posted on January 6, 2006 07:18:13 AM new
The subject is Abramjackoff and this is part of his criminal history, how bush has , and will, protect him anyway he can.
Cheer up, bear, with the crooked bush administration calling the shots Abramjackoff, and everyone else, will probably go scott free. The prosecutor, Alice in Wonderland, was hand picked by bush two years ago when it was known Abramjackoff was going to be in "trouble". See, history of the CURRENT scandal is relevant.
Controversial lobbyist had close contact with Bush team
WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Bush's first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show.
Abramoff remains under investigation for some of his lobbying work.
Dennis Cook, AP
The meetings between Abramoff's lobbying team and the administration ranged from Attorney General John Ashcroft to policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, according to his lobbying firm billing records.
Abramoff, a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, is now under criminal investigation for some of his lobbying work. His firm boasted its lobbying team helped revise a section of the Republican Party's 2000 platform to make it favorable to its island client.
In addition, two of Abramoff's lobbying colleagues on the Marianas won political appointments inside federal agencies.
"Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department," Abramoff wrote in a January 2001 letter in which he persuaded the island government to follow him as a client to his new lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.
The reception Abramoff's team received from the Bush administration was in stark contrast to the chilly relations of the Clinton years. Abramoff, then at the Preston Gates firm, scored few meetings with Clinton aides and the lobbyist and the islands vehemently opposed White House attempts to extend U.S. labor laws to the territory's clothing factories.
The records from Abramoff's firm, obtained by The Associated Press from the Marianas under an open records request, chronicle Abramoff's careful cultivation of relations with Bush's political team as far back as 1997.
In that year, Abramoff charged the Marianas for getting then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to write a letter expressing support for the Pacific territory's school choice proposal, his billing records show.
"I hope you will keep my office informed on the progress of this initiative," Bush wrote in a July 18, 1997, letter praising the islands' school plan and copying in an Abramoff deputy.
White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday that Bush didn't consider Abramoff a friend. "They may have met on occasion, but the president does not know him," she said.
As for the number of Abramoff lobbying team contacts with Bush officials documented in the billing records, Healy said: "We do not know how he defines 'contacts.'"
Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff, declined comment.
The Greenberg Traurig firm, where Abramoff worked between late 2000 and early 2004, is investigating Abramoff's work and cooperating with government investigations.
"Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff's resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business," spokeswoman Jill Perry said.
Abramoff is now under federal investigation amid allegations he overcharged tribal clients by millions of dollars, and his ties to powerful lawmakers such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are under increasing scrutiny.
The documents show his team also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others.
Most of the contacts were handled by Abramoff's subordinates, who then reported back to him on the meetings. Abramoff met several times personally with top Interior officials, whose Office of Insular Affairs oversees the Mariana Islands and other U.S. territories.
In all, the records show at least 195 contacts between Abramoff's Marianas lobbying team and the Bush administration from February through November 2001.
At least two people who worked on Abramoff's team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget.
"We have worked with WH Office of Presidential Personnel to ensure that CNMI-relevant positions at various agencies are not awarded to enemies of CNMI," Abramoff's team wrote the Marianas in an October 2001 report on its work for the year.
Abramoff's team didn't neglect party politics either: There were at least two meetings with Republican National Committee officials, including then-finance chief Jack Oliver, as well as attendance at GOP fundraisers.
In 2000, Abramoff and his team were connected enough to both political parties to boast of obtaining early drafts of the platforms each adopted at its presidential nominating convention.
"In the case of the Republican platform, the team reviewed and commented on sections dealing with insular territories to ensure appropriately positive treatment. This was successful," the Preston Gates firm wrote to Marianas.
"In the case of the Democratic Party platform, the team assisted in drafting early versions of neutral language relating to the territories," the firm wrote. "However, heavy intervention by the White House eventually deleted positive references to the CNMI."
The access of Abramoff and his team to the administration came as the lobbyist was establishing himself as a GOP fundraiser.
Abramoff and his wife each gave $5,000 to Bush's 2000 recount fund and the maximum $1,000 to his 2000 campaign. By mid-2003, Abramoff had raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, becoming one of Bush's famed "pioneers."
Money also flowed from the Marianas to Bush's re-election campaign: It took in at least $36,000 from island donors, much of it from members of the Tan family, whose clothing factories were a routine stop for lawmakers and their aides visiting the islands on Abramoff-organized trips.
Two Tan family companies gave $25,000 each to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2002 elections. Greenberg Traurig, too, was a big GOP giver. Its donations included $20,000 to the Republican National Committee for the 2000 elections and $25,000 each to the GOP's House and Senate fundraising committees in 2000 and again in 2002.
The Marianas' lobbying paid off — it fended off proposals in 2001 to extend the U.S. minimum wage to island workers and gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
Abramoff's team bragged to the cash-strapped Marianas government that the taxpayer money would cover its lobbying bill: "We believe that this additional funding — along with other funds we expect to secure by the end of the year — will make clear to even our biggest critics that we pay for ourselves," Abramoff teammate Kevin Ring wrote in October 2001, copying in Abramoff.
posted on January 6, 2006 08:45:41 AM new
Why Is Abramoff Labeled As GOP-Connected Lobbyist?
Thursday, January 05, 2006
In this morning's San Jose Mercury News, the Page 1 story about lobbyist Jack Abramoff almost reeked of arrogant snickering, tempered only by partisan gloating.
The wrecking crew responsible for foisting this leftist rag on the good people of San Jose was obviously delighted by Abramoff's devastating guilty plea, as the editorial staff raced into full-spin mode on behalf of the Democrat Party.
Abramoff was described as a "GOP-connected lobbyist" even though Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the highest-ranking Democrat in the U.S. Congress, has been implicated in the brewing scandal. Other Democrats, including Tom Daschle, Bryon Dorgan, and Dick Gebhart, appear to have enhanced cash-flow positions as a result of relationships with the disgraced Abramoff.
Why, then, did the front page news story identify Abramoff as a "GOP-connected lobbyist?" Why not "a lobbyist with apparent connections to members of Congress in both parties" to be slightly fair?
Still, there is no liberal bias in the media, right?
John W
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on January 6, 2006 08:47:27 AM new
Jack Abramoff: the BIG Story For 2006?
Written by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, January 06, 2006
Everyone is saying so.
From The Daily Kos, to Juan Williams of Fox News, to Rush Limbaugh, the buzz is all about how badly the revelations of Jack Abramoff's lobbying corruption will hurt the GOP in 2006. With his double dealing, his supplying large sums of money, trips, and other gifts to members of Congress, and his apparent bilking of millions from various American Indian tribes who wished Congress to favorably review their gambling interests, the Abramoff scandal seems like a political powder keg just waiting to go off.
Rabid Republican haters, like the Daily Kos, gleefully rub their hands together in anticipation of a wooden stake through the GOP's heart just before the 2006 midterm election. GOP supporters are filled with dread and foreboding. One thing is sure, a political soap opera is about to play out for the public.
But how far reaching will this scandal be? Will the public take to it and follow it like it did Nixon's Watergate, Reagan's Contra affairs, or Clinton's zipper problems? Will it so define the public's feelings about the GOP that it will adversely affect the 2006 midterm elections throwing victory to the Democrats?
At the risk of making a prediction, I say no. Unfortunately for Democrat supporters, I don't feel this story will mean any major harm to the GOP specifically. It will further erode the public's confidence in the entire political system, however, and this will be a problem for both Democrats and Republicans.
I am not saying this scandal is meaningless. In fact, I think it is a good thing to come to light, but not for the reason Democrats may think. The Dems want to spin this as an indication of Republican corruption, but it isn't. It does reveal the corruption endemic in lobbying and the complete failure of McCain/Fiengold, but this isn't a Republican problem. It is one that equally impacts everyone inside the Beltway.
And therein lies the problem for those who wish to see this Abramoff thing hurt the GOP.
The public may ascribe some of this to the GOP because the mainstream media will bend over backwards to make that sole connection even though there are numerous Democrats involved. But, I do not believe that it will materially harm the GOP's image because Jack Abramoff is not a "politician" in the normal sense of the word. He is a lobbyist.
Abramoff holds no office from which this corruption was launched. He is not a committee member in Congress nor is he an elected official from any state. He makes no law and he is not personally accountable to the voting public. He is not even connected as an operative or employee to any particular candidate or elected official. Therefore, the public will not necessarily identify him officially with any party or office even though he has a long history of assisting the GOP.
To a critical degree he will still be seen as an outsider by those who know anything about the scandal. The public just won't be able to say he is a this or a that, politically, with confidence and he will stay a shadowy figure in the political landscape, hard for the public to put a finger on. This will mean that many will turn away from this story without it materially affecting their feelings about politics.
And that isn't the only reason.
Most people in the public really don't understand what it is a lobbyist does in the first place. So, when they hear of this scandal, they will have to become familiar with what it is he does and this learning curve will also blunt the initial impact the story has. And once people find out he is paid to peddle influence and push his clients' interest, they will be somewhat unsurprised that he is being accused of peddling influence and pushing his clients' interest.
On top of all of that, when people who bother to delve into the story see the double dealing, double dipping, and obfuscation he is involved in they will ascribe it more to Abramoff's lack of ethics than any particular party's. This lack of ethics will, however, add more affirmation for many that Congress is hopelessly corrupt itself. But this is a general feeling of corruption that the public casts upon the shoulders of people from both parties.
According to an AP-Ipsos poll, almost 90% of the respondents felt that corruption is a serious problem in Congress. The Abramoff scandal will deepen this suspicion, but will not send it spiraling into the stratosphere because it is already assumed to be a fact of life inside Washington, D.C.
This story will not ring the death knell for the GOP as the Democrats hope it will. Remember you heard it from me that this is going to be a humbug of a story for most Americans. And when my prediction comes to fruition, give me the hearty handshake of satisfaction for my political prescience.
But, if I am wrong, forget I said anything and ascribe my rambling to a still lingering hangover from my New Year's Eve office party.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on January 6, 2006 08:53:34 AM new
Drunk's ramblings
""But, if I am wrong, forget I said anything and ascribe my rambling to a still lingering hangover from my New Year's Eve office party.""
But he may be right, without a SEX connection Americans may just lose interest.
AND with the prosecutor being hand picked by bush they all may go scott free.
And the neocons, with their high moral ethics, will be dancing in the streets because the crooks got away with their crimes......doesn't speak well for America.
posted on January 6, 2006 10:27:49 AM newMost people in the public really don't understand what it is a lobbyist does in the first place. So, when they hear of this scandal, they will have to become familiar with what it is he does and this learning curve will also blunt the initial impact the story has. And once people find out he is paid to peddle influence and push his clients' interest, they will be somewhat unsurprised that he is being accused of peddling influence and pushing his clients' interest.
On top of all of that, when people who bother to delve into the story see the double dealing, double dipping, and obfuscation he is involved in they will ascribe it more to Abramoff's lack of ethics than any particular party's. This lack of ethics will, however, add more affirmation for many that Congress is hopelessly corrupt itself. But this is a general feeling of corruption that the public casts upon the shoulders of people from both parties.
According to an AP-Ipsos poll, almost 90% of the respondents felt that corruption is a serious problem in Congress. The Abramoff scandal will deepen this suspicion, but will not send it spiraling into the stratosphere because it is already assumed to be a fact of life inside Washington, D.C.
I agree with the writer's opinion. Thanks for posting the article Bear.
posted on January 6, 2006 11:35:08 AM new
GREAT articles, bear....and I too agree this is how most of the voters will see it....NOT limited to only the 'right' side.
I had to laugh last night as a spokesperson for Kennedy said he would NOT be returning the money he took from him. Nor donating it to charity, like some are doing. NOPE he's going to keep that money, all the while pointing at the Republican party and placing blame.
Rabid Republican haters, like the Daily Kos
One of helen's favorite's to quote from/use as her support. LOL LOL LOL
posted on January 6, 2006 12:10:55 PM newPatty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Notice she is democrat there peepa? All of the republicans in this area have already offered to return the money or give it to a charity, none of the democrats have or have even spoken about it.
She was also on the appropriations committee and other committees that she had influence in that would of favored Abramoff and co.
It is both sides of congress who are going to take the hit, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on January 6, 2006 01:49:17 PM new
And while the democrats HOPE to us this as a + for them in Nov. As more and more news addresses the subject....it will also be the dems the voters focus on.
This is kind of like your post bear, but puts it in a different way.....which party got how much money out of this that the DEMS are just so outraged about the Republicans doing.
Taken from today's CNSnews.com
[i]According to Internal Revenue Service records, and substantiated by the Campaign Finance Analysis Project, forty of the forty-five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients. These recipients include:
Charles Schumer ($29,550),
Harry Reid ($68,941), Patty Murray ($78,991), Mary Landrieu ($28,000), John Kerry ($98,550), Ted Kennedy ($3,300), Tom Harkin ($45,750), Dick Durbin ($14,000), Barbara Boxer ($20,250), Hillary Clinton ($12,950)
Byron Dorgan ($79,300).
When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans.
So, the statement that this is exclusively a "Republican scandal" is simply not true.
posted on January 7, 2006 01:18:18 PM new
Awww. look, Clown boy Colin coming to the aid of BearPorn. Did you get your panties all in a wad??? Colin, there really is no need to be so defensive. I have nothing against your relationship with BearPorn. Its ok... really. You two do what you want to do together. It really isn't anybody elses business.
posted on January 7, 2006 01:35:05 PM new
Bush, congressmen to donate Abramoff contributions
Speaker Hastert, Rep. DeLay to also donate money from lobbyist
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Posted: 4:36 p.m. EST (21:36 GMT)
(AP) -- President Bush, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his successor Roy Blunt on Wednesday joined the list of officials shedding political donations from Jack Abramoff, the once- powerful lobbyist who has agreed to testify in a political corruption investigation.
Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff, who pleaded guilty Tuesday to fraud, corruption and tax evasion in Washington. On Wednesday in Florida, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud charges stemming from his 2000 purchase of a gambling boat fleet called SunCruz.
Abramoff has agreed to tell the FBI about alleged bribes to lawmakers and their aides on issues ranging from Internet gambling to wireless phone service in the House. (Full Story)
The full extent of the investigation is not yet known, but Justice Department officials said they intended to make use of the trove of e-mails and other material in Abramoff's possession as part of a probe that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides. (Full Story)
"The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive and we will continue to follow it wherever it leads," said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division.
Bush, DeLay, Blunt and Rep. Bob Ney joined House Speaker Dennis Hastert in announcing plans to either return campaign contributions from Abramoff or give them to charity. Several others announced in December that they were giving back Abramoff's donations to their campaigns.
Bush 'Pioneer' raised at least $100,000
Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign, earning the honorary title "pioneer" from the campaign. But the campaign is giving up only $6,000 that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes that he worked to win influence for in Washington. The money is being donated to the American Heart Association.
Abramoff, his wife and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan each donated $2,000 to the Bush campaign, said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. The rest of the money that Abramoff brought in was from other people whom he encouraged to donate to Bush.
"At this point, there is nothing to indicate that contributions from those individual donors represents anything other than enthusiastic support for the (Bush-Cheney) BC-04 re-election campaign," Schmitt said.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible that the two met at holiday receptions. Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the Bush White House, the spokesman said.
McClellan later said he thinks that Abramoff had been to the White House a "very few times" besides the Hanukkah receptions. He said he was checking into other visits that Abramoff made since Bush has been president.
DeLay will give campaign contributions connected to Abramoff to charities, his spokesman, Kevin Madden, said in an e-mail Wednesday. The Texas Republican received at least $57,000 in political contributions from Abramoff, his lobbying associates or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004. DeLay is now awaiting trial in Texas on charges of laundering campaign money used in races for the state legislature.
Blunt, a Missouri Republican whose political action committee received $8,500 from Abramoff between 1999 and 2003, plans to give that much to charity, a spokeswoman said.
"While we firmly believe the contributions were legal at the time of receipt, the plea indicates that such contributions may not have been given in the spirit in which they were received," said Burson Taylor, a spokeswoman for Blunt.
Ney denies wrongdoing
Ney, who was identified as Representative 1 in Abramoff's plea deal, donated $6,500 to the American Indian College Fund, according to the Ohio Republican's spokesman. The money, which falls short of the $7,000 that Ney's election campaign was given by Abramoff, was donated to the charity "in recent weeks," spokesman Brian Walsh said.
Court papers in Abramoff's case refer to an aide to DeLay who helped stop anti-gambling legislation regarding the Internet during a time in which DeLay was in the House Republican leadership. Abramoff, the papers state, paid the staffer's wife $50,000 from clients that benefited from the actions of the staffer, identified by a person close to the investigation as Tony Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing. Rudy did not return a phone call Tuesday at his lobbying firm.
DeLay, R-Texas, voted against his party on the Internet anti-gambling legislation which was designed to make it easier for authorities to stop online gambling sites.
Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion, with his conduct outlined in court papers that refer to "a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts and influence."
Ramifications potentially widespread
The political ramifications of the Abramoff probe were apparent, with minority Democrats intending to make ethics a campaign issue in this election year. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Abramoff's confession in court was "not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price." (Watch a report on Abramoff's rise and fall -- 1:50)
Some political consultants and analysts are comparing potential damage from the Abramoff investigation to the 1992 House banking scandal that led to the retirement or ouster of 77 lawmakers.
Abramoff's cooperation has made lawmakers nervous.
The court papers in the Washington case refer to Ney, saying that regarding SunCruz, the congressman placed a statement drafted by Abramoff partner Michael Scanlon in the Congressional Record. The statement, the court papers say, was calculated to pressure the owner of SunCruz to sell on terms favorable to Abramoff.
Ney denies wrongdoing, saying that "at the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities."
Abramoff and his former partner, Adam Kidan, are charged with concocting a false $23 million wire transfer making it appear they contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of cruise ships.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not
posted on January 7, 2006 01:59:03 PM new
I just love mingo's FALSE statement....lying ONCE again.
But, once again, the neoconjobs defend Righty wrongdoing by saying..."It's OK, the Dems do it,too"
NOBODY said any such thing. Again it's YOUR own lack of ability to actually READ what anyone has actually stated.
We're just pointing out that this isn't a 'republican' scandle....its a WHOLE Congressional scandle.
Get with the program....take a reading course, comprehension course, you're always so critical of everyone elses ability to read....but you can't read either. Maybe that's why you bring it up about others....it's YOUR own feeling of inadequacy.
--------
Oh yes, and I just sure everyone agrees that the fund given to President Bush were to 'BUY his vote FOR the Indian casinos'.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 7, 2006 08:12:44 PM new
DeLay Gives Up Bid to Reclaim House Post
Updated 10:44 PM ET January 7, 2006
Rep. Tom DeLay, the defiant face of a conservative revolution in Congress, stepped down as House majority leader on Saturday under pressure from Republicans staggered by an election-year corruption scandal.
"During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land," the Texas lawmaker told fellow Republicans in a letter informing them of his decision.
Still, referring to criminal charges he faces in his home state, he added, "I cannot allow our adversaries to divide and distract our attention."
DeLay temporarily gave up his leadership post after he was charged, but always insisted he would reclaim his duties after clearing his name.
His turnabout cleared the way for leadership elections among Republicans buffeted by poor polls and by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's confessions of guilt on corruption charges in connection with congressional wining and dining.
The race to replace Delay as majority leader began taking shape immediately, with Reps. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the GOP whip, and John Boehner of Ohio, a former member of the leadership, making clear their intentions to run. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California declined to say whether he would join them.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, his own grip on power secure, said he expects elections to be held when lawmakers return to the Capitol the week of Jan. 31. That set the stage for several weeks of political maneuvering, and the possibility of a wholesale shuffle in the leadership lineup 10 months before midterm elections.
Democrats, eager to take control of the House in November, reacted to DeLay's announcement with studied indifference.
"The culture of corruption is so pervasive in the Republican conference that a single person stepping down is not nearly enough to clean up the Republican Congress," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.
Added Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign organization: "With the permanence of their special interest philosophy, a change in the Republican cast of characters simply doesn't matter."
Democrats must gain 15 seats in November to win control of the 435-member House.
At a news conference in Texas, DeLay said he had called Hastert, R-Ill., on Saturday to inform him of his decision. "Our success in lowering taxes, creating jobs, growing the economy and providing effective national security was helped by Tom Delay's leadership," the speaker said in a statement.
The 58-year-old DeLay, an exterminator before his election to Congress in 1984, said he intends to seek re-election next fall. "I plan to run a very vigorous campaign and I plan to win it," he told reporters in Texas.
The voters aside, his political future will hinge not only on the outcome of the Texas allegations, but on the future of the Abramoff investigation.
Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide and an Abramoff business partner, pleaded guilty in the fall to corruption charges. In court papers, the lobbyist said he had once paid $50,000 to the wife of another former DeLay aide to help kill legislation opposed by his clients.
DeLay has been a fixture in the Republican leadership since the GOP won its majority in the 1994 election landslide.
An outsider at first, he muscled his way up the hierarchy when he won election as whip over the hand-picked choice of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
When Gingrich nearly fell in a coup more than three years later, DeLay went before fellow Republicans at a private meeting and emotionally confessed his role in the plotting. He prospered politically, moving up to become majority leader, the No. 2 post, in 1999.
Contrition was never a quality he displayed to his adversaries Democrats, outside interest groups and others who sought to check the advance of the conservative GOP agenda he promoted.
DeLay raised millions of dollars for the campaigns of fellow House Republicans, conservatives and moderates alike, earning their gratitude regardless of their ideology. He courted controversy almost reflexively, including his involvement in an attempt to force corporations and industry groups to hire more Republican lobbyists.
He rarely backed down.
DeLay was the driving force behind President Clinton's impeachment in 1999, weeks after Republicans lost seats at the polls in a campaign in which they tried to make an issue of Clinton's personal behavior.
DeLay's downfall began at home in Texas, when he led a drive to redraw the state's congressional district boundaries and increase the number of GOP seats in the U.S. House. He succeeded, but was soon ensnared in an investigation involving the use of corporate funds in the campaigns of Texas legislators who had participated in the redistricting.
Flashing his trademark defiance, DeLay attacked prosecutor Ronnie Earle as an "unabashed partisan zealot." He pledged repeatedly to clear his name and said he would reclaim his duties as majority leader by the end of January.
The scandal spawned by Abramoff intervened, though.
Within two days of the lobbyist's appearances in federal court last week, GOP lawmakers began circulating petitions calling for elections. Hastert immediately made clear he would not stand in the way.
`After the Abramoff thing we got critical mass," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who long had advocated new leadership.
While Flake is a conservative in a safe congressional district, others suddenly calling for change were more moderate Republicans who could face difficult re-election campaigns this fall.
New Mexico's Heather Wilson was among them.
She said three of DeLay's "former senior staff members have admitted or have been implicated in corrupt and illegal activities to get money for themselves by influencing legislation. Whether or not Mr. DeLay was involved himself or knew this was going on, he is responsible for his office."
