Comments (36)

Anonymous wrote on August 9, 2007 1:00 PM:

RICO?

Americans will be shocked by what Young, Allen, Stevens, and Murkowskis have been doing with earmarks for 20 years. Only the Feds can bring it to light. How many Federal Agents do you need to get a solid RICO case together?

I hope the are arrested on the Congress floor while they are giving a speech. This would be great

POed Lib wrote on August 9, 2007 1:02 PM:

This is unbelievable.

Mike Conwell wrote on August 9, 2007 1:03 PM:

>I hope the are arrested on the Congress floor while they are giving a speech.

And against the law, sorry. All the same, arrest them when they are leaving their D.C. hotel room after a pleasant evening with their "companion"

Amos Rutledge wrote on August 9, 2007 1:09 PM:

>>> This is unbelievable.

No, this is Business As Usual in Sunny SW Florida.

P J Evans wrote on August 9, 2007 1:16 PM:

>>> This is unbelievable.

> No, this is Business As Usual in Sunny SW Florida.

It also appears to be Business As Usual in Alaska.

This is the party of 'Morality' and 'Family Values' and all that other good stuff they've been promising for the last 20 years?

Jefty wrote on August 9, 2007 1:17 PM:

This may finally sink his career here in Alaska. I hope so. What a crook

fafner1 wrote on August 9, 2007 1:31 PM:

Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere"? (the one near Anchorage, not the one in Ketchikan) They were (are?) going to call the road to it "The Don Young Way". Talk about arrogance.

chabuka wrote on August 9, 2007 1:38 PM:

RICO, illegal, signing statements, what ever...Young will get off, maybe a slap on the wrist, maybe a small fine...Daniel Aronoff will keep his exchange and some lobbying company will hire him for even more money..cuz he "understands" the system, and works well with Republicans..and they will laugh all the way to the bank about how good it is to be a crooked Republican in a land of pitiful, little, tit-mouse Democrats

rlogan wrote on August 9, 2007 1:46 PM:

Oh shucks folks.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 9, 2007 1:53 PM:

Nice to see that Young might get reprimanded... of course Bush can always change that with an Executive Order.

The problem, though, is, Congress (that's those folks supposedly being paid to protect OUR interests) just voted to KEEP the earmarks. So three monthis down the line we can all be discusted because yet another congressman is getting caught by enough evidence to make a ruckess.

Meanwhile, those mobsters (of course we didn't know at that time they were mobsters) we elected to clean up the corruption, just made it perfectly clear that they're goal is to PROTECT the corruption.

Do most of you still believe those guys are there to bring back ethics and equality? Bet you do. We'll continue to read how we NEED to support the Dems or just HAVE to vote for the Reps if we want to avoid a disaster. Kind of beginning to sound exactly like Bush, to me, and just like Bush, the facts I have been seeing tell just the opposite story.

Want to bring the troops back home? Get rid of the clowns wanting to keep them there.

Want to get back an honest, ethical Congress? Get rid of the mobsters voting to keep the practice available...

BJL wrote on August 9, 2007 2:09 PM:

Is this the same technique that was used to insert the AG's US Attorney appointment authority into the Patriot Act?

Johann wrote on August 9, 2007 2:09 PM:

Check my math.
He gets a $40,000 contribution in return for a $10,000,000 earmark. That is a return of .04% (.0004). But then, it wasn't his money, it was the taxpayer's (our) money.

JaDe wrote on August 9, 2007 2:13 PM:

I'm not an Attorney, but it seems to me the argument could be made:

1. A Bill was apssed by Congress

2. A different Bill, not voted on by Congress, was sent to the President. Therefore, the bill signed by the President cannot be the law.

3. The Bill actually passed is the Law, becuase the President did not veto it.

mathman wrote on August 9, 2007 2:31 PM:

Johann,

You are off a little, that would be .4%. Which isn't bad for 5-6 words worth of work.

thomas wrote on August 9, 2007 2:36 PM:

so now Florida partners with Alaska to join Illinois, Louisianna, Maryland and New Jersey.
Who's next? Common states, corruption should ba available to everyone, equally.

Nelly Bly wrote on August 9, 2007 2:38 PM:

Somewhat off topic here but I was just reading the Mark Zachares plea agreement at PACER and he pleaded guilty to conspiring with Jack Abramoff and others to advance a multi-million highway project for the benefit of a businessman in early 2004.

Anyone know anything about this highway project? I had never heard of Abramoff being involved in a highway project before today.

Abramoff, btw, is scheduled to sentenced 9/7/07 on the corruption charges but his cooperation is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Kuparuk wrote on August 9, 2007 2:43 PM:

Just the House's version of a signing statement.....

exiter wrote on August 9, 2007 2:59 PM:

Language change also responsible for accepted law that CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS.

Don't want to believe it? See "Unequal Protection:The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Protection of Corporate Rights" by Thom Hartmann 2002, Chapter 6.

[excerpts:]
"The Supreme Court did not rule, in this case or any case, on the issue of corporate personhood.

In fact, to this day there has been no Supreme Court ruling that could explain why a corporation - with its ability to continue operating forever, a legal agreement that can’t be put in jail and doesn’t need fresh water to drink or clean air to breathe - should be granted the same Constitutional rights our Founders explicitly fought for, died for, and granted to the very mortal human beings who are citizens of the United States, to protect them against the perils of imprisonment and suppression they’d experienced under a despot king."

"Regardless how it happened - whether it was a simple error by Davis, or Davis was bending to pressure from Fields, or if Davis simply took it upon himself to use the voice of the Supreme Court to modify the United States Constitution - the fact is that an amendment to the Constitution which had been written by and passed in Congress, voted on and ratified by the states, and signed into law by the president, was radically altered in1886 from the intent of its post-Civil War authors.

And the hand on the pen that did it was that of J. C. Bancroft Davis."

Rob wrote on August 9, 2007 3:11 PM:

Here another example from today in Missouri...a shining example at that.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/35E121F1AEF39BEA862573320058E089?OpenDocument

JEP wrote on August 9, 2007 3:20 PM:

"This is unbelievable."

Shameful, maybe, but no surprise considering they thought "oversight" would always be done under a Republican gavel.

"Bang bang Henry's wooden gavel came down..upon their heads..."

JEP wrote on August 9, 2007 3:31 PM:

"Legislator-lawyer Nathan Cooper of Cape Girardeau has pleaded guilty of fraud in connection with a scheme to import immigrants as truck drivers.

The announcement was made today by the U.S. attorney's office in St. Louis. Sentencing will be Oct. 19 for Cooper, a Republican in the Missouri House. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison and a fine of $500,000."

Someone want to show me where the Republican scandal trainwreck that Rove so lamented, ended?

Still looks like a runaway train to me.

...from what Rob pointed out for us here, and the story yesterday about the President of some national Young Republican group and his unreqiuted romantic, it lookes like there's no caboose on that Republican corruption freight train, more dirty coal-cars just keep snaggin' on to the tail end of it...

How low can they go? The Republicans could change their name, they are the first Limbo Party in American politics.

JEP wrote on August 9, 2007 4:22 PM:

"$40,000 contribution in return for a $10,000,000 earmark."

Just to be fair, you have to calculate the profit to find the percentage you allude to, but it is a moot point, really.

Any percentage represents corruption, if it wasn't committed with such an arrogant hubris it might not be so enfuriating to even the political pragmatists in our midst.

These guys really do believe they are our "rulers," not our public servants...

Did you read what that Utah mine owner said about his DC "connections?" His clout with Chao?

Reminds me of Delay's "I AM the Federal Goverment" cuban cigar moment, Allen's "kick their soft teeth" moment, and so many TBlossom's public displays of "seig heil" Republicanism.

Is it any wonder that when they fall, they fall so hard?

p.f. wrote on August 9, 2007 4:22 PM:

>>>How many Federal Agents do you need to get a solid RICO case together?

Ask the "D.C. Maddam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Aren't they trying to get her using the RICO act?

"Federal prosecutors have not charged Palfrey with prostitution, which is not a federal crime, but with racketeering and conspiracy charges which assume Palfrey's business violated local laws against the sale of sex." - from ABC News, The Blotter - June 18, 2007 10:55 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/dismiss_all_cha.html

Maybe if Young and Aronoff had been having sex, oops, I mean "just a massage", then maybe RICO would want to join in.

Maybe?

Bill W wrote on August 9, 2007 4:25 PM:

Bill Moyers' Journal discussed Young's FL earmark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7VUvdhgXsY

Xenos wrote on August 9, 2007 10:54 PM:

"I'm not an Attorney, but it seems to me the argument could be made:

-snip-"

Depending on the timing, it could be that the original bill received a 'pocket veto'. But even then, the bill that is passed must be presented to the President. That never happened here. I strongly suspect the entire bill may be invalid, especially since this is not a scriveners' error, but fraud in the execution, if I can use contract terminology here.

I bet this has never happened before, and there is no case law on the subject. Who has standing to get the bill thrown out? Would th epresent congress have such standing?

These are great con law exam questions. What a nightmare to be experiencing them for real!!!

johnnydoughey wrote on August 9, 2007 11:19 PM:

It's so disheartening to see that, even though this is either entirely illegal or, at the least, highly unethical, Florida is still seeing if it is possible to get the funds.

Our country has degenerated so much it is probably useless to even mak an attemt at changing it. We are the new Romans, playing and cavorting as our way of life goes down in shambles....

Doesn't anyone bother to actually learn from history?

Flow wrote on August 10, 2007 4:01 AM:

I'm from Naples/Fort Myers, Florida area and in my opinion the Coconut Rd. interchange is a waste of money. This will only benefit the wealthy few in the area. I-75 needs to be widened, at least that will help everyone. I-75 is bumper to bumper 6-8 hours a day when there are no accidents. They need to get their priorities straight. This is why I moved to Colorado and don't ever plan on moving back.

Dr. Wu wrote on August 10, 2007 8:42 AM:

"Check my math.
He gets a $40,000 contribution in return for a $10,000,000 earmark. That is a return of .04% (.0004). But then, it wasn't his money, it was the taxpayer's (our) money.
Posted by: Johann"

Yep. Where else can a guy with $40,000 earn a 25,000% rate of return? When it comes to getting top dollar for your bribes, Don Young is the best value in town.

Dr. Wu wrote on August 10, 2007 8:44 AM:

"Check my math.
He gets a $40,000 contribution in return for a $10,000,000 earmark. That is a return of .04% (.0004). But then, it wasn't his money, it was the taxpayer's (our) money.
Posted by: Johann"

Yep. Where else can a guy with $40,000 earn a 25,000% rate of return? When it comes to getting top dollar for your bribes, Don Young is the best value in town.

Dr. Wu wrote on August 10, 2007 8:46 AM:

"Check my math.
He gets a $40,000 contribution in return for a $10,000,000 earmark. That is a return of .04% (.0004). But then, it wasn't his money, it was the taxpayer's (our) money.
Posted by: Johann"

Yep. Where else can a guy with $40,000 earn a 25,000% rate of return? When it comes to getting top dollar for your bribes, Don Young is the best value in town.

Steve wrote on August 10, 2007 9:13 AM:

I hate to tell you, but I think the earmark still has the force of law.

After the final bill is passed, the leaders of both Houses have to sign a certification essentially saying "this, right here, is the bill we passed."

If Young changed the bill before it was certified by the House leaders, then there's nothing the courts can do about it. Even though the leaders were wrong that the bill before them was the bill that was passed, the certification can't be reexamined. There was a Supreme Court decision on this earlier this year.

If Young changed the bill after it was certified, then that should have no legal effect, but I'd be surprised if anyone had access to the bill after it was certified.

aklocal wrote on August 10, 2007 12:15 PM:

Redirection of this money after the bill was voted on is an attack on a fundamental principle of legislative process. Don deserves to get his ass seriously kicked for this one. I hope his peers and constituants have the grit to do it.

Thanks for the microscope TPM!

Satan luvvs Repugs wrote on August 10, 2007 12:52 PM:

Wasn't there a case, a few years ago, where both the Senate and House bill were "certified", and Bush signed it, but then it turned out the the Senate and House versions had some differences?

Whether this earmark, or the bill that contains it, has legal force, this is the kind of shenanigans that should get a House member expelled.

But if this kind of stuff is "okay":
how about slipping a "withdraw from Iraq by date certain" into an omnibus spending bill? I bet that Bush doesn't read the fine print before signing it.

apikoros wrote on August 22, 2007 5:50 PM:

Just in case anyone is interested in seeing the "facts on the ground," you can see the land reserved for the interchange in this shot from google maps.

Apikoros wrote on August 22, 2007 6:06 PM:

OK, no html. Here's the link in plain text:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=26.396483,-81.772957&spn=0.034136,0.058365&t=h&z=14&om=1

if that does not work out, go to google maps or google earth and go to latitude 26.396 and longitude -81.774.

You can see Coconut Road ending a quarter mile before it hits the interstate and a reserved trumpet-bell plot of land (currently being farmed for hay) between the end of that plot and the interstate.

That this reserved plot exists says to me that this interchange has been in the minds of developers in that area for quite some time and they have cut current profits for future gain to make sure there is land available to be condemned (at residential rate no doubt) for it.

Billing wrote on October 7, 2007 8:52 AM:

SONG OF DEBORAH
..they chose new gods then war was in the gates.. awake awake deborah utter a song.. the Lord gave you dominion over the mighty.. curse you

bitterly the inhabitants thereof who came not to the help of justice against the mighty.. they divided the prey, to every man a damsel or two..

let all thine enemies perish o Lord and the land rest forty years..

Deborah palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That trial of the Century is deleted from all books, cursed be reporters.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers gay lutheran shock and awe agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kessler now.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918