Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 3

Archives

• Archive 1 Friday 12th August 2005 Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 1 I made some substantial edits to the page and archived the entire earlier talk since it was mostly to do items since dealt with.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Archive 2 Thursday 2nd February 2006 Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 2 The Cunctator 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of blocking unwanted edits/protection

Discussion of protecting article/blocking unwanted edits related to claims of anti-Semitism for mentioning Abramoff's religion is here: Talk:Jack Abramoff/Protection

Outline

I think this article needs a re-org to focus on the things of significance with regards to Abramoff. I'm going to try to form an outline on the main significant facts about Abramoff to create a better section layout from, and re-org the article to focus in on what is significant for a reader. Don't yell at me, I don't have all night to cover everything so please correct and add to this outline as appropriate, and bold the outline items so that they can be distinguished from discussion. As far as I can see, the significant things about Abramoff are: (Note: I put in a lot of quick notes below which could be considered very POV. These all need to be supported with facts and cites in the rewrite. I'm just trying to put things I have read in different places together to make more of a 'story'.) -Kwh 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Intro: He is a businessman and a political lobbyist, implicated
• 1980s - He was in the College Republicans with Reed and Norquist.
• 1986 - After earning law degree, worked for a "Boardwalk & Associates" in Washington, DC as vice president, and was appointed to a Holocaust Memorial Council by Pres. Reagan [1]
• 1986 - He cut his lobbyist teeth at the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) where he recruited a number of so-called useful idiots.
• 1994 - He rose in prominence as a lobbyist at Preston Gates following the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
• 1997 - Tom Delay, Northern Marianas lobbying.
  • Frank Murkowski, then Senator from Alaska, and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee writea a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. Then, and now, they are allowed to use the "Made in the USA" label.
  • So compelling was the case for change (91 percent of the workforce were immigrants, and were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage, were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, etc.), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski worker reform bill.
  • In the meantime, the Northern Marianas hires Jack Abramoff to lobby for them and paid him roughly $9 million to prevent this
  • As part of Abramoff's lobbying, Tom DeLay took a trip with his family and some staff members there in 1998. (On New Years Eve, there, is where DeLay made the famous comment of Abramoff: "one of my closest and dearest friends."
  • Abramoff funneled much of the money to his pet charities, including to Rabbi David Lapin for promoting ethics in government, and many DeLay charities.
  • 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. (Safavian has recently been indicted relating to other lobby type problems with Abramoff).
  • By 2001, DeLay has succesfully stopped Murkowski's bill, and the Islands gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
  • this section needs more work, but I wanted to get something rolling here. Sholom 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• 1999-2000 - Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
  • Ralph Reed and Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped Abramoff with a pro-gambling campaign to prevent Internet Gambling from being federally outlawed.(!)
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on parts of the bill which allowed loopholes for dog, horse racing, and jai-alai. This enabled them to oppose the bill on the basis that it was 'pro-gambling' even though it was a bill to restrict internet gambling (and the bill was otherwise supported by Dobson, Focus on the Family)
  • eLottery Inc was Abramoff's client[2]
  • Money to Reed was laundered through Norquist's ATR, then through Robin Vanderwall, director of the Faith and Family Alliance, a "shell". Vanderwall was later convicted of soliciting minors via the Internet and is serving a seven-year term in Virginia state prison.
  • Tony Rudy, Delay's Chief of Staff, funneled inside information on the bill to Abramoff.
  • Abramoff funneled eLottery money through "Toward Tradition", which employed Rudy's wife
  • Shandwick Worldwide - hired by Abramoff to get letters opposing IGPA from Jeb Bush.
  • Florida man, Matthew Blair, told authorities in a plea bargain agreement that he was hired to get letters opposing the bill from Bush and others, but created a forgery when this failed.
  • Forged letter from Jeb Bush opposing IGPA circulated on House floor, caused confusion
  • Delay voted down on the bill, helped keep the bill off the floor for the rest of the session through procedural tricks (suspension calendar).
  • eLottery paid for part of the 2000 Delay Scotland golf trip, Tony Rudy was invited as well.
  • The bills sponsors gave it another shot by trying to attach it to an appropriations bill.
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on lobbying 10 conservative representatives in vulnerable districts
  • The representatives told Delay that their constituents were angry about the bill and did not want it passed; Rudy worked within Delay's office to 'trump up' the concerns (manufactured by Reed and Sheldon) and get Delay, Hastert to tell the caucus not to pursue the bill.
  • Abramoff later hired Rudy after he left Delay's office.
• 2000 - Delay Scotland golf trip (Remember that Delay's problems with not reporting this donation was one of the first things that brought Abramoff into the spotlight). Also, the Skyboxes. Need to focus specifically on JA's part in this
• 2000-2001 - He was part of the 2000 Florida Recount legal effort This is not currently mentioned
  • In 2001 moved to Greenberg Traurig. and poached some clients.
• 2000-2005 - He was investigated, indicted, and pled guilty to bank and wire fraud in the SunCruz case. Suncruz purchase deal was done in 2000.
  • (IIRC)He convinced a bank he was worthy of credit to make the Suncruz purchase by using transfers of lobbying cash ($23m) to represent assets which he did not have.
  • remove the last sentence and replace with the following three bullet points
    • He heard from another lawyer at his lawfirm that the owner of Suncruz needed to sell. Abramoff said that the knew of potential buyers. He concealed his own interest from his lawfirm, becuase, without full disclosure, it is unethical for a single lawfirm to represent both a buyer and a seller
    • He pleaded guilty to committing fraud by producing fraudlent documents that purported to show he came up with a $23m down payment
    • Although the seller, Boulis, needed to fully divest, Abramoff made a side deal with the Boulis in order to let him keep 10%
  • Dana Rohrabacher, Tony Rudy (Delay aid) helped him pull off the bank fraud by providing credit references.
  • Ney helped out with comments in the congressional record, by admonishing the previous owner (Boulis) and praising the purchase.
  • Delay may have helped out by giving Boulis a flag which had flown over Capitol, and one of Abramoff's financiers for the purchase came to a skybox fundraiser for Delay.
  • We need to put the full details on Boulis's murder at the Suncruz article, not here. Abramoff has not yet been implicated in the murder, only his associate Adam Kidan.
• 2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding.
  • Abramoff TribeScam outline:
    • Around 2001, JA went in search of a lobbying client who was naive and had a lot of money to spend.
    • Abramoff found the LA Coushattas, whose casino was in debt. ($30mil)
    • Abramoff gained the Coushattas trust, Coushatta needed help with LA people who wanted to shut them down.
    • Some of the Coushatta expressed doubts against trusting JA, JA exploited the intra-tribal (and inter-tribal) politics to discredit 'dissidents'. Excellent perspective from the tribehere.
    • In October 2001, JA convinced the Coushatta that TX legislature was going to allow indian gambling. Exploited tribal fears of Tigua and AL Coushatta casinos in Texas, stealing their revenue from gamblers commuting from TX.
      • This was the initial 'Phantom Menace' pitch to get the Coushatta to dish out $3.5mil in the first six months, to lobby against something which wasn't going to happen anyways.
    • Jena #1-In January 2002, Jena Choctaw submitted compact to get approval for a casino (in LA). [3]
      • Abramoff had Reed and Dobson do the first 'anti-gambling' crusade, resulting in first Jena shutdown. (Reed got $4mil altogether)
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Federal level (Dept. of Interior, indirectly through CREA ($225K), Gale Norton's former PAC, now run by Italia Federici to get access to Griles and Norton in Interior) and cash to Senators and Representatives to write letters to Interior to stop Jena.
      • Abramoff was on first-name basis with Griles, Griles arranged meetings between Coushatta and MS Choctaw chiefs (MS Choctaw also an Abramoff client, also opposed Jena) and Norton. Meetings occurred at CREA functions as well as officially, at Interior.
      • Vitter wrote letters to Interior, got 26 other house members to sign. Reed promoted Vitter in postcard campaign, who later won LA Senate race.
      • Senators Breaux, Lott, Cochran send letters to Interior.
      • March 6 - After all the letters have been written, Coushatta cut the checks to 61 members of Congress. Also, one check on the list makes the CREA->Norton link implicit: "Council for Republican Advocacy (Norton)."
      • March 7 - DoI rejects Jena compact.
    • Jena #2
      • After rejection, Jena hired their own lobbyists (Patton-Boggs) and tried again, this time with tacit support of Billy Tauzin and Breaux.
      • March 2002 - LA Rep. McCrery's chief of staff, Bob Brooks (who later went on a Scotland golf trip with Abramoff) writes up legislation to block Jena.
      • June 2002 - Strongly worded, Abramoff-written letter to Norton opposing Jena is signed and sent by Delay, Hastert, and Blunt.
      • more cash to CREA to get influence with Interior. Also, cash to CREA from Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan tribe? Why was this?)
      • Griles tries hard to influence Norton within Interior. He is challenged by Michael Rosetti, Counsel at Interior, 'who did not want Norton's decision process on the Jenas influenced by "outside people".'
      • Vitter tries to urge Interior to block Jena via language in Appropriations report.
      • December 2002 - Norton eventually allows Jena compact, but the tribe ultimately gets shot down by LA gov. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, who does not want any expansion of gambling.
    • Tigua
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Cornyn, cash to Reed, Dobson, Christian Coalition to defeat Tigua in TX. Funneled cash through bogus American International Center, Delaware shell corp, as well as through Grover Norquist orgs. Abramoff used Reed as cover, Reed went on 'anti-gambling' crusade, brought in numerous pastors and evangelical sources to lobby and 'propagandize'. Abramoff hid the fact that he was behind the Tigua defeat.
      • February 2002 - Abramoff knows through Reed that the Tigua casino is about to get shut down by Cornyn. Abramoff and Scanlon make a move to take on Tigua as clients.
      • Abramoff and Scanlon soak the Tigua (who historically donated to Democrats) for vastly inflated rates, because Abramoff looks like an extremely powerful lobbyist (by what he has been able to do for the Coushatta and others) and because he is the Tigua's last hope.
      • JA sells the Tigua on a massive, national political campaign. He is basically charging them enough for a presidential campaign. The actual work described in this campaign is not really ever started.
      • Abramoff starts shipping out Tigua cash to Delay, ARMPAC, Blount, Ney. Big payoff to Ney. This is to get a clause put into the Help America Vote Act to 'save' the Tigua from Cornyn. Delay, Blount, Ney, will use their power to make sure the amendment doesn't get debated too much. Dem. Sen Chris Dodd is allegedly supposed to help the bill pass the Senate. Per Dodd, someone from DNC (Democratic National Committee) and 2 Ney staffers approach Dodd, but he will not help. Abramoff emails Scanlon - "get our money back from that mother fucker who was supposed to take care of dodd" (Interesting fact to research here - Ney staffers went to Dodd because they were wondering whether the amendment (which Ney supported in the House) was going to pass the Senate. Ney claims he realizes he was 'duped' by Abramoff when he found out that Dodd was not going to support it. Who was the person from the DNC? was this the person Abramoff/Scanlon paid to try to coerce Dodd?)
        • Abramoff/Scanlon had to get a Democrat (Dodd) on-board because the Senate was a Democratic majority at the time, due to the Jim Jeffords 'flip'. It's also possible that Dodd was on the appropriate committee for 'reconciliation' of the bill amendments.
      • The bill will not pass, but nobody tells the Tigua. Abramoff gets the Tigua to pay for Ney's scotland golf trip. (w/Safavian, Reed, Abramoff)
      • Tigua get hosed, complain ... eventually this all gets investigated by SIAC.
  • Above details are on LA Coushatta and Tigua scams. Need details on JA's other tribal clients - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara.
  • He committed income tax fraud in the amount of millions of dollars in perpetrating that fraud.
  • He admitted to bribing "Representative #1" (Ney)
  • However, much of this detail belongs on the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal article
  • Need to get down to brass tacks on what money was given and who wrote letters/did favors - the 'quid-pro-quo'. The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients. - this should go to the scandal article
• 2003 - He was paid by Tyco to carry out an 'astroturf' grass-roots lobbying campaign (while at Greenberg Traurig), but allegedly defrauded Tyco (money paid, but work not done)

Things which are less significant/belong in an "Other" section:

• The "Red Scorpion" movie (but note the IFF connection).
• The "Channel One News" lobbying.
• Connection to Malaysia.
• Homeland Security contract? (I hadn't heard about this, not sure how significant it is)

Things which belong in an "Other investigations" section:

• 2002 - Connection to Guam.

-Kwh 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"A"

What does the "A" in Jack A. Abramoff stand for? JackO'Lantern 06:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Jack now?

I think this article is missing few things. One is the story of how Jack got caught, another is details on the deal he made in the plea agreement, and lastly where exactly is Jack right now, I mean he must be in a Jail or safe house or something, do you think it's in DC?--M4bwav 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The details on the deal he made are all in the plea agreement which is linked. It's the standard: "I promise to cooperate fully" stuff. As for your second question, I suspect, but I don't know for sure, that he was released on his own recognizance, and is walking around free, until sentencing. This is pretty typical with high profile white collar criminals. Sholom 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that would be wild to run into Jack, you know there are a lot of powerful people who wouldn't mind if jack happened to shoot himself. Still I think I'd like to write a little subsection about how he got caught, it was a washington Times story (I believe) that first found out what he was doing(which in turn led to an investigation by the government) is that article available online?--M4bwav 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When did negative public scrutiny start?

a very, very extensive collection of articles dated by year on Abramoff at SourceWatch, there is a ton of informtion here(SourceWatch)

The expert on the second Abramoff special on CSPAN said that it was an article in a Washington Post that led to the intial investigation.

Research below conducted by M4bwav, KWH, Sholom

• Apr 17, 2002: a press release "JUDICIAL WATCH TO INVESTIGATE INFLUENCE PEDDLING AT BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: Quid Pro Quo Of Campaign Contributions From Indian Gambling Revenues In Exchange For Meetings And Political Favors? Time Magazine Implicates Number 2 Official At BIA In Influence Peddling Scheme" at http://www.judicialwatch.org/1734.shtml - Note that it cites an April 11, 2002 article from Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine of April 22, 2002.
• November 2, 2003: Julia Robb at the Alexandria Daily Town Talk reported that people within the Saginaw Chippewa and LA Coushatta tribes were criticizing tribal leaders (like Chief Poncho) for spending multi-millions on lobbyists, so that was likely when the house of cards started falling (Chief Poncho had recently been voted out of the tribal council). More notes to follow.
• November 2003: According to the first SIAC hearing transcripts, the Saginaw Chippewa first confronted Abramoff and asked if he had a side 'agreement' with Scanlon [4]
• February 22, 2004: Schmidt, Susan “A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes - Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years”, The Washington Post. The avalanche of articles that follow are at DisInfopedia.
• March 2004: The FBI also started an investigation [5] allegedly based on the fact that Scanlon's ex-fiancee tipped them off to his illicit activities as payback for Scanlon cheating on her [6]. Once Scanlon 'flipped', Abramoff 'flipped' and gave up all of his personal records. However, there's more work to be done to 'walk the cat back'.
• March 2004: the Senate hearing [7] also indicates that SIAC initiated their investigation based on press accounts at this time
• June 22, 2004: The first subpoenas in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation were issued I believe the SIAC got involved based on the complaints from the tribes...
• March 2, 2005: Inside Politics: DeLay Defense, Washington Times: It says "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, has called for the House ethics panel to investigate Mr. DeLay after the National Journal cited his trip and said the Texas Republican violated House ethics rules. "The House gift rule clearly states that lobbyists cannot pay a member's travel expenses, but the expense voucher submitted by lobbyist Jack Abramoff indicates that this is precisely what he did for Mr. DeLay," she said."

I'll go to the library — you know, the one with the books made of paper ;) — and see if I can hunt down some more of the background that may no longer be locatable via google. KWH 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know whatever happened to the Judicial Watch threat which was almost two years earlier. Sholom 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there were many diaries on DailyKos about Abramoff in relation to sweatshops in the Mariana Islands and Guam, weren't there?99.245.173.200 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Plea Agreement

Here's a PDF of the plea agreement. [8] I'm not sure if this is of use to anyone, but I found it while I was trying to find Mr. Abramoff's middle name... even the District Court just abbreviated his middle name as "A.", so maybe no one knows? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Research Notes

From a December 11 1992 Profile in The Washington Times:

Jack Abramoff

• MARITAL STATUS:Married, five children
• SELF-PORTRAIT:Tenacious, balanced, studious
• MOTTO:The world is based on gratitude and indebtedness
• WALTER MITTY FANTASY:Conducting the Metropolitan Opera
• INSPIRATION:My family, the Lapin Opus [America's Real War, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin], classical music, Howard Phillips
• GREATEST FEAT:Climbing Mount Whitney; producing "Red Scorpion" and getting it distributed into 1,400 theaters in the United States
• BAD HABIT:Trying to please those who should remain displeased
• PET PEEVE:Contemporary mores and music
• HOBBY:Reading, studying, racquetball
• LUXURY DEFINED:Being happy with what I have
• DRINK OR WINE:Passion-fruit iced tea
• FAVORITE RESTAURANT:Pat's in Los Angeles, Levana's in New York
• VACATION SPOT:Home
• CLOTHING STORE:Visa in Kuala Lumpur
• BOOKS AT BEDSIDE:The Bible, "The Generation," "All for the Boss," "Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy"
• LAST WORDS:"Into thy hand I commit my spirit, oh Lord."

KWH 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I should note that the book is not called "The Generation" it is called The Book of Generations--M4bwav 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a load of this (note the date):

• Shields, Jeff (Staff Writer). "SunCruz Sale Got High-Level Push — Congressman Spoke Highly of New Owner", Sun-Sentinel, July 25 2001.

"Ney received campaign contributions from partners Kidan and Jack Abramoff while they were negotiating with Boulis to buy SunCruz. He was on their guest list to the Super Bowl with his two sons this year before backing out at the last minute because of a scheduling conflict."

"Now Ney, a prime player in the campaign finance reform debate, is rejecting his connection with Kidan, whose reputation has been decimated during the aftermath of Boulis' Feb. 6 murder."

Now here's the kicker:

"Michael Scanlon, the lobbyist who asked Ney to put his comments into the Congressional Record, said he was not working for Kidan, Abramoff or Waldman during the Boulis-Kidan negotiations but for another client in the gaming industry, unrelated to the partners, who wanted the world to know about Boulis' problems. He would not name the client."

…

"Scanlon, who went to work for SunCruz in December and became its main spokesman after Boulis was killed, said his efforts on behalf of his clients in March and October 2000 had nothing to do with SunCruz, and that he regretted ever getting involved with Kidan."

"I regret the day I met Adam Kidan, said Scanlon, who no longer works for SunCruz and says he never got paid. "And I regret asking a great friend in Congress to speak out on his behalf."

KWH 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty likely that charges are going to brought against Ney before the end of this year.--M4bwav 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- with a small caveat b/c the guy leading the entire investigation, Noel L. Hillman, chief of the department's public integrity division, just stepped down (approx Jan 27 '06), as Bush nominated him for a federal judgeship. Sholom 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Abramoff's Religion Is Relevant

In a general sense, people's religious affiliation is recognized to be an important fact; see George W. Bush, John Kerry, Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Pat Buchanan, etc.

Yes, but none of them earned their fame as a result of being indicted on criminal charges. --Leifern 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Mentioning someone's religion on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether the person was a criminal or not. --The Cunctator 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In particular, Abramoff's Judaism has been evidently important to him -- he founded an Orthodox Jewish school which he sent his children to, Eshkol Academy, founded the kosher deli Stacks, has been described by his spokesman as "an especially strong supporter of Israel", and regularly sent money to Shmuel Ben Zvi.

Well, one can argue how sincere his convictions were if he was committing crimes while he was upholding a facade of piety. --Leifern 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article makes no claims about the sincerity of his convictions. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here . -The Cunctator 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We're saying that Abramoff's religion is an important part of his life. I'm not sure that what he thinks is important should be a determining factor, but if we think his religion is incidental, then we shouldn't mention it; if we think it is important, we have to explain why it's relevant to the article. We have to go one way or another. --Leifern 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff's religious activities were prima facie important-- there were a lot of them. People don't just randomly start Orthodox Jewish schools and send their children there. In addition, his religious activities intersected with his public/political/illegal activities repeatedly. He funneled money to/through Eshkol Academy. He funneled money to Shmuel Ben Zvi. He asked a conservative rabbi at Toward Tradition to make up a religious award for him ("Scholar of Talmudic Studies"[9]; Toward Tradition being another organization he funneled money through. --66.237.172.226 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he also did this through Native American organizations. Can we make any valid inferences about his convictions about Native American affairs based on this? I could make the case that he's a complete phony, with no religious convictions but only a distasteful opportunitist tendency; that none of these activities were the least bit "religious" - they were merely underhanded and possibly criminal. Certainly one could say his piety was fake - much of what he has admitted to doing is blatantly in violation of Jewish religious values. --Leifern 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article that you think needs to be changed? Your analysis above doesn't seem to be relevant to the problem of constructing a Wikipedia article. For example, making a determination as to the validity of Abramoff's piety seems outside the scope of Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence that his religious convictions were completely phony? It seems to me from the known record he was both an opportunist *and* religious. Being religious doesn't make you a criminal, but it doesn't prevent you from being one, either. However, it can shape the form of your criminality. Fred Phelps is an interesting case study, as is Torquemada. 66.237.172.226 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion is worth mentioning even if the subject is only a regular church/temple/whatever-goer. It means it is part of their life, mentioning it gives us a complete picture of who they were, whether or not we know what the subject really believes. If a reader wants to conclude that someone who spent 1 hour of every week in a church had no real belief, that is really not the concern of the article. If the reader wants to assume that all church goers are good or bad based on this one instance, again, not the concern of wikipedia. All things being equal, all it says is this person participated in a dedicated weekly event that most other humans do not. If a subject has a medical condition, perhaps epilepsy, OCD, or the wikipedia favorite, Asperger's Syndrome, and it had no concrete relevance to what made the person famous, it should still be included. It is something out of the ordinary, something notable that further differentiates the person from a prototypical person. Evaluating a person's life is not such a science that things out of the ordinary should be dismissed out of hand for not having a clear direct relevance to the importance of the subject.--Paraphelion 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is, his religion is not trivia or merely a cultural artifact, but an important element of Abramoff's life. Yes, he is a criminal who happens to be an observant Jew. He is not the first. Nor is he the first political criminal whose religion played a prominent part in his life; note Robert Hanssen, who was a member of the ultra-Catholic Opus Dei, and attended services with Richard Santorum and Antonin Scalia.

If you would like to discuss this issue further, please do so here or at Talk:Jack Abramoff/Protection, where extended or contentious discussion of this issue is being directed.

If you feel that the article as currently stands does not make it sufficiently clear that Judaism a) it plays an important part in his life and b) is not why he became a criminal Republican operative, please make suggestions on how to better indicate the above two points.--The Cunctator 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that he sent money to this friend? Or that the Sniper thing even exists. It's conjecture. It is suggested in the emails but is not conclusive at all. Even after investigation by the FBI They still don't have evidence that it is true or that it isn't some laundering scheme. He sent TONS of money to friends, organizations, family members and Cousins and he was bank rolling his other partner Ben Waldman for years and evidently still is.

Why doesn't it say that he was raised by a SECULAR Jewish American family. It seems like that would be more appropriate and the whole Intifada thing and Sniper school is complete conjecture seemingly designed to attack Israel by saying that Jacks crimminal activity is somehow connected to it. That conjecture should be edited out of that paragraph. 85.250.55.249 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added "secular".

I think the reference to his secular parents is fair and accurate, and as such should be allowed to stand. --M4bwav 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another reference:

In the December 2002 e-mail, Halpern advised Abramoff to end his $3,560 monthly stipend to Shmuel Ben Zvi, a Jewish settler, and to stop buying "spy equipment," including night vision goggles and camouflage, which Ben Zvi was using to equip paramilitary units in the West Bank.

She also urged Abramoff to stop sending $2,000 a month to his cousin and another stipend of an unspecified amount to a rabbi, and to "hold off on any other charitable contributions for awhile … every small bit will help."

But Abramoff resisted: "I can't suspend [Ben Zvi] on short notice nor my cousin," he wrote back. "We will just have to make more money."[10]

I have to get going now but I'll tackle this later. Or maybe someone else? List the information from the Newsweek article that's not based on unnamed sources? --The Cunctator 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Halpern is Jacks CPA, It's still not proof. What if Ben Zvi is some kind of code word for a laundering scheme. An email is not exactly evidence. Its a lead for the FBI for sure but it wouldn't hold water in court. Alone, it would be "rumor'. Its non conclusive.

Looking at the Category:Lobbyists article, I find that of the 14 first people (alphabetically) listed as lobbyists, the religious affiliation is not mentioned. The three articles that list the religion are those for Robert Foster Bennett (inference because his father was president of LDS), Tom Daschle, and Douglas Feith. It seems pretty clear to me that listing a lobbyist's religion is not at all common. --Leifern 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Most lobbyists did not start religious schools. Do you have any issues with how the article now stands? The Cunctator 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Logically, every person who is well-known as Abramoff or most of the lobbyists should have their ethnic background/religion mentioned under "Early life". I'm really bored by articles that say "person B was born in 1948 in Wisconsin" and then just move on, not even mentioning their parents' names, occupations, etc. Stephen Harper, the new PM of Canada, didn't even have his father's name or profession listed until last week, and we still have no info on his mother (until now, I just added her name). People don't just grow on trees in Wisconsin, everyone comes from somewhere, and in my opinion it is just as interesting to find out from where as to know where they went to college - a person's upbringing is definitely an important part of their life. So, obviously, if we do have something, like we do in Abramoff, deleting it is pointless, unless we make some kind of rule to not mention the religion/ethnicity of any criminals out there, because it mind slander these groups. JackO'Lantern 21:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some consistency here. Jack Abramoff is not famous for his level of religious observance, certainly not famous for his philanthropic work, not famous for his contributions to Jewish life or religion, etc. He is famous for things that have absolutely nothing to do with his religion. Is there any indication that has involvement in Jewish organizations is the least bit related to his alleged corrupt ways? Are we supposed to list every charitable contribution alleged criminals made? This makes no sense. --Leifern 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is indication that his involvement in Jewish organizations related to his corrupt ways (not alleged--he pleaded guilty). Also, why does this article have to only mention his illegal activities? Albert Einstein isn't famous because he was born in Germany or took violin lessons as a child or because he married Mileva Maric, but we mention that. --66.237.172.226 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you mention that Einstien is a Jew, well then folks might see jews in a positive light. But to mention a criminals religion, when as pointed out above, the religion of other lobbyists isn't mentioned seems off color. And the whole Israel/intifada thing going on doesn't seem right because its conjecture at best.62.0.120.97 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the emails that the Senate Indian Committee put together, Abramoff and a friend literally talk about the Intifada, so no it is not conjecture at all, it is documented and reported on by dozens and dozens of news sources. Please read them--M4bwav 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded them. It's still not evidence. It might not even show probable cause. In other words a federal Judge might not issue a warrant just based on this. It might not be encyclopedia material. As far as "news sources" go, well, they have to fill pages. They very often print material that they know they will have to retract later. All the more good for them. Fills more space. Until there is a shred of evidence that any of it is true it's still conjecture. 62.0.120.97 22:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately you or I alone do not get to decide, I think there is more than enough evidence to support that assertion, I think you are trying to present a false case in order to pursue an unreasonable agenda, and that you are not acting in 'Good Faith'. But I'll let consensus decide that.--M4bwav 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that 62.0.120.97's objection runs counter to Wikipedia's established policy on Verifiability. Quoted, (emphasis added):

""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false."

You will have to go a distance to claim that Newsweek is not a reliable source. You will have to go an even further distance to claim that Abramoff's own emails obtained under subpoena are not a reliable source. 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Even so, still doesn't change the fact that its conjecture. I know for a fact how Issakoff got his info. In April 2005, he had a buddy in Israel try to verify if any of the email stuff is true and he couldn't. I personally know this to be true.62.0.120.97 23:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can get this documented by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, it would make total sense to edit the article to reflect that information. Right now you're anonymously arguing against a record of emails, news stories, and testimony under oath on a site that doesn't engage in original research or reporting, which seems counterproductive to your interests. --The Cunctator 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Would we even be having this discussion if Abramoff were a Christian let alone a Muslim? Any way, see below. --DieWeibeRose 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Before his legal troubles began, Abramoff was one of the chief pillars of the budding political alliance between Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians. …

In the Jewish community, Abramoff promoted a conservative Republicanism based on a strong association with evangelical Christian politicians such as DeLay, who hold strongly pro-settler views on Israel. …

Of his relationship with DeLay, Abramoff once told the Washington Business Forward: "He's a religious Christian, I'm a religious Jew."

"He's very actively pro-Israel. I'm rabidly pro-Israel," Abramoff said. "We had a lot of mutual friends, as well."

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Senate Probe Of Lobbying Puts Heat On DeLay Ally." Forward. November 26, 2004.[11]

In addition to his close ties to Christian conservatives, DeLay has worked with the Zionist Organization of America, which vehemently opposes Israel's Gaza disengagement plan and regularly criticizes Israeli and American efforts to support Abbas. DeLay was also close to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew with hawkish views on Israel, until Abramoff's recent legal troubles involving claims that he overcharged Native American tribes involved in casino gambling.

Source: Ori Nir. "House Sets Limits on Palestinian Aid As DeLay Defies Calls of Bush, Rice." Forward. March 18, 2005.[12]

Abramoff's main contribution to national Jewish communal causes was a stint in the 1990s as chairman of Toward Tradition, a social conservative group based outside of Seattle that frequently criticizes the Jewish community's liberal majority and many of its more-established organizations. Toward Tradition, led by a South African-born Orthodox rabbi, Daniel Lapin, made its mark by becoming a leading proponent of the idea that Jews should return to a "biblical faith" and ally themselves politically with Evangelical Christians because of their moral qualities and support for Israel.

It was Lapin, in fact, who introduced Abramoff to DeLay, according to press accounts.

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Felony Plea of GOP Lobbyist Sets D.C. Players Scrambling." Forward. January 6, 2006.[13]

You just cited three articles from The Forward. The Forward is Jewish paper, so of course they are going to write any of their stories from a religious angle. If you're trying to make an argument, it'd be a lot stronger if you can cite material from non-religious media. Sholom 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why The Forward wrote about it. What matters is that it Abramoff's religon was relevant to his life and politics, and, thus, relevant to an encyclopedia article about him.--DieWeibeRose 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Religon is probably the most important factor over everything else in one's life if it is allowed free reigns. The German idea is "weltanschauung". Jack Ruby also professed Judaism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby to add to your list of the infamous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

I thought someone might want to integrate this latest dispatch into the article:

EXCLUSIVE EMAILS: Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.

The emails written by Abramoff were addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.

In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,” and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.

Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:

NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.

The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.

Check back with ThinkProgress for more details about Abramoff’s relationship with Bush and other high-profile figures.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/08/exclusive-abramoff-emails

Feel free to delete my message from the discussion page once it's been integrated into the article if you want. NiftyDude 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon corrections

After careful discussion, deliberation and exhaustive reading and rereading of the entire history of the writing and editing of this page we will accept the article as it stands now. We don't feel that the article is totally unbiased toward Jews and Israel however since we are dealing with different degrees of anti-Jewish/Israel sentiments this is probably the best we can get, short of really hacking the site which you all should know was a viable option but unacceptable to us. You can't destroy an entire encyclopedia because of a few bad sentences.

You speak about assuming "good faith" on this site but much of the things that you have written about this man are caustic and seemingly vengeful. We wonder what the real agenda is. Is Jack "Shylock"? are you Jealous. We wonder about what thoughts and emotions are driving you to write this page. One only has to read the history of the page to see what we mean by "degrees" of Antisemitism. One writer would write a sentence containing conjecture and spite and another, more intelligent writer realizing how bad it sounded would edit the sentence in a clever manner, without really changing the meaning. We'll sit back and monitor for now.

62.0.134.2 11:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, sadly it seems that you are correct. Shameful. - Brian Wallace 85.250.18.129 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

It'd be sure easier to have a discussion with you if you were not anonymous. -- Sholom 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note the implicit threats regarding hacking are still present. I fear that another day will come far too soon when he will go on a blanking, subtituting, and calling everyone a nazi spree again. If he was a registered user he would have probably earned a few weeks ban by now. --StuffOfInterest 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to bait the anon, but petty threats are going to get you nowhere. This isn't wikipedia, the encyclopedia with only one editor and one POV.--M4bwav 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________

• Please make some attempt to read the above note with a little comprehension.

If you will. then you see that M4bwav is making our point for us. "trying not to BAIT" US(READ: Jew Baiting). HIS TRUE COLORS ARE SHOWING. And "Stuffofinterest" What we say stands. We aren't making any threat. We plan to monitor and let the insults go. We simply hope that you will appreciate that we didn't take that road for good reasons. If you had any inkling as to who we are, you would appreciate it all the more so. 62.0.134.2 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• • But until we know who you are, how can we tell? -- Sholom 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ain Tzorech L'da'at.62.0.134.2 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth hurts I guess. Probably the best way to avoid anti-semitic comments is to stop making threats such as "We'll sit back and monitor for now." It inflames the situation and really doesn't help.

Postal?

I see the article now includes:

Also while at Preston Gates, Abramoff commited the ilegal act of enlisting a congressional aid to oppose postal-rate increases. This involved the hiring of an aide's wife for the Mercer Island charity, Toward Tradition, run by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. She was paid $50,000 from June 2000 through February 2001, to help organize conferences, her salary being donated by Abramoff or his clients.

Prosecutors say Abramoff's criminal conspiracy began at least as early as 1997 when he was working at Preston Gates. Today his old firm hires multiply lobby firms in an effort to avoid becoming the Arther Andersen (as in Enron) of the Lobbying Scandal. Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvellas, reportatly lobbied for at least one donor to Texans for a Republican Majority (TRM), and also contributed $25,000 to TRM itself. This is the organization involved in money laudering. It has been reported that former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon worked on the Preston Gates account for the firm making the donation (Burlington Northern). Michael Scanlon was a Preston Gates employee.

Does anybody have a source for that? -- Sholom 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez, is that a letter for letter copy? Lots of typos need corrected. I posted a comment on the talk page of the anon user putting this in yesterday asking him to provide citation. If nothing shows up soon then it should probably be removed. If you spot something in the article like this feel free to add "{{citation needed}}" which will add "^{[citation needed]}" to the article. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a cut-n-paste (just made it italics to make it more obvious). It seems that the user took a ton of stuff from some Seattle papers this week and shoved it in, parts of it redundant, etc. It appears he threw in information, as opposed to adding/editing. Oy! -- Sholom 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you have found the source and it is a cut-n-paste then it needs to be removed immediately as it is blatant plagerism. Feel free to wield a knife widely on it. --StuffOfInterest 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I ended up removing much of this. The hiring of Lisa Rudy by Toward Tradition was already noted in the very next paragraph, so it is redundant. Much of the rest all seems to be from one contributor who seems to have a bone to pick with Preston Gates and/or Microsoft. There is perhaps something to be mentioned on the postal-rates lobbying which was going on at the same time as the lobbying against the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. According to Washington Post, Preston Gates was lobbying for Magazine Publishers of America against a postal-rate hike, and they gave money to Toward Tradition (which went to Lisa Rudy) at PG's direction. KWH 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyedits to try and universalize the style of the article (in terms of references), and also disambiguated some links (like Ralph Reed for example). In no way am I endorsing all the content I correct, since I see now that some of it may have been plagiarized. I just wanted to start doing some work to bring the article up to a higher level of quality. There's still much more to do, but I'm going to break for the moment. Just giving you all the heads up. --Howrealisreal 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saipan and Mariana Islands

Bringing this from the article in for discussion

Two Microsoft lobbyists, Edwin A. Buckham and Tony Rudy, had previous worked for Tom DeLay and assisted Jack Abramoff to rig an election in the North Marianas Islands for their Preston, Gates, and Ellis clients.

...

Abramoff also paid the expenses for at least two other trips to the Marianas, in violation of House rules against direct payments by lobbyists for travel-related expenses. In both cases, Abramoff was reimbursed by Preston, Gates, and Ellis, which was then paid by the Marianas government. (i'm going to work this sentence back into the article) KWH

This is just odd. Buckham and Rudy were not "Microsoft lobbyists" (rather, lobbyists with Microsoft as a client) until well after their involvement in the Marianas lobbying, so I'm not sure why this would be worded this way. "Rig an election" is way over the top.

Also, I'm not sure if this is sufficiently NPOV ("in violation of House rules"). I'm not sure what the rules were on this in 1996, and it's not clear what the exact flow of money was. (Abramoff was very aware of and very skilled at working the loopholes, so I doubt he blatantly broke the rule.) I'd like to see a cite, and also consider wording similar to that used in reference to the DeLay 1997 trip: "Although House ethics rules at the time prohibited House members from accepting such gifts from lobbyists, the trip was funded directly by Saipan and thus was technically allowable." KWH 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This section is getting large enough to be pulled out to something. Does anyone have ideas? User At Work 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a scandal unto itself involving DeLay, however it hasn't been "sexy" enough for the news to get tough on, and also I think the scandal is being diffused by the fact that it may be outside of statute of limitations, though that's debateable. I don't believe there's a good name to split it out to, people might object to Tom DeLay Saipan scandal (or like)... but if you feel bold, UAW, feel free to move it there and let someone else justify their objection. It could also go to Tom DeLay, Politics of the Northern Mariana Islands, Tan Holdings Corporation, or Northern Mariana Islands. I note that there is already a bit on DeLay at Northern Mariana Islands under History, although I'm not sure it belongs there. (is it that historic for the islands?) KWH 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not call it something like the Tom DeLay Saipan scandal, as the actual scandal emcompasses too many people. The real scandal is how a bill to impose labor standards that passed the Senate unanimously ended up getting scuttled. Perhaps something like the Northern Mariana Islands Labor Practices Scandal or Northern Mariana Islands ''Made in the USA'' scandal. In any event, FWIW, I also agree that: (a) it deserves its own article; and (b) it hasn't been "sexy" enough for the news to get tough on. Some good source material at [14] and [15],

Can someone locate the House Rules for the 104th US Congress? I'm trying to determine what the rule on lobbyist-paid travel stated at that time, and the oldest I can find online is the 105th Congress (When the applicable rule was Rule 51). The rule (now Rule 25?) has evolved over time and become more clearly stated in recent Congresses, so the wording may be relevant to the allegations on Abramoff paying for travel in this section. KWH 07:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The rules indeed are relevant for whether Abramoff's paying for travel was legal or not. But, remember, this article is about Abramoff, not just his scandals. My point is that the NMI story is worth telling, whether or not it was illegal. Bottom line: it is quite a story, imho, that a bill that passes the Senate unanimously can end up getting defeated after a lobbyist gets involved (and let's remember, the NMI is where DeLay called Abramoff one of his closest friends). It's worth telling, regardless of what the House rules were. Sholom 13:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm just trying to be precise on whether it was in fact against House rules at the time, which could then be mentioned. There's also the matter of Abramoff's lobbying post-September 11, when the immigration rules of CNMI and other territories came under fire for being out-of-sync with federal law and potentially giving terrorists a way into the country; Abramoff lobbied to prevent tightening of the rules since Saipan benefited from Chinese and other immigrant laborers.[16] KWH 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

New Thread -- this section, in the main article, is (frankly) a mess, and perhaps too long. Additionally, the article never even says that the legislation that passed unanimously got reconsidered and beaten back due to Abramoff's lobbying efforts. It _does_ contain a lot of the trees (illegal junkets and so forth), but seems to miss the forest, which is that legislation that initially passed the Senate unaminously ended up never getting enacted. (Tangent: as this issue is again rising its head, and legislation may evenutally be enacted, perhaps a separate article might even be useful/warranted here). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Forum References

References such as: see http://news.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=17383&messageID=345351&start=26 are of doubtful value to an encyclopedic article. Rklawton 23:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a drastic revision. Mossadian 07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll help. Do you have any ideas? User At Work 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Series of edits from 198.238.135.54

I removed or moved a number of edits with doubtful sourcing or which were not directly pertinent to Jack Abramoff. I find that the majority of this content came from a large number of edits made by User:198.238.135.54. It appears that the comments had a POV which sought to implicate Preston Gates & Ellis as well as Microsoft in Jack Abramoff's actions. I tried to read each paragraph objectively and leave anything that wasn't flawed. KWH 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Early years

The subject of Abramoff's religious convictions changing over time, in the article, is riddled with errors, and is partially flat-out wrong has errors, according to [17] -- Sholom 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you're thinking is in error? The only text in the article related to religious conviction is about Jack's self conversion/adherence to Orthodoxy starting at age 12, which doesn't seem to disagree with that article... For what it's worth, that article is commentary/op ed and contains a great deal of sympathetic POV. KWH 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WP article says "age of 12 he decided to accept the religious obligations of Orthodox Judaism,", while the Pacific News article/editorial says that he he started attending a Conservative synagogue in 1972, and became Orthodox after he started attending Brandeis, which was 1977. -- Sholom 21:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose one could argue that he held to Orthodox practices while attending a Conservative shul. In any event, I'll attempt a correction that avoids the misunderstanding that he started attending Orthodox services at age 12. I don't think this is a huge issue - the thing we really want to avoid, is the impression that Abramoff's illegal activities somehow meet with approval within any Jewish community. --Leifern 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure how relevant it all is, but if it's to be included, it ought to be included correctly. Nice job on your edit, I just went in a tweaked it a bit more. -- Sholom 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What a great find, Sholom. It's fun seeing the Abramoff friends coming out of the woodwork (see also Kim Eisler). Somehow I think he was advised by his lawyers to try to improve his image. Funny how Klinghoffer doesn't mention that David Lapin was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Abramoff's skimming from Indian tribes to run Eshkol Academy. Oh and he failed to mention that $1.2 million "ethics-in-government" contract from the Marianas government Abramoff got for David. Ha! And Silver Spring, "mostly drab"? Ha ha ha ha. But there is a lot of useful information. --The Cunctator 01:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait -- not only "drab Silver Spring", but that his modest home cost him a mere $1.03m in 1999. (Which means it's worth close to $2m now, no?). As you can see, I only used the article for facts on his early life -- not the apologist stuff that followed. -- Sholom 02:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent Early Years edits don't seem to clear anything up and I think overall is obtuse. The article linked says "famous Jack Abramoff — Orthodox Jew", but the Early Years section seems contrary to that.--Paraphelion 03:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"In 1968, when Abramoff was 10..." If he was born in 1959, it would be impossible for him to be 10 in 1968. -- 76.77.77.60 (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Biggest since Watergate?

Removed the sentence

The Abramoff scandal itself is considered the most prominent political scandal since Watergate, though its depth and complexity dwarf that of Watergate.

which seems to be a bit overblown. Sure, Campaign for America's Future called it "the worst corruption scandal to hit Washington since Watergate"[18] and Frank Rich said "Watergate itself increasingly looks like a relatively contained epidemic of corruption" compared to the DeLay/Abramoff scandals[19] and the NYT said "some Washington observers feel could be to the lobbying business what Watergate was to campaign finance and Enron was to corporate oversight"[20] (but the latter is in terms of the possibility of new legislation). But until the Abramoff scandal actually causes politicians to leave office it will stay well below the Watergate threshhold in terms of prominence, I'd think. --User At Work 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Teaching Himself Hebrew

The source article says what this entry said before, that he taught himself hebrew. Was this changed because an anonymous editor doing original research claims he spoke to the known criminal and master of fraud and took his word for it?--Paraphelion 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And why would anyone want to lie about that? First off "teaching oneself Hebrew" is ambiguous -- it doesn't refer to written Hebrew or spoken Hebrew. Secondly, lots of folks in the Silver Spring area are aquaintences of him and I'm quite sure that it would have been easy to talk to him about this. Thirdly, it is much more common in the Jewish tradition to learn to read Hebrew (since the prayer service is in Hebrew, and all the important texts) than to speak Hebrew. This makes even more sense in the context of (as the article tells us) moving from Reform to a Conservative synagogue, as the former has little of their service in Hebrew, while the latter has almost their complete prayer service in Hebrew. So, while I don't know one way or another, if I were forced to bet, I would bet that "taught himself to read Hebrew" is a more accurate (and, btw, a quite plausible interpretation of) the phrase from the article "taught himself Hebrew." Knowing the context well -- it just makes more sense. (FWIW, his kids went to the same school as my kids for a while -- and my kids, also, can read Hebrew, but they can't speak it. Same with me, now that I mention it). -- Sholom 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Preston Gates/Bill Gates & Gambino

I removed the following because it seems to be pushing a certain POV and contains multiple speculative and unverifiable claims. (Just to point out one easily disprovable assertion, Melinda Gates joined the Washington Post board in September, 2004.[21] The WaPo article by Susan Schmidt exposing Abramoff was published February, 2004.) Seems to be a hopeless attempt to tie Abramoff to Bill Gates for some reason. Please discuss if you feel there is anything meritorious here. KWH 18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Partners at Preston Gates and Ellis were naturally unhappy with the move. In an article in the March 2006 Vanity Fair, Abramoff alludes to a jealous competitor who leaked information to the Washington Post, this information being the nucleus of the scandal surrounding him. Milinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates and co-founder of the Bill and Milinda Gates foundation, which at one time supported Abramoff charities, sat on the board of directors of the Washington Post while the Abramoff scandle was first documented by the paper. The Vanity Fair article ties the Gates family to Abramoff by pointing out that family members groomed Abramoff for a lobbiest carrier. Preston Gates and Ellis was formed in 1990 primarily to help Microsoft through its permatemp and antitrust issues. Preston and Ellis were well known employee advocates and the Gates in the firm name is the father of Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates. Microsoft remains Preston Gates and Ellis' most important client. This firm likely introduced Abramoff to the questionable ethical techniques of AstroTurfing.

Oh, I also removed the "See also" link to Gambino crime family. That too is extremely speculative, and is not what "See also" links are typically used for. Please discuss if you disagree. KWH 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Another issue: I see somebody put in: "Bill and Milinda Gates Foundation. The Foundation contributed money to Abramoff charities." (Besides the spelling error), does anyone have a source for that? Otherwise it ought to be removed. (And, can anyone tell me what the nifty little template is for asking for a source?) Sholom 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This slightly modified text was also contributed:

In a March 2006 edition of Vanity Fair, Abramoff alludes to Preston Gates & Ellis as the angry competitor who first introduced scandal involving his practices to the Washington Post. Melinda Gates is the daugheter-in-law of the Preston Gates & Ellis founder and is a member of the board of directors at the Washington Post. The Gates in Preston Gates is the father of Bill Gates of Microsoft and Melinda Gates is the Texas cofounder of the influential Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . The foundation at one time funded Abramoff charities. Microsoft and the Gates Foundation are two of Preston Gates most important clients. The company was founded in 1990 to help Microsoft with its permatemp and antitrust issues.

This continues to be nonsense or non-sequitur. I agree with Sholom that it is unknown what if any support the Gates Foundation gave to Abramoff charities, and most of the rest is completely unverifiable opinion. Also, Abramoff did not at all say that PGE was responsible for the leak. Verbatim, it says "According to an insider, Abramoff believes his downfall began with competing Republican lobbyists who coveted his clientele and fed damaging information about him to The Washington Post." There's no rationale to say that it was PGE over any other firm (and it is more likely that it was not). KWH 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom DeLay peer review

Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A few things

I'm slowly trying to clean up some things with this article for a peer review with an aim towards possible FAC review. First thing - correct some of the citations. Help with this would be appreciated, see {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} if you don't understand how to clean up the cites.

Also, I ran across this which needs discussion:

Because Grover Norquist worked with a lobbying firm that represented Anwar Ibrahim, some have alleged a connection between the two, and theorized that Abramoff and Norquist were running a scam in which Norquist's firm would create issues that Abramoff's firm would then take care of.[22]

The cited source is The New Republic's blog page. The author there cites two articles - a Washington Post article and Hill News article, however, the theory that Abramoff and Norquist were running a scam is not described in either of those sources, but appears to be a theory of the blog author (Franklin Foer). Mr. Foer says that he will follow up on investigating this connection on the blog, but there's no indication that he discovered better evidence of a connection.

We need a better source for the theory that there was a scam - speculation on blogs is no good under WP:V, and especially per WP:LIVING. I'm not finding a good source with some real quick research.

Editors might also want to read WP:LIVING as this is a hot topic lately, this article may need further editing to meet that standard of verifiability... KWH 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone's time would be better spent focusing on cleaning up the article as is (Abramoff was a pretty busy person, with a lot of shell organizations and money flowing here and there), rather than pursuing an off-the-wall theory. John Broughton 12:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Far-out theory

I removed the following from the article:

Some commentators have theorized that there are links between Abramoff and Islamic terrorism: several 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship, leading to speculation of ties between Abramoff and the hijackers.

"Casino Watch - Terrorists at Casinos". Retrieved May 1, 2006. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

"Hammer to the Slammer: Cruisegate - Curtains for the GOPMOB?". MadCow Productions. Retrieved May 1, 2006.

This is not very hard to debunk at all. The allegation on the site is:

"At the time of the Sept 11 attack one of Abramoff’s chief claims to fame was as the proud owner of the SunCruz line: a dozen unlicensed gambling boats plying the waters off the Florida coast in a fashion which in any other state would have been considered criminal." [23]

But Abramoff divested himself completely from the company in June 2001 after the bankruptcy, and was running like hell to get away from the angry bank and the wire fraud. The "MadCowProd" site conveniently ignores that and babbles on and on at length. It's really one of the more incoherent conspiracy sites I've ever read. I don't think such a poorly researched claim merits mention.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? KWH 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think removing the text was exactly the right thing to do. There isn't anything about Abramoff (Cold War warrior, Jewish, power player in the Republican establishment) that is consistent with support for Islamic terroists. The Web is a big place; wikipedia isn't designed to include every half-baked theory. John Broughton 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add a note on this, according to these two links, the Boulis estate apparently officially regained control of SunCruz on July 30, 2001 (the article, from August 1, says that the decision was on Monday, so it putatively means July 30.) KWH 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I would also note that I'm sure the conspiracy theorists would point out that Abramoff assigned his voting interest to the estate, but still had a 35% share ownership at that time, so obviously he must have invited Atta. KWH 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

access to bush

• [24] 69.210.146.123 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ralston's move to Commerce dept

I've removed the sentence about Ralston's move ("Sometime before December 2005, she moved to the United States Department of Commerce but remained on the White House Roster.") because the article cited [25] doesn't have any mention of that at all. It mentions that she was Rove's special assistant and was (in September 2004) special assistant to the president but no mention of the Commerce department. Keeping it in may lead to speculation of a larger cover-up and we would need some verfiable source for something like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced email details

I removed the following unsourced sentences from the Derogatory references to Native American clients section.

Abramoff once asked his co-conspirator Scanlon to meet a client, saying in an email, "I have to meet with the monkeys from the Choctaw tribal council. You need to close the deal... with the client..."

About one tribal client (date unknown) Abramoff wrote to Scanlon, "These mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure." In another email message he wrote, "we need to get some money from those monkeys!!"

The sentence that is sourced has general mentions of uses of the terms and unless these are sourced, I think under WP:LIVING these specific instances should not be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph

Dropping this paragraph off here. It's a good summation, but the lead was long enough (still a bit too long) and it's not right for the BIO article (maybe for one of the others). Also, the poll claim is a bit weak since the poll is now offline (and web polls are virtually meaningless anyways): KWH 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Abramoff scandal has rocked the American political establishment, altering global perceptions of the United States government, leading to high-profile political resignations and indictments, and a flurry of political legislation designed to address a growing perception that the Abramoff scandal suggests deep levels of governmental corruption. In September 2006, an ABC News poll revealed that six in ten Americans believe Abramoff's January 2006 guilty plea agreements are a sign of widespread governmental corruption[26].

Converted to Orthodox Judaism?

The article (as currently written, 9/15/2006) says:

Abramoff has said that he converted to Orthodox Judaism at the age of 12 after seeing the film version of Fiddler on the Roof.

Is "converted to Orthodox Judaism" a direct quote from Abramoff? If so, I suppose it needs to stand as is. Otherwise, we need some rewording, because Abramoff was born Jewish, so his adoption of Orthodox Judaism does not constitute a conversion (as the word is universally used, at least).

It should be known that no one in his family knows where this is coming from and I am unable to find a source were he personally has said that in an interview. --Shaul avrom 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Current family

BS"D

The latest update is from 1992, any other changes? --Shaul avrom 02:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this now. I got the info I needed when I asked that Question. --Shaul avrom 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Considered a "Neoconservative"?

Is Abramoff generally considered a "Neoconservative," given his close contacts with the strongly Neoconservative Bush admin. and other 'new right-wing' organizations? Should we add him to that category? Surely he qualifies... --172.162.239.214 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush & Abramoff photo

Is this photo fair game use? Its from http://blog.citizensforethics.org/node/478 from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ^BlankVerse 01:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently by a private photographer, hence copyrighted, as opposed to an offical White House photo, which would be PD, if I understand correctly? It does seem to be in the news some; possibly a fair use in this article argument could be made. Give as full attribution and information about the photo as you can if you decide to upload it. -- Infrogmation 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been suggestions that the picture was photoshopped, so it may be best to wait until the story is picked up by some mainstream media. ^BlankVerse 10:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

As I was reading this article, the line "also because over 100 influential political allies—some very recognizable names in American public policy—wrote the sentencing judge on Abramoff's behalf, urging leniency", I wondered how NPOV this line was. As it was in the lead, I thought that this needed some revising. While the preceeding part of the sentence did have a "warning": "in part because...", I think that this could be extended to the "also...urging leniency" phrase mentioned above. While I believe that this is the highly likely case, that his political allies helped him out of this mess, at the same time, I believe that this article should be as NPOV as possible. Thanks alot, -Hairchrm 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

This article is hard to verify since not each paragraph ends with citations. Some instances are evident where it is clear the subject changes between paragraphs. i would remove each uncited paragraph except for the section about "uncited citations" - a VERY unorthodox thing, BTW. However, this needs tobe remedied quickly since this falls under WP:BLP. Anyone should be able to click on references with ease and verify all assertions made. CyberAnth 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Soo... you're complaining because in order to delete portions of the article under WP:BLP you might have to actually read the article and its cites? Needless to say I will watch developments here with extreme interest given what happened over on the Jimmy Swaggart and Rush Limbaugh articles. Artw 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

family

BS"D
Should we list his children as is done on many articles of famous politicians and other people?? --Shuli 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Important and strange gap in the article

Without any explanation, this article moves from skyboxes and Scotland in 2003, where everything seems to be going great for Jack, to "People convicted in Abramoff probe (as of June 9, 2007)". What on earth happened, and where did it all go wrong? The article is completely silent on how the ball got rolling. --KarlFrei (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Removed to clear up citation issue:

In the early '90s Abramoff helped try to raise funds for a remake of the unreleased Jerry Lewis film, The Day the Clown Cried, about a circus clown at Auschwitz.

The only source for this was a letter to the court after Abramoff's conviction from a friend vouching for his good character. http://looker.typepad.com/looker/2006/06/the_clown_still.html] Abramoff refused to confirm the veracity. Given that it's second hand and it is not a hugely relevant fact, it's probably not worth the effort to track down a good citation (it would be buried in the court filings). Suffice it to say he worked in Hollywood for 10 years, he probably did stranger things than that. 74.225.251.4 (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

GA "nomination"

User:74.225.251.4, who popped into existence on 31 December 2008 but hasn't been heard from since, nominated this for "good article" status at WP:GAN. However, the nomination was ill-formed, since step 2 of the GAN process was not done, i.e. this talk page wasn't modified and thus there's no place established to do a review. I can't tell if the nomination action was seriously intended or a throw-away. But in any case, this article isn't close to being GA quality. The lead section is very poor, giving too many details about the subject's trial/conviction/incarceration and not giving a coherent summary of the subject's full life. The 1980s sections contain erratic sourcing and too many quotes designed to make the subject, and the organizations he was in, look bad. It and the lobbying sections contain too many constructs of the form "according to X publication, Abramoff did Y". Either we believe Abrahmoff really did Y, in which case publication X should be in the cite not in the text, or there's another viewpoint, in which case that needs to be expressed too. The Lobbying section contains too many short, choppy subsections. I didn't even make it to the 2000s, except to note that a section title containing the phrase "(as of June 9, 2007)" isn't very confidence inspiring. The formatting of the footnotes is very inconsistent. The long list of "Uncited references" shouldn't be there; WP articles don't try to list every news story ever written about the subject. Ditto the "Research/media" list, which is more of the same. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Con Man"

Abramoff is widely considered to be a "confidence man," and one of the most prominent legal scholars in the United States, Ted Frank, has written about this on Salon.com. While I disagree with Frank on a number of topics, to include his writing about the New Year's Day 2009 BART police murder of Oscar Grant, I certainly believe his scholarship is given some credibility by the so called mainstream. I've added this sourced scholarship about Abramoff a number of times to the lede if this article, but recently an IP address editor quietly vandalized the article. I've since corrected this. Does anyone have a problem with this research and scholarship on Abramoff being included in the article? CriticalChris 01:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I owe an apology to anyone offended for my confusing Thomas Frank with Ted Frank. I am trying to find a link to the article on the "wayback machine" and will link to it then. CriticalChris 08:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've found the article here at Harper's Magazine [[27]] CriticalChris 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the wholesale --vandalism-- of a reference source and cited detail from Thomas Frank's Salon.com article. In addition, I've added additional sourced material from a radio appearance today by film maker Alex Gibney (Casino Jack) with former U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, and Greenberg Traurig lobbyist Neil Volz. Every time this sourced material (that Abramoff is a con man) is edited into the article, an IP address editor quietly vandalizes the edition and reference. I am inclined to report these edits to an administrator as suspected vandalism, as these vandalistic edits are done on a sub rosa basis, and without comment on the talk page here. I would hate to see this page come under "protection," but well-referenced material from "mainstream" sources (Salon.com, NPR) keeps getting vaporized without explanation by editors who are remaining anonymous. CriticalChris 21:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the revision history entries from the specific vandalistic edits in question here.

17:23, January 24, 2010 99.226.151.142 (talk) (67,948 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

15:40, April 16, 2010 79.180.193.13 (talk) (69,086 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

Does anyone else consider these vandalism? ...or merely "good faith" edits? CriticalChris 22:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A plain reading of "Sneaky Vandalism" in WP:VANDALISM would suggest those edits are an example of an IP address editor, one using a Toronto-based ISP and another using an Amsterdam-based ISP, possibly proxy browsers, reverting my legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of this article. CriticalChris 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Time in prison

At one point, it says he served most of a six year sentence. In other places, it appears less than that. Should be corrected. 98.100.82.34 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)nick

Capitol Punishment

Is the subject writing an autibiography titled Capitol Punishment? It's cited at the Grover Norquist article,[28] but I can't find any trace of it in the usual places. There's no mention in this article either. Is it a hoax?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article about it. Capitol Punishment (book). If it has a Wikipedia article then it must exist, right?   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)