He's got his deal and is going to plead guilty to some of the charges just after noon today. The federal charges he's going to cop to will get him no more than 10 years in prison in exchange for his cooperation with investigators. I'm not sure if that would run consecutively or concurrently with the seven years he's looking at from the Florida charges in the SunCruz fiasco.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1465619

 

WASHINGTON Jan 3, 2006 — Lobbyist Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to federal charges in Washington and Miami, clearing the way for him to cooperate in a massive government investigation of influence peddling involving members of Congress, lawyers said Tuesday.

 

As part of the deal, prosecutors were filing conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges against the embattled lobbyist, a Justice Department official said.

 

Abramoff was scheduled to appear at a hearing in U.S. District Court here later Tuesday, said department spokesman Bryan Sierra. Abramoff was expected to plead guilty to three charges as part of his agreement.

 

Abramoff was then to plead guilty to two criminal charges in Florida stemming from a 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats, said Neal Sonnett, his attorney there.

 

. . .

The real key is not mentionned here: Most of the people in the scheme below Abramoff have already reached plea agreements, so the only people he can really implicate are the people he dealt with in politics. Everyone else turned before him, so turning him doesn't get anything except a shorter jail sentence for him unless he can implicate the political guys he dealt with.

Everyone else turned before him, so turning him doesn't get anything except a shorter jail sentence for him unless he can implicate the political guys he dealt with.

 

But I think getting at the Congresspersons and aides who knowingly involved themselves in his corrupt schemes is precisely the point here. Prosecutors won't reveal a final senence until they see how wide a net Jack's cooperation helps them cast.

That was sort of my point as well...this plea deal has to be directed at the big guys.

 

This WaPo piece does a decent job of covering most of the tentacles. The one thing it seems to make obvious is that Rep. Ney is burnt toast, and that a few others are likely to go down as well (Delay is in that level - not burnt toast yet, but could very well be.)

 

One interesting thing here is that Abramoff isn't just plea-bargaining to 10 years...he's plea barganing 1 set of crimes for 10 years, and he's facing another set of crimes in Florida that he's plea barganing for 7 years. If I understand this case correctly, depending on his level of cooperation and who he in fact is able to implicate, prosecutors could decide to have him serve those terms concurrently (so he'd only serve 10 years) or consecutively (so he'd serve 17 years).

ThinkProgress has a very nice, succinct, yet detailed summary of almost all of the tentacles of this scandal.

ThinkProgress has a very nice, succinct, yet detailed summary of almost all of the tentacles of this scandal.

 

Great site. CNN mentioned it earlier tonight while I was on the treadmill at the gym.

And to think, it might have been one jilted ex-fiance that started the whole thing crumbling down.

 

Scanlon Screwed the Pooch - and a bunch of Congresspeople too.

“Mr. Abramoff says he has information that could implicate 60 lawmakers” - WSJ.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Fox News's Brit Hume and Tony Snow were all tapped to serve at a fundraiser for one of Abramoff's shady charities.

 

Link 1

 

Link 2.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Fox News's Brit Hume and Tony Snow were all tapped to serve at a fundraiser for one of Abramoff's shady charities.

 

Link 1

 

Link 2.

And only 1% of the money raised actually went to the charity.

 

Talk about overhead. . .

Dan Rather was caught up in a similar event in 2001, though the money raised was less and his daughter was involved. And a criminal wasn't hosting the event.

 

I can't wait to see how Matthews, Hume and Snow spin this, though.

 

Original story from Howard Kurtz at the WaPo.

 

Brent Bozell's reaction at Townhall.

I can't wait to see how Matthews, Hume and Snow spin this, though.

I don't mind them as much being involved, if they genuinely thought they were working for a charity, then they're really not at fault.

 

However, none of them as far as I know disclosed this fact on their own despite the fact that the name of the charity involved should have come across their eyes several times. Nor did they disclose the fact that they should have known Abramoff did the inviting, and that is an important fact. And furthermore...they've actually commented on the Abramoff case several times without telling that they had this connection.

 

Matthews, for example, just a few days ago, said of the abramoff case,

It's not gong to be part of a larger story of Washington this year, I think.

Now seriously, why should we believe his opinion is non-biased, when if Abramoff did become a large part of the story this year, it would add some tarnish to his reputation through his connection to this case? He has reason to not want it to become part of this year's story, and he didn't disclose that.

From the American Idle Citypages blog:

 

 

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

 

Just thought you may want to see just how many people Abramoffakuh could reach.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

 

Just thought you may want to see just how many people Abramoffakuh could reach.

Paul Wellstone returns his $1,000 from the grave.

 

But really -- f***ing Hades. This is hilarious that so much of the corruption is coming out so blatantly in the open now. Congress really is a bunch of whores...and by that I mean no offense to people who actually have sex and work for their money.

And only 1% of the money raised actually went to the charity.

 

 

he must have been following standard U.N. protocol for dispersing charitable donations.

 

:rolly