictment

The Justice Department filed a superseding indictment today against Abramoff-linked official Fraser Verrusio.

==

See this update on today's hearing by the Blog of Legal Times' Mike Scarcella.

U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: Speech or Debate

Fraser Capone Verrusio

Thanks to Mike Scarcella at the Blog of Legal Times (BLT), we learn a little more about the legal wrangling in U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio:

The Justice Department and the House of Representatives General Counsel's Office are feuding over a subpoena that DOJ issued last month that seeks to compel the testimony of the chief counsel of the Senate Ethics Committee.

DOJ's Public Integrity Section gave House General Counsel Irvin Nathan an opportunity to nominate a witness to testify at a pretrial hearing June 14 in Washington federal district court. Nathan’s office declined the invitation. DOJ went ahead and issued a subpoena to John Sassaman, chief counsel and staff director to the Senate Ethics Committee.

We've scanned the 72-page Motion of John Sassaman to Quash Subpoena and attachments. The document is long on case law and skimpy on facts. BLT's story covers everything you need to know about the Motion: Mr. Sassaman, through the office of the House General Counsel, is asserting that he can not be compelled to testify about House Ethics Committee matters due to the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause.

In an April 10, 2010 letter to the Office of the House Counsel, DoJ prosecutor M. Kendall Day identified potential areas of testimony requested of a House Ethics Committee official:

1. A description of the House annual financial disclosure report, including what it is, who is required to file it, what information is supposed to be disclosed there (including in its various schedules), and where it is supposed to be filed;

2. A brief description of the House's travel disclosure form, and how that form compares to the financial disclosure report;

3. A description of the origin of financial disclosure reports, as well as the rules and requirements underlying the financial disclosure report;

4. A description of how the reports are used by various offices in the House of Representatives for administering and enforcing the disclosure, gift, and anti-gratuity rules of the House; and

5. To aid in establishing the materiality of the false statements contained on Mr. Verrusio's financial disclosure report, a response to hypothetical questions about what action the Committee might have taken if it had been presented with certain information.

The ACR Blog has taken the position that, given the historical conflicts between parliament and the crown, there is a need for the Speech or Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution. Even though some individuals (e.g. former Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.) have hidden behind the Speech or Debate clause to stymie criminal investigations, we have still supported the Speech or Debate clause.

Speech or Debate Clause
U.S. Constitution; Article One, Section 6
[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

In this particular instance, though, we're not so sure that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the legislative branch from what the Justice Department seeks. As we discussed last summer, proceedings in Congress typically have great protections. Speech or Debate privileges also apply to congressional staffers such as Mr. Sassaman. But the testimony sought by the Justice Department does not relate to any proceeding. The Justice Department merely wants a witness to discuss factual matters about forms. (The DoJ's attempt to have "hypothetical questions" answered is probably on shakier ground for more than one reason, though.)

We don't expect this aspect of Mr. Verrusio's trial to be determined in Judge Richard Roberts' courtroom. Whichever side loses will likely appeal.

John Doolittle "thrilled" that Investigation is Dropped

As the AP reported Friday, the Justice Department has dropped its criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff co-conspirator John Doolittle. Let's see what more we can mine from the news reports. McClatchy Newspapers' John Doyle provides some of the best coverage.

Statute of Limitatations

A Justice Department corruption investigation that helped drive John Doolittle from office has now been closed without charges being filed, the former Sacramento, Calif.-area congressman said Friday.

"I'm thrilled," Doolittle said in an interview. "They've dragged this thing out for six and a half years..."

Doolittle said he might never have learned of the development if he hadn't insisted that his attorney call the Justice Department shortly before the Memorial Day weekend. Doolittle said that though some people warned him against "waking the sleeping dog," he was anxious to find out the status of his case so he could help his employment prospects.

The ACR Blog views this information as confirmation that Mr. Doolittle had signed a tolling agreement that waived the statute of limitations (SoL). After all, the SoL on corruption-related crimes is five years. Mr. Doolittle says the investigation lasted six and a half years, meaning that the SoL should have expired a year and a half ago. Apparently, it didn't. We infer that some milestone passed "shortly before the Memorial Day weekend"; specifically, we believe that the most recent tolling agreement expired at that time. It is highly unlikely May 2010 marked a SoL expiration related to corruption-related crimes committed in or about May 2005 (five years ago). After all, that was well over a year after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Susan Schmidt broke the Abramoff scandal wide open (February 2004).

Julie Doolittle


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

The Justice Department named Mr. Doolittle's wife, Julie, as one of Mr. Abramoff's co-conspirators.

Doolittle added that he believes the phone call means no case will be brought against his wife, Julie, as well, though he said he's been frustrated in efforts to find out for sure.

Mr. Doolittle obviously has better information than we do regarding the legal status of his wife. Therefore, we'll take what Mr. Doolittle says at face value: It is unlikely that Mrs. Doolittle will be charged although we don't have any confirmation of that. Mrs. Doolittle held a little-to-no work job paid by Greenberg Traurig, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying firm.

"No Evidence"

"[The Justice Department} had made up their minds that they were going to get me," Doolittle said Friday, "but there was no evidence against me."

We've already conceded that Mr. Doolittle has better information than we do about this case. But this statement is demonstrably false. There is evidence galore against Mr. Doolittle. The ACR Blog is not a court of law and does not claim to know whether the evidence would be sufficient to support a criminal conviction. Mr. Doolittle's statement is evidence to the ACR Blog that he is a dissembler, though. Let's look at just some of the evidence:

1. Mrs. Doolittle received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from Greenberg Traurig for little, if any, work. Prosecutors said that these payments were "at the heart of the fraud" in the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Doolittle and his congressional staff (David Lopez) pressured Mr. Abramoff to "hire" Mrs. Doolittle.

2. While in Congress, Mr. Doolittle was very supportive of clients of Mr. Abramoff even when those clients were not anywhere near Mr. Doolittle's northern California district. For example, according to Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger, Mr. Doolittle intervened on behalf of the Sac and Fox, an Iowa Indian tribe, to reopen the tribe's casino. Mr. Doolittle also intervened in an effort to help another Abramoff client, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts, gain federal recognition.

3. Mr. Doolittle also assisted Mr. Abramoff in supporting another of the lobbyist's clients, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). When it comes to the CNMI, the ACR Blog typically defers to its friend Wendy at Unheard No More! This is no exception. Please follow the link to learn more about Mr. Doolittle's role in the CNMI. Pay particular attention at how Mr. Doolitte's staff tried to retaliate against a human rights advocate who was testifying to Congress about abuses in the CNMI.

Legacy

Mr. Doolittle is a rare breed. Neither conservatives nor liberals admire him. This is primarily because the former Congressman has no guiding principles. Mr. Doolittle was an earmark aficionado. Mr. Doolittle's decision not to seek reelection in 2008 cleared the path for California's 4th district to elect conservative Tom McClintock to the seat. Mr. McClintock is a true Tea Party style conservative who refuses to engage in the destructive practice of earmarking. Mr. Doolittle's ethical problems led to the unexpected result of truly ethical and conservative representation for CA-04. At least there was a good result to this mess. (Why couldn't TX-22 get a good conservative after Tom DeLay left?)

AP: Doolittle Investigation Closed

AP: Doolittle Investigation Closed ... more to come ....

Click here for Follow-up Post

Jack Abramoff to Halfway House

Via Wendy, we learn that Jack Abramoff is transitioning from prison to a halfway house in Baltimore.

We don't have a lot to say about this except that the ACR Blog truly believes in the story of sin and redemption. Mr. Abramoff has served and is serving the punishment that our criminal justice system has demanded of him. When an individual has capitulated and accepted responsibility, the ACR Blog does not pile on. Mr. Abramoff has cooperated with the Justice Department and done everything asked of him. Mr. Abramoff still has much to do to atone to his tribal clients, though. We wish him the best as he works through those issues.

Let this be a lesson to others (Fraser Verrusio, Kevin Ring). Sin and redemption. A better story has never been told.

Justice Stevens & Honest Services Fraud

 

Many Abramoff scandal defendants have pleaded guilty to Honest Services Fraud (HSF), a statute under Constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court of the United States. Persons admitting felonious acts in violation of the HSF statute include:

Michael Scanlon (2005)
Jack Abramoff (2006)
Tony Rudy (2006)
Neil Volz (2006)
Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) (2006)

Will Heaton (2007)
Mark Zachares (2007)
John Albaugh (2008)
Jim Hirni (2008)
Todd Boulanger (2009)
Ann Copland (2009)

In addition to the above guilty pleas, Abramoff lieutenant Kevin Ring still has an outstanding ten-count indictment that includes some HSF charges.

The ACR Blog has repeatedly staked out the editorial position that the HSF statute is a valuable tool for the Justice Department to use in fighting public corruption cases. Although we don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to find HSF unconstitutionally vague, the prospect is certainly disconcerting.

The Supreme Court is likely to make its HSF verdict known sometime this month. Meanwhile, former Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is scheduled to face a jury later this week on HSF charges unrelated to the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Blagojevich's lawyers wanted to delay his trial until the SCOTUS provided clarity on the status of the HSF statute.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens denied Mr. Blagojevich's request. We don't know how much to read into Justice Stevens' denial. But since Justice Stevens knows whether HSF will be found unconstitutional, it would have been an undeniably bad sign for HSF if he had granted Blagojevich's request.

Blagojevich's lawyers said, "The unreasonable march toward trial in this case has created an array of constitutional violations and has set the stage for a constitutionally infirm trial." Nevertheless, similar prior requests had been declined by lower courts. Justice Stevens' decision can't be considered unexpected. Furthermore, DoJ lawyers had argued that regardless of the SCOTUS' pending decision on HSF, Blagojevich's trial should continue as planned because the factual elements of the HSF counts and the non-HSF counts are the same. According to the Justice Department, the trial would cover the same ground regardless of the HSF decision.

We admit that the predictive power of Justice Stevens' refusal to delay Mr. Balgojevich's trial is not as strong as it would have been if Justice Stevens had granted the delay. But we prefer this denial over the alternative. Our optimism that the Supreme Court will not find public-sector bribery-esque HSF unconsitutional remains intact after last week's decision.