DeLay Indictments Ripple Across the Country

	• What Was DeLay Indicted For? • An Opportunity to Cleanse Themselves: Republicans Pass • Consequences of a Culture of Corruption • White House - Of Scandal? • News From the Blog

What Was DeLay Indicted For?

One of the favorite talking points for the dwindling number of defenders of Tom DeLay has been that nobody can even explain the accusations against him. Actually, the specific charges are not so complicated: conspiracy, money laundering, and conspiracy to money launder. The allegations run something like this: Tom DeLay wanted to sweep the Texas State House, and he set up a PAC (Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC) to fund the takeover with corporate donations. The problem was that Texas law specifically forbids the use of corporate money, so one of TRMPAC's cute moves to get around the law was to send $190,000 in corporate money to the RNC, then have the RNC send back the exact same amount in non-corporate money. Thus the money would be "clean." A report out today from the Washington Post has DeLay's lawyer admitting that DeLay was informed that one of his indicted employees sent the money to Washington, and most of the evidence has not even been seen yet. Thus the money would be "clean."

Where it gets complicated is when one steps back to see what this was all really about. The actions performed by DeLay and his PAC resulted in a tidal wave of money that allowed Republicans to take the Texas State House majority for the first time in decades. They quickly went to work on legislation that benefited those same corporate contributors, but there was one priority even higher than that. Just two years after a new redistricting map for US Congressional districts had been passed, the Republicans got to work passing another one. This one was scientifically designed, using computer models to determine the most Republican-favorable arrangement of districts possible - a map worked out by DeLay himself, along with help from Karl Rove and some of the same aides now indicted along with DeLay in Texas. The map would ultimately result in at least five Democrats having their districts taken out from under them.

An extraordinarily thorough and insightful article from John H. Richardson in Esquire Magazine profiles Ronnie Earle, the Texas DA who has been investigating DeLay's PAC. For an in-depth look into the all that is at stake in this case, it's head and shoulders above virtually any other report available. If you're interested in the entire, spectacular story, give it a read.

An Opportunity to Cleanse Themselves:
Republicans Pass

One might think that after years of watching one's party leader straddle and cross ethical lines, including multiple ethics admonishments at the hands of the Republican-led ethics committee, the indictment of that leader might be the last straw. Perhaps a moment to reflect on whether the party had lost its way.

Sadly, no...

Blunt Will Seek to Continue Indicted DeLay's Political Agenda
Bloomberg - September 29, 2005

"U.S. House Republicans chose continuity over change in selecting Roy Blunt, a long-time lieutenant to Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to step into Delay's role after a Texas indictment forced him out of his post...

"Republican lawmakers said they rallied around Blunt, a one- time university president who became a top fund-raiser, in part to ensure stability. 'This is very similar to a battlefield situation where a leader has been wounded and taken out of battle,' Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, said in an interview. The party decided to 'stick with the chain of command,' he said."

The Washington Post fleshes out the Blunt-DeLay comparison...

"Although the two have very different personalities, Blunt has modeled his political career on DeLay's, becoming in many respects a replica of the former majority leader. Like DeLay, Blunt quickly set up multiple political committees to establish a power base in the House.

"Blunt has strengthened and enlarged DeLay's 'K Street' alliance with Washington lobbyists. The two have a similar network of major corporate donors. Both have extensive financial ties to the Washington lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group. Some of Blunt's actions have raised ethical issues."

But the loyalty of House Republicans was demonstrated by more than just the quick acceptance of his "replica" as their Leader. Despite massive public pressure, only three out of 218 Republicans in the House who have taken DeLay's dirty money have cleansed themselves of it by giving it back. And indeed, as soon as his first indictment broke, the most powerful members of the party leapt to his defense.

Rep. John Doolittle of California, not content with his ample ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, called accusations against DeLay "Baseless Attacks". In a press release, Rep. John Doolittle states, "Tom DeLay has provided and will continue to provide our country principled and effective leadership in spite of these baseless attacks."

Rep. David Dreier, also of California, the Rules Committee Chairman and point man for the Republican attempts to gut the ethics rules, states that the Republican Party will follow in Delay's path. In a recent press release, Rep. David Dreier claims that, "We are united in our determination to move forward for the good of the country, the Conference and our agenda. Tom DeLay's leadership has given us all a path to follow." [Dreier Press Release, 9/28/05]

Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, who chairs our Republican counterpart, the NRCC, apparently spoke for the collective Republican congressional campaigns with a swift talking point defense. In a press release, Rep. Tom Reynolds states, "The Majority Leader has been a highly effective leader of our conference. Democrats resent Tom DeLay because he routinely defeats them - both politically and legislatively. Although much of Ronnie Earle's investigation has been conducted in secret, we know that he is an unapologetic Democrat partisan."

What makes Reynolds' quote troubling is his willingness to distort facts and smear an upstanding prosecutor. For anybody wondering about DA Ronnie Earle's partisanship, the fact that he has prosecuted about four times as many Democrats as Republicans is only part of the extremely extensive answer to the contrary of the Republican spin. The same article in Esquire explains more about Earle...

If he wanted to lay it on thick, he could mention that he's been voted Texas Prosecutor of the Year and Public Administrator of the Year for Austin or that his office was listed among the country's ten model offices by the National District Attorneys Association or that the Harvard professor who wrote "Broken Windows"?the influential study that helped Rudy Giuliani clean up New York?called his office "one of the most thoroughly problem-oriented agencies in criminal justice today." He could even give Fox a tweak, pointing out that Bill "Fair and Balanced" O'Reilly once singled him out for "innovative approaches to law enforcement." Or he could brag about the time in the early nineties when crime in Austin and Travis County dropped 19 percent a year, faster than in any other city in America.

Consequences of a Culture of Corruption

We have often discussed the culture of corruption that has enveloped the Republicans in the House of Representatives, but it is all to easy to lose track of the actual consequences of special treatment for lobbyists and the institutionalization of pay-for-play. In theory, Congressional Representatives are supposed to actually represent their constituents, whether they are rich, poor, old, young, etc. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership in Washington has largely determined that only lobbyists and major industry interests are worth representing when it comes to major legislation.

Sadly, several reports on the roll-out of the new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit this week brought us a sad reminder of what happens when bills are written for special interests, rather than for the people the bills are ostensibly designed to help. Here's a brief flashback to how just one terrible aspect of that bill came about.

Why we pay so much for drugs
Time - January 27, 2004

Another provision in the bill, related to pricing but with the opposite goal, managed to stay in the law. "Subpart 2, Prescription Drug Plans" contained three paragraphs that will have an enduring effect on how much America's elderly pay for prescription drugs: "(i) Noninterference. In order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary? "(1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and [prescription drug plan] sponsors; and "(2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered ... drugs."

In layman's terms, the bill bars the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which purchases drugs for some seniors under Medicare, from negotiating with drug companies to get better prices, a practice the Federal Government employs routinely in negotiations with other contractors, such as defense suppliers.

"We could have used Medicare's market power to negotiate lower prices for the medicines the program will be buying," said Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, last fall before he voted against the final version of the bill. "Instead, this compromise agreement actually prohibits this commonsense approach to cost containment."

While Medicare doesn't currently pay for outpatient drugs, it does pay for certain medications dispensed by hospitals and doctors. Government auditors have long singled out Medicare for paying inflated prices compared with what hmos and retail pharmacy chains pay for the same drugs. An HHS inspector general's report in 2001 said Medicare reimbursements for two dozen drugs "exceeded actual wholesale prices by $761 million a year."

This is the kind of bill you get when the American people are not your top priority...

Medicare prescription-drug plan stumps seniors
USA Today - October 3, 2005

Most seniors don't understand the new prescription-drug program being offered under Medicare and don't plan to sign up for coverage, even after months of salesmanship by the Bush administration.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last week shows 37% say they understand the program at least somewhat well, but 61% don't. Those figures haven't changed much from polls in July and August.

About one in four seniors, 24%, say they plan to join the program [emphasis added], compared with 54% who say they don't. Twenty-two percent have no opinion. The poll of 275 adults age 65 and older has a margin of error of +/- 7 percentage points.

[...]

"People are very confused," says Vicki Gottlich of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a consumer group. "Part of the confusion stems from all the variables. If you're going to get mailings from 15 different companies offering a different array of plans, you might throw it all in the garbage."

Not only is the plan almost impossible to understand - even for seniors who have received numerous advertisements (paid for by the American taxpayer) touting the program and purporting to explain the enrollment process - but its ever expanding price tag is well above what it would be if reasonable cost-containment measures had been enacted.

In addition to the problems that are now surfacing with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Hurricane Katrina has exposed major shortcomings in the recently enacted Energy Bill, problems the Republicans appear eager to exacerbate if it means they can shower more money and favors on energy special interests. The DCCC communications department has the details on their newest energy handout proposals:

How A Bill Becomes a Law: By Congressman Joe Barton

According to a New Report Today, Americans Are Paying More at the Pump but Getting a Free Lesson in How a Bill Becomes a Law in the Republican Congress

How a Barton Bill Becomes a Law:

1. Call special interests.

"Both power plant and oil refinery officials said they had begun lobbying for the bill's passage at the request of [Energy Committee Chairman Joe] Barton's aides." [Washington Post, 10/6/05]

2. Rake in some cash.

$1,735,158: Energy money taken by Congressman Joe Barton. [Center for Responsive Politics]

3. Push a bogus policy.

"Some of the bill's biggest beneficiaries, however, said they welcome less regulation but cannot say whether it would translate into many new refineries... in a series of memos in the 1990s, major energy companies warned they needed to reduce the number of refineries to boost profits." [Washington Post, 10/6/05]

4. Leave the American people behind.

$2.94: Average price per gallon of gas American families are paying today.

(Washington, D.C.) - Tomorrow, Republicans will introduce a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that lays out plans to increase air pollution under the guise of increasing domestic oil production.

According to a new Washington Post report, the Republican effort to boost oil refineries will increase air pollution and experts say gas prices may not even go down. Even the leaders in the petroleum industry are say that this bill is not likely to boost capacity since the oil corporations made a business decision to reduce the number of refineries and therefore the bill will not bring down gas prices: "The United States has not built a refinery since 1976, and in a series of memos in the 1990s, major energy companies warned they needed to reduce the number of refineries to boost profits." [Washington Post, 10/6/05]

"In what is only the latest example of Republican 'let's make a deal' legislation, Congressman Joe Barton's GAS Act sacrifices the air we breathe for petroleum corporation profits and doesn't do anything to lower the price at the pump," said Bill Burton, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "With Americans already having to change their way of life because of gas prices, now is not the time for more special interest giveaways and rubber-stamp representation."

Does Nothing to Lower Gas Prices. The only provision in the bill which even claims to deal with high gas prices is toothless and rolls back existing price gouging measures. The so-called price gouging provision is directed toward small retail gas station owners even though it is the large refineries posting record profits this year. The provision lacks real enforcement authority since it does not allow for state attorneys general to enforce the Federal law. Nor does it make market manipulation a cause of action. Finally, the provision fails to cover other fuels. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has forecast natural gas prices to rise by 71 percent in the Midwest but natural gas, along with home heating oil and propane, are not even covered under the proposal.

Gives Gifts to a Refining Industry Making Record Profits. Even though the oil refinery industry has seen record profits, the bill provides a new "regulatory insurance subsidy" that could put taxpayers on the hook for unlimited damages if a refinery is stalled in litigation or must meet new regulatory standards. The bill would give away Federal lands and closed military bases to oil companies to build refineries, without allowing any public input. The real reason refineries haven't added capacity in the past 30 years is because by removing capacity from the market, profit margins grow. We know that refinery margins are now at an all-time high, and new regulatory subsidies and special treatment for this industry are at best a dubious policy.

Guts the Clean Air Act & Preventing Pollution from Power Plants. The bill eliminates a key U.S. EPA Clean Air Act enforcement program for U.S. industries known as New Source Review that forces power plants to install modern air pollution technologies. The result will be more toxic pollutants like mercury in the air and water of communities living downwind from coal-fired power plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some industry analysts question whether Clean Air rules need relaxing. They say the same market forces that resulted in consolidation in the number of U.S. refineries in recent decades are already spurring interest in expansion projects, even with today's Clean Air guidelines." [CQ Weekly, 10/3/05]

Policies have consequences, consequences that directly impact the lives of Americans. When a bill is written that places the desires of a particular industry over the needs of individuals because industry lobbyists have become part of the legislative team, then it should be no surprise when the resulting bill is a sham. We're seeing it with both the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and the Republican approach to energy policy - bills that costs too much and do too little for those who truly need help - and it will continue as long as the party of corruption and cronyism continues to run the Congress.

White House of Scandal?

Despite the numerous scandals lapping at the heels of Republicans in Washington, for the most part the White House has been spared from official indictment. That all changed last month, however, as the top White House procurement officer was arrested and later indicted in connection to super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But perhaps even more threatening, the Grand Jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame seems to be winding down with its sights apparently sitting squarely inside the White House.

Almost two years after the probe began, it appears to finally be coming to a close. Two prominent White House officials, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove, have both been identified as having encouraged reporters to write stories on Plame in a petty effort to discredit her husband (former diplomat Joe Wilson, who wrote an Op/Ed raising questions about President Bush's linking of Saddam Hussein with uranium from Africa):

Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer
Washington Post - 10/2/05

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.

It has long been speculated that Miller's testimony was the final piece of evidence that Fitzgerald was attempting to collect. Murray Waas, who has written extensively on this subject, reported in early August of this year that "the investigation had become 'stalled'...almost entirely by the refusal of Miller and Cooper to testify." Thus, with Miller's testimony last week, all eyes have been on Fitzgerald's next move. That appeared to finally come yesterday, when reports surfaced that Karl Rove had agreed to testify for a fourth time before the grand jury:

Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case
AP - 10/6/05

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

Lawrence O'Donnell, who was the first to break the story that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source, sees this as a sign of desperation on the part of Rove and his attorney:

What this means is Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, believes his client is definitely going to be indicted.

So, Luskin is sending Rove back into the grand jury to try to get around the prosecutor and sell his innocence directly to the grand jurors. Legal defense work doesn't get more desperate than this. The prosecutor is happy to let Rove go under oath again--without his lawyer in the room--and try to wiggle out of the case. The prosecutor has every right to expect that Rove's final under-oath grilling will either add a count or two to the indictment or force Rove to flip and testify against someone else.

We will certainly stay tuned on this one. As Sidney Blumenthal noted yesterday, if Rove is charged with a crime and forced to leave the administration, it could have a disastrous effect on the entire Republican machine:

Fall of the Rovean empire?
Salon.com - 10/6/05

Now all the investigations are coming to a climax. Will it mean the decline and fall of the Rovean empire? "Rove is the ultimate center of everything," said [Marshall] Wittman. "All roads lead to Rove. If it's Rove, everything collapses. People say there is no indispensable man. That's not true."

In addition to the Plame investigation, David Safavian, who until last month was the administration's top procurement officer - meaning he was responsible (among other things) for doling out the no-bid contracts after Hurricane Katrina that FEMA has now agreed to re-open to competitive bidding - was indicted this week in connection to one of the many Jack Abramoff investigations:

Former Chief Procurement Officer Indicted
Washington Post - 10/6/05

A federal grand jury has indicted the Bush administration's former chief procurement official on charges of making false statements and obstructing investigations into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The five felony counts in Wednesday's indictment charge David H. Safavian with obstructing Senate and executive branch investigations into whether he aided Abramoff in efforts to acquire property controlled by the General Services Administration around the nation's capital.

Both probes looked into an August 2002 golf outing that Safavian took to Scotland with Abramoff, former Christian Coalition executive Ralph Reed, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and others.

Safavian, a former lobbying associate of Abramoff, is the first person beyond Abramoff himself to face charges arising out of the probe of the lobbyist, who is a major Republican fundraiser with close ties to GOP leaders in Congress.

If this represents the start of an invasion of the White House by the myriad Abramoff scandals, then Republican troubles have only begun. As Sidney Blumenthal also noted in his article linked above, the Republican machine is chock full of connections between the various players, and any one investigation could begin pulling the thread that unravels the entire sordid web:

In stable systems, individuals are replaceable parts. Republicanism as constructed under Bush is a juggernaut that cannot afford to scrape an iceberg.

The Republican scandals converge on operators who are the center of the oligarchy. Their own relationships are complicated and tangled. But the outcome of the scandals affecting these major actors will inevitably unravel the Republican project.

Surely more to come...

News From the Blog

Cute, But No Cigar
Tom DeLay's spin gets desperate.

Special Counsel on Black?
House Dems demand special counsel to investigation the demotion of a US Attorney who was probing Jack Abramoff's work in Guam.

Pombo At It Again
Anti-environmental extremist Richard Pombo has set some new standards in recent weeks.

Ethics Committee Update
As DeLay's troubles bubble and boil, the Republican Ethics Committee Chairman rushes to his defense.

Quotables
Read some rather ironic quotes from Tom DeLay's early days on the moral high horse.

Large Text Version

	TOM DELAY'S DELUSIONAL CLAIM OF A VAST CONSPIRACY WOLF BLITZER: What evidence is there they consulted with Ronnie Earle, that they talked to him, or they had any dealings with him whatsoever? TOM DELAY: That evidence is coming. **** TOM DELAY'S OWN LAWYER REFUTES DELAY?S CLAIM ANDERSON COOPER: Your client has indicated this is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, to sort of coin a term that we have heard before in other circumstances. Do you think Ronnie Earle is part of that or is he working independent of that, in your belief? DELAY LAWYER DICK DEGUERIN: ...I think Ronnie works independently. **** "The credibility of the House leadership has not been this low since 1998." -- A Republican lobbyist quoted in The Hill