Stimulus? Job growth? Recovery? The fact is we are bloating government even more with do nothing positions,  at the expense of private sector aide and stimulus: “The number of federal employees making over $100,000 per year has exploded in the first 18 months of the recession, USA Today reports, sending the total percentage from 14 percent to 19 percent. The highest-paid federal workers are seeing the largest increases: In the same period, the number of civil servants making over $150,000 jumped from 1,868 to 10,100. When the recession began, only one person at the Department of Transportation was making over $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees do.”

Congress fails to continue to grasp a simple fact:
Democratic Republics in a free market capitalism economic system CANNOT create wealth or jobs. They can only redistribute it, which is occurring now. OR Congress is smart and taking advantage (as Rahm Emmanuel so succinctly reminded us ) of a crisis to redistribute that wealth, with an underlying disdain for capitalism. Either way, the people of this country will not stand for a Congress or an Administration that does not represent the values of the majority. (NOT the minority of citizens)

So, they either change the current policies before November or get ready for a huge ruling party turnover. And, I’m sure that 2012 is very much up in the air for the Presidency, unless Obama learns (as Clinton and other have) to govern from the center, which is where the voters are…
If not, well…Hillary and Bill will be picking out new china for the White House in 2012.

Hilarious! This is like watching a grade school argument unfold. Democrats tossed the Republicans a hard ball (we will indict and prosecute former Bush lawyers for advising legalities of torture) – so the Republicans toss the ball back “you knew this was happening and never objected” – The political winds have shifted and now pols are getting caught in a sandstorm. Even Majority leader, Steny Hoyer, is asking for ALL the facts to be revealed. My guess? This will die a slow death because both parties would be harmed. In the meantime – more lies, deceit and distractions while Rome is burning…

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah. Source says Nancy Pelosi didn’t object about waterboard usage because she wasn’t personally briefed about it. Source says Nancy Pelosi didn’t object about waterboard usage because she wasn’t personally briefed about it. This appears to contradict Pelosi’s account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it. Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi’s spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. This source says Pelosi didn’t object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it — only her aide had been told. The source said Pelosi supported a letter that Harman sent to the administration at the time raising concerns. The source asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of matters discussed in classified intelligence briefings.

Pelosi admits attending one briefing in September 2002, but at a news conference last month, she was adamant that she did not know waterboarding was used. “At that or any other briefing, and that was the only briefing that I was briefed on in that regard, we were not — I repeat, we were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used, ” Pelosi said on April 23. Some Republicans have called for Pelosi to testify at congressional hearings. The number two House Democrat — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland — said Tuesday, “I think the facts need to get out” regarding what members of Congress had been told about harsh interrogations. But when asked whether Pelosi testifying would be appropriate, Hoyer did not directly answer the question, saying, “The issue is what was done. If you don’t have the facts pounded on the table, they (Republicans) are pounding on the table, or they are pounding on Speaker Pelosi. Take your pick. But they are doing so as a distraction, as a distraction from what was done in this case.”

Bob Ney’s best known Congressional work was on the election reform efforts founded in the wake of the confused 2000 voting in Florida, and his support and backing for the “Stand Up For Steel” crusade and resulting laws. From 2001 to 2006, Ney was Chairman of the House Administration Committee. As chair of that committee, he oversaw operations in the Capitol complex and was sometimes known as the “Mayor of Capitol Hill”. Ney also gained notoriety when he mandated, as Chairman of the House Administration Committee, that “french fries” be renamed “freedom fries” on House of Representatives food service menus, to indicate displeasure with France’s lack of support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Before he pled guilty, Ney was identified in the guilty pleas of Jack Abramoff, former Tom DeLay deputy chief of staff Tony Rudy, former DeLay press secretary Michael Scanlon and former Ney chief of staff Neil Volz for receiving lavish gifts in exchange for political favors.

On May 18, 2006, the House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into bribery allegations against Ney, and on August 7, 2006, Ney announced that he was withdrawing from the 2006 election race. On September 15, 2006, the Justice Department filed Ney’s guilty pleas to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to a charge of falsifying financial disclosure forms. Both charges are related to actions taken on behalf of Abramoff’s clients in exchange for bribes, as well as separate actions taken on behalf of a foreign businessman in exchange for over $50,000 in gambling sprees at foreign private casinos. Ney is the first member of Congress to admit to criminal charges in the Abramoff investigation, which has focused on the actions of several current and former Republican lawmakers who had been close to the former lobbyist. Ney resigned from the House of Representatives on November 3, 2006. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He was released on August 15, 2008 after serving 17 months.
Now? He is becoming a talkshow host…so – when all else fails in life, become a “talking head”.

Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009
From NBC’s Chuck Todd

In the midst of the congressional outrage over bonuses and bailouts, many of the very firms who benefitted from TARP funds are still making political donations. And the politicians are still taking them. According to the latest F.E.C. data for February, several members of Congress who have been critical of the federal government’s bailout of U.S. companies have received campaign contributions just in the last six weeks – from the firms they bailed out. Campaign-finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer says the government’s been bailing out banks and other major “too-big-to-fail” firms — as these same companies continue to use their PACs to make contributions. “It all adds up to kind of a magic circle involving the government, TARP recipients, members of Congress, and campaign contributions.” The reality, of course, is that these contributions, individually, aren’t a lot of money. But many members of Congress (including Speaker Pelosi and Financial Services Chair Barney Frank) have decided against taking any of the money. The optics of this for both the banks and for the members of Congress is bad, and only feeds the credibility problems both entities have with the American public.

So who is getting money and giving it right back to the politicians? Here’s a list of companies who received at least $1 billion in TARP funds and in February alone also gave money to members of Congress or national parties: (Note: more TARP-recipients may have given money in February but not every company PAC reports their contributions monthly, some do it quarterly, meaning we won’t know until mid-April if these figures are actually higher)

Citigroup
Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Chrysler
American Express
KeyCorp
BB&T
Huntington Shares

Now here’s a list of House leadership and banking committee members who got money from these bailed-out companies:
(Note: Some members of Congress received contributions directly to their campaign accounts and some received money to their leadership PACs.)
Steve Austria, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Melissa Bean, D-Ill., $5,000 from Bank of America
Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $1,500 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
John Boehner, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from American Express; $1,500 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Kevin Brady, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from American Express
Eric Cantor, R-Va., $2,500 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from Chrysler; $2,500 from American Express
Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of America
Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., $1,200 from Huntington Shares
Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Steny Hoyer, D-Md., $1,500 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Leonard Lance, R-N.J., $1,000 from Citigroup; $2,000 from Goldman Sachs
Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of America
Gary Miller, R-Calif., $1,000 from Bank of America
Gwen Moore, D-Wis., $2,500 from Bank of America
Richard Neal, D-Mass., $4,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from American Express
Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Devin Nunes, R-Calif., $5,000 from Bank of America
Glenn Nye, D-Va., $250 from BB&T
Mike Pence, R-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., $1,000 from Chrysler
Mike Rogers, R-Mich., $1,000 from Chrysler
Pete Sessions, R-Texas, $5,000 from Bank of America
Lamar Smith, R-Texas, $1,000 from American Express
Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mel Watt, D-N.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from BB&T; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC

But Senators also benefitted:
(Note: Both Reid and Shelby say they returned their checks.)

Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Robert Bennett, R-Utah, $1,000 from Chrysler
Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Chrysler
Richard Burr, R-N.C., $5,000 from Bank of America
Tom Carper, D-Del., $620 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Jim DeMint, R-S.C., $2,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $2,000 from BB&T; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., $1,000 from Citigroup
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., $1,000 from Bank of America
Bob Menendez, D-N.J., $5,000 from Bank of America
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., $2,500 from Citigroup; $4,000 from Bank of America
Harry Reid, D-Nev., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Richard Shelby, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., $2,000 from Chrysler
George Voinovich, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America

And so did the Parties.

The Democrats:
(Note: Both the DSCC and the DCCC say they never received the checks Bank of America reported in their March FEC report)
NDCPAC, $5,000 from Citigroup, $5,000 from Bank of America
Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
DSCC , $15,000 from Bank of America
DCCC, $15,000 from Bank of America
FourOhDems, $1,000 from Huntington Shares

And the Republicans:
HouseConFund, $5,000 from Bank of America
GOP Main Street, $5,000 from Bank of America
NRSC, $15,000 from Bank of America
NRCC $15,000 from Bank of America

Interestingly, Goldman Sachs actually reported members of Congress who refused to cash their checks, including Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., and then-Congressman and now chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

WASHINGTON – The fight over earmarks is not over. For all of President Obama’s promises of reform, a close look at just three of the more than 9,000 earmarks contained in the $410 billion spending bill that he signed last week shows just how hard it will be to clamp down on lawmakers’ pet projects. Take Catalyst Renewables, an energy company that failed to win a $30 million grant from the federal government last year but got a $500,000 earmark courtesy of New York lawmakers.
Or PPG Industries, a manufacturing conglomerate based in Pittsburgh that received nearly $1.2 million to develop windows that double as solar panels, which lawmakers promoted as a one-of-a-kind initiative even though the company has many competitors.
Or the $190,000, secured by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, for a community center in New Orleans to be built by a nonprofit group founded by her brother, allocated even though the project is defunct.

Billions of dollars in earmarks
The three projects represent just a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in earmarks in the bill, but they help illustrate why critics continue to demand more restraints and how new rules announced by Democrats on Capitol Hill and embraced by Mr. Obama might serve to block some initiatives but not others. They also help explain why the larger struggle over who decides how tax dollars are spent — Congress, the Obama administration, or state and local officials — will not be resolved anytime soon, making “Congressionally directed spending” the favorite new euphemism on Capitol Hill, even as earmarks remain a small part of overall federal spending. The earmarks in the bill approved last week totaled between $3.8 billion and more than $12.8 billion depending on how the projects are defined, or roughly 1 to 3 percent of the overall spending. The new rules seek to curb the most blatant abuses of the earmark process by requiring competitive bidding for any money that lawmakers want to direct to a for-profit company. The regulations also require a 20-day review of all earmarks by the relevant federal agency. Lawmakers and agency officials, though, say it might be impossible for agencies to review thousands of projects in such a tight time frame, and at such an early stage of the appropriations process.

Supporters defend the new requirements
Supporters, including the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Representative David R. Obey, defend the new requirements, saying they will bring further accountability on top of a 2007 ethics law that required the disclosure of all earmarks and their sponsors. Mr. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, and others say the competitive bidding rules will allow members of Congress to earmark money for a purpose but not necessarily for a specific for-profit recipient. Critics warn that earmarks can be written in such a way that only a specific recipient can win. A company like Catalyst Renewables, which has its headquarters in Dallas but also has offices in upstate New York, would have had to clear more hurdles to get the $1 million it has received — $500,000 allotments in the last two years — from New York’s Congressional delegation, including Representative John M. McHugh, a Republican who was a sponsor of both earmarks. The company, competing with others last year, failed to obtain a $30 million grant from the Energy Department to build a biorefinery. The company was told that it had not provided sufficient data to win the money. Eric L. Spomer, president of Catalyst Renewables, said the earmark process allowed lawmakers to recognize merit, and finance a smaller aspect of the company’s operations, even though agency officials would not finance the new plant. “We’re a small company and we don’t have a budget for R & D,” Mr. Spomer said. “We knew what we needed to do, but it was a question of where are we going to get the money.”

Worthwhile is in the eye of the beholder
New York lawmakers insist the Energy Department was wrong to deny the grant money. And Mr. Spomer conceded that under a competitive system the company might not have received its earmark either. “Worthwhile,” to be sure, is in the eye of the beholder. When officials at PPG Industries pitched lawmakers for help with their effort to build solar-panel windows, Representative Mike Doyle, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said he recognized a winner. “Nobody else in the world does this work,” declared Mr. Doyle, who sponsored a $1.2 million earmark for PPG. But Covalent Solar, a Massachusetts start-up founded by researchers at M.I.T., said it was one of several companies working to develop nearly identical technology and would eagerly bid for federal money if given the chance. “We would immediately submit a proposal,” said the company’s president, Jon Mapel. Mr. Doyle, who just completed six years on the House ethics committee, said he had long published his earmark requests and would proudly defend his efforts to support businesses in his district. He said that the Energy Department already oversees the program that will direct the money to PPG, making the 20-day review superfluous, and that competitive bidding would be mostly pointless. “If this makes people feel better, go ahead and do it,” Mr. Doyle said. He said he was unaware of competitors who were working on similar technology, but suggested they might not have the track record with the Energy Department that PPG did.

Critics: Focus on local interests is problem
Critics of earmarks say Mr. Doyle’s focus on local interests represents a major problem. “This is Congress picking the winner that happens to be in the lawmakers’ district, rather than unleashing America’s promise and saying, ‘Here’s the problem, here’s what we are trying to fund, and let companies across America see if they can actually meet that need,” said Steve Ellis, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks and opposes earmarks. Mr. Mapel said he worried that bigger, more established companies had an unfair advantage in the earmark process. In its quest for earmarks, PPG was represented by the PMA Group, a lobbying firm being investigated by the F.B.I. for its role in directing campaign contributions to lawmakers who provided millions of dollars in earmarks for the firm’s clients. In a written statement, a PPG spokesman said the company had reviewed the matter and found no evidence of misconduct. Even earmarks for nonprofits can be complicated, as evidenced by the $190,000 secured by Ms. Landrieu for the Lake Area Community Center, a nonprofit group founded by her brother Martin. Ms. Landrieu, in an interview, said she had been aware of her brother’s support for the center but not that he personally had incorporated the nonprofit group. Still, she said, she would have backed the earmark. The project does not seem to violate ethics rules that bar senators from requesting earmarks in which they or an immediate family member has a “pecuniary interest.” It is unclear if a 20-day review by the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have found that the project was defunct and kept it out of the budget bill.
“That project is not off the ground at all,” Mr. Landrieu said in an interview. “There is no funding for it, other than the federal money that has been talked about.” Officials said that projects could always fall apart, and that agencies routinely verified the status of recipients before releasing money. Ms. Landrieu’s office said HUD would not be likely to release money for the project.

Unfair to suggest special treatment?
Mr. Landrieu said it would be unfair for critics to suggest special treatment. “To put the message out or to suggest that you know an earmark is set aside because I was involved in something is a little bit misleading,” he said. “Mary, as my sister, and as a U.S. senator, was extremely interested in helping that neighborhood to recovery, not just that neighborhood but every neighborhood in New Orleans.” Ms. Landrieu said that she supported further reform of the earmark process but that lawmakers often had a better grasp of local needs than agency officials in Washington. “We have to be careful about just jumping to the conclusion that agencies know better and that federal bureaucrats who have never stepped in a place know better than officials who have literally campaigned there door to door,” the senator said. “On the other hand, there have been some gross abuses to the system.”

This story, “Old Problems Resurface in New Earmark Rules,” first appeared in The New York Times.

The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike. The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the largest spending bills in the nation’s history, a $787 billion measure meant to rejuvenate a sluggish economy. The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October. On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to send his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress. He did not take a formal position on the bill passed by the House. “It’s a big document,” a White House official said. “We are still reviewing it.” Republicans, however, did not mince words in describing the spending bill as wasteful. And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine. Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said Mr. Obama’s call for fiscal responsibility, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, was “sandwiched between two wasteful spending bills.” Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, pointed out that the new bill came just two days after the White House held a forum to promote fiscal restraint.

If I believed Obama at his word, I expect the bill to be sent back to Congress with the reply: “Clean it up”. Will that happen? If it doesn’t, then I will feel that once again, politicians cannot be trusted, deal only in rhetoric and are only interested in their own personal agendas. Those teary eyed faces on election night – they have been duped as I have. The only difference is that perhaps I recognize it, while they will be in denial for 4 or 8 years….whatever will become of the US? I fear deeply for our children and grandchildren, more so than ever in my life.

What set Abramoff apart from legitimate Washington power brokers, federal prosecutors say, was his willingness to exploit an extensive network of Capitol Hill contacts — from well-positioned congressional staffers to members of the Republican leadership — regardless of the rules. “The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive,” Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said. “Government officials and governmental action are not for sale.” Abramoff’s campaign of corruption officially ended Tuesday (1/3/2006) when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. In addition to about 10 years in prison, he may be forced to repay more than $25 million, according to court documents. Prosecutors say Abramoff’s cooperation is central to a wide-ranging corruption investigation that stretches from Capitol Hill to congressional districts across the USA. At least a dozen FBI field offices have been drawn into the inquiry, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said. Authorities have declined to disclose the number of possible targets in the ongoing inquiry, but it goes beyond one member of Congress or his office. “No criminal resources of the FBI will be spared in support of this important mission,” Swecker said.

MAJOR FIGURES IN INVESTIGATION
Some leading figures in the Washington corruption investigation:
Jack Abramoff: The central figure is a Republican lobbyist who cultivated ties on Capitol Hill over a decade with two prominent Washington firms, Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig. Abramoff kept luxury boxes at sports venues where he entertained clients and lawmakers, and he owned a restaurant in Washington.

Michael Scanlon: A former press secretary for Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, he made millions when Abramoff counseled clients to hire his public relations business. Unknown to the clients, the firm did little work but funneled kickbacks to Abramoff, according to prosecutors. Scanlon pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery in November.

David Safavian: The former procurement chief at President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget was charged last fall with lying and obstructing justice in the Abramoff case. Safavian, a former lobbying partner of Abramoff, accompanied the lobbyist in 2002 on a golfing trip to Scotland, and he discussed Abramoff’s interest in acquiring federal property, according to the charges.

Adam Kidan: Abramoff’s Florida business partner pleaded guilty last month to fraud in connection with a deal to buy SunCruz, a company that runs casino ships.

Rep. Bob Ney: An Ohio Republican, Ney is chairman of the House Administration Committee and sometimes is referred to as “the mayor of Capitol Hill.” Federal documents allege that “Representative #1″ helped Abramoff clients in return for trips, meals and entertainment. Ney’s attorney said he’s the lawmaker involved. Ney denies wrongdoing.

The plea agreement outlined a scheme by which Abramoff and his secret partner, public relations operative Michael Scanlon, billed Indian tribes for exorbitant fees, then split the profits. Abramoff hid some of the money from the IRS by directing it to a non-profit group he established, the Capital Athletic Foundation.
Abramoff’s share of the kickbacks from fees paid by four Indian tribes in Louisiana, Texas, Michigan and Mississippi came to more than $20 million, prosecutors said.

Abramoff and Scanlon also provided “a stream of things of value” to public officials to get their help. The stream included “foreign and domestic travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, election support … employment for relatives of officials and campaign contributions,” court documents say. Among the recipients were a House member identified by the lawmaker’s attorney as Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and members of Ney’s staff. They got trips to the Northern Marianas Islands in 2000, to the Super Bowl in Tampa in 2001, and to Scotland’s storied St. Andrews golf course in 2002, according to the documents. Ney also held fundraising events at Abramoff’s now-defunct Washington restaurant, Signatures. In return, Ney and his aides put statements in the Congressional Record supportive of Abramoff’s interests and helped an Abramoff client get a wireless telephone contract with the House of Representatives, the government charged. In a statement, Ney denied that he was influenced by Abramoff.

Abramoff also funneled $50,000 to the wife of an unnamed congressional aide in 2000 and 2001, in return for the aide’s help in blocking legislation for a client. Abramoff’s guilty plea follows weeks of other scandal news involving government officials.

Republican Tom DeLay stepped down from his position as House majority leader last year after he was indicted on money-laundering charges in a separate case in his home state of Texas. DeLay has close ties to Abramoff, who employed some of the Texan’s former aides and paid for a separate golf trip to Scotland for DeLay. Randy “Duke” Cunningham resigned from the House in November after pleading guilty to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18 found that 49% of American adults say they believe “most members of Congress are corrupt.” That’s 1 percentage point below the level of 1994, when voters turned control of Congress over to Republicans. The GOP appears to be tarred by scandal slightly more than the Democrats; 47% said “almost all” or “many” Republicans are corrupt, compared with 44% for Democrats.
Among registered voters, 55% said the issue of corruption will be the “most important” or a “very important” factor in their decision on whom to vote for next year. The poll has a margin of error of +/—3 to 5 percentage points, depending on the question.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan called Abramoff’s confessed conduct “outrageous.”
“He needs to be held to account, and he needs to be punished,” McClellan said. Abramoff was among President Bush’s Pioneers, who raised at least $100,000 for his re-election in 2004.

WASHINGTON — A longtime former aide to Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran has been charged in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, accused of accepting gifts and granting favors for the imprisoned former lobbyist. Court documents filed Thursday say Ann Copland took thousands of dollars worth of event tickets and meals out in Washington from Abramoff and associates at his firm. Prosecutors say the gifts were in exchange for her favors benefiting one of their top clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Charges against Copland were outlined in a legal document called a criminal information, which only can be filed with the defendant’s consent and typically signals a plea deal. The document says Copland understood that Senate rules prohibit staffers from soliciting gifts from lobbyists, but still secretly did so.
“It was a purpose of the conspiracy for defendant Copland to be unjustly enriched by her receipt of things of value, and to conceal these gifts from the U.S. Senate and the people of the United States,” the document said. Copland worked for Cochran for 29 years, then abruptly left his office last spring after Abramoff prosecutors had netted a dozen convictions in the scandal.Cochran’s office refused to comment on the case Friday.

Campaign finance records show that Abramoff, his associates and his clients gave Cochran at least $82,500 in campaign donations during the years in question, from 2001 to 2004. But there is no indication from the documents that Cochran, a Republican, knew of Copland’s behavior or is being investigated.
E-mails revealed in court documents show Abramoff’s firm went out of its way to keep Copland happy because, as lobbyist Todd Boulanger once wrote to his boss, “she’s more valuable to us than a rank-and-file house member.” The e-mail was revealed in a plea agreement Boulanger struck recently .
Prosecutors included a copy of an e-mail that Copland sent to one of Abramoff’s deputies, Kevin Ring, in March 2002, detailing a list of tickets she wanted and how many for each event. She asked to see Paul McCartney, an ice skating event, ‘NSync, Green Day and a hockey game. She also asked for two to six tickets to see the circus, but only if they were floor seats.

Ring, currently awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to corrupt government officials, forwarded the note to Abramoff saying, “Wow … We already told her she was fine on McCartney, ice skating, and Green Day _ although we need to let her know how many tix she can have for each. Also, please review the other requests and let me know what we can do there.” Abramoff wrote, “She’ll get everything she wants.”
Other court documents show that Copland was not shy to complain when she didn’t like her accommodations, like when she got the lobbyists’ luxury suite for a Baltimore Orioles game. “Ackkk. Only beer and no Hebrew National hot dogs,” she complained in an e-mail to Boulanger.
Copland sounded angry in another e-mail from the firm’s box suite at a the ice-skating event after no food had arrived for her party of 14 people. “I’m freaking out here,” she wrote, and Boulanger replied that she would be reimbursed for any food she had to buy. The documents say Copland “on repeated occasions” provided official actions benefiting Abramoff’s firm, particularly the Mississippi Choctaws.

For example, when Copland asked a lobbyist for the suite at the Orioles game in 2003, he responded in part by asking whether a Choctaw provision the firm no longer wanted had been removed from an appropriations bill. Copland assured him it had, and the final version of the bill contained an explicit statement that the provision “is no longer necessary.”

“Watergate” is a general term used to describe a complex web of political scandals between 1972 and 1974. The word refers to the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. In addition to the hotel, the Watergate complex houses many business offices. It was here that the office of the Democratic National Committee was burgled on June 17th, 1972. The burglary and subsequent cover-up eventually led to moves to impeach President Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned the presidency on 8 August 1974.
“Watergate” is now an all-encompassing term used to refer to:
- political burglary
- bribery
- extortion
- phonetapping
- conspiracy
- obstruction of justice
- destruction of evidence
- tax fraud
- illegal use of government agencies such as the CIA and the FBI
- illegal campaign contributions
- use of public money for private purposes.
Most of all, “Watergate” is synonymous with abuse of power.