Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 10, 2008 9:24:08 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: McCain and Abramoff -- Anything but "Straight Talk" on THAT
Express
McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email
February 25, 2008 05:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/25/mccain-withheld-controver_n_88304.html
On the stump, Sen. John McCain often cites his work tackling the
excesses of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as evidence of his
sturdy ethical compass.
A little-known document, however, shows that McCain may have taken
steps to protect his Republican colleagues from the scope of his
investigation.
In the 2006 Senate report concerning Abramoff's activities, which
McCain spearheaded, the Arizona Republican conspicuously left out
information detailing how Alabama Gov. Bob Riley was targeted by
Abramoff's influence peddling scheme. Riley, a Republican, won
election in November 2002, and was reelected in 2006.
In a December 2002 email obtained by the Huffington Post -- which
McCain and his staff had access to prior to the issuance of his
report -- Abramoff explains to an aide what he would like to see
Riley do in return for the "help" he received from Abramoff's tribal
clients.
An official with the Mississippi Choctaws "definitely wants Riley to
shut down the Poarch Creek operation," Abramoff wrote, "including
his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can't qualify for a
state contract or something like that."
The note showed not only the reach of Abramoff, but raised questions
about Riley's victory in what was the closest gubernatorial election
in Alabama history.
And yet, despite the implications of the information, McCain and the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee sat on the controversial portion of
the email. According to an official familiar with the investigation,
McCain also subsequently refused to make the email public after the
report was released.
There was a brief footnote in the report that quoted William Worfel,
former vice chairman of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, saying
that Abramoff told the chief of a Mississippi tribe to spend $13
million "to get the governor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out
of Alabama so it wouldn't hurt his market in Mississippi."
But Riley's name and the details of what was being asked of him were
not mentioned once in the 373-page document.
Indeed, as the Associated Press noted in 2006, McCain stayed
deliberately agnostic as to Riley's involvement. "The committee
headed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, used the ellipses and did not
give the full quotation," the AP said of Worfel's quote. "It also
did not say in its report whether it thought the comment was fact or
fiction."
Officials with Riley's office pointed to a statement from the
Choctaw tribe alleging that reports of their contributions to Riley
were "outlandish and patently false." As for the governor's
opposition to gambling, Riley's press secretary said he has
"consistently [opposed gambling] before he decided to run for
governor and since. Anyone who would suggest his long-standing
opposition to gambling is tied to anything other than personal
conviction would be mistaken."
McCain's campaign did not return request for comment. For critics,
however, the senator's decision not to include the email in his
report underscores not only a glaring shortcoming of his
investigation, but also a chink in his political veneer. Indeed,
they claim, the Arizona Republican often takes overt steps to
protect Republican colleagues from his anti-corruption dragnets.
"Although Sen. McCain has long bragged of his role in the Abramoff
investigation, he let Tom DeLay and the other members of Congress
who were doing Abramoff's bidding completely off the hook. The sole
exception was Rep. Bob Ney, who served time in prison," Melanie
Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
In Washington told the Huffington Post recently. "Sen. McCain knew
what his colleagues were up to, he chose to take the easier path and
give them a free pass."
Faced with this criticism in the past, McCain has claimed that it
was not his responsibility to "involve ourselves in the ethics
process [of senators]." Others have defended McCain by pointing out
that the committee approved the report by a bipartisan 13-0 vote.
But it is hard to ignore the political consequences of not exposing
the Abramoff-Riley connection.
Just prior to the 2002 election, word leaked that federal
prosecutors in Alabama -- appointed by President Bush -- were
investigating allegations that then Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman had
offered a state-appointed position in exchange for money to help an
education program. Siegelman ultimately lost to Riley by less than
3,000 votes.
"It obviously didn't help," said Dr. Sam Fisher, a political science
professor at the University of South Alabama, of the leaks. "And
there were certain ethical issues about how that was done. It was
definitely a close race and giving a close race any negative thing
can make a difference."
That Riley had taken a position favored by Abramoff, whether
coincidentally or not, wasn't known at the time. While Abramoff's
aide, Michael Scanlon (a former aide to Riley), gave $100,000 to
Riley's campaign, Riley had previously opposed gambling in the
state. In the late 1990s, he signed a fundraising letter lobbying
against the building of a casino within Alabama. "We need your help
today," the letter, which reflected another Abramoff objective,
read, "to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in
Alabama."
Siegelman soldiered on after the 2002 loss, running again for
governor against Riley in 2006. By then, the extent of Riley's
connection to Abramoff was still unknown. Moreover, Siegelman was
still under investigation for allegations of bribery. The inquiry,
detailed in an extensive 60 Minutes report last night, raised many
ethical red flags, mainly over political interference from the Bush
administration, specifically Karl Rove. On June 22, McCain issued
his Senate report without mentioning Riley's name. And one week
later, Siegelman was convicted without the Abramoff email ever being
made public.
"If you had a document that showed something that had not been
reported about the financial reports and the direct expectations for
that money," said a source familiar with the case, "that certainly
would have called into attention the government's case against
Siegelman."
See the Abramoff email below
Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.
