I've heard from a number of active duty and retired members of the military, including a number of JAG lawyers, and unless there's something very different about Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) event in Colorado than the description of it that appeared in her local paper, it clearly violated the law.
There's another little detail one retired JAG officer brings up, however.
The uniformed member of the military who appears at such an event can be court-martialed for the violation. It's not some technicality in UCMJ terms. But there's no law against a politician or party leader putting them up to it or facilitating it. So there's no risk for them.
So Musgrave and whomever else organized the event is putting this guy's career on the line as well as encouraging this misconduct for their own partisan gain.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on yesterday's post about Michael "Brownie" Brown, former head of FEMA, I've been getting emails from folks on the inside at FEMA, people who worked with him and observed him firsthand when he was leading the agency.
The verdict seems pretty clear: None of them thought he was qualified for the position. But each also had the clear impression that he took his job seriously, learned a lot while he was there and -- perhaps most importantly -- was a big improvement over Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's fixer whom he succeeded as head of the agency.
If there's an online reevaluation of the guy, the new view seems one shared by those who were there as the story unfolded.
--Josh Marshall
Oh, Ralph, what can we say? Best laid plans and 
all that.
Today's story on Ralph Reed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution reveals that he knew that he was working for an online gambling company named eLottery, Inc. when he helped kill the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.
He's said, of course, that he did not know.
But really, that just makes him sound sloppy. Let's give the man his due: he very carefully and skillfully obscured his relationship with Jack Abramoff's gaming clients. He knew that it would have been bad for his reputation, and thus for business. So he took a number of key steps to leave no paper trail:
First, the true client's name did not appear on the contract. Nominally, Reed was working for Abramoff's law firm.
Second, he did not register as a lobbyist for the client. The eLottery contract specifically said that none of his activities would "require registration as a lobbyist in any state or with the federal government."
Third, the fees were routed through at least two intermediaries before they reached Reed. In the case of the eLottery work, the money went first to Americans for Tax Reform, then on to a shell organization called the Faith and Family Alliance, and then on to Reed's firm.
Fourth, and here's where you have to admire his restraint, he almost never referred to the client in writing. Hundreds of pages of Abramoff's emails have been released, and he's only gotten burned a few times.
It's a shame that the fifth step, lying to the press, has received so much attention. Reed was the architect of a much larger, more sophisticated effort than that.
--Paul Kiel
Wait a second. Doesn't this break military regulations and probably several laws?
A few weeks ago we discussed the fact that the RNC was apparently working with the White House to send active duty members of the military in uniform to speak on behalf of the president's policies at Republican political events. That's against the law and military regulations. And for good reason since that's a quick ride to making the military -- or factions or individuals in the military -- tools of one or the other political party.
Now we seem to have an example in practice.
This is exactly what appears to have happened yesterday at a political event with Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). This article in the Fort Collins Coloradoan shows a picture of Musgrave doing just that with the caption: "Marilyn Musgrave introduces Marine Sergeant Brandon Forsyth on Friday during the Larimer County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner."
A look at the picture shows pretty clearly that Forsyth was in uniform. Yet those regs linked above say clearly that military personnel can attend partisan events only as spectators and not in uniform. What am I missing?
--Josh Marshall
Jane Hamsher has an interesting post here about the rehabilitation of Michael Brown (aka "Brownie"). Suddenly, Brown, who was the butt of endless jokes and the target of titanic contempt and derision, is a reborn truth-teller and almost a kind of hero to critics of the administration. (Who says there are no second acts? Nowadays it's just a matter of waiting a few months till you get your second act.) Jane links to this post in which Joe Gandelman offers Brown an apology for his earlier criticism; and Brown actually responds, accepting the apology and explaining his current position.
I don't think there's any use or reason to reconsider the conclusion that Brown was manifestly unqualified to be the head of the country's emergency management agency or that he found himself in that job because of his longtime friendship with Joe Allbaugh, one of the president's fixers. He was either guilty of or implicated in various other instances of ridiculousness. He was a poster-child for the administration's essential lack of interest in effective government, as an aim of public service distinct from consolidating political power and paying off political supporters out of the public fisc. Also, for us critics, to the extent there is a Brownie redemption afoot, it is in large part because the same guy many of us lambasted six months ago is now flattering our assumptions about how this administration works.
Still, in this and so many other cases, our assumptions, always based on a lot of factual evidence, are being borne out in spades. And Brown is coming forward with a decent amount of evidence that even if he wasn't the guy who should have had the job, and even if he made plenty of mistakes during Katrina, he wasn't just bumbling along unaware anything serious was happening. If inept and blameworthy himself he seems clearly to have understood the magnitude of the catastrophe that was afoot and took steps to deal with it.
He also is coming forward with what appears to be a decent paper trail showing he had some sense and gave warnings about FEMA's degradation and decline under the consolidated DHS. No one listen.
I can't see glorifying Michael Brown. He shouldn't have been in the job. He screwed up in a lot of different ways. He then carried the administration's water in trying to pin the blame on the locals, what must be a mortal sin in a FEMA Director. But he does get some credit for coming clean now and spilling at least some of the beans. And the beans he's spilled so far show that he's hardly the most blameworthy figure in the administration's shameful and pitiful response to the disaster that befell the Gulf Coast.
--Josh Marshall
Paul Kiel mentioned earlier today that March 23rd is the day. That's
when the US government will auction off the ill-begotten gains of disgraced Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). The auction is run by IRS-Criminal Investigation, actually subcontracted to a company called EG&G. But I digress.
The loot -- mainly antiques and rugs and assorted other uncharacteristically dainty items Duke bagged during his congressional crime-spree -- might fairly be titled the fruit of the Republican Revolution.
In any case, I think we're going to send someone out to cover this.
The auction is on the 23rd in Rancho Dominguez, California, which actually appears to be in Compton, from what I can tell. But on the two days previous you can actually go inspect the merchandise at the EG&G Technical Services warehouse, located at 2332 E. Pacifica Place, Rancho Dominguez, CA. It's open to the public and so presumably to one of our muckrakers too.
For instance, we'd like to get a closer look at this rug Duke got in exchange for getting the Pentagon to buy junk.
ORIENTAL RUG, WOOL, MARKED “BIDJAR” - IRAN BUT MAY BE “MAHEI” DESIGN, DARK BLUE BORDER W/CONCENTRIC DIAMONDS IN CENTER; MULTI-COLORED (RED, BLUE, IVORY), 9’9" X 12’10", 1 EA
I'm not sure what a Bidjar is or a Mahei, though the later sounds like something I'd eat with rice and seawweed. In any case, I'd be interested to know.
This sounds fascinating too ...
COMMODE/CHEST OF DRAWERS, W/BLACK MARBLE TOP, VENEERED, FOUR DRAWERS, KEY ESCUTCHEONS CENTERED ON DRAWERS, NO PULLS, BOTH SIDE PANELS SPLIT, 1 EA
I always thought a commode was a toilet. But apparently when you ascend further into the cultural stratosphere it's actually a chest of drawers.
We'll be bringing you more on this.
--Josh Marshall
Fred Kaplan: "Yes, We Should Worry About Iran."
Concluding sentence: "We may end up having to live with a nuclear Iran, but it won't be easy to manage; it shouldn't be shrugged at."
--Josh Marshall
Earlier today I mentioned the report that the CIA Inspector General has opened an investigation into Kyle "Dusty" 
Foggo, the Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. As we noted, the investigation stems from Foggo's lifelong friendship and close professional association with Brent Wilkes, the biggest fraudster at the heart of the Duke Cunningham.
Here's the key point to keep in mind here -- here and in the rest of the investigations the Cunningham case is likely to spawn. These guys were smart (Wilkes and his protege Mitchell Wade). They ran these scams in the 'black' parts of the Pentagon budget and in intelligence procurement. The 'black' stuff is top secret. Not only is it hidden from the public and all forms of public disclosure; it's not scrutinized very closely or even allowed to be seen by very many people on Capitol Hill.
There are reasons for having top secret programs in the defense and intel sphere. But it's an invitation for corruption, because few of the checks on corruption are in place. Rivers of money can just disappear.
Doing his dirty work in the top secret parts of the budget was Brent Wilkes' racket. He taught it to Mitch Wade. The fact that he was tight with the #3 guy at CIA who came out of the Agency's procurement bureaucracy raises all sorts of red flags. As well it should.
--Josh Marshall
Close down the Agency and just go with INR?
Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy has a great post here about another case where US policymakers (Condi Rice) said a political outcome abroad -- (Hamas' election victory in the Palestinian Authority) couldn't have been predicted when in fact their own intelligence experts did predict it.
"I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing," Condi said after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. But INR -- the State Department's in-house intel shop -- more or less predicted the result.
--Josh Marshall
Split decision: ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) gets 8 years 4 months for accepting bribes and public corruption of various sorts.
Federal prosecutors had asked for the maximum sentence of ten years, citing Cunningham's corruption which they argued was unprecedented in its scope and brazenness.
Defense attorneys asked for six years.
According to the AP, it is the longest sentence ever meted out to a member of Congress.
See federal prosecutors sentencing memorandum here.
See the highlights of the memorandum here.
See the crack piece of enterprise reporting by the San Diego Union-Tribune's Marcus Stern, published on June 12th, 2005, which started Duke's vast skein of unbridled corruption unraveling.
See the TPM archive of Randy "Duke" Cunningham reportage-cum-snark here.
--Josh Marshall
In the market for a commode? a piece of history?
Duke's antiques are set to be auctioned off in three weeks.
See the loot here - it's under "Antiques."
Proceeds to benefit the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation branch and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
--Paul Kiel
As a professional muckraker, I wouldn't mind so much if this whole lobbying reform effort just passed on by without much more of a fuss. True reform would be bad for business.
But as a citizen, I must admit to some frustration.
Say it with me: There is a bipartisan reluctance to pass strong ethics reform. How does that sound to you? It's true.
Yesterday, Democrats had another chance to help set themselves apart from Republicans on this issue and to really push it. Without getting mired in the specifics, here's the thing: Sens. Collins (R-ME) and Lieberman (D-CT) put forward legislation that would establish an Office of Public Integrity, an external agency to investigate ethics complaints. Sen. Obama put forward something very similar last month and it didn't make much of a splash.
It didn't go over any better this time around. Three Senate Democrats on the committee helped vote it down 11-5.
Now, two of the three Dems - Sens. Akaka (D-HI) & Pryor (D-AR) - who voted against it sit or recently sat on the Senate ethics committee. Apparently they agree with Sen. Voinivich that "The ethics committee is already doing those things." Fine. How many voters think that? Do you?
The Republicans haven't had to stick their necks out on this one yet. Make them fight for their gifts and meals. And make them, again and again, get up in front of cameras and say that the ethics process is working.
If they don't, then nothing meaningful will come of any of this. And the muckraker in me would rejoice.
--Paul Kiel
Like ink on a paper towel, the stain spreads.
Arch-Cunningham-fraudster Brent Wilkes was tight with the #3 guy at the CIA, Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.
Now the CIA Inspector General has opened an investigation into Foggo. Before DCI Porter Goss appointed Foggo #3 at the Agency, Foggo was a "a mid-level procurement supervisor."
So, Foggo's line of work was contracting, procurement, buying stuff for the Agency. Wilkes' line of work was coming up with shoddy products and then corrupting members of Congress and procurement officials to buy his crap.
Hard to imagine why they might want to scrutinize his lifelong personal and professional ties to Brent Wilkes, right?
--Josh Marshall
Peter, Paul & Mary's Peter Yarrow speaks up for clemency for Duke Cunningham in his sentencing today. Apparently they met five years ago and became friends, reaching across the Vietnam-era divide. A weird nugget. But life is weird. Check it out: It's sort of endearing.
--Josh Marshall
Something about Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) really brings out terribly snarky responses from TPM Readers.
Yesterday, Paul noted the Florida Recount Queen took $50,000 from the infamous Mitchell Wade of MZM, only to miss the deadline to get an earmark inserted for the company.
Reader LB : "This is the same Katherine Harris, if you remember. . . who was such a stickler for deadlines in November of 2000."
Harris was wined and dined by Wade at swanky Citronelle, reader ZK spots in a Sarasota Herald-Tribune report -- a real eyebrow-raiser, since the restaurant's prix-fixe menu starts at $85, well over the Congressional $50 gift limit.
Finally, reader MP warns us to mark our calendars. In two weeks, Harris will be speaking at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference in the holy city of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. Topic: how to "reset the wildly spinning moral compass of our great land."
Perhaps her new lawyer will have some suggestions.
--Justin Rood
Katherine Harris hires a "top-gun" campaign finance lawyer, Tampa Tribune reports. (via PoliticalWire)
--Justin Rood
The gavel falls for Duke Cunningham. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DB gives Katherine Harris her due ...
Say what you will about Katherine Harris, but she certainly turned out to be a quick study, don't you think? Only a couple of terms and right in the thick of things!
Good point. But fish to water and all.
--Josh Marshall
Ah, now the gang's all here.
Here's a rosy-cheeked (and for some reason, overall rosy) Warren RoBold, the latest mugshot from Tom DeLay's bad bunch of money launderers -- okay, okay, alleged money launderers -- down in Texas.
RoBold, a big fundraiser for DeLay, was indicted way back in '04 for his role in funneling corporate contributions to Texas Republicans. He joins John Colyandro and Jim Ellis - and of course the beaming Tom DeLay.
A while back, we posted an email exchange that shows Warren RoBold setting up a fundraiser for DeLay's ARMPAC in Abramoff's skybox.
--Paul Kiel
Well, it's not exactly a bribe menu, but...
Brent Wilkes, whom we'll simply identify as the dirtier of the two defense contractors who bribed Duke Cunningham (see below), had more than one friend in Washington. As we've mentioned before, he was close ($37-million-in-earmarks close) to Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA).
On November 14, 2003, Wilkes hosted a fundraiser for Doolittle at his swanky corporate headquarters - possibly to thank him for the $18 million in earmarks Doolittle had "steered" toward Wilkes' company that year.
You can see the menu here. It comes to us courtesy of Wilkes' wife's catering company's website, which is as far as we can tell the only website left standing of the once-formidable Wilkes empire. It's one of their sample menus; they're understandably proud of their work. And no, pork was not on the menu.
One thing I can't quite figure out though: the ticket theme. Is it meant to symbolize that Doolittle was Wilkes' ticket to government contracts? Or that Wilkes, who along with his cohorts gave Doolittle $85,000 over 3 years, was Doolittle's ticket to a healthy campaign?
Oh, who cares. Mmmm... Applewood smoked bacon wrapped filet...
(Late Update: I stand corrected. TPM reader JB writes "'Actually, pork (bacon) was on the menu. No jokes about "bringing home the bacon?'")
--Paul Kiel
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Katherine Harris. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
After I did the post a couple days ago about my terrible experience with a new Gateway Computer (actually with the computer and the support and pretty much everything else about the experience), I got a number of emails from Mac owners basically saying, 'Switch to Mac. We all live in computer paradise.'
So I thought I'd answer the question on the site.
I must say that from my casual experience, Mac's always seem to work better, be more intelligently designed, have a nicer screen interface and a bunch of other stuff. And honestly, after this most recent experience, for the first time in my life I've seriously considered switching.
So, why haven't I, and, probably, why won't I?
I think it basically comes down to two reasons.
First, I've been using PC-based computers for about 20 years. And over the years, I've invested a serious amount of money in software and various gizmos, all of which are PC-based. That in itself is probably enough to keep me shackled down in the Wintel universe.
Second, I've got a decent amount of know-how invested in PCs. I don't just mean that I'd have to become a computer newbie again. But I can open up my PCs and install things and actually do a certain amount of maintenance on them. Not sure one can do that with a Mac, at least not to the same degree. In the background, I guess there's also that concern about having ones whole computer set-up and data tied to one company.
Third (okay, I said two, but it's my site), I've become very dependent on using a tablet PC for a lot of my note-taking and loose-leaf type record keeping. (If you're a journalist or anyone else who takes a lot of notes or does a lot of research, I seriously recommend checking them out. I couldn't live without one.) And I don't think they exist in the Mac universe.
In any case, those are the basic reasons holding me back. (I know the hardware tends to be more expensive. But I pretty much live my life online. So I don't think the cost in itself, if not too much more, would hold me back.) But I really do sort of secretly wish I could use a Mac because they just seem like they're better machines. So I'd be very curious to hear from readers. Not just Mac users. In fact, not even primarily Mac users. Who I'd really like to hear from are former PC users who've switched to Mac. What have your experiences been? Any major downsides? Either in the final experience or in the transition over -- moving your data over, etc?
Let me know. I'd be much obliged.
--Josh Marshall
Mark your calendars...
Duke Cunningham will be sentenced this Friday, and the U.S. Attorney's Office down in Florida tells us that the sentencing of Adam Kidan and Jack Abramoff for their SunCruz fraud is coming up March 16th.
--Paul Kiel
Sarasota Herald-Tribune columnist says Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) lied to him about her contacts with Mitchell Wade.
--Josh Marshall
Travis County DA Ronnie Earle is continuing to chase down Tom DeLay's ties to Jack Abramoff.
Today he subpoenaed Jack Abramoff's travel agent, the one who arranged the junket to Scotland in 2000. DeLay came along, and I think that it's fair to say from the $6,617.20 ticket price that he flew first class. The ticket was charged to Jack Abramoff's credit card. You can see his AmEx statement here.
Late Update: TPM Reader ME writes in to confirm that the "J3" code on the ticket refers to Continental's "Business First."
--Paul Kiel
Oh, videotape is not the friend of George W. Bush today.
Remember this quote, right?
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will." - George W. Bush, Sept. 1, 2005
Only now the AP has unearthed videotape of the president being warned that just that could happen the day before Katrina hit.
Chris Matthews ran the tape just a few minutes ago on Hardball.
See the report on it here.
Late Update: video link here.
Even Later Update: Click here for the link to the White House photo of the August 28th briefing.
--Justin Rood
Golf and corruption brought Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) this far; it's a winning combination and he's sticking with it.
OK, so he took a golf junket to Scotland with an admitted felon lobbyist, as part of an alleged quid pro quo with an Indian tribe that the lobbyist was screwing out of millions of dollars.
Is that going to stop him from loving golf?!
Apparently not. His campaign is handing out these customized Bob Ney tees out on the campaign trail. That's bold.
We called Ney's campaign for comment. His congressional spokesman, Brian Walsh, called us back and confirmed the tees were real. "I think a few were handed out last night," he said. "I saw it up on some liberal blogs and I think the fact that some bored democrats are making hay out of this is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen."
--Paul Kiel
Blogads is running their annual reader survey. Taking a few moments to fill out the survey gives advertisers information about blog readers. And that helps keep sites like TPM and most of your other favorite blogs on the web. On question #23 put 'Talking Points Memo' as the blog that sent you to the survey.
--Josh Marshall
Helluva job! No really!
The Hattiesburg American reports that The Feds are prosecuting Forrest County, Mississippi Sheriff Billy McGee for commandeering two FEMA ice trucks and giving their contents to locals in the midst of the Katrina disaster, when FEMA was too bolloxed up to order it themselves.
A National Guard trooper tried to stop McGee; the sheriff handcuffed him. Perhaps that was a bit of an over-reaction. But, as one fire chief told the paper, "We had diabetic people who hadn't been able to put their insulin on ice for three days."
Who would you want serving your community after its next disaster, McGee or the guardsman?
(ed note: Special thanks to TPM Reader CG for the tip.)
--Justin Rood
Great moments in corruption, courtesy of the United States Attorney's Office of the Southern District of California.
On at least six different occasions, Duke Cunningham personally contacted Defense officials to demand that his favorite defense contractors, Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, got their money.
A sampling of those and other high points from the prosecutors' latest:
7/6/99 - Brent Wilkes faxes a set of "Talking Points" to Duke so that he can competently champion Wilkes' cause.
1999 - A Defense official, in the course of reviewing a number of invoices from Wilkes' company, determines that $750,000 of them are fraudulent. The official calls Wilkes and tells him the DoD is not paying. Soon after, the official receives a call from Duke, demanding to know why Wilkes' isn't getting paid. The official explains. Duke hangs up on him.
Duke calls the official's supervisor to complain.
1999 - A Defense official gets what he/she thinks to be an over-inflated invoice from Brent Wilkes' company. Wilkes tries to plead with the official, saying that "he needed the money to make a balloon payment or he would lose his company." The official is "unmoved."
Cunningham calls three separate times to demand payment to Wilkes. Wilkes then meets again with the official, has Cunningham call his cell phone, then passes the phone to the official to explain again why Wilkes isn't getting his money.
2001 - A Defense official moves $2-3M away from a $10M appropriation for Brent Wilkes' ADCS. Wilkes complains to Duke, who summons the defense official to a meeting. He berates the official; the official doesn't budge. Duke subsequently contacts the official's supervisor and demands that he/she be fired for not being a "team player."
9/27/02 - Duke Cunningham's frightened staffers email back and forth, anticipating the return of the "big chinchilla" after he's found out that his beloved defense contractor's programs have been cut. "I'm under my desk ducking and covering" says one.
Minutes later, he returns: "He stormed into his office, pissed, and said he might as well become a Democrat."
--Paul Kiel
Three down, more to come in the New Hampshire phone jamming case.
According to a piece that ran in today's New Hampshire Union Leader (the piece isn't available online), prosecutors there have said that another indictment is forthcoming in "about four weeks." No word yet on who the lucky contestant is.
We'll keep you posted.
--Paul Kiel
As the AP and others reported yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released some telling emails and challenged Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to explain why he was involved in pulling strings to land Carnival Cruise Lines an emergency contract to house Katrina evacuees.
But Jeb’s not the only one who needs to answer some questions. Last fall, Carnival veep Terry Thornton testified before Congress that his company didn't seek a government contract. Rather, the government came to Carnival. But that story doesn't stand up, now that we know Carnival worked its GOP political connections behind the scenes to get a deal.
Here's Carnival's version: The Health and Human Services Department first asked the cruise company on Aug. 31 if it could use its ships for Katrina relief efforts, Thornton testified. “This was our first contact with the government with respect to the vessels,” he told the House Government Affairs Committee.
"You didn't seek the government contract. The government came to you, basically, with a solicitation," Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), asked Thornton.
"That's correct," Thornton replied.
Apparently, Mr. Thornton, it's not.
--Justin Rood
Duke Cunningham even more corrupt than we thought. Prosecutors go back to the bottomless Duke corruption well. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
If you're a regular reader of this site you've probably been noticing an increasing frequency of posts with that little "TPMmuckraker.com Advance Copy" icon stuck in the text. And, if you look closely at those posts, you'll see that my name doesn't appear in the signature at the bottom.
So let me explain what that's all about.
Back in November -- which seems like a very long time ago -- I told you that I wanted to "launch a new blog dedicated to chronicling, explaining and reporting on the interconnected web of public corruption scandals bubbling up out of the reigning Washington political machine."
We did a fundraiser and got contributions for the project from almost 3000 TPM Readers. And now we're about ready to get started. As promised, we hired two full-time reporter-bloggers for TPMmuckraker.com, one based out of our new office in New York and another based in Washington, DC.
Paul Kiel you've already gotten to know through the Daily Muck column he's been writing every morning over at TPMCafe. Paul has worked at Harpers and written for L Magazine. And he had some key experience working as a paralegal at a law firm specializing in white collar defense work. So that comes in handy for him as he's making his way through an indictment or sentencing memorandum. Paul had good experience for the job and he came well recommended. But I hired him mainly because the letter he wrote applying for the job and then some sample posts I had him write made me think he got how this works -- digging for muck, looking for that delicious Duke Cunningham-worthy detail. And I haven't been disappointed.
Then just two days ago, our second full-time reporter-blogger came on the job. Justin Rood, formerly of Congressional Quarterly and Government Executive magazine, will be reporting for TPMmuckraker.com from Washington, the veritable den of iniquity itself. I met Justin a few years back when I still lived in DC. And we've corresponded off and on since then, particularly about his interest in so-called collaborative or open-source journalism (the sort of stuff we did with the DeLay Rule or the Social Security fight last year). Even with the generous support of TPM Readers, we still had to put this operation together on a pretty modest budget. So we didn't have a lot of money to throw around. And we needed to make every hire count. With all that in mind, I hired Justin because I wanted one of those reporters who just works the phone and finds the sources and scours the documents until he runs the story to ground.
So, that's our team. Justin and Paul. I'll be general editor in the background, with Kate Cambor as Managing Editor.
We plan to get underway next week. The Daily Muck and these Advance Copy posts we're doing here will all be rolled into the new site, along with our Document Collection, a collection of bios of all the major scandals players and a bunch else. We won't be launching with any fanfare or announcement or glitz. If all goes according to plan, we'll just start rounding up the corruption news of the day and breaking stories.
Now, one other point I'd like to make. I had the idea to start this new site for a few different reasons. One was that I'd like to have a site like this that I could read. Another was that I've been increasingly interested in blogs as a hybrid form of journalism.
But the most immediate reason is this: Most of the stuff I come up with on TPM starts with readers -- tips, insights that shed new light on already reported stories, pointers to articles, scuttlebutt that a little reporting can turn into hard news. I've discussed this before on the site. But the stream of emails we get into the site everyday is a resource of simply inestimable value -- something journalists with conventional publications just don't have access to. But as the site has grown, the volume of tips and leads has grown. But my ability to run them down has remained pretty static. So lots of good leads and stories just go unpursued.
But I figured that with a couple hungry reporters who could devote themselves to doing this full-time and a few interns to help them, we could bust open a lot more stories, make more trouble and just have a lot more fun. So that's what we're going to try to do.
From you, here's what we need. Keep the tips coming. It's as easy as clicking the comments link and shooting us a quick email. They all get read. Are you up on the hill? Tell us the scuttlebutt you're hearing. Keep us posted. Have a lead for a story? Want to discreetly pass it on? Let us know. Have documents? We want documents. See a story that needs more attention? Drop us a line and we'll get right on it.
They've got muck; we've got rakes.
--Josh Marshall
This is a post to let you know that I exercised some self-control and didn't do the post about how Gateway Computers has made a covert pact with Satan to sell substandard computer hardware and back it up with service so bad it is guaranteed to push even a relatively well-balanced individual to the brink of insanity. Just wanted to let you know that.
--Josh Marshall
Strobel and Landay at Knight-Ridder: "U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports. Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists - and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops."
Wait, White House ignored warnings from Intel pros, lied to the public about the warnings and then paid the price? I've been in this movie before.
Actually, I guess, we all pay the price.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Burns (R-MT) mixes it up a bit, says President Bush has skull of "solid granite".
--Josh Marshall
The Washington Post ran a story yesterday suggesting that the IRS bowed to political pressure by investigating a Texas public interest group that crossed swords with Tom DeLay. The investigation came at the request of DeLay's crony, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), who himself was put up to making the request by a lawyer tied to DeLay's fundraising schemes.
But we think there's more to the story. In fact, there are indications that established rules to prevent political abuse of the IRS may not have been followed.
According to IRS rules, a request like Johnson's must be reviewed by a three-member panel set up to ensure that investigations are conducted for fair, nonpartisan purposes. But there doesn't appear to be any evidence that such a review ever took place.
Under the rules, the committee must keep a record of each of its decisions. As the Post reported yesterday, Texans for Public Justice Director Craig L. McDonald asked for all documents relating to his group’s case. McDonald shared those documents with us -- and they contain no record the IRS committee had reviewed Johnson’s letter or referred it for investigation.
In its reply to McDonald, the IRS said it had held back three pages, citing a law which allows them to withhold information if it "would seriously impair Federal tax administration." But the agency would not say what those three pages were.
We followed up with IRS spokesman Eric Smith. But we didn't get any further than McDonald.
Smith would not explain what had been withheld, or make a member of the IRS disclosure office available. (Reached independently, IRS disclosure officer Valerie Barta, whose name pops up in McDonald's IRS documents, told us she was prohibited from discussing the matter.)
We asked Smith whether a review had taken place. He would not answer directly, but said the review panel is “the process that we use for all cases.” We again asked him to confirm it was used for Johnson's request; Smith said he was prohibited from discussing specific cases.
Is the IRS withholding evidence of what the review panel decided? Or is the evidence missing because the mandated review never took place? One way or another, why isn't any evidence of this review or reference to it included into the documents released to TPJ?
Remember, this isn't just any audit. It's one the IRS was put up to by a political ally of Tom DeLay for the pretty clear purpose of cracking down on an organization that was creating problems for the then-Majority Leader.
We can't see any reason why the IRS won't say whether they followed their own rules in this case. And if they did, why can't they provide some evidence or documentation about what the review panel decided?
--Justin Rood
The Democrats want to run as the party of reform? Then they can't afford days like today.
Today, the Senate Rules Committee voted on two different reform proposals. One was the Democrats' Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; the other was an earmark and lobbying reform bill by Sen. Lott (R-MS). The Democrats' bill went down on party lines, 10-8. Lott's bill passed unanimously. In other words, in one short committee meeting, the Republicans completely co-opted the issue.
Meanwhile, Sen. Obama (D-IL), who's supposed to be the point man on this, introduced a measure three weeks ago that would create a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, an exterior agency that would handle ethics investigations and then make recommendations to the ethics committees. Sounds like a pretty sound idea, right? Especially given the shambles that the ethics committees are in right now, you would think.
Well, Sen. Obama (D-IL) sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter February 10th (read the letter here). The response? As today's Hill reports, it's been...underwhelming. As of yesterday, he had one co-sponsor, Sen. Reid (D-NV). Today, according to Sen. Obama's office, he added Sen. Kerry (D-MA). So that's two - not very impressive support. Why? As The Hill puts it: "lawmakers appear to view the medicine as too strong."
--Paul Kiel
Ignorance of the law is no defense. How about ignorance about what you did?
In the department of 'you can't make this stuff up': Scooter Libby, lawyer, foreign policy hand, author and Dick Cheney's personal one-man heat shield, has hired a memory loss expert to assist in his defense.
Harvard psychology professor Daniel L. Schacter is the guy who got the call.
Maybe Scooter can consult one of Schacter's books, The Seven Sins of Memory.
--Josh Marshall
The Cunningham staffer who wouldn't be part of Duke's crimes. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
Peter Galbraith: "In his State of the Union address, President Bush told his Iraq critics, 'Hindsight is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy.' His comments are understandable. Much of the Iraq fiasco can be directly attributed to Bush's shortcomings as a leader. Having decided to invade Iraq, he failed to make sure there was adequate planning for the postwar period. He never settled bitter policy disputes among his principal aides over how postwar Iraq would be governed; and he allowed competing elements of his administration to pursue diametrically opposed policies at nearly the same time. He used jobs in the Coalition Provisional Authority to reward political loyalists who lacked professional competence, regional expertise, language skills, and, in some cases, common sense. Most serious of all, he conducted his Iraq policy with an arrogance not matched by political will or military power."
A pretty crisp and concise description of a man who has been an utter failure as a leader, in almost every respect unimaginable. Hubris, ignorance, inability to lead or make hard decisions. The list is as bleak as it is long.
--Josh Marshall
Ha! I'm always the last to know. 
My friend Frank Foer is taking over as editor of The New Republic from Peter Beinart, also a friend.
As the article in the Times points out, it would really be more in character for the magazine if Peter were dangling upside-down from a lamppost Mussolini-style or already buried (editorially, if not literally) in some unmarked grave, near an abandoned farm, somewhere out in the wilds of western Maryland.
But, apparently, the whole thing is amiable on every side. And no one is the worse for wear.
Maybe it's having four owners.
Congratulations to Frank.
--Josh Marshall
Wow. 34% approval rating for President Bush, according to the just-released CBS poll. I think even by the technical dictionary definition, that blows.
Here's a question: who can put that into some historical perspective for us. What presidents got below the magic 35% line? And when? I think I have pretty clear recollection of Bush's dad getting into similar territory in 1992. But who has more data?
Late Update: TPM Reader AJ sends in this helpful historical poll run-down. Perhaps more relevant is this run-down of second-term numbers from CBS.
--Josh Marshall
We've been banging the Don Young drum for a little while here at TPM, because it's just not clear to us that Rep. Young (R-AK) really had "no personal or professional relationship" with Jack Abramoff, as he has claimed.
Now, it's been reported already that Rep. Young used Abramoff's skyboxes for fundraisers before Abramoff's fall from grace. But to date, Rep. Young or his office has sort of muddled the significance 
of those ties by claiming that his campaign didn't know in whose suite those events were held. (Never mind that the plaque at the door to the MCI Center suite said "Jack Abramoff").
Today, however, we're publishing a Team Abramoff email which puts those claims into further doubt.
The email is from Jennifer Calvert to Jack Abramoff and his then-assistant Susan Ralston.
At the time, Calvert was a member of Team Abramoff at Preston Gates, the law firm where Abramoff ran his operation until the end of 2000. In the email, Calvert tells Abramoff, "Don Young has asked for the use of our suites for some upcoming fundraisers". (You can read the actual email here.)
That email seems pretty straightforward to us. Young apparently asked Calvert to ask Abramoff if he could use one of his skyboxes for his fundraisers. And that seems like some sort of a relationship.
We went back to Young's office to get comment on this latest revelation. But the response seemed a bit off-point.
Young spokesman Grant Thompson emailed us back this reply:
"Mr Young does not feel it appropriate to comment on emails that are generated within a corporation. When you find communications from Mr Young or his staff, we will consider responding."
We're not sure what the problem is with commenting on emails "that are generated within a corporation." And, as a response, it's not exactly a denial - it's more of a challenge. In fact, we appreciate Rep. Young's confidence that we will ultimately find these communications. We'll do our muckraker best not to let him down.
--Paul Kiel
Under every administration there are examples of individuals or tax exempt groups (associated with the opposing party) getting audited by the IRS. It always, or usually, looks a bit fishy. But there's seldom any concrete evidence of politicized decision-making at the IRS to point to. So partisans on one side or another make their judgments in the absence of hard proof. And that's pretty much where it ends.
There's a astounding piece on page A3 of the Post today about one of these instances -- only in this case there appears to be more or less conclusive evidence that it was a political hit.
The group is question is Texans for Public Justice -- a outfit which had a lot to do with turning up the information about illegal fundraising and money distributions that eventually ended Tom DeLay's reign as Majority Leader.
They got audited by the IRS. And after what was no doubt a lengthy process, they've been cleared.
But why were they audited?
Apparently the IRS audited TPJ because the IRS commissioner got a request for an audit from Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX.), a DeLay ally. And who put him up to it? Apparently, a DC lawyer named Barnaby W. Zall, whom the Post identifies as "close to DeLay and his fundraising apparatus."
The whole episode got going when Johnson wrote to then-IRS commissioner Mark W. Everson and told him he had "uncovered some disturbing information" about TPJ and asked Everson to "to report back your findings of each of these investigations directly to me."
Other material referenced in the Post piece shows that Zall was quite clear when he contacted Johnson that he was trying to protect DeLay.
Anyway, just so we're all on the same page here. DeLay fundraising lawyer is worried that TPJ might end up deep-sixing the boss. DeLay fundraising lawyer contacts DeLay-lackey congressman and asks him to sic the IRS on TPJ. DeLay-lackey congressman does as he's told. And so does the IRS. TPJ gets put the wringer for uncovering information about DeLay's crimes.
With all the shenanigans we've seen from these characters in recent years, I can't say I'm surprised. But I am astounded by how much evidence there appears to be as to just how this happened. Why isn't Rep. Johnson in more hot water?
--Josh Marshall
At MZM, Inc., it really was all in the family.
In today's Daily Muck, I noted that in their story on Mitchell Wade's guilty plea, The Washington Post identified the anonymous Defense Department "Official" as Robert Fromm. In that they differed from the Times and the SDUT, each of whom said that the unnamed official was William S. Rich, Jr.
According to the plea, after Wade arranged for his son to work for MZM, the "Official" gave Wade all sorts of help in winning contracts with the Defense Department. This went on for at least a year and a half until the "Official" decided just to go ahead and make things official and moved over to MZM himself.
This seemed like a perfect description of Rich, whose son worked for MZM and who himself eventually moved over to MZM.
I thought so too, and said this morning that I thought the Post had got it wrong.
But it turns out there was just so much corruption at MZM that it's hard to keep the father-son sweatheart deal duos straight. In other words, yes, there was another father/son combination.
Walter Pincus at the Post, who reported on Rich's work for MZM last year, told me that according to his sources, Robert Fromm's son went to work for MZM in February, 2002. That matches up with the facts in the plea, which also says February, 2002. Rich's son, William Scott Rich III, didn't go to work for MZM until December 2002. Furthermore, Rich left the Pentagon to work for MZM in September 2003, long before the "Official" in the plea agreement, who left for MZM in July, 2004.
So there you have it: two defense officials, both in a position to help Wade win contracts, both of whom had sons go to work for Wade, and then went over themselves to work at MZM.
According to Pincus' story last year, at least 16 Defense Department employees made their way over to MZM. Who knows how many other father/son or mother/daughter combinations were united there?
All apologies to the Post - and as for Robert Fromm, he'll be making his Grand Ole Docket debut later in the day.
(Late Update: We've added the "Statement of Offenses" from Wade's guilty plea to the TPM Document Collection. And Fromm has arrived in the Grand Ole Docket.)
--Paul Kiel
Finally a Republican who admits to the Dems' talking point! Randy "Duke" Cunningham cites "a culture of corruption in Washington." That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Josh Marshall
