Posted by Mark Silva at 10:25 am CDT
As a congressional report raises new questions about contacts between disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House, President Bush is preparing to campaign next week for two California congressmen whose own connections to Abramoff have been questioned in their campaigns for reelection.
The White House has attempted to distance itself from from Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud and is cooperating with a continuing federal investigation of corruption in Washington. But Abramoff had billed lobbying clients for hundreds of contacts with White House officials – including 10 with chief political strategist Karl Rove – and provided tickets to sporting events for Rove’s assistant, according to a report of the House Government Reform Committee released today.
(The committee bills its 93-page report as "an unusually detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud and attempted influence peddling'' yet acknowledges it leaves many questions unanswered.)
Download 1_final_abramoff.pdf
The president maintains that he does not personally know Abramoff, and the White House is dismissing the lobbyist’s claims of connections there as part of a larger pattern of exaggeration by an “admitted and proven liar’’ overstating his own influence and overbilling his clients.
“The billing records that are the basis for this report are widely regarded as fraudulent in how they misrepresent Abramoff’s activities and level of access,’’ White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today. “There is no reason why they should suddenly be viewed as credible.’’
Noting that House committee investigators had found many email messages from Abramoff unreturned by Rove, Perino pointed to some of Abramoff’s billed “contacts” with the White House: Seeing Rove at Washington’s annual Gridiron Dinner. Abramoff also reported sending Rove a bottle of wine at a restaurant – Perino, calling this “laughable,’’ said it “underscores just how little he knew Karl – one who knows Rove knows that he doesn’t drink alcohol.’’
Nevertheless, Abramoff’s actual and sometimes exaggerated relations with members of Congress, their aides and members of the Bush administration have rocked official Washington.
But how much of an impact any of this plays on the campaign trail this fall is another question.
The president, embarking next week on the start of a monthlong campaign for Republicans fighting to maintain control of the House in the Nov. 7 elections, plans to campaign on Tuesday for Reps. Richard Pombo and John Doolittle, two California Republicans whose connections to Abramoff have been challenged by rivals.
Doolittle, who held a political fundraiser in Abramoff’s Washington stadium skybox, collected $140,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. Doolittle’s wife, Julie Doolittle, runs a fundraising firm, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, that earned $66,000 working on Abramoff projects, and she also has collected 15 percent commission for money that she has raised for her husband’s congressional campaign.
As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Pombo’s dealings with Abramoff clients and his ties to former House Majority Leader Tom Delay became primary campaign issues.
Yet both congressmen are favored to win reelection in heavily Republican districts of California that also have supported the president, backing Bush’s reelection by margins of 9 percent in Pombo’s district to 14 percent in Doolittle’s district. Pombo, first elected in 1992, faces the same Democratic opponent whom he defeated with 61 percent of the vote two years ago. Doolittle, first elected in 1990, won reelection with 65 percent of the vote the last time.
Experts say ethical questions will have little impact in such districts, and while Pombo and Doolittle may not capture the same margins of victory this time, they should expect reelection.
“My experience in California is that until they put the handcuffs you, the voters will stay with you,’’ said Bruce Cain, professor of political science at the Unversity of California at Berkeley.
The president, making a three-day swing for Republicans in the West next week, will attend fundraisers for Pombo in Stockton and Doolittle in Eldorado Hills on Tuesday. Despite Bush’s own lagging support in California and nationally, Cain says, the president should prove helpful there.
“It’s safe to bring Bush in there,’’ Cain suggests. “Iif this were Connecticut or New York, where you had to win over Democrats and independents, that would be different… For both Doolittle and Pombo, bringing Bush in, while it may alienate a few independents, is still positive for them, because you are trying to rally the base.’’
Bush’s October campaign tour will open Monday with a swing through Reno, where Republican Dean Heller is seeking an open seat in a vast district that encompasses much of Nevada and backed Bush by a margin of 16 percentage points in 2004 and 20 points in 2000. Bush will campaign Wednesday for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), another relative newcomer to Congress in another vast district that backed the president’s reelection by a margin of eight points.
In Washington, the newest report of a lobbyist’s alleged influence has come at an inopportune time for a president heading out to campaign for congressmen whose connections are questioned.
But the Government Reform Committee report has revealed “only scant and circumstantial evidence that Abramoff’s encounters and entreaties had a dispositive impact on administration policy or personnel decisions,’’ the committee reported, noting that Abramoff and associates had tried to land jobs in the Bush administration for more than 20 people but succeeded only once.
“It is our job to examine whether and to what extent Jack Abramoff’s extravagant claims of influence actually reached their intended targets in the executive branch, and what that might mean about the adequacy of current ethics and lobby disclosure laws,” chairman Tom Davis (R., Va.) said.
“The almost complete absence of reply emails from Abramoff’s lobbying targets in the White House has to be seen as telling,’’ Davis said. “In an environment that lives and breathes on email exchanges, that silence speaks volumes about how seriously most people in the White House took Jack Abramoff’s schemes.’’
The committee, in examining thousands of Abramoff’s emails and billing records, has found 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials over three years, including 10 with Rove. While Abramoff and associates succeeded in getting appropriations for some of their Indian tribal clients, the report found, efforts to influence appointments and nominations ``were often not successful.
Abramoff, who was highly paid by tribes, complained at one point that officials in the White House said they could deal directly with tribes without help from lobbyists.
“This is horrible,’’ Abramoff wrote to colleagues.
Some of Abramoff’s records indicate that Rove dined at an Abramoff restaurant, Signatures. ``I want him to be given a very nice bottle of wine and have Joseph whisper in his ear (only he should hear) that Abramoff wanted him to have this wine on the house,’’ the lobbyist wrote.
Abramoff apparently offered Rove tickets to an NCAA basketball tournament, but Rove may have paid for them. ``I just saw Karl ... and mentioned the NCAA opportunity, which he was really jazzed about,’’ Abramoff wrote to Rove’s administrative aide, Susan Ralston.
``Karl has to pay for his tickets,’’ Ralston replied in an email.
Abramoff and his lobbying team offered White House officials tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts, the report found. And Ralston, who had worked for Abramoff before going to work for Rove, was the most frequent recipient.
The committee found that Ralston was the most frequently contacted person in the White House, with 69 contacts listed by Abramoff's firm. "Over the years,'' the committee found, "the lobbying of senior officials appears to be quite limited'' -- with only nine alleged contacts with Rove and only one scheduled meeting in the White House, two months into the first term. The rest of the contacts claimed occurred at fundraisers or sporting events.
Among 485 contacts that Abramoff’s firm listed with the White House, 345 were described as meetings, 71 telephone conversations and 69 e-mail exchanges. The records cover a period from January 2001 through March 2004, and include the work of 20 lobbyists.
Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to four counts of conspiracy, one count of mail fraud and one count of tax evasion. In a plea agreement, he admitted defrauding clients.
“It is shocking and deeply disturbing that this admitted and proven liar ripped off his clients by over-billing and over-selling his supposed influence with any number of policymakers,’’ administration spokeswoman Perino said.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"The president maintains that he does not personally know Abramoff."
This means that Bush did not look into Abramoff's soul. He saves "soul searching" for guys like Putin.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 29, 2006 10:35 AM
While our courageus soldiers are fighting and dying in a trumped up war,sounds like the White House was open for business,and money talked.
Bush hardly knew Abramoff,just like Kenny Boy.
"Hey big guy,how much ya benchin".
I wonder how many dumb Repubs are buying this bag of do do?
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 29, 2006 10:43 AM
And now, 'Jack's song'
Dogs (Waters, Gilmour) Pink Floyd You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need. You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street, You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed. And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight, You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking. And after a while, you can work on points for style. Like the club tie, and the firm handshake, A certain look in the eye and an easy smile. You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to, So that when they turn their backs on you, You'll get the chance to put the knife in. You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder. You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you get older. And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south, Hide your head in the sand, Just another sad old man, All alone and dying of cancer. And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown. And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone. And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around. So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone, Dragged down by the stone. I gotta admit that I'm a little bit confused. Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used. Gotta stay awake, gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise. If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my way out of this maze? Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend. And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner And everything's done under the sun, And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer. Who was born in a house full of pain. Who was trained not to spit in the fan. Who was told what to do by the man. Who was broken by trained personnel. Who was fitted with collar and chain. Who was given a pat on the back. Who was breaking away from the pack. Who was only a stranger at home. Who was ground down in the end. Who was found dead on the phone. Who was dragged down by the stone.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 29, 2006 10:45 AM
Thanks, as always, Mark.
The trail goes to key decision makers in the Bush WH. (He's not the only "decider" -- though, despite his early claims, is clearly a "divider" NOT a "uniter").
This, coupled with the new Woodward book about WH fumbling in Iraq (are we really surprised by now?) should lead to an interesting week of campaigning while wearing no clothes.
Caveat: the pdf download is 93 pp., so unless you've got the time and the storagge space.....
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | September 29, 2006 10:57 AM
Until I see proof I will hold comment on Jack and the White House. We do know for fact his ties to Hastert and the payoff for the letter to Norton. We need to clean up the House both Democratic and Republican of all who break any rules of the House.We need a clean Government!
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 29, 2006 11:07 AM
Paulo!!!!!!!!!
State of Denial is out on Monday. You have permission to put down My Pet Goat and get busy. We expect a report by Friday.
Posted by: Brian | September 29, 2006 11:12 AM
Well by golly, if the president says he doesn't know Abramoff despite 485 recorded contacts, then it must be true!
Posted by: Tom | September 29, 2006 11:24 AM
This is the beginning of the end for the Cowboy in Chief,Cheney,Rove,and the right wingnuts in Congress.
Make room in that prison cell Scooter,you're going to be having some company coming to join you real soon now.
Posted by: John E. | September 29, 2006 11:42 AM
My God, this article is more hatchet work by the biased goons at the Tribune's Democratic Public Relations Firm. First of all, what lobbyist hasn't been to the White House in decades?
But before you lefties crow, let me remind you folks of a few things:
1. Selling overnight stays at the Lincoln bedroom for campaign donations (Slick Willie).
2. Selling coffee chats at the White House (Slick Willie).
3. Selling military technology to the Chinese for campaign donations (Slick Willie).
4. Having sex with and receiving millions from Marc Rich's wife in exchange for Marc Rich's pardon.
Mark Silva wouldn't know how to be an objective reporter if his life depended on it. He, like all the Trib Washington reporters, is on the Howard Dean payroll. And gladly does their bidding by making bigger stories out of little stories or stories out of no stories.
Posted by: John D | September 29, 2006 11:52 AM
This isn't the silver bullet...but it is one more nail in the coffin!
Posted by: bill r. | September 29, 2006 12:12 PM
John D, you ought to be applauding Mark Silva's efforts to revive this tired old chestnut.
Mr. Silva (and other Swampers) write 2 kinds of articles, varying praise of Democrats (e.g., disbarred attorney Bill Clinton) with attacks on Republicans. Of course this article is a hatchet job. You can't expect fairness of him, and you won't receive it. That being the case, be thankful that Silva is wasting time on this, rather than writing on some more serious, more up-to-date Democrat Party talking point.
Mr. Silva--please keep it up!
Posted by: Bruce | September 29, 2006 12:19 PM
As has happened often before, when reporter Mark Silva quotes someone as a supposedly non-partisan "expert", that non-partisan "expert" just happens to be a Democrat activist. In this instance, professor Bruce Cain, presented in the above article as an "expert", is on record with the Federal Election Commission as having contributed $300 to John Kerry's presidential campaign on 7-26-2004.
Amazing coincidence, isn't it? Couldn't be a reflection of the reporter's partisan bias. Nope.
Posted by: Bruce | September 29, 2006 12:27 PM
I'm noticing a trend with conservatives here. Whenever more evidence of this Administration's and Congressional corruption emerge, they do two things: 1) blame the messanger for being "biased liberals" when, even if such a charge were true (it's not), has no bearing on the veracity of the actual article itself, and 2) blame Clinton, as if he is still the President.
Posted by: Neil | September 29, 2006 12:36 PM
Why do conservatives refusue to accept the fact that their party is rotting from the head down?
Conservatives are a rather weak willed bunch of
whiners that too easily accept the morally vacant leader Bush while hiding that fact under a dark cloak of psuedo-religiosity.
BTW conservatives, get over Clinton already. Youre beginning to appear like you have some deeply rooted Freudian-like penis envy of him.
Posted by: johnf | September 29, 2006 12:41 PM
Mr. Silva--please keep it up!
Posted by: Bruce | Sep 29, 2006 12:19:53 PM
Well... I'd better leave that one alone.
Lets talk about Duke Cunningham instead.
Posted by: johnf | September 29, 2006 1:12 PM
Hey Roadkill-brained lefties, i know the truth hurts, but just pointing some truths under your boy Slick Willie that you guys thought was just swell.
Who cares about the Lincoln bedroom, I heard from you folks in the 90s.
Who cares about the Marc Rich pardon, I heard from you folks in 2001.
Who cares if he got a little from Denise in the Marc Rich pardon, I heard from you folks.
Who cares about coffee klatches, I heard from your folks back in the 90s.
Who cares if he got a little under the Oval Office desk, I heard and still hear from you folks.
Or how about the over $100,000 Harry Reid received from Jack Abramoff and said were legitimate donations to his campaing coffers?
If there are indictments in the White House because of any assocations or shady dealings with Jack Abramoff, then I'll talk. Until then, who cares?
Posted by: John D | September 29, 2006 1:14 PM
Bruce and John D,
If this is baseless, why are you two sweating so hard?
And yes Bruce, let's free Abramoff because someone quoted in a blog gave $300 to presidential bid. Puleeeze..... Knowing and seeing what Kerry's opponent has done to this country, I think his donation makes him a more credible source. Now, time to google the rest of the individuals listed. And let's not forget the 93 page report from the House (GOP run!) Committee. Where's their $$$ come from?
And John D, while you're looking backward at Clinton, your man Bush is about to hit the wall.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | September 29, 2006 1:26 PM
I'm noticing a trend with conservatives here. Whenever more evidence of this Administration's and Congressional corruption emerge, they do two things: 1) blame the messanger for being "biased liberals" when, even if such a charge were true (it's not), has no bearing on the veracity of the actual article itself, and 2) blame Clinton, as if he is still the President
Neil,
How long should we go on blaming anybody. The meida, Dem's, Rep's have spent 2+ years on these arguements and people keep dying in Iraq. Maybe it is time for everyone to shut up and start acting. What Clinton/Bush?Rep/Dem et.al did or didn't do is irrevelent. The arguing does not solve anything. Would either party members die if they tried to work together, at least long enough to get our people out of Iraq.
Posted by: marty | September 29, 2006 1:33 PM
Actually, I thought the idea of buying a night in the Lincoln Bedroom was a pretty good idea. Why not? Everybody has to face the fact that these pols have to raise unbelievable amounts of money to get elected -- what I see as an actual negation of democracy. Till that changes, we are going to see all kinds of methods to amass this cash, and unfortunately most of it is going to come from the very wealthiest 1% and the corporations. So much for the average American (and the country for that matter).
Let's change campaigning! Start by banning TV ads -- they're incessant, annoying, mostly lies and distortions and suck up most of the campaign cash. Candidates can get air time with televised live debates with no clothing allowed (sorry George and Karl, no more hidden microphones)! Let's start with that and see where it goes.
Posted by: DD | September 29, 2006 1:47 PM
AHHH..another voice for stop the bickering..very noble Marty....tell us what to do? we're with ya!
Posted by: bill r. | September 29, 2006 2:00 PM
The arguing does not solve anything. Would either party members die if they tried to work together, at least long enough to get our people out of Iraq.
Posted by: marty | Sep 29, 2006 1:33:32 PM
True marty, but the Republicans want to talk about Clintons sexual escapades ad-nauseum, not President Bushs Iraq policy.
Republicans are so disinterested in the lives of the soldiers in Iraq they continue to chatter about a stained blue dress to this day.
Posted by: johnf | September 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Marty,
I used to believe in bi-partisanship back in my more idealistic days (and I'm only 24). I voted for Mark Kirk (R-IL 10) because he seemed like the right kind of Representative for a bi-partisan problem solving Congress. But, as it is said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current majority is so obsessed with their control of government they've taken bi-partisanship and thrown it out the window, and instead have taken to demonizing the opposition and browbeating any attempts at moderation. I'm not saying the Democrats aren't guilty too, but they don't control anything - the Republicans do. Which is why they must be voted out. Their hubris is bad for this country.
Posted by: Neil | September 29, 2006 2:35 PM
Keep trying, no smoking gun here. Plus, there's documented proof that Harry Reid and Tom Daschle accepted money from Abramoff's firm, too. Nobody's hands are clean on this one.
p.s. Ever see a picture of Abramoff's lobbyistmobile? It's got more bells and whistles than anything on "Pimp My Ride."
Posted by: Bill | September 29, 2006 2:36 PM
Little Johnny and Bumbling Brucie,
Just as info: May 06 CNN poll comparing Clinton and Fortunate Son.
Honesty: Clinton 46% Dumb Dumb 41% & falling
Economy: " 62 " " 25
Foriegn Affairs 56 " " 32
Taxes " 51 " " 35
Handling Disasters 51 " " 30
Clinton left office with a 68 % approval rating,highest in 70 years of polling.
Please stop making fools of yourselves.
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 29, 2006 2:49 PM
Marty, and the rest of people here that don’t seem to understand the reasoning for putting blame where it should be (on the Bush Administration). If you haven’t noticed the morons that got us into this mess in Iraq are still calling the shots, and getting this rubber stamp Congress voted out of office in Nov. would be a giant step forward. With a Democratic Congress in place, the Bush Administration will be held accountable for the mismanagement of this debacle, and a real solution for ending this nightmare can be explored.
By the way John D, and Bruce, your arguments here are really starting to sound a bit lame.
Posted by: Rory M | September 29, 2006 3:05 PM
Hey John D...
Can your hero president Dubya Bush pronounce Jack Abramoff's name?? Does he know how many times Abramoff has visited the White House??
I wonder if Dennis Hastert knows who Jack Abramoff is. How about Bob Ney?? Oh, the patriotic Republican congressman (Ney) is in alcohol rehab. and he's been indicted. Wouldn't you like to be in his shoes John D.??
Posted by: Doug R. | September 29, 2006 3:13 PM
Rory, The number we have to vote out is shrinking. Another morally challenged Republican resigned today. I'm looking forward to November!
Posted by: Tom O | September 29, 2006 3:43 PM
The American people deserve better. John D for you my statement The Republican culture of Corruption now is just as bad as the Democrats when they lost the House in 1994. Why has not Congress passed the lobby reform legislation? J.Dennis Hastert keeps stopping this Bill. Why? In the face of these extraordinary scandals on Both Side Reform needs to be passed. Instead they pass a torture bill that will in the future and now put or troops in danger of being tortured by countries that will follow our lead. John D where am I wrong here in my statement? Opinion from you I respect
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 29, 2006 3:44 PM
Bill,try as you may,this is a Republican scandal of great proportions.
I thought govt and corporate crime was a no no with you?
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 29, 2006 3:51 PM
I think its great that the Dems are going for the "corruption" angle against the GOP.
Yeah, you'll be looked at as the clean politicians, and feel only republicans get in trouble.
Only your current followers are that naive.
Posted by: JD | September 29, 2006 3:54 PM
JD...I found it funny when Clinton was in office and the repubs were going after EVERYTHING!
You were all like perfect lawyers..object to everything so that getting anything done is
impossible. You caused nothing to get done then, and you have done nothing now. Except turn this war in Iraq into a huge blunder. Once in Iraq, you disbanned the army, and the police. Smart move...who the hell did you think would be there to eventually take over security? You have made Iraq a poop hole, worse than it was before Saddam. No services, no security, but we did give them terrorists....the ones that were not there before. Saddam would have never have allowed any of them to threaten his regime. You guys screwed the pooch big time, and now you want us to trust your judgement?
Posted by: bill r. | September 29, 2006 4:12 PM
Bill R, don't forget about the half a trillion taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet.
Remember,the "Conservatives" always spend the dollars wisely.
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 29, 2006 4:34 PM
John D./JD,
Your hatchet job on Bill Clinton for giving Marc Rich a pardon is telling.
Little Johnny,I would have had sex with Marc Rich's wife,...at that time, she was very hot.
And to think all the President had to do was give the guy a pardon for time spent with his wife...............Brilliant!!!!
At least Bill wasn't going around starting wars in the middle east with his Johnson,like our current Rhinestone Cowboy is.
Johnny, are you trying to tell me that you are playing for the same team that former NJ Gov. Jim McGrievy plays for???
Posted by: John E. | September 29, 2006 5:29 PM
The Loony Lefters forget about the bombing Clinton did of Iraq in 1998 as well as the invasion of Kosovo.
Dale, in regard to your comment, the GOP leadership has dropped the ball on ethics. But I would never trust the Dems to any better, as they always do worse. Just look to Illinois as an example.
Posted by: John D | September 30, 2006 3:32 PM