Dems keep the pressure on WH over Abramoff

January 20, 2006

Just to follow up on the earlier White House/Abramoff piece, it’s worth noting that Dems are not just standing by, waiting for Scott McClellan to cave to reporters’ demands for information. Several Senate Dems said yesterday afternoon that it’s time for the White House to come clean.

Democrats in the escalating Washington ethics wars are demanding a document dump from the Bush administration on contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

After the White House rejected a Tuesday request to turn over records related to the fallen influence peddler, Senate Democratic leaders cast their net wider yesterday, writing directly to 21 top administration officials seeking details.

“Concerns have been raised that Mr. Abramoff may have had undue and improper influence within the highest levels of the Bush administration,” says the letter by New York’s Sen. Chuck Schumer and three others. “It is crucial that the American people know what role, if any, Mr. Abramoff played.”

The other three senators were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).

I think this is a pretty good strategy, not for getting information of course, but for keeping the heat on. By way of Josh Marshall, it appears the letter to the White House was pretty hard hitting.

On Tuesday, we sent a letter to President Bush asking that he and officials within his Administration detail whatever contact they might have had with Jack Abramoff. Scott McClellan announced that the White House would not provide this information, despite earlier assurances. Therefore, we have no choice but to ask you these questions directly.

As we are sure you are aware, the Justice Department is currently investigating the web of corruption surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Even at this early stage of the investigation, concerns have been raised that Mr. Abramoff may have had undue and improper influence within the highest levels of the Bush Administration and even the White House itself. Such accusations serve to undermine the credibility of this Administration and our government at large — even before any indictments or convictions. As a result, it is crucial that the American people know what role, if any, Mr. Abramoff played in the highest levels of our government.

As more and more Republican officials in and out of Congress are implicated in this scandal, it has become increasingly important that the record be cleared and that any contact you or others in the Administration have had with Mr. Abramoff be fully explained to the American people. For this reason, we urge you to publicly and immediately detail all of your personal contacts with Mr. Abramoff during your time with the Bush Administration. If you know of others in the Administration who have had such contacts, please disclose those contacts as well. Please also detail any official acts that have been undertaken on behalf of or at the request of Mr. Abramoff. Perhaps there are no contacts to reveal, no favors that have been given. We hope that is the case. But it is important to set the record straight, one way or the other.

We’ll see if they get any response; I’m not holding my breath. Either way, I’m glad Dems on the Hill are pushing on this.

Won’t this information come out when Abramoff testitifies under the terms of his plea agreement?

  • “Won’t this information come out when Abramoff testitifies under the terms of his plea agreement?”

    Not unless his family gets whacked first, or he gets a shank between the ribs. Or, more likely, there is a shadow bidding war between various congresspersons with Abramoff’s attorney containing offers of nice paying gigs once he gets out of the slammer–winner gets away free, loser gets fingered by Abramoff.

  • In this, and dozens of other areas, the Democrats need to learn how to play real opposition politics. That doesn’t just mean making a point (or asking questions ), the way a competent academic does. It means turning that point into a terse phrase (e.g., Harry Reid’s callling the anti-lobbying regulations the “Jack Abramoff Rule”), then hammering that point over and over and over again, in every possible venue.

    Al Gore’s speech was a great one, but I bet 99% of the electorate have forgotten it by now. After he gave that fantastic speech, Gore (and other Dems, high and low) should have appeared on every daytime and nighttime and weekend gasbag show. They should have written essays and letters to every available newspaper (major and especially minor), set up or contributed to numerous webpages … constantly emphasizing the GOP’s “high crime” of seeking to invade our privacy. Sticking to the point and challenging the effort to bring up complicating facts/lies (as Howard Dean did the Abramoff gifts).

    An old time political friend used to chastize me when I would wax philosphical about politics. “C’mon, Ed,” he used to bellow, “ya gotta put the hay down down on the ground where the goats can get at it.” Today’s Democrats haven’t learned how to do that.

  • Here’s a related question.

    Why can’t the journalists in Washington come up with specific questions for Scott McLellan?

    There’s plenty of material out there in the public domain that leads to very specific question.

    Call McLellan’s bluff.

  • Why can’t the journalists in Washington come up with specific questions for Scott McLellan?

    Actually, they have. When a reporter asks a big-picture question, McClellan says, “Tell me if you have something specific.” When a reporter asks something specific, McClellan says, “I won’t engage in some partisan fishing expedition.”

    Reading the transcript every day can be quite frustrating. I can only imagine what it’s like being one of the reporters asking the questions.

  • At first I thought Scott McClellan didn’t want to respond to qestions concerning Abramoff’s White House visits because it looked bad…now after Scotty’s daily stonewallings I’m thinking it IS bad for Dubya.

    My take on Abramoff is that he’s the guy who knew the exact price for every favor in DC: he knows the explicit quid pro quo.

    The Bush Administration has previously enjoyed the benefits of a blast proof firewall vis-a-vis its dealings with its wealthy supporters – one has only to recall how efforts to disclose the petroleum industry’s input to Cheney’s energy task force have been thwarted.

    I’m thinking Abramoff might actually have some real dirt regarding his meetings at the White House…and he’s ready to come forward with it to the prosecutors to save his own hide…

    And no way can Bush afford to pardon Abramoff…bottom line he’s a crook…even Rove can’t spin this one…

    • Comments are closed.