Jefferson indicted -- finally

I was getting tired of waiting for this.

Louisiana congressman William Jefferson received more than $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more in nearly a dozen separate schemes to enrich himself by using his office to broker business deals in Africa, according to a federal indictment Monday.

The charges came almost two years after investigators raided Jefferson's home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.

The indictment lists 16 counts, including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. He faces a possible maximum sentence of 235 years.

At least now we know why an indictment took so long: the case was complicated and extensive, with front companies, international contacts and the like.

I have to point out that charges do not equal guilt, and Jefferson vehemently maintains his innocence. But IMO the evidence against him is pretty overwhelming. Not to mention the two associates that have already pleaded guilty to handling bribes -- and fingered Jefferson in the process.

Now that he's actually been indicted, Democrats can punish him more completely. After the FBI raids he lost his seat on the powerful Ways and Means committee; now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to move quickly to take away his one remaining committee seat, on the Small Business Committee. At that point he would essentially be powerless and irrelevant. If and when he is convicted, he would almost certainly be expelled from Congress.

Repellently gleeful noises from certain quarters aside, there is probably nobody happier than Congressional Democrats that indictments have finally surfaced. For months they were saddled with Jefferson's "we all know he's guilty" presence, while being unable to do anything about it. But now they can actually do something to say "we don't condone this."

That said, I'm very interested to see what the Congressional Black Caucus -- the group that gave Jefferson a standing ovation after he was re-elected -- will say. They'll probably just raise the "innocent until proven guilty" trope to avoid either supporting or condemning him. But it's something of a sad commentary that I'm not confident of that.

Finally, let's cross into partisanland and examine the ridiculous standards writers like Mark at Red State think should be applied here.

It’s early in the life of this latest political scandal, but thus far, the silence from Capitol Hill has been deafening.

Um, no on all counts. This isn't the "latest political scandal"; it's a year old. And what silence is he talking about? Pelosi immediately called a press conference to denounce the behavior described in the indictments.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi boldly promised to run the “most open and ethical Congress” in the nation’s history.

I think what really bugs partisan Republicans is that even if Pelosi falls short of that standard, she'll still do better than the most recent Republican-led Congress.

The numbers aren’t in yet, but if a Congress can be judged on the length of time it takes from its installation to the first indictment of a member of the controlling party, than this Congress must have set a new record.

More partisan irrelevance; "length of time from installation to first indictment" is a stupid standard to apply, especially for a scandal that is a year old.

Mark goes on to make some good points about the sluggish operation of the Ethics Committee. But then he launches this whopper.

Pelosi has had her head firmly planted in the sand over Jefferson from the very beginning of the investigation. He was allowed to stand for re-election in November despite being under Federal investigation. He was allowed to keep his seat on the powerful tax law writing House Ways and Means committee in the last Congress, despite being under investigation for accepting bribes. And he was seated by this Congress in January, despite the ongoing investigation.

Let's just list the fatuous nonsense and outright falsehoods.

1. Apparently Pelosi is supposed to decide who can run for office and who can't.

2. Jefferson lost his seat on Ways and Means back in June 2006.

3. The House apparently was supposed to prevent the democratically elected Jefferson from being seated, even though he had not been charged with any wrongdoing.

Note that the standard being applied here is that merely being suspected of wrongdoing should be enough to get you expelled from Congress.

Let's be clear: I think Jefferson is guilty as hell. But we do have this legal thing called "innocent until proven guilty." Further, while the House has the right to decide who it will seat and who it won't, there should be a very high standard for nullifying the will of the voters.

Historically, that has meant resignation from leadership and important positions upon investigation, suspension of nearly all privileges upon indictment and resignation (or expulsion) upon conviction.

And indeed, that's exactly how it played out in the cases of Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney, Republicans who resigned soon after cutting plea deals with prosecutors.

Ney, for instance, resigned from the House Administration Committee after he became a target of an investigation related to Jack Abramoff. But he stood for re-election and won the primary race in May, only withdrawing from the general election in August after it became clear he might lose. In September he said he would plead guilty to federal charges, something he actually did in mid-October. But he didn't actually resign until Nov. 3.

According to Red State's brain-dead standard, Republicans should have kicked Ney out of Congress at the beginning of 2006. Instead they let him remain for 11 months more.

I agree that the Ethics Committee should get its butt in gear and start justifying its existence. But beyond that, the thing to recognize and accept is that these sorts of cases take time and follow a predictable arc. Jefferson will eventually get what's coming to him. And while it would be satisfying for the hand of justice to take him down tomorrow, justice is supposed to be both swift and sure. And "sure" takes time if you care at all about individual rights and respecting the will of the people.

Investigation, indictment, trial, sentencing. We've reached the second step, with the third step just around the corner. Assuming the Feds have a solid case -- and I think they do -- step four isn't too far off.

corruption, William Jefferson, politics, midtopia

Bomb threat at Falwell funeral

This is weird, and not just in the obvious ways.

A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics -- often by playing on social prejudices.

A group of students from Falwell's Liberty University staged a counterprotest.

And Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

Oh, great. Some left-wing whacko tries to bomb Falwell's funeral.

Huh? What's that?

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.

Not a left-wing nutjob; a conservative Christian nutjob!

You gotta love the logic required to arrive at the conclusion that setting off bombs is the perfect way to avoid disrupting the service....

The good news is that he was an incompetent dimbulb:

The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

But then there's this:

Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No information was available on the third suspect.

Great. Additional nutcases still on the loose.

Falwell, politics, midtopia

What would you do?

O.J. Simpson walks into your restaurant with a bunch of friends. Do you serve him?

A Kentucky restaurant owner didn't.

Ruby -- who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Ohio. Louisville, Kentucky, and Belterra, Indiana, -- said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."

He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

For his part, Simpson showed some class:

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.

Far more class than his lawyer:

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

But this isn't a celebrity blog. My interest is more philosphical. What would you do in such a case?

I think I would have done what Ruby did. It has always seemed clear to me that Simpson got away with murder. While I respect the verdict of the judicial system and do not advocate harassing him or the like, neither do I have to tolerate his presence in my private place of business. Especially given winking stunts like his "If I Did It" book deal.

But I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints -- both what you would do, and comments on the ethics/legality of what Ruby did.

(h/t: Munko)

Simpson, politics, midtopia

Ford goes down

Former Tennessee state Sen. John Ford, a Democrat and uncle of recent Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., was convicted today of accepting bribes. He faces up to 10 years in prison.

Hall of Shame has been updated.

politics, midtopia

Another Abramoff casualty

Mark Zachares, a former aide to Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, apparently is preparing to plead guilty to conspiracy charges.

In exchange for helping Abramoff get clients and business, Zachares was supposed to receive "credit" that would be applied when he landed a job at Abramoff's firm, Greenberg Traurig. (The plan never got that far.)

According to prosecutors, Zachares helped Abramoff get an advance copy of a Justice Department threat report on Guam. He also provided Abramoff information about the Department of Homeland Security reorganization and helped Abramoff develop strategies to win DHS business for clients. Zachares also advised Abramoff's Sun Cruz venture on bureaucratic regulations.

He was a loyalist to the core. In emails Zachares reiterated "his willingness to use his position to retaliate against individuals or entities who had retained competing lobbying firms," according to the filing.

His loyalty came with perks. Zachares accepted trips, money, meals drinks, golf and tickets to sporting events. Many people have taken sports tickets from Abramoff, but Zachares' tally hits high on the list: between August 2002 and February 2004 he racked up more than $30,000 worth of tickets on more than 40 occasions. He also traveled with Abramoff to Scotland in August 2003. And in January and February 2002 Zachares received two $5,000 payments from Abramoff through a wire transfer from the Capitol Athletic Foundation, one of Abramoff's nonprofits.

Added to the Hall of Shame.

Update: As expected, Zachares pleaded guilty. He's expected to get about two years in prison.

politics, midtopia

Gays and abortion caused Virginia Tech shootings

At least, that's what Donald Wilmon and the American Family Association are saying.

Bleh.

Hopefully the video works; it's my first attempt to embed a YouTube link.
(h/t: No More Mister Nice Blog)

Update: Wilmon has company. Rush Limbaugh said the shooter had to be a liberal, while both the American Thinker and Newt Gingrich say liberalism is to blame.

crime, religion, politics, midtopia

Could Virginia Tech killer have been stopped from buying guns?

Sadly, the answer is apparently yes -- if our background-check system weren't being sabotaged.

I'm not a big gun-control advocate. I grew up shooting guns. Then I joined the Army, where I got to shoot really big guns: M16s, M60s, SAWs and, of course, the 105mm main gun of an M1 (that final detail dates me, because M1s have since been upgunned to 120mm). I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on firearms, but I don't think there should be hugely cumbersome barriers to gun ownership.

That said, sometimes gun nuts make me mad.

A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks....

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."

There's nothing in Virginia state law barring the mentally ill from buying guns, unless they're committed to a psych ward. But federal law is tougher.

About that loophole:

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

So it's not so much a loophole, as a lack of money. But there is nothing requiring states and localities to share information with the Feds, so without proper funding, many don't. Meaning the National Instant Criminal Background Check System has some big holes in its database.

McCarthy's efforts to change that have gone nowhere, thanks in part to opposition from groups like Gun Owners of America. Each time, her bill has passed the House but died in the Senate.

Notably, the NRA has not opposed the measures. That said, the NRA has not been entirely on the sidelines here. Besides fighting efforts to institute background checks at gun shows, consider the "Supreme Court ruling" referenced in the article.

That line is somewhat inaccurate. The 1997 case, Printz v. United States, involved temporary measures intended to facilitate background checks between the time the Brady Bill was passed (in 1993) and 1998, when the NICS database would be established. It was rendered moot when the NICS went online.

But the basic facts remain: The NRA funded the lawsuit, which opposed Brady Bill background checks. Their specific legal argument was essentially that it was an unfunded mandate on local police and sheriff departments, and they won on those grounds; but their purpose was to stop background checks. Since then, the NRA has fought aspects of NICS, notably the length of time that records can be retained after a purchase. It's down to 24 hours from the original 180 days. That means the FBI has just 24 hours after a purchase to find and fix a mistaken approval.

It's worth asking: If gun groups weren't so busy damaging the machinery of the background-check system, would 32 people be alive today? We're not talking gun bans -- we're talking about making sure we have a working system to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho, on whom red flags have already been planted.

Gun Owners of America, in particular, should be ashamed of themselves.

Update: An article from CNN contradicts the premise of this thread (and the article it is based on), claiming that only involuntary committment to a mental ward would have put Cho into the NICS. One of them is wrong.

Update II: Using the NYT as a tiebreaker, the original story appears correct: he should not have been able to buy the gun, because while he was in accord with Virginia state law, he was ineligible under federal law.

The main problem, as noted, is reportage:

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

No matter where you stand on gun control, that disconnect needs to change.

Virgina Tech, gun control, politics, midtopia

Day of silence

This just sucks.

At least 33 people are dead in what may be the biggest mass shooting in modern American history.

I'm done blogging for the day. I'll leave you with one thought: an event like this happens two or three times a day in Iraq, which has less than a tenth of our population. Give thanks you live here, even if we have to deal with the occasional armed nutjob.

My thoughts and best wishes are with the students, the victims and their families.

politics, midtopia

Head-scratcher roundup

Three stories that explore the boundary between what's reasonable and what's not, what's criminal and what's not, and what's ethical and what's not.

What's reasonable?
A California school district has taken to billing parents who take their kids out of school for nonmedical reasons -- like a family ski trip. The price? $36.13 for each day missed. The reason? State aid is calculated based on daily attendance. So that's how much the district figures it loses when a kid goes absent. It's not really a bill -- parents aren't required to pay -- but some parents pay up either voluntarily or because they think it's a bill.

What's criminal?
Two Texas men were found guilty of mailing an obscene video. The video found to be obscene showed a woman being pierced with needles, but no sex. Meanwhile, the same jury said a rape video wasn't obscene -- even though the video had been deemed obscene in a 2003 trial. A third video featuring urination and defecation was also deemed unobscene.

What's ethical?
South Carolina is considering a bill that would let inmates cut their sentence by cutting out a kidney. Voluntary organ and tissue donations could shave as much as 180 days off of a jail term. While we're talking voluntary donations -- unlike, say, in China, where prisoners have been executed so the state could harvest their organs -- there's a question of whether prison is a coercive environment and whether prisoners fully understand what they're agreeing to. In addition, there's a legal hurdle: a federal law prohibiting organ donors from getting paid in any way for the donation.

All three situations raise interesting questions without any clear, easy answer. My initial reactions:

1. Parents can take their kids out of school if they want to, and a trip to Hawaii is arguably at least as educational as a week of school. I don't have a problem with the school educating parents about the importance of attendance and the costs of truancy, but the billing thing seems a little over the top.

2. I guess we'd have to see the videos in question (no thanks), but I have a hard time understanding how a video that shows no sex can be considered obscene, while the other two are not. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? Why? At the very least we have a vague and muddy legal standard -- meaning the definition of what's illegal could vary by day and by jury. That's no way to run a legal system.

3. I'd be very, very wary of taking this step. I don't have a problem in principle with compensating donors. The problems are all practical. It only works if the entire transaction is fully transparent, and everyone is fully informed and truly a volunteer. The possibilities of abuse are high. And it exploits a vulnerable population. It's one thing to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even though both operations have their risks. What about muscle tissue or nerves or things like that? Suddenly we're in a grey area where we're mildly crippling prisoners. Do we really want people to start thinking about what body part they're willing to trade for freedom?

education, obscenity, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Plame to go under oath

In case you aren't heartily sick of the whole Plamegate thing, Henry Waxman has decided to hold hearings a week from today on the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity -- and have Plame herself testify under oath.

This is an obvious Democratic attempt to keep flogging the Plame scandal now that the Libby trial is over. But it could be interesting to have Plame under oath. Republicans will have a chance to ask questions about her role in her husband's Niger trip, just how secret her identity was, and the like. If they pick their questions well, and don't simply grandstand, we might actually learn something interesting.

We'll see.

Libby, Plame, politics, midtopia

Libby roundup

The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and National Review are calling for Bush to pardon Libby. The chorus is getting loud enough that the WaPo's Al Kamen is holding a "guess the pardon date" contest.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is demanding that President Bush pledge not to pardon the Scootster, and there's even an online exchange trading Libby pardon futures.

The article also discusses the history and propriety of presidential pardons, much of which we've already covered here.

Meanwhile, attention is already turning to Dick Cheney. The consensus: his influence in the White House will probably remain undiminished.

Cheney, Libby, politics, midtopia

Some general thoughts on Libby

Some perspective in its own post, to separate it from the liveblogged initial post.

PARDON POSSIBILITIES
If Bush pardons Libby, it will be near the end of his administration to minimize the political fallout.

A commenter in the other thread suggested that Libby will become Bush's Marc Rich. Rich, you may recall, was the fugitive financier pardoned by Clinton in his final days.

It's not quite a spot-on comparison, because Libby is no Marc Rich. I'm more sympathetic to pardoning an otherwise straight arrow for an essentially political crime, than I am pardoning a fugitive felon simply because he was a campaign donor.

A more apt comparison is when Bush the Elder pardoned the Iran-Contra participants. And even then, Plamegate is no Iran-Contra.

In a general sense, though, there should be a law against issuing pardons to people connected to the president or his party. Pardons are supposed to be acts of mercy, not political favors for the well-connected.

THE JURY
Was the jury filled with rabid partisan Bush-haters, and the conviction a political hammer? Another commenter claimed that. And perhaps with some justification: the trial took place in Washington D.C., which is about 90 percent Democratic. So one would expect the jury to be mostly Democrats.

But that ignores several factors. The major one is the requirement for unanimity in a verdict, meaning that if there were just one Republican on the jury -- and odds are there was at least one -- they could foil a conviction.

Secondly, Libby's lawyers were involved in jury selection, and they were certainly aware of the political implications and chose accordingly.

So let's take a look at the jury. Here's an overview story, and here's a juror-by-juror profile.

Most D.C. residents are black, but 10 of the 12 jurors were white. Nine were women. This already tells you that the jury was not representative of the area. Most said they were largely apolitical -- which would make them similar to most Americans -- but of course they could have been lying about that.

Then lets go juror by juror:

Juror #1: 30s, female, Comptroller. Studied law in grad school and has a classified government clearance pending.

Juror #2: 30s, CPA. Hs two friends in the FBI.

Juror #3: 40s, Accounting administrator for a senior-services group.

Juror #4: 30s, Hotel convention booker.

Juror #5: Denis Collins. Notes that he has a friend who played over-40 football with Libby.

Juror #6: 50s, Web architect for federal contractor.

Juror #7: 50s, retired math teacher.

Juror #8: 40s, Economist. Israeli-born, PhD from MIT, works with overseas regulators in the telecom industry.

Juror #9: 50s, worked as a secretary for Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations. Two master's degrees, friends in the Park Police, Secret Service and CIA.

Juror #10: 60s, Lawyer for the FTC.

Juror #11: 70s, retired art curator. This was the juror who was dismissed.

Juror #12: 50s, retired postal worker.

Suspected political affiliations aside, that may be the most well-educated jury I've ever seen. And while one could apply some gross stereotypes and guess at political leanings for some of them (art curator and postal worker? Democrats!!), there are several that confound expectations -- like the FTC lawyer, and the woman who worked for Republican administrations.

So I think playing "blame the jury" -- either for being partisan or being stupid -- isn't going to work very well.

Plame, Libby, politics, midtopia

Libby found guilty

Wow.

Lewis Libby has been found guilty on 4 of the 5 counts against him.

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements, while being found not guilty on one count of making false statements.

It will be appealed, of course, but if the verdict stands, he's going to prison.

Count #1, obstruction of justice: guilty, up to 10 years in prison

Count #2, false statements about conservations with Tim Russert: guilty.

Count #3, false statements about conversations with Time: not guilty.

Count #4, perjury related to Count #2: guilty

Count #5, perjury related to (but not limited to) Count #3: guilty

It's a little weird that he was convicted on #5 while being found not guilty on #3, but it wasn't limited to the statements involved in #3.

Total potential jail time: 30 years.

It'll be less than that, most likely. And now the question is: does he have any information that he could trade for a reduced sentence?

I'll post links and updates as soon as they appear. I'm getting most of this info from CNN.

Sentencing set for June 5, though Libby's attorneys indicate they might ask for an extension.

Anyone think Bush will pardon Libby if the conviction is upheld?

Updates: Jurist has a roundup. And here's the Associated Press story.

Update 2: The jurors are talking on CNN right now, and they said they found Russert a very credible witness, and were especially unconvinced that Libby could be "surprised" by the mention of Plame's name in his Russert conversation, when he was told more than nine times prior to that about Plame. Even if he forgot who had told him Plame's name, it struck them as very unlikely that he would have been "surprised" by later mentions.

They also found his "poor memory" defense unpersuasive when there were other people testifying that he was a detail guy and the like.

They said there was a lot of sympathy for Libby on the jury, because they viewed him as a fall guy, and wondered why no other administration officials were being questioned or on trial.

They declined to offer opinions on broader arguments, saying they were focused on the question before them.

They took so long to deliberate because they had to break down the huge amount of evidence and then stack it up against the charges. Simply organizing the information was a big task.

They acquitted him on #3 because it wasn't clear if he was lying or if it was simply a misunderstanding.

Trial was not about whether a leak occurred.

Juror speaking is very impressive, as far as his coolness and level-headedness. Turns out he's Dennis Collins, a former WaPo reporter. That helps explain his ease before a crowd.

Update #3: Time has a piece on Why Libby's Defense Failed, and notes that keeping Cheney and Libby off the stand might have been decisive:

Libby and then Cheney were expected to testify about just how crazy things were, but without notice, Wells informed the court that they would not take the stand. Instead, he offered John Hannah, Libby's former deputy, who described how terrible his boss's memory was. Then, after only three days, the defense rested its case.

Declining to put Libby or Cheney on the stand was a controversial move — and one that the defense would pay for. Often in criminal cases, and especially in those involving perjury, jurors like to hear the defendant explain his actions personally. But Libby would no doubt have been cross-examined harshly, and Cheney might have been embarrassed to explain publicly his role in undermining Wilson's criticisms of the war.

Was it a strategic mistake? Or would putting them on the stand have caused other problems? It's fun to speculate. All we know is that the defense decided that putting them on the stand wasn't in their best interest.

Libby, politics, midtopia

Democrats gone wild

I've been slamming Republicans fairly heavily over the last few days. Time to even up the score a little.

In Fredricksburg, Md., 23-year-old Andrew Stone went to the home of a person listed on a Republican Web site. He argued with the person and his two roommates, then attacked them.

We'll presume he was a Democrat, though that's not clear from the story.

In case any of you need the reminder: don't go to people's homes and attack them for their political beliefs. It makes everyone cranky.

politics, midtopia

Fumo indicted

Pennsylvania state Sen. Vincent Fumo, a Democrat and one of the most powerful men in state politics, was indicted yesterday on 141(!!!) counts, mainly charges that he defrauded taxpayers and his own nonprofit out of more than $2 million.

Mr. Fumo, 63, regularly deployed state workers to perform a litany of personal chores, from overseeing construction at his 33-room Philadelphia mansion to spying on his ex-wife to working his 100-acre farm near Harrisburg, prosecutors charged.

Mr. Fumo, one of the most powerful figures in Pennsylvania politics, misused $1 million in state resources and another $1 million from the nonprofit neighborhood group he controlled, U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan said.

The nonprofit was a sham, according to prosecutors.

Despite its charity status, the group covertly funded political activities, including a poll and a lawsuit filed against one of Mr. Fumo's political rivals. Mr. Fumo also used the group's coffers to pay for vehicles, farm equipment, trips and a $600,000 renovation to his South Philadelphia office.

Innocent until proven guilty, of course. But then there was the coverup:

Mr. Fumo, a Democrat who has served in the Senate since 1978, also was charged with obstruction for ordering his staff to destroy years worth of e-mails from government computers.

That don't look good.

Hall of Shame has been updated.

Pennsylvania, Fumo, corruption, politics, midtopia

Puppy killers on "People's Court"

Back in June I wrote about a family whose dog was killed by some neighbor boys, and how they were musing about taking the case to Judge Judy.

Well, alerted by a reader, it turns out that they did, and the episode ran today. Not Judge Judy, but "People's Court."

I can't find anything about a verdict. Anyone able to help me (and the reader) out?

People's Court, politics, midtopia

Bipartisan ethics trouble

Republicans raised red flags when Democrat Allan Mollohan -- whose finances are currently under investigation by the FBI -- was poised to chair the House Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee, which oversees the FBI's budget. Democrats ignored the protest and Mollohan today chairs the subcommittee -- though he has promised to recuse himself from votes on the Justice Department's budget.

The Republicans were in the right on that one. But it turns out they have their own problem with another subcommittee. The Financial Services Committee's oversights and investigation committee, and the ranking Republican, Gary Miller.

After months of GOP ethics scandals, House Republicans chose Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) as the ranking member of a panel charged with investigating financial institutions — even as the FBI was looking into his land deals.

Representative Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, named Miller to the top GOP spot on the oversight and investigative subcommittee Jan. 9, according to a committee release. Watchdog groups have been raising red flags on several of Miller’s land deals since The Hill and other media outlets first scrutinized them early last year. Yesterday, a spokesman for the southern California city of Monrovia confirmed that agency officials had contacted the city about Miller’s land deals in the last two months.

The quoted portion is wrong, because Miller's problems involve allegations of tax evasion -- the domain of the IRS, not the FBI. That makes his situation the same as Mollohan's, because his subcommittee oversees the Department of the Treasury, which contains the IRS. He's not the chairman, true; but Miller should not be the ranking member, either. A member, fine; he is innocent until proven guilty. But not in a position of authority.

Details of Miller's transactions can be found here and here. Among them: trying to get a federal position for a city councilman who was about to vote on a land deal that would net Miller $10 million, using his staff for personal errands, and using his office to try to get Rolling Stones concert tickets.

Further, he avoided paying taxes on the $10 million by claiming the property was taken through eminent domain -- even though Miller had been lobbying the city to buy the parcel, and the program the city was using to buy the land specifically prohibited eminent domain takings. He then repeated the tactic twice more with the proceeds.

Like William Jefferson's frozen, foil-wrapped $90,000, the evidence against Miller is too strong to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to important positions.

politics, midtopia

Good principle, bad law

Remember those campaign dirty tricks from this past election season? The fliers falsely claiming endorsements, or attempting to fool voters into thinking a candidate belonged to the other party? Or intimidate Hispanic voters? Or give voters an incorrect polling place? Or annoy opposition voters with repeated computerized phone calls?

Barack Obama and Charles Schumer do. And according to the New York Times, they plan to introduce a bill outlawing such behavior on Thursday.

Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment, the bill would require the Justice Department to counteract deceptive election information that has been put out, and to report to Congress after each election on what deceptive practices occurred and what the Justice Department did about them.

The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to stop deceptive practices while they are happening.

I understand and agree with the principle: in my above linked post on the Maryland false-endorsement scam, I suggested that Gov. Robert Ehrlich's campaign should face lawsuits and steep fines for its sleazy behavior.

But practically speaking, the law -- especially the part that allows for immediate lawsuits -- will probably just create a mess. The bill will apparently not apply to honest mistakes. But how do you separate the deliberate acts from the honest mistakes, especially in a world where someone sees a conspiracy behind every mistake?

The only way to draw that line is in court, after a full investigation. And that's not going to happen on the day of an election. I understand the desire to stop bad behavior before it affects the vote, but what the bill would do is provide an avenue for partisans and crackpots to turn Election Day into a circus. Ironically, the act of filing lawsuits could itself become a deceptive campaign tactic, attempting to use smoke to create the impression of fire.

So fine: make deceptive campaign tactics a crime that carries steep penalties. But apply them after the fact. On Election Day, rely on the deterrence value of the new penalties as well as the system we have now: the vigilance of the parties, election officials and the media. That system brought to light all of the acts that inspired this bill.

If we're going to enact Election Day reforms, let's make it reforms that matter. Require election boards to have enough voting machines on hand in all precincts to handle the volume of voters; establish training and ethical standards for poll workers; establish ballot-design standards to eliminate confusion; and provide resources to ensure a fast official response to reports of fraud, not so much to catch the perps but to contain the damage and protect everyone's right to vote.

Update: Captain Ed feels much the same way.

dirty tricks, elections, politics, midtopia

Truth or dare

Republican Rep. Tom Davis released a report (pdf) a couple of weeks ago slamming the Justice Department's handling of the Sandy Berger case.

"My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed," Davis said. "It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience."

Well, he doesn't really come up with much new information. And at least he doesn't accuse Berger of attempting a cover-up, though he intimates such might have occurred.

His major action point (signed by every Congressional Republican): Make Berger take the polygraph test he agreed to as part of his 2005 plea bargain.

That's a fairly pointless requirement, since polygraphs are unreliable. And the failing here is the Justice Department's, not Berger's. But okay: if Berger agreed to take such a test, he must. Obviously.

The issue here is not holding Berger to the terms of the agreement; it's what will be done with the polygraph results if they are made public.

At best, such tests are only 70 percent or 80 percent reliable, and that's when administered by a skilled technician to a relatively normal subject. Knowledgable subjects can lie and get away with it; anxious subjects will generate lots of false positives. And if the technician isn't top-notch, all bets are off.

So let's say Berger flunks the test. Does that mean he stole other documents or is guilty of a cover-up? Maybe. He could just be part of the unlucky 20 percent. Or it could mean he was nervous.

If he passes the test does that mean he's innocent? No. Maybe he was a cool villain and spoofed the test. Maybe he just got lucky. Maybe the technician was incompetent.

Polygraphs can be useful tools for helping focus an investigation: if a subject routinely fails on certain topics, then those topics might be worthy of further investigative scrutiny. But a polygraph test in and of itself is too unreliable to tell us anything useful about guilt or innocence. In partisan discourse, though, such nuances will be lost. No matter what the result of the test, Berger is screwed.

He gets limited sympathy from me on that score: he stole classified documents, after all. But let's not see this particular move for more than what it is: a partisan attempt to keep a Democratic scandal alive.

security, Berger, politics, midtopia

Libby trial opens

And the opening statements were pretty interesting on both sides.

Legally speaking, Fitzgerald has an uphill battle to fight here. He has to prove that Libby deliberately lied; Libby's attorneys say he misremembered. He also has to persuade the jury that Libby had something to hide, despite the revelation of Richard Armitage's earlier leak of Plame's identity. Otherwise he will be (fairly) criticized for prosecuting a coverup of a nonexistent crime.

In his opening statements, Fitzgerald gave it his best shot:

Mr. Fitzgerald provided his own dramatic moment of the day when he played audio tapes of Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony in March 2004.

But before doing so, he meticulously laid the groundwork for his case that Mr. Libby had lied during those appearances. He first presented charts showing that Mr. Libby learned about Ms. Wilson in conversations with several fellow administration officials in June and early July 2003, and that he also talked to reporters and other administration officials about her identity in that same time period.

Jurors then listened intently as Mr. Libby’s voice wafted through the courtroom while he sat silently at the defense table. Mr. Libby was heard to say that he believed he first learned about Ms. Wilson in a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC on Thursday, July 10. Mr. Libby also told the grand jury that he was taken aback by Mr. Russert’s information.

“You can’t be startled about something on Thursday that you told other people about on Monday and Tuesday,” Mr. Fitzgerald said referring to conversations Mr. Libby had only days before.

Further, he said, Mr. Russert will testify that his July 10 telephone conversation with Mr. Libby did not include any mention of Ms. Wilson. Mr. Libby, he said, had telephoned instead to complain about a talk show on the network.

“The evidence will show the conversation he claims took place about Wilson’s wife never happened,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “And even if it did happen he couldn’t have been surprised.”

Then the defense weighed in:

White House officials tried to sacrifice vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to protect strategist Karl Rove from blame for leaking a CIA operative's identity during a political storm over the Iraq war, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.

After Libby complained "they want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Vice President Dick Cheney personally intervened to get the White House press secretary to publicly clear Libby in the leak, defense attorney Theodore Wells said in his opening statement at Libby's perjury trial.

The defense also raised the expected "he was a busy man, and he misremembered" explanation.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time dissecting the blow-by-blow maneuvers in the case, because I don't expect there to be much illumination in the end. We won't find out if the Plame leak was deliberate. We might find out that there was a coverup, but not exactly of what. Or we might discover that Fitzgerald's got nothing.

So for me the most interesting aspect of the case is the glimpse it provides into internal White House workings. The picture being painted is of an administration in a bit of disarray, so anxious to discredit Joe Wilson that they engage in a bit of "ready, fire, aim," in which there wasn't a cohesive response strategy and nobody really knew who was saying what to who. It reveals tensions between the vice presidential and presidential staffs, and Cheney being bluntly protective of Libby after the scandal broke. It reveals that even senior administration staffers thought the administration would be willing to sacrifice lesser staffers to save Rove.

Stay tuned.

Plame, Libby, politics, midtopia