Now that's chutzpah.

Earlier this week, Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter (R) sued the GOP attack group the Economic Freedom Fund to stop it from harrassing residents with automated "robo calls" supporting a GOP congressional candidate.

Now a company called FreeEats.com, Inc. has fired back and filed a suit against the state of Indiana, alleging that the state's ban on automated calls violates its constitutional rights. As part of the suit, the company admits that it was the firm paid by the Economic Freedom Fund to place the calls.

Now, as we've reported here, these robo calls -- which have bombarded voters in five targeted Congressional districts -- have been the nastiest tool in Swiftboat 2.0's nasty arsenal. A polling expert, when played a recording of one of the firm's calls, called it "egregious." Factcheck looked into the call's claims and found them "misleading." And as my vain attempt to reveal the firm behind the calls showed, they clearly wanted to stay in the shadows.

But now they've come out in a big way. They didn't like being shut down in Indiana, where they were attacking Democrat Baron Hill, and now they argue that they've been deprived of their constitutional rights. To quote from the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in federal court:

By enforcing [the state's law against robo calls] with respect to interstate telephone calls to residents of Indiana for political purpose, [Indiana] will unlawfully and substantially deprive [FreeEats.com], and the organizations on whose behalf it makes calls, of free speech rights secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Read more »

Buried in the New York Times article on the White House-GOP detainee treatment compromise was this:

The senators agreed to a White House proposal to make the standard on interrogation treatment retroactive to 1997, so C.I.A. and military personnel could not be prosecuted for past treatment under standards the administration considers vague.

I "fell over when I read it," as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) might say. Can that be so? I thought of the horrors at Abu Ghraib. Why would such past violations need to be excused?

I checked a copy of the bill introduced by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) which contained the language. Here's what I found:

The compromise proscribes a select list of extreme no-no's for the handling of detainees, including murder, rape, biological testing, maiming and mutiliation. The Geneva Conventions bans broad categories of behavior, such as "humiliating and degrading treatment."

According to the agreement, if you handled detainees anytime between now and Nov. 26, 1997, and treated them in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions -- but didn't violate any of the no-no's outlined in the "compromise" -- you can't be criminally prosecuted under the War Crimes Act.

Who would benefit? Civilian contractors working the K-9 division at Abu Ghraib, for one. And of course, CIA officers or other civilian employees who engaged in "extreme" interrogation tactics.

It's also likely to be good news for any civilian officials who may have ordered, approved or condoned such treatment during that period. No need to keep that criminal defense lawyer on retainer, boys. Take the kids to Disney World.

I don't think it helps military personnel who were unlawfully heavy-handed with detainees, despite the New York Times' reporting. The compromise doesn't seem to affect the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which I would expect them to be tried. The UCMJ has always barred extreme treatment of prisoners.

More details on Bush's HUD Secretary and patronage boss Alphonso Jackson. Among other charges, the political appointee told his subordinates that when awarding contracts, "they should be considering supporters of the President." That's according to excerpts from a new report from his agency's inspector general.

The document has not been publicly released. A summary was obtained by Think Progress, which has more details.

So which firm is doing the Swiftboaters' dirtiest work? The short answer: they don't want you to know.

As I wrote yesterday, the Economic Freedom Fund's nastiest tactics -- tactics a polling expert called "egregious" -- come via the phone. But try and find out who's actually doing that work for them, and you're bound to come up empty.

A little investigation shows that the calls come from phantom numbers connected to non-existent companies.

Constituents in West Virginia, for instance, have been bombarded with calls from the group, but when they check their caller ID, the number, (571) 522-6400, comes up as from a company called Aetr, Inc.

Who Called Us, an online site that allows users nationwide to log instances of anonymous callers, says the number also sometimes comes up on Caller IDs as originating from "Braddock, VA," or from "ER PR."

When I tried to call the number, I got a recording saying my call "cannot be completed as dialed." I could find no records for a company called "ER PR" in Virginia. I did turn up records for a corporation called Aetr in the state -- but its license was terminated in May for failing to pay its $100 annual registration fee with the commonwealth.

Read more »

A major left-wing media watchdog group slammed a recent analysis by a nonpartisan watchdog group for their assertion that an attack ad against Sen. George Allen was "just plain wrong."

"FactCheck's broad assertion that 'Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor' is simply false," stated Media Matters in a report posted Thursday evening. The spot in question, produced by the left-leaning veterans' PAC, VoteVets.org, charges that Allen voted against a 2003 proposal to buy much-needed body armor for troops in Iraq.

Specifically, the group took issue with FactCheck's interpretation of the vote in question -- Allen's "nay" vote on an April 2003 amendment from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to appropriate approximately $1 billion for "National Guard and Reserve Equipment."

Landrieu's one-sentence proposal did not specifically mention body armor, and she did not mention body armor in her floor comments about the amendment, the group noted. A press release from her office about the amendment mentioned a need for "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests," but FactCheck concluded that was not enough to assert that Allen's vote was against buying body armor.

Read more »

In their editorial pages this morning, two of the nation's most prominent daily papers wasted no time in decrying the White House-GOP "compromise" on a bill authorizing treatment of terror suspects the rest of the world considers inhumane.

In editorials entitled "A Bad Bargain" (NYT) and "The Abuse Can Continue" (WaPo), the two papers minced no words declaring not only their opposition to the bill but its effect on the war on terror, global opinion, and history's judgement of the president.

Washington Post: "In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. If they do, America's standing in the world will continue to suffer, as will the fight against terrorism. . . .

"Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embrace of tortue and bear responsibility for the enormous damage he has caused."

New York Times: "[The bill] allows the president to declare any foreigner, anywhere, an 'illegal enemy combatant' using a dangerously broad definition, and detain him without any trial. It not only fails to deal with the fact that many of the Guantanamo detainees are not terrorists and will never be charged, but it also chokes off any judicial review.

"The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It's time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation's severely damaged reputation."

Early Victory for Defense in Libby Case
"A federal judge handed a victory to the defense Thursday in the Valerie Plame case, siding with Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff in a fight over release of classified information.

"U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decided that he won't impose strict standards sought by prosecutors who want to limit the amount of classified information used in the trial of defendant I. Lewis Libby." (AP)

Read more »

We've been following the activities of the Economic Freedom Fund, a.k.a. Swiftboat 2.0 -- and by now it's apparent that the nastiest of the group's tactics are robo calls to voters that smear Democrats in targeted districts.

"It's awful. It's egregious," said Nancy Mathiowetz, President Elect of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, after hearing a recording of one of the group's calls. In this case, the call, which attacks Dem Baron Hill of Indiana's 9th, is purportedly a poll. But "it appears they are not interested in actually collecting data, but rather disseminating a distorted view of a candidate’s record," Mathiowetz said.

In other words, it's a textbook example of a push poll, a practice which “AAPOR condems and abhors," she said.

Factcheck.org, in its first look at the organization, proclaimed the allegation in the call "misleading." Similar polls are attacking Democrats in five districts across the country.

In other calls from the group, rather than creating a fake poll, EFF simply played call recipients a recorded line of attack. You can hear one of the calls against Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) here, courtesy of the Peach Pundit. Hitting Marshall for his embrace of the "death tax," the caller intones, "Jim Marhsall's liberal voting record does not represent Georgia values."

In all of the group's calls, the robo caller identifies itself as from the Economic Freedom Fund. But which firm is actually doing the dirty work? I'll see if I can find out. . . .

The White House and GOP members of Congress say they've reached some level of compromise to break the deadlock over detainee treatment legislation. The deal, however, does not appear to solve a key disagreement over the use of classified information in terror prosecutions.

White House adviser Steven Hadley called the deal struck between the White House and three conservative GOP senators a "framework of agreement," while Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) called it a “conceptual agreement.” Nothing has been signed, however, and no specifics have been confirmed.

With the caveat that "details of the agreement were sketchy," AP reported the following:

One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations. Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."

In turn, this official said, negotiators agreed to clarify what acts constitute a war crime. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he had not been authorized to discuss the details.

The agreement did not extend to a related issue -- whether suspects and their lawyers would be permitted to see any classified evidence in the cases against them.

It seems the agreement resolves just one of two points of conflict, however. There's no indication the administration has dropped its insistence it can prohibit terror suspects from seeing classified evidence used against them. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), one of three senators negotiating with the administration, has called that issue "the killer."

McClatchy quoted the senator Sept. 9: "I don't feel good about telling someone - no matter who they are - `We're going to execute you next week, but I'm sorry, we can't tell you why.'"

Update: NYT/IHT now reports the agreement covers "which interrogation techniques can be used against terror suspects" as well as "trial procedures for those in military custody." Frist is quoted saying, “Classified information will not be shared with the terrorists.”

A few months ago, we reported that a top aide to the House Appropriations chairman received a multi-million-dollar buyout from his old lobbying firm while he was working on the Hill. Oh -- and neglected to report the size of the deal.

That aide, Jeffrey Shockey, has now been cleared by the House Ethics Committee of wrongdoing, according to Roll Call (sub. req.).

It's a bit of good news for Shockey -- but only a bit: He and his boss, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), are both subjects of a much larger and more worrisome federal investigation into the Cunningham scandal, and the prosecutors in that case don't give a hoot what the House panel says.

Anyway, given that the House Ethics Committee seems to do so little these days, it's nice to get confirmation they're showing up to work every now and then.

CQ reports (sub. req) that now, rank-and-file House Republicans are predicting that the White House-backed bill on the interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects could fail if brought to a full House vote next week, as scheduled. "I don’t think the bill passes," Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) told CQ. The publication says Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) agrees that the outcome of a full House vote is "no longer certain."

It's increasingly looking like both bills could go down in flames, CQ concludes:

[T]he growing reservations among Republicans toward Bush’s measure suggested that two of the party’s principal legislative goals before November’s midterm elections were in trouble. The other, made up of several bills that would provide a legal framework for a domestic surveillance program, is tied up in both the House and Senate and is not likely to move before the elections.

Update: Or maybe not. CNN reports: "The White House and GOP senators reached an agreement on a bill setting out procedures for interrogating terror suspects and trying them in front of military tribunals, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Thursday."

Last month, Nation contributor Max Blumenthal smacked Sen. George Allen (R-VA) for having "personally initiated an association" with one of the nation's largest white supremacist groups in a bid to firm up his retro-conservative credentials.

By posing for this 1996 photo with the leaders of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Allen enhanced his image with southern bigots, Blumenthal found, and helped the CCC pick up some street cred in Washington. "It helped us as much as it helped him," Gordon Lee Baum, CEO of the group (center of picture), told Blumenthal. "We got our bona fides."

Now that Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has abruptly "discovered" his Jewish roots, I wondered: what does the CCC -- which claims, among other things, that it owns the world's largest Confederate flag -- think of him now?

I reached Mr. Baum at the CCC headquarters in St. Louis, Mo. Has your organization rethought its position on Sen. Allen? I asked him.

Our conversation, after the jump.

Read more »

From The Dallas Morning News:

Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson urged top aides to take contractors' politics into account when handing out grants and deals, an internal department review has found, though there is no "direct evidence" that favoritism actually occurred.

The department's inspector general began investigating Mr. Jackson after he boasted in a Dallas speech that he'd once scuttled a deal because the would-be contractor disparaged President Bush....

Several top HUD officials – themselves political appointees – testified that Mr. Jackson told senior staff at a meeting a few months before the April 28 speech in Dallas that they should consider contractors' political leanings. He urged them to give contracts to Bush supporters and voiced concerns about any going to active Democratic donors, the aides said.

"I have never touched a contract," Mr. Jackson said Wednesday, in his first interview about the furor his Dallas speech sparked. "I just ad-libbed a little more than I should have, and I regret that."

More at ThinkProgress.

Washington has witnessed a storm of "pay-to-play" corruption scandals in Congress over the last year, both admitted and alleged. And on the campaign trail congressional Democrats are charging the GOP with creating a "culture of corruption" on their watch. Yet if they win, they are poised to hand a much-abused spending post to a Democrat with a long reputation for porkbarrel politics and "back room" deals.

If the Dems take control of the House in November, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), now lauded by Democratic activists for his tough stand on Iraq, is poised to retake the helm of an appropriations panel charged with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense-related projects, which he last chaired in the early 1990s. He may even ascend to be Majority Leader in a Democratically controlled House.

Yet Murtha -- who U.S. News and World Report once called "one of Capitol Hill's most accomplished masters at the art of pork" -- presides over a tightly connected network of favored lobbyists, former staffers and major campaign contributors that bears a striking resemblance to those maintained by some of the tarnished Republicans he would likely replace.

Murtha's office declined my request for comment on this article.

Take Jerry Lewis (R-CA). Under FBI investigation, Lewis -- now the chair of the entire Appropriations Committee -- until two years ago chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which Murtha is in line to take over.

"They're very similar," Melanie Sloan told me. Sloan, head of the D.C.-based watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is a former federal prosecutor. "They're both using their positions to financially benefit those close to them." Her self-described "progressive" group is investigating Murtha's activities, and recently placed him on a short list of "members to watch" for possible corruption.

Murtha won his reputation by setting up a neat, closed circle of largesse, not unlike the one belonging to Lewis.

Read more »

A powerful ad aired recently in Virginia attacking Sen. George Allen (R-VA) relies on "false statements" and "is just plain wrong," according to the nonpartisan group, FactCheck.org.

The spot, produced by the VoteVets.org PAC, shows an Iraq War veteran firing rounds into two different protective vests, and slams Allen for failing to vote for buying strong body armor to troops.

Earlier, we reported that questions were raised over the ad's claim that troops were sent into Iraq with vests "left over" from the Vietnam War -- including one shown in the spot. "[C]alling them 'left over from Vietnam' is false," concludes the FactCheck.org article, co-authored by veteran reporter Brooks Jackson. "To be accurate on this count, Granato would should have said, 'This is a vest left over from 1999.'"

More importantly, Jackson and his co-author, Justin Bank, found that the central claim in the ad -- that Allen "voted against giving our troops" modern body armor, is "just plain wrong":

That's false. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor. What the ad cites is a vote on an amendment April 2, 2003, just days before the fall of Baghdad, that would have appropriated just over $1 billion for unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment." It made no mention of body armor. . . .

More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. . . . [T]he Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops.

The group who created the ad and paid for its airing, VoteVets.org, has said it is airing a similar ad attacking Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the same issue.

While Jack Abramoff himself only scored seven visits to the White House -- at least, according to released records -- his friends and associates were more frequent guests. That's according to a payload of Secret Service records released last night by the White House.

Chief among those visitors were Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, both of whom worked with Abramoff to get him and his clients access to the administration.

Norquist got "was cleared for 97 visits to the White House complex between 2001 and 2006, including a half-dozen with the president," according to the records. Norquist's access was sure enough that he charged big money for meetings with Bush -- the price of admission was a hefty contribution to Norquist's nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform. Two of Abramoff's tribal clients coughed up $25,000 each for a meeting with Bush in May of 2001. In July of 2002, Norquist asked Abramoff for $100,000 to set up a meeting.

Read more »

House Judiciary Pulls Parliamentary Gimmick to Advance WH Torture Bill
"On the verge of a major political defeat, House Judiciary Committee Republicans scrambled to find missing panel members in order to successfully send a White House-backed military-tribunals bill to the floor.

"When two Republicans, Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Bob Inglis (S.C.), cast their votes against the bill — siding with a Senate-crafted bill at odds with the Bush administration — Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) resorted to a procedural move.

"Gohmert voted against the bill, allowing members time to track down House International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), two panel members who weren’t present for the vote.

"By voting against the bill, Gohmert reserved the right to call it for a second vote, according to House rules.

"With Hyde and Gallegly voting in favor of the bill, the committee was able to get the vote to 20-19 in favor of the legislation." (The Hill, LATimes)

Read more »

Ouch. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) -- our Pink Sugar, bless her heart -- wasn't slated to appear at a campaign rally with Gov. Jeb Bush and the GOP candidate to replace him, Charlie Christ. Rumors swirl she wasn't invited.

At the last minute, Harris added the event to her schedule, and the fellas graciously made a place for her. The two men "denied there had been any effort. . . to keep Harris away from the event." Yeah, right. The old, 'I thought he was going to invite you.' 'No, I thought you were going to invite her!'

Man, I bet the kids used to pull that on her in the sixth grade. It still hurts.

The House Judiciary Committee just reversed itself, calling a re-vote and passing a controversial detainee treatment bill that has White House backing, according to House sources.

Earlier today, the panel had voted down the measure, 18-17, with three members not voting. The re-vote swung the tally to 20-18 in favor of the bill.

Update: WSJ's Washington Wire has more details (and a better vote tally -- we'd originally reported 17-20). "The amendment might have passed had two Democrats not missed the vote; the two were at a news conference on the Medicare drug benefit."

Prosecutors working on the Jack Abramoff investigation have asked a federal judge to postpone setting a sentencing date for Tony Rudy, a close associate of Abramoff's, because his "cooperation will continue for the foreseeable future." It's the second time they've pushed the date back.

It's yet another sign that the Abramoff investigation is far from over, even after Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) guilty plea.

Rudy, who served as Tom DeLay's press secretary before moving to Abramoff's team, pled guilty back in March to one count of conspiracy. His cooperation is likely bad news for Ed Buckham, DeLay's longtime righthand man, whom Rudy implicated in his guilty plea for helping route Abramoff's bribe money to Rudy while he was still working with DeLay. As as we've noted many times before, Buckham, who ran his own lobby shop called Alexander Strategy Group, would be a big one to fall.

Rudy was set to meet with prosecutors and a judge Oct. 2, but prosecutors, in a joint motion with Rudy's lawyers, have asked that the date be postponed 90 days. That means that Rudy won't be sentenced until well into next year. He faces a sentence between two years and 30 months.

E-mails recently obtained by the Memphis Commercial Appeal are strengthening critics' charges that GOP Senate candidate Bob Corker used his position as mayor of Chattanooga to advance a land deal between Wal-Mart and one of his companies.

The deal has already brought Corker trouble this election: because of a lawsuit against his company, he'll be forced to testify about the deal on October 20, just three weeks before Election Day. Recent polls show Corker in a dead heat with Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN).

Corker's critics charge that as mayor, he illegally bypassed the city council in the final stages of selling a piece of land abutting a conservation easement. Osborne Enterprises, a Corker-owned company, planned to build a road through the easement, but could only do so if they obtained an approved "letter of intent" to donate the road to the city. According to the Commercial Appeal, the e-mails from this period show that the letter didn't receive the approval of the city’s Planning Council until months after the land deal had gone through and development had already begun. Furthermore, the "letter of intent" seems to have been processed almost two weeks after Osborne sold the land to Wal-Mart, for $4.6 million. It only passed through the Council in September.

Corker’s political director, Todd Womack, insists that Corker's actions are “above reproach."

House Judiciary Committee votes down White House-backed detainee bill, CQ reports (sub. req.):

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday rejected the Bush administration’s proposed ground rules for interrogation and trial of enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism, defeating a bill that was approved last week by the Armed Services Committee.

The Q also noted that negotiations continue between the administration and Congress. "GOP leaders from both chambers were headed to the White House Wednesday afternoon to discuss the state of play on the detainee legislation."

From this morning: CQ's Marty Kady has an excellent state-of-play piece up now and free for all to read. Published mere hours ago, it presages but does not report the most recent turns of event:

Tuesdays in the Senate are normally reserved for catered “policy lunches” aimed at getting the party on message for the week. But things are far from normal in the Senate these days.

Republicans circulated in and out of this week’s luncheon, expressing a range of opinions on issues critical to President Bush and party leaders. If there was a clear message, it wasn’t getting out. . . .

[n the House,] Majority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, insisted Tuesday that Republicans are on the same page.

“We see unity amongst Republicans in our willingness to give the president the tools to fight the terrorists and to help keep America safe,” Boehner said.

But in the same breath, Boehner admitted “we are still arguing about the details of those tools, I should say, trying to resolve the details of those tools.”

Yet another roadblock for the White House's push for "antiterror" legislation: The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked to review and approve the detainee treatment bill currently the subject of intense negotiation by the White House and GOP members of a separate panel.

"It is neither our intention nor our wish to delay Senate consideration" of the legislation, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote in their letter, which -- if honored -- is almost sure to delay the Senate's progress on the proposal. The bill, passed last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is awaiting consideration on the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has threatened to filibuster the measure.

Specter and Leahy, the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Wednesday.

The bill in question, S. 3901, is better known as the "Warner-McCain-Graham" bill, because of the three breakaway Republican senators who are pushing it. Its details are at odds with the wishes of the Bush administration, which wants a freer hand in interrogating and prosecuting terror suspects that the bill would provide.

There he goes!

Sen. Conrad Burns' (R-MT) campaign manager has proudly announced that his boss has confirmed he is not a "target" of the Abramoff investigation.

As we've learned from previous scandal figures, that can only mean one thing: the investigators are making progress.

"The Department of Justice told Sen. Burns' counsel that no, in fact, he is not the target," Burns' spokesman said yesterday afternoon. The comments came after Time Magazine reported that a source "close to the investigation" said that Burns was getting "particular scrutiny" in the wake of Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) guilty plea.

It's a statement finely tuned to sound like Burns has been exonerated. But of course, it doesn't really mean anything except that prosecutors won't be knocking down his door tomorrow. As the Great Falls Tribune noted:

"Target" is a specific term indicating that a prosecutor or grand jury likely has evidence linking someone to a crime.

In other words, the Feds ain't got the goods. Yet.

Read more »

The Economic Freedom Fund has moved on its fifth target: Rep. John Barrow (D-GA).

Starting this past Saturday, the group, which is backed with $5 million from Swift Boat Vets funder Bob Perry, started airing an attack ad against Barrow, hitting him for "[helping] trial lawyers" and "[hurting] small businesses."

You can see the group's TV ad here:

The group dropped $120,968 for nine days of the ad, which brings their known expenditures to about $1.07 million nationwide. A recent poll conducted by a Republican firm showed Barrow narrowly leading his challenger, former Rep. Max Burns.

But that ad isn't the only weapon the group is wielding against Barrow. Like the group's other ambushes, their tactics in GA-12 have also included negative fliers and misleading robo calls. Barrow spokesman Harper Lawson said that the calls, which hit the candidate on hot issues like immigration and gay marriage, campaign have prompted calls from supporters. "They're short and nasty," Lawson said of the calls, which were first reported the day after Labor Day.

Read more »

What do Sens. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) have in common? (Hint: they're frequent subjects on TPMmuckraker.)

The three men are the most corrupt senators in Congress, according to a new list of the most corrupt lawmakers in Washington.

It's the second year now that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released its list of 20 muckiest senators and congresspeople.

Although the group names the trio as "most corrupt," it doesn't rank the 17 House members they finger.

The group also identified five "members to watch" -- that is, folks with muck in their past that could be a harbinger of muck to come.

The list, in no particular order, is after the jump.

Read more »

From the House to the Big House
"With Rep. Bob Ney’s (R-Ohio) guilty plea on federal corruption charges last Friday and a stint in prison looming for the lawmaker, the House suddenly finds the ranks of its alumni behind bars growing to a level not seen in a decade.

"When Ney heads off to prison, likely sometime next year, he will become the fourth Member to be locked up for criminal behavior, and the Ohio Republican may not be the last. Ney will join ex-Reps. James Traficant (D-Ohio), Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Frank Ballance (D-N.C.), all of whom currently are being held in federal correctional facilities...."

"In fact, not since the early 1990s, when the House Bank, Post Office and Page scandals were roiling Capitol Hill and prematurely ending dozens of political careers, have so many lawmakers been in prosecutors’ sights.

"From 1993 to 1996, 10 Members went to prison for varying lengths of time, and at least four, and possibly as many as six, were imprisoned at the same time, according to media reports....

"A decade earlier, the Abscam scandal of 1980-81 ended up landing six House Members and a Senator in prison, and the seven served contemporaneous prison sentences between one and three years." (Roll Call, sub. req.)

Read more »

The major powers behind the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign have reunited. The Economic Freedom Fund is solely backed by Bob Perry, the principal funder of the Swift Boat Vets. And now the group is working with the same media firm that produced those ads.

The firm, Stevens, Reed, Curcio, and Potholm, boasts a number of GOP Senate, House, and gubenatorial clients in its history, including the National Republican Campaign Committee, Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). This July, the group got in hot water for an ad it ran against Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown. The ad, which hit Brown for being weak on national security, featured a doctored image of the twin towers with photogenic smoke hovering around them.

According to documents and local television managers in Georgia and Iowa, SRCP has been responsible for buying the airtime for the Economic Freedom Fund's television ads -- attacks against Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Jim Marshall (D-GA), and John Barrow (D-GA). It's not clear if the firm actually produced the ads, or was merely working with Meridian Pacific, the well-connected California consulting firm that works with the group, to get the ads placed. Neither SRCP or Meridian Pacific returned my calls to explain their involvement.

Questions are being raised over a "hard-hitting" ad criticizing Sen. George Allen (R-VA) by a left-leaning veteran's political action committee.

The ad, made by VoteVets.org, charges Allen voted against a bill that would provide updated body armor to troops serving in the Middle East. The group's Web site features accolades from liberal Web sites about the spot, calling it "more relevant and hard hitting than anything else I've seen," and "by far the most brilliant and effective ad I've seen this cycle."

In the ad, an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, Peter Granato, narrates and fires rounds from an AK-47 into two different vests.

"This is a vest left over from the Vietnam War," Granato says, introducing the first vest. "It's the protection we were given when we deployed to Iraq."

The second is "modern body armor, made for today's weapons." Not surprisingly, the second vest holds up to two rounds; the first is pierced by four bullets. Allen "voted against giving our troops this," Granato says in the ad, indicating the newer vest. "Now it's time for us to vote against him."

Not so fast. "[W]hat they say in this ad, particularly about the older vest, is a lie," wrote Bruce McQuain on the libertarian blog, QandO, on Sept. 14. (Allen's "blog guru," Jon Henke, also writes for the site.) McQuain identified the vest as an "80s era kevlar PASGT flak vest."

Read more »

A White House "compromise" on detainee treatment was rejected by a trio of senior lawmakers today, as Republicans continue to fight among themselves over an issue that was meant to boost their sagging poll numbers in an election year.

The White House continues to push for a new law to allow painful and humiliating treatment of terror detainees, as well as new powers to prosecute them outside of established judicial processes.

Sens. John Warner (R-VA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) back a bill that sets stricter limits on detainee treatment and prosecution.

After the three men turned down the White House's compromise bill, an unnamed Senate aide calclulated the odds of both sides reaching a compromise at "50-50," CNN reported.

The group is expected to send a counter-proposal to the White House soon. Of course, they have something the White House doesn't: time. None of the three lawmakers face re-election battles, and control of the Senate is unlikely to be swayed by the outcome of this particular fight, so they could take their time in negotiating with the White House during these last two weeks of the session.

The administration, on the other hand, is eager to use detainee treatment as a wedge issue for the midterm House elections, which could determine not only control of the House but also the political future of the administration.

Stay tuned. . .

Documents show that a government scientist was passed over for a media appearance because he didn't toe the administration's line on global warming, a senior House Democrat suggested today.

The emails (posted here) show that CNBC requested in October 2005 to interview Dr. Tom Knutson, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, about whether global warming was contributing to the intensity of hurricanes. The request was passed up the chain to Commerce press secretary Chuck Fuqua.

"What is Knutson's view on global warming vs. decadal cycles?" Fuqua asked his subordinate.

He's "a bit of a different animal" than the higher-ups at the NOAA, the aide responded.

"Why can't we have one of the other guys on then?" Fuqua emailed back.

NOAA ultimately denied CNBC the interview.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking member on the House Committee on Government Reform, has written a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez to "learn more about the matter."

The Tampa Tribune reports:

A former Department of Homeland Security spokesman pleaded no contest this morning to 23 charges that he used a computer to solicit sex from a Polk County detective posing as a 14-year-old girl.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, faces up to five years in prison when he is sentenced by Circuit Judge Dale Durrance on Nov. 17. His lawyer, Barry Helfand, said he plans to present testimony from psychiatrists, friends and family during the sentencing hearing to try spare Doyle any prison time.

“I just have one thing to say, I’m very, very sorry,’’ Doyle told reporters after he pleaded no contest to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and 16 counts of transmitting harmful materials to a minor.

Doyle's lawyer says he suffers from depression, and will explain his actions at his sentencing in November. Doyle was busted in April, you'll recall. Sordid details are here.

Loyalty. Doesn't it mean anything anymore?

Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has gone out of his way to make life better for his chosen successor, Joy Padgett. When he announced that he would not seek reelection, he endorsed the Ohio state senator to follow in his footsteps. And when he agreed to plead guilty to two felony counts last Wednesday, he delayed the announcement delayed until Friday so as not to affect Padgett's chances in the special election to replace him as the Republican nominee in his district. (Padgett won handily.)

But how does Padgett reward Ney? With this statement:

Congressman Ney's admission of guilt to serious charges requires his immediate resignation. That being said, it was my expectation that Congressman Ney would have by now resigned his office in the United States Congress. I am calling on him to do so immediately. Failing that, Congress should take action to expel Congressman Ney as soon as possible.

Now, according to unnamed Republican Congressional aides, all Ney wants to do is draw a pay check. He doesn't want to cause any more trouble. He just wants to stick around a little longer to pay his legal bills.

But Joy Padgett's political instincts appear stronger than her loyalty to the man who gave her a shot at the big time. How fickle is a friendship that vanishes because of a few bribes?

You may have heard the story of Maher Arar before. If so, you knew it was bad. But yesterday it got worse.

In 2002, Arar, a Syrian born Canadian, had the bad fortune to be suspected of al Qaeda ties by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the RCMP then asked U.S. authorities to put Arar and his wife on its al Qaeda watchlist.

So when Arar tried to change planes in New York in September of that year, U.S. authorities held him for questioning for 12 days, then transported him to Syria. Once there, he was beaten and kept in a dungeon for 10 months before he was released.

For two and a half years, a Canadian commission has been investigating Arar's case. And on Monday, they found that the RCMP's intelligence, which set the whole terrible chain of events in motion, was bunk. Basically, Arar just had the misfortune to be seen talking to the wrong people. The head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O'Connor, concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar was a threat.

But here comes the most sobering part, as rendered in The Washington Post's write up of the report:

Read more »

FBI Assigns Record Number of Agents to Public Corruption Cases
"There is so much political corruption on Capitol Hill that the FBI has had to triple the number of squads investigating lobbyists, lawmakers and influence peddlers, the Daily News has learned.

"For decades, only one squad in Washington handled corruption cases because the crimes were seen as local offenses handled by FBI field offices in lawmakers' home districts. . . .

"But in recent years, the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and other abuses of power and privilege have prompted the FBI to assign 37 agents full-time to three new squads in an office near Capitol Hill.

"FBI Assistant Director Chip Burrus told The News yesterday that he wants to detail even more agents to the Washington field office for a fourth corruption squad because so much wrongdoing is being uncovered. . . .

"Two years ago, only 400 agents worked on public corruption cases. Now, 615 agents nationwide - including 30 in New York - are trying to nail public servants for betraying the public trust in 2,200 ongoing cases. . . .

"Burrus wouldn't speculate about why there is so much graft, but said, 'We have to pull the whole weed up or it's just going to grow back again.'" (NY Daily News)

Read more »

Boyz II Men was right: It is so hard to say goodbye to yesterday. At least for Rep. Bob "I didn't do it/oh wait yes I did" Ney (R-OH).

GOP anxiety ran high over the weekend, thanks to Ney. While he sprang a bouquet of revelations on them last week -- admitting to felonies, revealing his alcoholism, publicly apologizing for his misbehavior -- an announcement he'd be leaving Congress wasn't among the bunch.

And despite public efforts by GOP leaders and anonymous bitter Republicans to convince him to leave on his own, Ney made it pretty clear today he's not gonna go along.

"Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) sent two letters to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) today announcing he would immediately step down from his Financial Services subcommittee chairmanship and also relinquish his chairmanship of the Franking Commission, which oversees and sets guidelines for mass mailings sent from Congressional offices," Roll Call (sub. req.) reports this afternoon.

It's good to know that Ney has such a high regard for the Franking Commission that he believes criminals shouldn't be allowed to chair it. But I guess it's a comment on the integrity of our legislative branch that Ney believes his felonious shoulders have a right to rub with those of his fellow lawmakers.

The GOP has been pushing Ney to quit Capitol Hill since he acknowledged his crookedness Friday morning.

Read more »

During his years of corrupt lawmaking and petty criminality, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) gave generously to his GOP groups and his fellow Republicans' campaigns, as groups like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have noted.

Since Ney's guilty admission last week, two lawmakers have announced they will give to charities the amount of money donated to their campaigns by Ney and his political action committee, American Liberty PAC. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) says she will give back the $6,000 she received from Ney, and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) said he will give "any campaign contributions he received" from Ney to local charities. (According to the DCCC, Renzi received $11,000 from Ney's organizations.)

But the National Republican Congressional Committee, locked in a bitter fight to preserve GOP dominance in the House, says no way.

"We are not returning the money," NRCC spokesman Ed Patru told me, referring to the $47,000 his group took from Ney. "I'll remind you that the DCCC did not return the tens of thousands of dollars it took from convicted felon Frank Ballance, or from convicted felon Joe Cari."

Read more »

The Economic Freedom Fund has made its biggest buy of the campaign so far: $446,850* in television ads in Iowa's 3rd District.

The ad, which you can see here, hits Democrat incumbent Leonard Boswell for voting against making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Sales managers at the two local stations where the ad is running, KCCI, WHO, and WOI, said that it started running last Wednesday and will continue for three weeks.

The ad buy brings the known total expenditures of the Economic Freedom Fund to approximately $945,850 so far this election, and is further evidence that the group is aggressively targeting a select few House races (at least four). The group is also responsible for robo calls in Boswell's district.

The latest poll shows Boswell leading Republican challenger Jeff Lamberti 52-41. As I wrote Thursday, the group has chosen races where Republicans trail by a significant margin (approximately ten points), but where the GOP candidate is seen to be within striking distance.

*Update: The group's ad buy on WOI ($2,350) has been added to this piece since it first ran.

The electoral tide may be turning to the Democrats' favor, but that doesn't mean the big campaign money should, according to the GOP. From today's Roll Call (sub. req.):

A roomful of about 100 high-dollar-donor lobbyists and political action committee directors huddled late last week with Rep. Tom Reynolds (N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, for an election update and strategy session.

According to one source who was present at the meeting, Reynolds used the election briefing to spread the word that the endangered House GOP will not look favorably on PACs that start “hedging their bets” by upping their contributions to Democrats. The source at the meeting said Reynolds made sure the attendees know that the

NRCC would have no choice but to report back to all House Republicans details of any PACs or companies that shift their giving.

“That’s an old [former Rep. Tom] DeLay (R-Texas) tactic,” said the source, who attended the meeting at the American Trucking Associations on Sept. 14. “Isn’t it that heavy-handed stuff that backfired and got him in trouble?”

NRCC spokesman Carl Forti said only, “We don’t discuss things that go on in private meetings.”

Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.

Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2004, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stannard. He is suing the company.

His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. "What they did was murder," Stannard told CBS News recently. "And I stick by that."

The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stannard for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stannard's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)

The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stannard's injuries:

. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.

Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.

The state of Indiana sued the right-wing Economic Freedom Fund today, to stop it from harrassing residents with automated "robo calls" supporting a GOP congressional candidate. The suit, by Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter (R) seeks a preliminary injunction stopping the calls immediately.

The Economic Freedom Fund was responsible for an unknown number of calls last week in Indiana's ninth district, attacking the Dem challenger, Baron Hill. His opponent, Rep. Mike Sodrel (R-IN), who trails Hill by nine points according to the latest polls, has denied knowing anything about the calls. (For details and a recording of the call, see our story last week.)

As we reported last Thursday, Bob Perry, the money man behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has put $5 million into a new organization to attack House Democrats. In addition to TV and print ads run in four different districts across the country, the group is behind a slew of robo calls that are in the form of push polls -- phony polls that serve to attack an opponent rather than collect data.

Staci Schneider, Carter's press secretary, said that the group notified the AG last week that they had halted the calls. But it was too late. At least seven Hoosiers filed complaints with the state, according to Schneider. The statute allows for a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, meaning that the group could be hit with a $35,000 fine, based on the seven complaints, although the AG has not yet decided on the penalty it will seek. A hearing is scheduled for September 27th.

Update: TPM Reader DK writes: "The penalty would be assessed based on the number of violations, not just the number of complaints. So the AG could through discovery, etc. acquire the call records, billing records etc and see just how many calls were made. Never would anyone get nailed for every last call in court or in a settlement, but it means that the AG's negotiating position would start out much higher than $35,000."

Someone please explain this to me. The Washington Post has a front page story this morning headlined, "Corruption That Shook Capitol Isn't Rattling Elections" with the subhead, "Abramoff Case and Others Not Necessarily a Key Issue."

As an example of one of those races where corruption isn't "rattling" the election, the author, Blaine Harden, cites Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), who's been hammered for his close dealings with Jack Abramoff:

In an interview, the senator said his polling shows that most voters regard the "Abramoff deal" as merely a political liability and not a damning verdict on his character. Several pollsters and observers of politics in this state agreed with that assessment. The controversy is almost certainly the main reason Burns is in a competitive race this year, but by no means is it a guaranteed career-ender.

Yet Burns, an 18-year veteran of the Senate, is in a fight for his political life largely because of the Abramoff scandal. Somehow the Post's story and other "Corruption's Not The Issue It's Cracked Up To Be" pieces that I've seen over the past month make the argument that this is a disappointment for Democrats.

Is it just me, or is there a double standard here?

When you're reading the piece, notice how Harden breezes past the fact that the Abramoff scandal has already ended two prominent careers -- those of Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Tom DeLay (R-TX). If any other issue were so potent as to foreclose two such political careers, I doubt its failure to automatically end other careers would be cast as a disappointment.

C'mon, people! Give muck the respect it deserves.

Update: Ha. New Rasmussen poll shows Burns trailing by nine.

Effect of Ney's Guilt Could Weigh Heavily
"Rep. Bob Ney's admission of guilt comes at a terrible time for Republicans, both in Ohio and nationally. . . .

"For the first time in months, GOP strategists had been enjoying a spate of good news and were starting to believe that the upcoming congressional elections may not be the disaster they were all dreading. But now, Ney bursts back into the news with sordid tales of taking thousands of dollars in poker chips from a Syrian businessman while accepting untold free trips, fancy meals and golf junkets from corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"Just when they need it most, Democrats – courtesy of Ney – have been given a great opportunity to change the subject from national security back to Republican corruption." (Copley News Service)

Read more »

According to this email (from the National Journal's Richard Cohen, via Hotline on Call), Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) had the strength to admit to entire furlongs of corrupt activities last week, but now can't find enough energy to pack up his office:

"Be aware that there is considerable anxiety among House Republicans about what Bob Ney does next. To cut to the chase, they all want him to resign NOW. And, from what I hear, he has not responded accordingly. Republicans know that it’s bad news for them if he remains as a member of the House into next week.

"I am told by a reliable House GOP source that Hastert and Boehner already have told Ney that he has to go, but that he hasn’t taken the hint. It’s unclear if/how Ney’s rehab fits into this, at least in his mind. My sense is:

1) If he hasn’t formally submitted his resignation letter to Hastert by Tuesday morning when the House next meets, the Dems will go ballistic; and

2) I wouldn’t be surprised if the House then would move to expel him on a bipartisan basis, possibly as quickly as next week. That’s essentially what happened in the House when our friend Traficant refused to resign (on the eve of the 2002 election) after he was convicted in federal court….Traficant actually spoke in the House chamber during that debate. I can’t imagine that Ney would do that. But, who knows?"

Rage, Bob, against the dying of the light?

The second-in-command to an admitted briber of Duke Cunningham is facing a federal inquiry for possibly improper campaign contributions, according to a new report.

The potentially illegal contributions -- all made to lawmakers representing districts of strategic importance to King's company -- were first reported by TPMmuckraker.

King is now chief of Athena Innovative Solutions, renamed from MZM Inc. when Wade pleaded guilty and sold the company. For a time, King worked as a top aide to Michael V. Hayden, then chief of the National Security Agency, on contract from MZM. Hayden is now director of the CIA.

The U.S. News piece is lengthy, and adds even more color to the established portrait of Mitchell Wade as corrupt, megalomaniacal, vengeful and petty. It also has some good details on King, too. For instance, the magazine reports that one of King's favorite aphorisms is, 'There are no lies; the truth keeps changing.'

"After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans," the Washington Post reports today -- "restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers.

"But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon."

What happened to applicants in that office?

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.