CONTENTS

Republicans have always insisted that they represented the party of integrity, ethics, and values. On the contrary, GOP politicians have been party to seizing private land for personal gain, extorting money, pushing classified information to reporters for political revenge, benefiting personally from awarding lucrative contracts while in office, illegally abusing controlled substances, and making fortunes from enterprises that over-charge the government. And they have been under indictment for criminal conspiracy and investigated for insider trading.

Dick Cheney was surrounded by some very substantial conflicts of interest. As Secretary of Defense under George H. Bush, Cheney spear-headed an effort to privatize a number of parts of the military. In 1992, Cheney worked with Halliburton to draw up the plans and contracts. After leaving government, he joined Halliburton and profited from the very arrangements he helped to engineer. Cheney still continued to own over 400,000 Halliburton stock options and a series of no bid contracts for work in Iraq and hurricane Katrina flow to Halliburton.

GOP Congressman Tom DeLay appeared at a prayer breakfast just after the tsunami that killed 240,000 people. He read a passage from Matthew about a nonbeliever: ‘A fool who built his house on sand: the rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined.’ (Boulder Daily Camera, December 2, 2005)

Even outsider the beltway, many influential Republicans lived a life of hypocrisy:

Rush Limbaugh elevated himself above Democrats, identifying himself as someone who lived for ethical behavior. Yet he abused prescription drugs for a period of over five years. The amount of pills consumed by Rush necessarily required him to have obtained them illegally through a practice known as “doctor shopping.”

Bill Bennett occupied a variety of roles on the national stage including Secretary of Education under George H. Bush and as a founding member of Empower America and the Project for a New American Century. Bennett also declared himself to be a fierce defender of “moral values” and held himself up as “America’s Moral Compass.” Yet Bennett spent considerable time and money engaged in casino gambling. He also made a racist statement such as “aborting black babies to reduce the crime rate.”

Ralph Reed of the Christian right claimed he believed in deep Christian values. Still he was close to Jack Abramoff who with Reed, engaged in unfortunate quid-pro-quo lobbying efforts, most notably extorting money from Indian Casinos for campaign contributions.

Pat Robertson was one of the most prominent and influential figures of the religious right. He blamed abortionists, the ACLU, feminists, and gays for the 9/11 attack. Robertson called Judaism “demonic” and called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Robertson was also accused of using his tax-exempt, non-profit organization, Operation Blessing, as a front for his own financial gain, and then using his influence in the Republican Party to cover his tracks. Robertson was estimated to be worth over $200 million and therefore benefited mightily from the Bush tax cuts.

Robertson thought God told the people of Dover, Pennsylvania they should not have asked for His help anymore because they elected a school board Robertson despised. (Boulder Daily Camera, December 2, 2005)

After Katrina, GOP Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana said, “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did it.” (Boulder Daily Camera, December 2, 2005)

1. THE VALERIE PLAME LEAK AND THE WHITE HOUSE

The Bush administration hoped to use the claim that Saddam was seeking to buy “yellowcake” uranium from Niger as justification to march to war. However, the White House was warned by two European intelligence agencies that such evidence did not exist. Furthermore, agencies within the United States intelligence community for the most part concluded that the information was bogus.

But Bush ignored the warnings. War was inevitable.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Since mid-2001, the French spy service Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation that Saddam was trying to procure “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005)

The French spy service reached its conclusions after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines were controlled by French companies. (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005)

Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure was contacted by the CIA in the summer of 2001 -- shortly before 9/11 -- as intelligence services in Europe and North America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005)

Twice in 2002, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help. By mid-2002, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq. (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005)

The head of Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium. The team found none. His staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French. (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005)

THE ITALIAN CONNECTION. The director of France’s Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure, the country’s spy service, also tried to warn the CIA that there was no evidence to support Bush’s claim that Saddam was trying to purchase “yellowcake” from Niger. (Agence France Presse, December 12, 2005)

The CIA sought France’s help in 2001 and 2002, because French firms dominated the uranium business internationally and former French colonies led the world in production of the strategic mineral. As a result, France was particularly interested in Bush’s claim that Saddam had tried to obtain nuclear materials from its former colonies.

The Italian intelligence service, SISME, helped produce the forged documents delivered to the United States embassy in Rome in early October 2003 that purported to show a deal with Niger to buy uranium. SISME provided the CIA with three separate intelligence reports that Iraq had reached an agreement with Niger to buy 500 tons of yellow cake uranium (October 15, 2001; February 5, 2002; and March 25, 2002; Tom Paine Common Sense, October 19, 2005)

The forged documents of Niger’s uranium, originated with the Italian government. Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy’s military intelligence service. He fabricated the story that Iraq sought yellowcake in 2001 and 2002. (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

In 2001, Polari attended secret meeting with three employees of the Office of Special Plans, Harold Rhode, Michael Ledeen and Larry Franklin. Franklin subsequently pleaded guilty to passing information about United States policy towards Iran to Israel through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

The purpose of the meetings, which violated protocol because the CIA was in attendance, was to set up direct contact between the Pentagon and Iranian dissidents. One Iranian in attendance was arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. The CIA believed Ghorbanifar was a serial “fabricator” and forbade its officers from having anything to do with him. (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

Pollari met secretly in Washington D.C. on September 9, 2002, with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Subsequently in 2005, Hadley was promoted to National Security Adviser. The meeting occurred at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons. . (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

One month later, the forged documents were cabled from the United States embassy in Rome to Washington after being delivered to embassy officials by an Italian reporter. (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

National Security Counsel spokesman Fredrick Jones said that during the Hadley-Pollari meeting, the subject of Iraq’s supposed uranium deal with Niger is not believed to have come up. Jones described the meeting as “a courtesy call that lasted fewer than 15 minutes.” He added, “No one present has any recollection of ‘yellowcake’ being discussed.” (American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

THE CIA AND DIA. The CIA’s report, Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts, quoted many of the Italian report’s claims, but added that the report of a completed deal was not corroborated by any other sources. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

After talks with senior Nigerien officials and French executives in the uranium mining operations, along with a still wider investigation by the embassy, including the CIA, Wilson reported back that there is no evidence of such dealings, and no reason to suspect them.

On February 5, the Directorate of Operations issued a second report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5 and 6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of “yellowcake” per year. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) also corroborated the allegation that Saddam was seeking “yellowcake.” On February 12, 2002, the agency concluded: “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Cheney read this report and asked for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

In February 2002, Cheney heard “about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger,” according to what his chief of staff Scooter Libby later told Time magazine. In his daily intelligence briefing by the CIA, as Libby related, Cheney asked about “the implication of the (Niger) report.”

VALERIE PLAME AND JOSEPH WILSON. A few days later, Cheney through Libby asked the CIA to look into the matter further. The agency had no experts in Niger, so it asked a mid-level CIA veteran named Valerie Plame. She was working under “NOC” or “non-official cover” for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations -- as an employee for a front called Brewster-Jennings & Associates.

Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) sought more information. They considered having Joseph Wilson, Plame’s husband, return to Niger to investigate.

Wilson had served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad between 1988 and 1991. Then he was named ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe. From there, Wilson was assigned political adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in Europe. It was at this time that he met Valerie Plame who was living in Brussels.

In June 1977, Wilson returned to Washington to serve as senior director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. Plame moved back to the United States in part because the CIA suspected her name was leaked to the Russians. They were married on April 3, 1998. (Vanity Fair, January 2004)

Wilson left government service to open a consulting firm specializing in assisting international investment in Africa. He arrived in Niger in 1999 on behalf of the CIA with the mission of investigating “uranium-related matters” with Iraq.

One of Plame’s colleagues later told Senate investigators that she “offered up his (Wilson) name for the trip. She said that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. Plame wrote a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

On February 19, 2002, Wilson met with officials from CIA and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Plame. He said the United States embassy in Niger and European intelligence agencies had already disproved the story of an Iraqi purchase. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

Despite State Department objection, the CIA decided to go ahead with the Wilson mission to satisfy the Cheney’s request. Wilson was sent to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia for an orientation. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

One week later, Wilson arrived in Niger. After a few days of interviews, he concluded that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” Wilson reported back to two CIA officers at his home. Plame was present but did not participate. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 2004)

On February 24, the United States ambassador in Niger met with Marine General Carlton Fulford, deputy commander of the United States-European Command, which was responsible for military relations with sub-Saharan West Africa. Fulford then met with Niger’s president and other senior officials and afterward confirmed the ambassador’s earlier findings that there was no evidence of the sale of “yellowcake” to Iraq and that Niger’s uranium supply was “secure.”

Around the same time, Wilson met with several Nigerien officials and sources over a ten-day visit and they likewise denied the uranium charge. On March 5, Wilson returned to Washington and briefed the CIA. That information was forwarded to Rice, Powell, and Cheney.

In the spring of 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld established the Office of Special Plans, under the direction of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld believed the CIA, FBI, and other agencies “failed” to find existing evidence of Iraq’s WMD and Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda. So Rumsfeld directed Wolfowitz to gather and interpret its own “intelligence” on Iraq.

BUSH IGNORES WARNINGS – CLAIMS SADDAM WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROCURE URANIUM FROM NIGER. The intelligence community as a whole did not put much credibility in the reports about the Niger-Iraq connection. Officials repeatedly told policy makers that these reports were not reliable. Intelligence agencies also dismissed as unreliable reports from Great Britain, which also were derived from the faulty Italian intelligence reports. (Tom Paine Common Sense, October 19, 2005)

In closed-hearing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 26, Powell referred to “reports” of an Iraqi purchase of Nigerien uranium as “further proof” of Saddam’s WMD.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released on October 1, 2002. It stated in part that Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” to Iraq, possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement,” the NIE said. The Office of Special Plans seized on the NIE report to lobby for war.

In late 2002, the assumption of the Niger-Iraq uranium connection began to appear regularly in the President's Daily Brief, the CIA intelligence briefing which was also drafted under the influence of the Office of Special Plans.

But these warnings were ignored by hawks in the administration. Hadley was told three separate times by the CIA not to push the claim that Saddam was seeking “yellowcake.” Another CIA memo sent to Hadley the following day warned that the Africa uranium story was one of two issues that differed with the British intelligence that claimed Saddam was after uranium.

The written warning was accompanied by a phone call to Hadley from Tenet requesting that any reference to Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium be deleted from a speech the president gave in Cincinnati in October. Bush said there was “facing clear evidence of peril. … We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The earlier draft -- with a reference to an Iraqi purchase of 500 tons of uranium from Niger -- was dropped. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett and Hadley acknowledged that the CIA intervened to remove references to the African uranium charge. (Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2003; American Progress Action, November 1, 2005)

By now, the State Department concluded that the sale of “yellowcake” was “unlikely.” The report said that a variety of economic, diplomatic, and logistical obstacles precluded Saddam from obtaining nuclear materials. The State Department’s intelligence analysts also concluded that it would have required Niger to send “25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers” filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border. (New York Times, January 18, 2006)

The State Department’s report also said that Niger was “probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq,” in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale. It also cast doubt on an intelligence report indicating that Niger’s president, Mamadou Tandja, might have negotiated a sales agreement with Iraq in 2000. According to the report, Tandja and his government were reluctant to do anything to endanger their foreign aid from the United States and other allies. The State Department review also said it would be nearly impossible for Niger to deliver 500 tons of uranium even if the sale were attempted. The review said, “Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement.” (New York Times, January 18, 2006)

Despite all these misgivings, Bush still went ahead and claimed in the February 2003 State of the Union that Iraq tried to buy “yellowcake” from Niger: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Two weeks later, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents were not authentic. (Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq, March 2003)

On March 7, the State Department finally hands over to the IAEA copies of the Niger letters. United Nations experts promptly dismissed them as “not authentic” and “blatant forgeries.” The following day, a State Department spokesman acknowledged that the United States government “fell for it. It was the information that we had. We provided it.”

On June 8, Rice admitted that Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat. (Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2003; July 21, 2003) The following month, Bush absolved himself of any responsibility by shifting the blame on Tenet. (New York Times, July 11, 2003)

On July 11, Tenet conceded that the State of the Union claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were a mistake and that the “16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.”

REVEALING PLAME’S IDENTITY. On May 6, 2003, a New York Times columnist wrote the first account of Wilson’s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003)

On May 29, Libby allegedly requested information from Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman regarding Wilson’s trip to Niger. The State Department provided Libby with a report on the trip. Libby was told for the first time that the ambassador is Wilson, according to a federal indictment of Libby that was released by the Office of the Special Counsel in October 2005.

The following month, British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair’s role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the Bush administration discussed whether it should abandon the uranium claim, and so it became embroiled in a debate as to who was responsible for the error. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

At about the same time, State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepared a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson’s trip to Niger and Plame’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The memo identified her as the wife of Wilson. Neither did it cite her status as a covert agent nor use the name Valerie Plame. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. (New York Times, July 16, 2005; Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; Washington Post, July 21, 2005; Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

On June 9, documents from the CIA allegedly were faxed to the office of the Vice President, and were addressed to Libby. They documented Wilson’ trip to Niger, without mentioning Wilson by name. The documents were marked as classified. Libby or somebody else in his office wrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents. (Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

Two days later, Libby allegedly speaks with a “senior CIA officer” about Wilson ’s trip and his wife. The officer confirmed that Wilson ’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to have been involved in planning the trip. Grossman also spoke with Libby, allegedly advising him that Wilson ’s wife did work at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that she played a part in organizing Wilson ’s trip to Niger. (Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

The New Republic (June 19, 2003) published “The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty.” The article mentioned an unnamed ambassador (Wilson) was sent to Niger per the request of the Vice President’s office delivered via the CIA. The article quoteed the unnamed ambassador as saying the administration “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” It also accused the Bush administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence community regarding pre-war intelligence.

After the story is published, Libby allegedly spoke with his principal deputy on the phone and says that public disclosure of information rebutting the article’s claim that the Vice President sent Wilson could cause problems at the CIA. (Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

New York Times reporter Miller interviewed Libby on June 23. She later said that during the interview Libby “placed blame for intelligence failures on the CIA,” accusing them of “selective leaking.” Libby also mentioned Wilson ’s wife to Miller for the first time. (New York Times, October 16, 2005.)

On July 6, Wilson published “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” in the New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He wrote, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq 's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson did not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also did not claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission. (New York Times July 6, 2003)

On July 7, Secretary of State Powell reportedly received a copy of the State Department memo prepared in June about the purported Niger-Iraq uranium deal, which mentioned Plames’s role in her husband’s trip. (New York Times, July 2005; Wall Street Journal, July 2005)

On July 8, conservative columnist Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times reportedly called Rove. Novak told Rove he had heard that Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in his trip to Niger. Rove confirmed the story to Novak without mentioning Plame’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” (New York Times, July 2003)

Four days later, Libby allegedly met with the Counsel to the Vice President David Addington and asked what paperwork the CIA would have if an employee’s spouse traveled overseas. Libby was also advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs Catherine Martin, who had spoken with “another government official,” that Wilson ’s wife worked for the CIA. (Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in July, reportedly described Wilson’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. There was no evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby’s grand jury testimony, Cheney “specifically directed” Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson’s visit to Niger. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

The decision by Cheney and Libby to share this information with reporters was disproved months before. United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

Around the same time, Libby allegedly spoke with a White House senior official - referred to as “Official A” in the indictment. That official was widely reported to be Rove. The official allegedly told Libby that earlier that week he had a conversation with Novak and that they had discussed Wilson’s wife, her employment at the CIA, and her involvement in Wilson’s trip to Niger. The official also advised Libby that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife. (Washington Post. November 3, 2005; Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

In July, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper called Rove, who cautioned him to be careful of Wilson ’s story. “’Don’t get too far out on Wilson,’ he told me.” Rove allegedly later told Cooper that Wilson ’s wife worked for the CIA on WMD and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa. Cooper said that Rove never used her name. ((Matthew Cooper, “What I Told the Grand Jury, Time, July 2005)

That same month, Libby and Cheney flew to Norfolk, Virginia. The vice president allegedly advised Libby that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Libby believed that Cheney received that information from the CIA. Then Libby spoke by telephone with Cooper about Wilson’s wife and confirmed for Cooper that he was aware of her involvement in sending Wilson to Niger. Later that day, Libby discussed Wilson’s wife and her work for the CIA with Judith Miller of the New York Times. (Patrick Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, October 28, 2005)

NOVAK IDENTIFIES VALERIE PLAME. Novak’s story of Plame’s CIA identity broke on July 14. Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, Novak wrote: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.” The column did not describe her as a covert agent, then, but it does name her as “Valerie Plame.” (Novak, “The Mission to Niger,” July 2003)

The Plame leak was part of a broader White House effort to mislead and manipulate United States public opinion as part of an orchestrated effort to go to war. The Bush administration organized and executed a disinformation campaign from intelligence that was manufactured by the Italians. Policymakers, such as Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld ignored intelligence analysts’ reports that Saddam was not after Niger’s yellow-cake. (Tom Paine Common Sense, October 19, 2005)

On July 17, Cooper wrote “A War by Wilson?” in Time. Cooper quoted “government officials” as saying “that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband’s being dispatched Niger (sic) to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore.”

Five days later, in article headlined “Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover,” Newsday published a story as saying, based in part on Wilson’s assertions, that senior administration officials “violated the law and may have endangered her (Mrs. Wilson’s) career and possibly the lives of her contacts in foreign countries.” The newspaper said Wilson would not confirm that his wife was a covert agent.

THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ITSELF. A White House official said that Rove was rebuked by an angry Bush after the president learned of his role. This came shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House that a criminal investigation had been launched. (New York Daily News, October 18, 2005)

On October 7, 2003 -- after rebuking Rove -- Bush said, “I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. … This is a large administration, and there’s (sic) a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth.” (New York Daily News, October 18, 2005)

But Rove told Bush and others that he never engaged in an effort to disclose a CIA operative’s identity to discredit her husband’s criticism of the administration’s Iraq policy, according to people with knowledge of Rove’s account in the probe. (Associated Press, October 18, 2005)

Since Plame’s exposure, the White House line had been: “No one wants to get to the bottom of this investigation more than the President of the United States. (White House Press Release, October 6, 2004) Yet, Bush apparently failed to even demand that White House officials sign documents permitting reporters to reveal the contents of any discussions they had regarding Plame.

Reacting to the leak, Bush of all people mandated that high-level White House officials attend an ethics class. Neither Bush nor Cheney attended. The class was led by White House counsel Harriet Miers who had just withdrawn her name as a Supreme Court justice nominee.

Bush continued to condemn leaks of classified information and promised that anyone involved in such improprieties would be prosecuted. But according to Libby, it was Bush himself who ordered the leak. Libby testified before a grand jury that Cheney told him to pass on information. Libby said it was Bush who authorized the disclosure. (Washington Post, April 6, 2006)

October 7, 2003: “I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information.”

September 30, 2003: “I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.”

September 30, 2003: “There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. … I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.”

October 28, 2003: I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.”

October 28, 2003: “I want to know the truth. …I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.”

June 10, 2004: Reporter: “Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?”

Bush: “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.”

August 18, 2005: “If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan also denied any White House leaks. He dismissed the idea that Rove was Novak’s anonymous source as “totally ridiculous.” (White House Press Briefing, September 16, 2003) On September 29, 2003, McClellan said he had spoken to Rove and he had denied he was involved in the leak. McClellan added, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it (the leak), they (sic) would no longer be in this administration.” (White House Press Briefing, September 29, 2003)

McClellan also denied that Rove was implicated in leaking Plame’s name. On October 1, McClellan said, “There’s an investigation going on.” He also spoke openly about Rove, saying, “It’s simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information. ”Yet, when evidence suggested that Rove was the source of the leak, McClellan changed directions. In July 2005, McClellan said that while the investigation is ongoing, “the White House is not going to comment on it.” (Washington Post, July 13, 2005)

Soon after the leak was made public, McClellan was asked questions at the White House press briefing on September 29, 2003:

Q: You said this morning, quote, “The president knows that Karl Rove wasn’t involved.” How does he know that?

A: Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I’ve said that it’s not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn’t take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We’d spend all our time doing that.”

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, “Did you ever have this information?”

A: I’ve made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. (Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2005)

McClellan was asked more questions at a press briefing on October 7, 2003:

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (NSC official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that’s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that’s why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it’s accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did. (Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2005) Three days later-- on October 10, 2003 -- McClellan was asked more questions about the leak:

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that’s where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information. (Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2005)

At a June 27, 2005 White House press briefing, a journalist began to ask what specific steps Bush had taken to get to the bottom of the leak. McClellan interrupted him mid-sentence and directed all questions to the special prosecutor. (White House Press Release, June 27, 2005)

After the Cooper e-mail from Rove was released in July 2005, McClellan appeared at another press conference. He noted 23 times yesterday that he could not comment because there was an “ongoing investigation.” But McClellan previously had cited on several occasions that same investigation and then gone on to answer the questions as they pertained to Rove. (New York Times, July 12, 2005)

Two weeks later – on July 11, 2005 – McClellan was the target of more questions at a press briefing:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation. Q: I’m saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I’m not going to be commenting on it nor is …

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what we’re doing. (Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2005)

Since the fall of 2003, high-level White House officials denied they had knowledge of who leaked Plame’s identity. Bush was asked on June 10, 2004 whether he stood by his pledge to “fire anyone” involved in the leak case. He answered, “Yes.” Bush also had said, “When the president says something, he better mean it.” (New York Times, June 11, 2004)

THE FBI BEGINS ITS INVESTIGATION. Libby was interviewed by FBI special agents on October 14 and then on November 26. He allegedly told them that he received information on Plame from NBC’s Tim Russert and that he did not recall having learned about her from Cheney.

Libby also said he did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Miller and that he told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but that he did not know if it was true.

Refusing to invoke an independent counsel, Bush said Attorney General Ashcroft “can do a good job” in investigating the criminal activity. Rove had served as a consultant to Ashcroft and had campaigned for him beginning in 1985 in both his gubernatorial and senatorial bids in Missouri. Rove also had lobbied for Ashcroft’s nomination as attorney general. (San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2003)

Finally on December 30, Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation because of a conflict of interest. Rove had served as a consultant to Ashcroft and had campaigned for him beginning in 1985 in both his gubernatorial and senatorial bids in Missouri. Rove also had lobbied for Ashcroft’s nomination as attorney general. (San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2003)

PATRICK FITZGERALD. In the mid-1990s, Fitzgerald began his career in law with the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan. He gained respect by successfully prosecuting mobsters such as Gambino. Fitzgerald also indicted Osama bin Laden and brought in convictions of the blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and of the terrorists who bombed the United States embassies in Africa.

After transferring to Chicago’s United States attorney’s office, Fitzgerald was labeled “Eliot Ness with a Harvard Law degree” when he indicted Governor George Ryan, a Republican, and two aides to Mayor Richard Daley, a Democrat.

On July 18, 2005, Bush said he would fire anyone who leaked: “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” (Press conference with the Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005) But McClellan was not succinct, declining to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. (White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005)

WHAT DID KARL ROVE KNOW? The Bush administration was hit by a bombshell in July 2005, when Newsweek reported that Rove indeed had spoken about the leakage. An e-mail sent by Matt Cooper of Time on July 11, 2003 revealed that Rove did disseminate classified information. The e-mail stated, “It was, KR (Karl Rove) said, Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip.” (Newsweek, July 18, 2005)

Cooper’s e-mail contradicted Rove’s previous denial that he “had any knowledge” of who in the White House leaked the classified, covert identity of Plame. It also disputed earlier assertions by the White House that Rove was not involved in the outing of the agent and forces Bush to come to terms with his previous pledge to take this action “very seriously” and “hold someone to account.” (Newsweek, July 18, 2005)

In September 2003. Rove was asked if he “had any knowledge” of who had leaked Plame’s name or if he himself had done it. Rove simply answered, “No.” Then one and one-half years later -- on July 4, 2005 -- Rove appeared on CNN and slightly amended his previous statement. He said, “I’ll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn’t know her name and didn't leak her name.” (CNN, July 4, 2005)

Rove’s defense was that he never used the name “Plame.” Instead, he referred to her as “Wilson’s wife.” Rove insisted on speaking to Cooper only on “double super secret background.” (National Review, July 12, 2005)

JUDITH MILLER. Judith Miller of the New York Times was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald to testify before the grand jury as to her knowledge of the case. However, she refused to divulge the identity of the person who, she claimed, had identified the source of the Plame leak. As a result, in the summer of 2005, Miller was convicted of obstruction of justice and was incarcerated for nearly three months.

After her release from prison, Miller claimed she had been given permission to speak publicly of her source. She suggested that Libby might have obstructed justice during the course of the investigation. In 2004, according to an account by Miller, Libby’s lawyer Joseph Tate sought assurances from Miller’s lawyer Floyd Abrams that Miller’s testimony would exonerate his client. Abrams described his conversation with Tate to Miller: “When I wouldn’t give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, ‘Don’t go there, or, we don’t want you there.’ ” This was a denial that a conversation ever occurred. (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

Miller also believed that Libby wrote to her in September in an effort to influence her testimony. Libby wrote, “The public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me.” (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

Miller said the letter surprised her because “it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame’s identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.” (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

In two instances, Miller wrote the name of Wilson’s wife in her notes. Miller was sure they did not come from Libby, but “can’t remember” anything else about where she learned the information. Miller wrote, “As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where Flame (sic) came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.” (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

When the Wall Street Journal pressed Miller on the issue, she said, “I don’t remember who told me the name.” She grew agitated and said, “I wasn’t writing a story, remember?” When the reporter asked Miller if she had spoken about the issue to Rove, she replied, “I’m not going to discuss anyone else that I talked to.” (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

Miller’s account was contradicted by her own lawyer. Floyd Abrams minimized Miller’s assertion that another source may have given her the name ‘Valerie Flame.’ Abrams said others might have mentioned Plame only in passing. (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

Miller wrote that, during an interview, Libby asked “to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a 'senior administration official.” During the discussion of Wilson, Libby asked to be described as a “former hill staffer.” Miller agreed and Libby then proceeded through a lengthy and sharp critique of Wilson that included the role of Plame. (Washington Post, October 18, 2005)

SCOOTER LIBBY’S INDICTMENT. On October 31, 2005, Libby was indicted on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury. Nobody was charged with leaking Plame’s name to the press.

ccording to Libby’s grand jury testimony, Cheney “specifically directed” Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson’s visit to Niger.

Lawyers for Libby repeatedly questioned whether Plame really had covert status when her identity was exposed by in July 2003. But Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counter-proliferation matters over the previous five years. Fitzgerald also determined that the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity. (Newsweek, February 13, 2006)

A legal brief filed for Libby in March 2006 said that “certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney’s direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure uranium” in Africa. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

The first of those conversations, according to the evidence made known thus far, came when Libby met with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post on June 27, 2003. In sworn testimony for Fitzgerald, according to a statement Woodward released on November 14, 2005, Woodward said Libby told him of the intelligence estimate’s description of Iraqi efforts to obtain “yellowcake” from Niger. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

Libby’s next known meeting with a reporter, according to Fitzgerald’s office, was with Judith Miller of the New York Times on July 8, 2003. Libby spoke again to Miller, and to Time magazine’s Matt Cooper on July 12. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

Libby’s grand jury testimony drove a wedge between himself and Cheney. Libby testified that he had been “authorized” by Cheney and other White House “superiors” in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq. Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam’s purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons. (New York Times, February 10, 2006)

Although Cheney did not testify to the grand jury under oath, he was interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald in 2004. Cheney was reportedly asked last year whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name the officer. (New York Times, October 25, 2005)

When Wilson alleged that it was Cheney’s office that did a “work-up” on him in 2003 in order to smear him, a spokesman in Cheney’s office responded, “That is false.” (American Progress Action, October 25, 2005)

When Cheney was asked about his involvement in smearing Wilson on Meet the Press, the vice president said, “I don’t know Mr. Wilson.” But Libby’s notes revealed that Cheney knew about Wilson and his wife a month before Novak outed her. (American Progress Action, October 25, 2005)

In November 2005, Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward told Fitzgerald that he had discussed Plame with a senior administration official. Woodward said the official was someone other than Libby. (Washington Post, November 29, 2005)

At the same time, Time reported Viveca Novak was called to testify. This came after Luskin, Rove’s attorney, told Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with her. Luskin presented evidence, including details of his own conversations with Novak, to Fitzgerald at a secret meeting at a downtown law office shortly before Libby was indicted. (Washington Post, November 29, 2005)

In April 2006, Fitzgerald for the first time described a “concerted action” by “multiple people in the White House” -- using classified information -- to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. Citing grand jury testimony from Libby, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign to divulge Plame’s identity. (Washington Post, April 9, 2006)

2. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT

1978 - Congressman Lott spearheaded a successful effort to posthumously restore United States citizenship to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1979 - Congressman Lott joined a bipartisan group that backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit busing to desegregate public schools. The proposal was rejected by seven votes.

1981 - Lott filed a friend of the court briefing that bob Jones University deserved tax breaks because “racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.”

1983 – Lott voted against Martin Luther King Day. He later told Partisan Magazine, “We have not done it for a lot of other people that have been more deserving.”

- Lott declared that “the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform” and later calls the Civil War “the war of Northern aggression.”

1992 – Lott spoke to the pro-racial group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and declared, “The people in this room stand for the right principles.” (Newsweek, December 23, 2002)

On Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday, GOP Senator Trent Lott -- soon to become majority leader of the upper chamber -- made clear his racist beliefs. He said, “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Lott’s remarks were intended to pay tribute to the South Carolina senator. Lott made the same type of comment on at least two occasions. (New York Times, December 8, 2002)

Thurmond, as governor of South Carolina, ran for the White House as a Dixiecrat, who stood for segregation of the races. “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches,” Thurmond said during his campaign against Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey -– in which he won four states. (Washington Post, December 10, 2002)

Blasting Lott’s comments, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. called for the incoming Senate majority leader to quit. “Trent Lott must step down. He is supposed to be Senate majority leader for all Americans, but he once again has shown he is interested only in Confederates.” Then Al Gore accused Lott of making a “racist statement,” saying that the Senate should censor him unless he withdrew the comments.

Days later, Lott delivered a lengthy public apology today for his comments and vowed to “undo the hurt” that he had caused. But he rejected growing calls from Democrats and even conservative commentators for him to relinquish his post as incoming majority leader. Lott appealed repeatedly for “forbearance and forgiveness.” He said, “Segregation is a stain on our nation's soul. There’s no other way to describe it. It represents one of the lowest moments in our nation’s history, and we can never forget that.” (New York Times, December 14, 2002)

Lott said in 1997 that, as a student at the University of Mississippi in 1962, he had “favored segregation.” As a young lawyer making his start in politics in 1967, he stunned a racially moderate friend running governor by campaigning instead for an arch-segregationist rival candidate. (New York Times, December 14, 2002)

The next year, a month after the assassination of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Lott went to work as a top aide to one of the staunchest segregationists in Congress. He worked for a powerful Mississippi lawmaker who, two journalists said, greeted King’s assassination by grumbling that it would probably bring about passage of a fair housing bill. In 1972, Lott was that Congressman’s hand-picked successor. His first piece of legislation was an anti-busing bill.

In 1992, Lott received an award from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a Southern White supremacist group in Carroll County, Mississippi. He addressed its national board in Greenwood, Mississippi in 1992 and drew harsh criticism several times in the 1990s.

In 1999, Lott wrote to the Anti-Defamation League that he “could never support -- or seek support from -- a group that disdained or demeaned” people because of their race. “I grew up in a home where you didn’t treat people that way, and you didn’t stand with anyone foolish or cruel enough to do so,” he said.

3. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST

GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist became a pivotal player in the single biggest issue facing Congress: the soaring cost of health care. Along with the struggling American economy, the health care issue was the most significant factor facing the nation. (Village Voice, January 24, 2003)

Frist’s father, Dr. Thomas Frist, founded the hospital conglomerate HCA, and Tommy Frist, another son, was the former chairman and CEO who continued to serve on the board of directors. In 1994 the business merged with Columbia, creating the nation’s largest hospital network. Bill Frist’s 2001 financial disclosure form put his Columbia/HCA shares at between $15,000 and $50,000, with $5 million to $25 million more in a blind trust whose holdings are unknown.

In 1993, federal investigators swept through 19 HCA offices searching for evidence to document charges of overcharging and fraud. Among the accusations was that the network was paying kickbacks to physicians in the Medicare program. Seven years later, the company pled guilty to 14 felonies. Corporate difficulties were compounded by a suit from whistle-blowers who said they received death threats and were ostracized after going public with the allegations. (Village Voice, January 24, 2003)

In January 2003, the Justice Department unexpectedly announced a settlement, with the company paying $631 million. HCA was to pay another $17.5 million to states claiming HCA overcharged their Medicaid programs.

Frist’s conflicts of interest primarily revolved around a patients’ “bill of rights” -- a measure lobbied for by Columbia/HCA. Sounding like Bush, Frist declared, “I see no conflict of interest as I carry out the nation’s business.”

Frist’s version of the bill provided federal protection for the right to adequate medical care, but it did not help pay for it. What it did was to protect the care providers from legal liability by capping damages, restricting conditions under which suits could be brought, and immunizing employers.

The anti-regulation Frist argued that lawsuits would drive the cost of health care up, pushing more and more Americans into the pool of people not covered by any kind of health insurance.

Frist also favored other Bush-style programs, including the creation of IRA-like medical savings accounts complete with tax breaks. On social issues, Frist had a strong conservative record. He opposed abortion, sex education, international family planning, emergency contraception, and fetal tissue research. He led the fight against human cloning. Frist opposed legislation banning job discrimination on the basis of sex and opposed a bill reserving 10 percent of highway contracts for firms owned by women or minorities. (Village Voice, January 24, 2003)

Frist secretly amended a bill to protect vaccine industry officials from lawsuits. He shielded the vaccine-makers from lawsuits even in cases of negligence or recklessness. In an e-mail, the chief lobbyist of vaccine manufacturers described a meeting in which a deputy of Bush strategist Karl Rove said it was “important to the president that a bill move this year.” The strategist said, “They had invited industry to discuss what they understood to be a few key remaining points' of contention.” (www.citizen.org, May 4, 2006)

INVESTIGATING FRIST’S STOCK HOLDINGS. In the summer of 2005, Frist began selling some of his HCA stock. He claimed his holdings did not constitute a conflict of interest, even as he played a critical role in shaping the nation’s health care policy. In June 2005, Frist requested that all his HCA stock, which was held in a “blind trust,” be sold. From June 1 to June 10, six insiders sold a total of 341,300 shares valued at $18.6 million. (Center for American Progress, September 28, 2005)

One month later the stock’s price dropped 9 percent in a single day because of a warning from the company about weakening earnings. The company announced that its earning were weakening and the stock dropped nearly 15 percent from its peak. Frist claimed that he sold the stock to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. (New York Times, September 25, 2005)

More than two years earlier -- in January 2003 -- Frist said in a television interview, “I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock. I have no control. It is illegal right now for me to know what the composition of those trusts are. So I have no idea.” (Center for American Progress, September 25, 2005)

That was not true. Just two weeks before those comments, the trustee of Frist’s trust, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., wrote to Frist that HCA stock was contributed to the trust. It was valued at $15,000 and $50,000. (Center for American Progress, September 28, 2005)

3. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER TOM DELAY AND LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF

Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff enjoyed a tight relationship. Both also had close ties to George W. Bush.

1. BUSH DENIES KNOWING ABRAMOFF. In January 2001, when Bush entered office, Abramoff wrote to one of his clients, “Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends ... will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration.” (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

In 2003, Abramoff asked for and received $9 million from the president of Gabon to secure a meeting with Bush. In May 2004, Gabon's president met with Bush. Abramoff was a “Pioneer” for the 2004 Bush re-election effort for raising more than $100,000 for the campaign. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

Despite Abrahoff’s ties to Bush, the president denied meeting him or posing for pictures with the Republican lobbyist at official events or parties. That was highly unlikely because a bipartisan congressional report documented 485 contacts between White House officials and Abramoff and his partners from 2001 to 2004. They included at least 10 direct contacts between Abramoff and Rove. (New York Times, September 30, 2006)

Abramhoff spent almost $25,000 in meals and drinks for the White House officials and provided them with tickets to numerous sporting events and concerts. It was unclear whether the aides reimbursed Abramoff for the meals or tickets. Ethics rules barred White House officials from accepting lobbyists’ gifts worth more than $20. (New York Times, September 30, 2006)

Numerous photographs showed the two together. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that the photographs were no different from thousands Bush had taken each year with visitors, supporters, and even reporters and that it would not be unusual for the president to not recall meeting Abramoff. (Washington Post, February 10, 2006)

But e-mails from Abramoff to his close friend Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian Magazine, Bush met Abramoff almost a dozen times since he was elected in 2000. Abramoff wrote that Bush “saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids.” (Washington Post, February 10, 2006)

In one e-mail to Eisler, Abramoff scoffed at Bush’s public statements that he did not recall ever meeting the disgraced lobbyist and former top Bush fundraiser. Abramoff wrote, “Of course he can’t recall that he has a great memory!” (Washington Post, February 10, 2006)

Bush in fact invited Abramoff to Crawford in the summer of 2003. It was private barbecue Bush hosted on August 9 for his biggest fundraisers at the Broken Spoke Ranch, down the road from the president’s compound. About 350 Republicans who had raised at least $50,000 each for Bush were invited. (Washington Post, February 10, 2006)

Abramoff was member of the exclusive group of top Bush fundraisers known as Pioneers, each of whom raised $100,000 or more for Bush. So it would not have been unusual for him to be invited to the barbecue. (Washington Post, February 10, 2006)

Abramoff gained the support of Hastert by throwing him a fundraiser at a fancy Washington D.C. restaurant that collected more than $20,000 for the Speaker’s political action committee

2. THE K STREET PROJECT. K Street in Washington DC is the hub of the big lobbying firms in Washington D.C. It was referred to as the fourth branch of government. The K Street Project was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and DeLay as well as Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. (Washington Post, January 13, 2006)

The K Street Project was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists and to put pressure on Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions. Its goal was also to reward loyal Republican lobbyists with access to influential officials. (Washington Post, July 2, 2004; January 13, 2006)

However, slowly the power of the Republican Party began to diminish. But during a six-month time slot in 2004, more than 40 percent of lobbyists with identifiable party backgrounds who were hired were Democrats. During the same period in 2003, Democrats constituted only 30 percent of those hired. (Washington Post, July 2, 2004)

It was through the K Street Project, an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists, that Abramoff was able to thrive. In return for DeLay’s assistance, Abramoff awarded him skybox seats at the Washington sporting events, luxurious vacation trips to Russia, Saipan, London, and Scotland, and more than $65,000 in campaign contributions. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006) (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

3. DELAY’SGOLF TRIP TO SCOTLAND. In 2000, DeLay and a number of other lawmakers accepted Abramoff-arranged foreign golfing trips, including one to Scotland’s St. Andrews course. DeLay’s trip was indirectly financed by Indian tribes and gambling interests through payments to a nonprofit policy group that was sponsoring the trip. House rules would have prohibited direct payment. Most of the politicians who took trips organized by Abramoff claim they thought the junkets were paid for by charities or policy groups. (Washington Post, March 11, 2005)

4. DELAY’S TRIP TO ENGLAND. Abramoff and Buckham used their credit cards to pay for a trip to the United Kingdom for DeLay and his wife. DeLay’s wife, Christine, was paid $115,000 over three years by Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm run by Buckham and Rudy, to identify the favorite charities of members of Congress. (Newsweek, January 16, 2006)

5. DELAY’S TRIP TO SOUTH KOREA. In 2001, a House delegation of Republican House members including DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to Seoul, South Korea from a registered foreign agent, despite House rules that barred the acceptance of travel expenses from foreign agents. The cost for three days was $106,921. (Time, March 21, 2005)

The Rules of the House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel states: “A Member, officer or employee may not accept travel expenses from a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.” In March 2005 -- nearly four years later -- DeLay’s aides said that the congressman did not learn of the group’s registration until early 2005.

The trip was subsidized by the Korea-United States Exchange Council that was funded largely by the Korean holding company Hanwha Group. DeLay; his wife, Christine; and two other Republican lawmakers departed on a trip financed by the group on August 25, 2001. DeLay and accompanying staff assistants described the trip as having “educational” purpose. Washington Post, March 10, 2005; Time, March 21, 2005)

The Korea-United States Exchange Council was created with the help of a lobbying firm headed by Buckham. The council listed its address as the same Georgetown office suite as Ed Buckham’s lobbying business. Buckham was a GOP aide for three years following the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. Buckham became DeLay’s chief of staff and confidant as well as one of the most powerful persons in Washington. Buckham was registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act on August 22, 2001. (Washington Post, March 10, 2005; Time, March 21, 2005)

Four years later -- on March 2005 -- DeLay’s aides claimed that the congressman for the first time learned of the group’s registration. (Washington Post, March 10, 2005)

6. DELAY’S TRIP TO MOSCOW. While DeLay was House Majority Whip in 1997, he took a six-day trip to Moscow and reported that it was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit organization. DeLay claimed the nonprofit organization -- the National Center for Public Policy Research -- was funding the trip on its own. (Washington Post, April 6, 2005)

However, those who helped plan the trip claimed that the cost was picked up by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government. Chelsea Commercial Enterprises Limited, registered in the Bahamas, funded the lobbying campaign. Chelsea was coordinating the effort with a Russian oil and gas company -- Naftasib -- that had business ties with Russian security institutions. (Washington Post, April 6, 2005)

In 1997 and 1998, the Russians were worried about losing the billions of dollars in aid from the West on which they depended heavily. At the time, House conservative Republicans became increasingly critical of United States and international lending institutions. But DeLay did not cooperate. He was consistently a “yes” vote for institutions bolstering Russia in this period. For example, DeLay voted for a bill that included the replenishment of billions of dollars in IMF funds used to bail out the Russian economy in 1998. (Washington Post, April 5, 2005)

Chelsea hired two Washington, D.C. lobbying firms, Preston Gates Ellis and Rouvelas Meeds, to do the actual lobbying. Abramoff, hired as a lobbyist for Rouvelas Meeds, then set up a trip for DeLay to meet the Naftasib executives in Moscow. He used a Washington D.C. nonprofit firm, the National Center for Public Policy Research. NCPPR to pay for the trip. He was compensated by the Russian-paid Chelsea. (Washington Post, April 5, 2005)

During his six days in Moscow, DeLay played golf, met with Russian church leaders and talked to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, a friend of Russian oil and gas executives associated with the lobbying effort. DeLay also dined with the Russian executives and two Washington-based registered lobbyists for the Bahamian-registered company. (Washington Post, April 6, 2005)

7. SUPPORTING SWEAT SHOPS IN GUAM. The Marianas operated brutal sweatshops where workers were paid barely half the United States minimum hourly wage. Workers were forced to live behind barbed wire in shacks without plumbing. Many were forced into prostitution. (New York Times, June 9, 2005)

DeLay and Abramoff were successful. The government of the Marianas blocked the imposition of the federal minimum wage on the islands’ clothing factories. (Washington Post, June 9, 2005)

In 2002, Abramoff was the target of a grand jury investigation in Guam. On November 18, 2002, United States Attorney Frederick Black issued a grand jury subpoena issued seeking records involving a highly unusual contract between Abramoff and the Superior Court in Guam. Apparently, Superior Court officials in Guam paid Abramoff over $324,000 -- funneled through a Laguna Beach attorney Howard Hills -- to lobby against a bill in Congress that gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

In August 2005, the day after Black issued the subpoena, Bush removed the supervising Black and the inquiry ended soon after. Black had served as acting United States attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands since 1991. He was replaced by Leonardo Rapadas who was recommended by the Guam Republican Party to Karl Rove. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

8. LOBBYING THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. Steven Griles, a former deputy secretary at the Interior Department, advised Abramoff how to get members of Congress to pressure the department and provided him information about Interior decision-making. In one instance, Abramoff wrote to his lobbying colleagues that Griles would be providing a draft of an Interior letter to Congress to give them ‘a head start.’ Abramoff also gave $50,000 to a group founded by Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

9. THE CHOCTAW INDIANS AND GROVER NORQUIST. In 2003, Abramoff worked on behalf of the Chocktaw -- one of his Indian gaming clients -- to turn back a plan by a different tribe to open a casino in Louisiana. Abramoff was able to orchestrate a congressional letter-writing campaign in support of his client’s position. He secured the support of Hastert DeLay, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, and House Majority Whip Eric Cantor. (American Progress Action, January 4, 2006)

Abramoff, Norquist, and Ralph Reed first worked together in 1981 as members of the college Republicans organizing protests against communism in Poland. Then the three rose steadily to the tops of their fields. Reed, as leader of the Christian Coalition, built a national grass-roots following of religious activists. Abramoff tapped into massive casino profits by representing newly rich tribes. And Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), established himself as the high priest of tax cuts. (Time, July 4, 2005)

Among the organizations used by Abramoff was Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. According to an investigative report on Abramoff’s lobbying by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Americans for Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Abramoff’s clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. As the money passed through, Norquist’s organization kept a small cut, e-mails showed. (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds. The council’s president told Senate investigators that Abramoff often asked her to lobby a senior Interior Department official on his behalf. (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

By 1999, ATR was getting large sums of Choctaw money. According to the e-mail trail, Reed and Norquist contacted Abramoff separately in 1999 to say they wanted to do business. Norquist complained about a “$75K hole in my budget from last year.” Reed, who left the Christian Coalition in 1997 to found a political consultancy, said he was counting on Abramoff “to help me with some contacts.” (Time, July 4, 2005)

On February 7, 2000, Abramoff warned Reed that the initial payment for anti-lottery radio spots and mailings would be less than Reed thought. Abramhoff’s e-mail read, “I need to give Grover something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter.” (Time, July 4, 2005)

In a note to himself on February 22, Abramoff wrote, “Grover kept another $25K!” Norquist said he had permission. He said a Choctaw representative instructed him on two occasions to keep $25,000 of the money for his group. (Time, July 4, 2005)

Abramoff and Michael Scanlon were accused of using tax-exempt groups and phony invoices to bilk tribal clients out of millions of dollars. They charged the Choctaw $7.7 million for projects in 2001. They spent $1.2 million for their efforts. Then they split the rest in a scheme they called “gimme five.” Eventually, the Choctaws’ payments to Scanlon’s companies reached roughly $15 million, and Scanlon gave Abramoff a $5 million cut. (New York Times, June 22, 2005; Time, July 4, 2005)

Abramoff suggested to Scanlon in an e-mail, “'I think you should call her and tell her that we have turned the corner but you are pouring it on to make sure we win. Tell her as of now you are finally willing to say that we will win this, but laughingly say ‘I don't know how I am going to get back all the money I had to dump into this. I hope the Golden Moon (casino) turns out to be real golden!’ That will set her up for a discussion about payments.”

Another e-mail showed that Abramoff and Scanlon charged the Mississippi Choctaws $7.7 million for projects in 2001. Of that, Scanlon spent $1.2 million on lobbying work, and he and Abramoff split the remaining $6.5 million.

Abramoff e-mailed Scanlon, referring to another foundation to which money could be moved, “Let’s run some of the non-caf (Capital Athletic Foundation) Choctaw money through them to the Camans.”

In September 2002, Abramoff suggested to one of his associates placing $500,000 in client funds with the national center because the group “can direct money at our discretion, anywhere if you know what I mean.” (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

The same morning Abramoff messaged Ridenour: “I might have $500K for you to run through NCPPR. Is this still something you want to do?” Ridenour was enthusiastic: “Yes, we would love to do it.” (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

Norquist was willing to fight a tax opposed by another of his clients -- a beverage company -- if the firm became “a major player with ATR.” Abramoff suggested the firm donate $50,000 to the group. (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

“What is most important however is that this matter is kept discreet,” Abramoff said in an e-mail on October 24, 1995. " “We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement.” He promised that Norquist would be “very active” on the issue. (Washington Post, June 25, 2006)

The following year, according to the Senate committee report, the Choctaw tribe donated $60,000 to Americans for Tax Reform to oppose a tax on Indian casinos.

In 2005, Abramhoff and Scanlon were investigated by the Senate and Justice Department for allegedly defrauding Indian tribes that had hired them as lobbyists. The two were also suspected of convincing the tribes to spend vast amounts on such extravagances as basketball-arena skyboxes for parties for members of Congress and their staffs. (Time, March 21, 2005),

10. THE RALPH REED CONNECTION. Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed left the Christian Coalition in 1997 as it was sinking, and he was paid by Abramoff to organize opposition to a gambling bill in the Texas legislature. This would have opened the door to competition for Abramoff’s client casinos in Louisiana.

Hired by the Coushatta Indian tribe in Louisiana, Abramoff worked with Reed to wage a grass-roots campaign to shut down a gambling casino run by the Tigua tribe in Texas. Then Abramoff turned right around and offered his services to the Tigua Indians to lobby to get Congress to open the casino back up. Ultimately, Abramoff persuaded the Tiguas to pay $4.2 million to try to get Congress to reopen the casino. (Newsweek, January 16, 2006)

Consequently, Reed convinced Christians in Texas to bombard the legislature with phone calls and letters denouncing gambling. As a result, Reed was paid millions of dollars in gambling money, by way of Abramoff’s bagman, Grover Norquist. (Baltimore Sun, July 6, 2006)

Reed also helped defeat a state lottery and video poker in Alabama, in behalf of casinos in Mississippi. In Alabama, he told Abramoff, he had “over 3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households. Reed enlisted these Baptists in a fight against one saloon while he was on the payroll of another. (Baltimore Sun, July 6, 2006)

11. THE TERRI SCIAVO CASE. When Terri Schiavo gained national prominence in the spring of 2005, DeLay exposed his political opportunism and his hypocrisy. Schiavo had been diagnosed as being in an irreversible vegetative case, and her husband had spent years to take her off tube-feeding.

Delay was the first key Republican leader to politicize the case at a time when he was fighting a long list of allegations of ethics violations, he used the Schiavo case to deflect attention from his own problems by attacking the judiciary. It was an opening for him to portray himself as a compassionate person, as he intervened in the family’s private end-of-life decision.

It was likely that there would be an epic struggle over anticipated Supreme Court vacancies with Democrats threatening to try to block overtly conservative nominees. DeLay attacked one of the principle doctrines of the United States Constitution: the separation of powers.

This was a clear case of DeLay and the GOP abandoning state courts and turning to federalism – specifically, the district court and court of appeals in Florida. He hypocritically demanded that Schiavo’s feeding tubes – much of which was paid for by Medicaid – not be removed.

DeLay castigated the courts, saying, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.” What DeLay failed to say was that many of the judges, who ignored Bush and the Republican-led Congress, were Republican appointees.DeLay attempted to rally a Christian-right base that could help him keep his key post.as the House Majority Leader. He played the religion card, claiming that God had given Schiavo to America to highlight the need to fight for a “culture of life.”

DeLay described the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube as an “act of medical terrorism.” (Time, March 27, 2005) DeLay chastised Schiavo’s husband Michael on the floor of the House of Representatives. He told a group of Christian conservatives that “God has brought (Terri Schiavo) to us ... to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America,” as he referred to “attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.” (New York Times, March 21, 2005)

At the same time, it was DeLay who marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion. This would threaten the quality of care for people like Schiavo. (San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2005)

Most of Schiavo’s medical bills were paid by (1) Medicaid and (2) punitive damages awarded to the family. Ironically, these were two areas that were vehemently opposed to byDeLay and the Bush administration.

It was DeLay who marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion. This would threaten the quality of care for people like Schiavo. (San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2005)

DeLay failed to conceal his hypocrisy in the case. He was personally involved in a similar crisis similar to the tragic Schiavo case. In 1988, DeLay’s 65-year-old father Charles was seriously injured during a freak tram accident at the family’s home in Canyon Lake, Texas. His injuries left him suspended in a coma, with doctors advising that he would “basically be a vegetable,” according to DeLay’s aunt, JoAnne DeLay. After several weeks, as Charles's organs began to fail, DeLay’s family finally decided to take him off life-support. (Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2005)

DeLay’s family later filed suit against two companies responsible for a machine part that the family said had caused the accident. The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of about $250,000, compensation for the dead father’s “physical pain and suffering” and the mother’s grief and loss of companionship, among other things. Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family’s lawsuit. Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2005)

12. THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. The National Republican Congressional Committee improperly transferred $500,000 in 1999 to an outside organization to run radio ads against Democrats. Ed Buckham, DeLay’s former chief of staff, convinced the Republican Party to make the donation to the group. In 2004, the committee agreed to pay a $280,000 fine. (Time, March 21, 2005)

Buckham maintained that he was merely a fund raiser for the organization. His wife was on its payroll, earning $59,000 in 1997. Its truck was registered at his residence, and his lobbying business operated when the group owned a town house. Democrats charged it was a front for DeLay’s political machine and filed a racketeering lawsuit against the whip. They later settled, after DeLay spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

13. THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE. The House Ethics Committee investigated DeLay’s role in a June 2002 fund-raiser sponsored by Westar Energy. He was investigated for allegedly funneling illegal corporate campaign funds to state GOP candidates in Texas.