John McCain, R-Ariz.

The greening of Italia Federici

To buy influence at the White House, GOP operative Jack Abramoff gave $500,000 in tribal loot to a Gale Norton pal who heads an "environmental" nonprofit.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The greening of Italia Federici

Italia Federici is a minor Republican player in Washington, the sort of dime-a-dozen functionary who can build a career trading favors in backrooms and producing political campaigns for moneyed interests. Her specialty is the environment. She leads a conservative front group called the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, or CREA, a tiny outfit, originally founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton, that argues it is healthy for forests to clear-cut trees, good for the air to weaken air-quality controls, and “environmentally responsible” to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.

For the past five years, Federici has limited her public activities to supporting President Bush’s environmental plans. She claims that traditional environmentalists, groups like the Sierra Club and Democrats like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are dishonest and deceptive. But that is just the public face of Federici. In private, she has played a very different role in Washington, one that has now put her in the middle of one of the largest political ethics scandals in a decade.

On Thursday, she appeared before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to explain under oath her relationship with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist whose exploits have already led to a handful of criminal indictments. For critics of Republican politics, the Abramoff investigations are a gift that keeps on giving. They reveal a world of ethical violations, illegal money transfers, perjury and graft that flowed between some of the biggest names in Republican politics. Already, Abramoff has been charged with fraud; a top White House official, David Safavian, has been charged with perjury; and another former White House official, Timothy Flanigan, has withdrawn from a Senate confirmation process.

Abramoff’s dealings have thrown ethical clouds over a number of Republican heavyweights, including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas., evangelical activist Ralph Reed, and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. And the investigation is far from over.

Under the direction of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the committee has uncovered evidence that suggests Federici entered into an unspoken deal with Abramoff, who is accused of stealing millions of dollars from his Native American clients. He funneled nearly $500,000 in donations from these clients to her environmental organization. In exchange, Federici became his advocate in the inner sanctum of the Bush administration, offering him access to at least two of her close friends, Norton and Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles. “Ms. Federici would help get inside information about and possibly influence tribal issues within the Interior,” explained Sen. McCain, at the start of the hearing.

For her part, Federici flatly denied all allegations that she had done anything untoward. “We provided excellent environmental advocacy consistent with our mission,” she said of her work with CREA, which is registered as a nonprofit. “I get a lot of unsolicited e-mail, and I am helpful to all of my friends.”

Sitting before the Senate panel, Federici had the bearing of a quiet, sympathetic elementary school teacher. She wore her blond hair loose over her shoulders, and spoke in soft tones. At one point she portrayed herself as an honest subordinate who had found herself working with unethical friends. “Jack was close to 50, a man and a high-dollar donor,” she said of his blunt e-mails to her. “I did not feel comfortable correcting his vernacular.” But she gave no ground to her inquisitors. She said, instead, that she believed the committee’s staff had engaged in a smear campaign against her. She called McCain’s investigation a “witch hunt,” adding that she believed the senator might hold a grudge because she had opposed a bipartisan bill on air quality that McCain had sponsored.

McCain seemed to take pleasure in the suggestion that he was the one bending ethical rules. He focused instead on the evidence he had compiled. He described multiple e-mails in which Federici responded to Abramoff’s requests for help lobbying Interior officials. In April of 2003, for example, Abramoff asked her to find out about a procedural change proposed by the department that had upset his clients. “Hi Jack: I will definitely see what I can find out,” she wrote back, before immediately changing the topic. “I hate to bug you, but is there any news about a possible contribution…?”

“Any objective observer would see that there is a connection between contributions to your organization and the work that you would be doing on behalf of Mr. Abramoff,” McCain said.

“I attached a second unrelated thought about an environmental project,” Federici protested.

“Since your answers are so bizarre, I won’t continue,” said McCain a few minutes later. “I will let others make the judgment.”

The e-mails released by the committee on Thursday certainly presented a damning case. At minimum, it appears Abramoff believed he was buying access to the Interior Department through Federici. He claimed to colleagues that Federici had “juice” at the agency. He claimed that CREA functioned as “Norton’s main group outside the department.” He offered Federici skybox seats at Redskins games and paid the bill for her meals and cocktail parties at his downtown restaurant, Signatures.

At the same time, Federici appeared to be catering to Abramoff’s every wish. She arranged meetings, requested photo opportunities, delivered memos and newspaper articles to Interior officials. She even organized Georgetown dinner parties, under the cover of CREA, so Abramoff’s clients could meet with Norton and Griles. “Thanks for all you do for my clients, the cause and me personally,” Abramoff wrote her in a 2002 e-mail.

“When my friends reach out to me and ask me to help them with things, I never turn around and say why don’t you just do it yourself,” Federici said, adding that she paid for her own cellphone to facilitate this process. “I believed at the time that the reason Jack was giving us money is because he was a very generous Republican contributor,” she said at another point in the hearing.

“That is unbelievable,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who is co-chairman of the committee.

There was far less disagreement about what Federici had done with the tribal money she collected from Abramoff’s clients. CREA spent it on initiatives that had nothing to do with the Native American tribes, but much to do with furthering President Bush’s agenda. In April 2002, for example, CREA ran a $40,000 full-page ad in the Washington Post praising the environmental merits of the president’s plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“We are also going to do something mean to Senator John Kerry,” Federici wrote Abramoff, a few days before the ad ran. She then described a video CREA had packaged that showed Sen. Kerry leaving an Earth Day celebration and stepping into a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle. She sent the video to at least two television programs on the Fox News Network, “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity and Colmes.” “I am letting EVERYONE know that you are the only reason we have the funding to do this,” she gushed to Abramoff in the same e-mail.

At the same time, e-mails show that Abramoff and Federici plotted to use environmental causes to help Abramoff’s gambling clients. In December 2002, Abramoff proposed to Federici that she encourage the Interior Department to “say that they are not satisfied with the Environmental Impact Report” of a proposed casino in Michigan that would compete with one of Abramoff’s clients. “This is a direct assault on our guys,” Abramoff wrote to Federici. Eight minutes later, she wrote back to say she would contact Griles. “I will call him asap,” she said. The casino was eventually approved, after a protracted delay.

Sen. Dorgan compared Federici’s story to a fairy tale. “You know what bothers me?” Dorgan asked at the end of the hearing. “It’s pretty clear that this is one of the most disgusting tales of greed and avarice, and perhaps fraud and stealing. It’s unbelievable what we have uncovered here. It’s almost sickening to see what we have uncovered. And you come to our table and say, ‘Oh, gosh, this is just about friendships.’

“Somehow none of this adds up,” he continued. “This committee, in my judgment, has had people testify, and, in my judgment, some of the testimony was fraudulent. We need to find out who, because there are consequences to that.”

Dorgan may well have his way. The Senate Finance Committee is beginning its own investigation into the use of nonprofits like CREA by lobbyists like Abramoff. The Justice Department is in the midst of a wide-ranging investigation of Abramoff’s lobbying operation. Sen. McCain has suggested the Internal Revenue Service should mount its own investigation. And Dorgan said he will ask for another hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee.

No date has yet been set. But it is clear that Federici, a backroom player in big-money politics, will not have the last word.

Michael Scherer is Salon's Washington correspondent. Read his other articles here.

Will “Joe the Plumber” run for Congress?

And if so, how many minutes will it take for him to say something embarrassing to a reporter? Ten?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Will

“Joe the Plumber,” a man named Sam who is not a plumber, may run for Congress. Joe, a briefly famous desperate attempt by the John McCain campaign to paint Barack Obama as an enemy of the working man, is mulling a run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who’s been in the House since 1983. Joe told Yahoo’s “The Ticket” his thoughts on the potential campaign:

“I’m not ruling anything out,” Wurzelbacher told The Ticket in an interview Thursday. He added that he thought it was an “interesting idea” and that people have been asking him to run for office since he confronted Obama four years ago. He’s spent much of his time since then on the speaker’s circuit, he said, encouraging others to run for office.

“I like the idea of it — just regular Americans running. If a regular guy runs, right away the media’s going to attack him,” Wurzelbacher said. “What kind of education does he have? What does he know about this? My answer to that is, regular Americans aren’t experts, but dammit, look where the experts have gotten us. Maybe we need some regular guys in there. That’s what I’ve been doing the past two and a half years, just encouraging regular Americans to run. Tell the liberal media to go to hell and I don’t care what you guys say about me, I’m going to try to fix this country.”

Man, I hate it when people condescend to regular Americans! Especially when people like Joe the Plumber condescend to “regular Americans.” Regular Americans don’t have publicity agents, Joe!

The local Republican Party is begging Mr. The Plumber to enter the race, because while running against a 30-year veteran is usually a pointless task, a pseudo-celebrity candidate can at least make a game of it. Kaptur won with 60 percent of the vote in 2010 and 74 percent in 2008, though there’s a chance redistricting could make her vulnerable. (Kaptur also introduced a bill restoring Glass-Steagall! So basically I like her.)

Local Republicans say there’s about a 90 percent chance Joe will enter the race, at which point once again he will be asked questions on camera and he will say embarrassing things, like he did last time.

But as dumb and small-minded and tiresome as Joe the Plumber is, there’s no reason why he couldn’t be a congressman. Ben Quayle is!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Whoops, no one told the right that their Libya talking point doesn’t work anymore

President Obama is far to weak to have accomplished what just actually happened in Tripoli

  • more
    • All Share Services

Whoops, no one told the right that their Libya talking point doesn't work anymore

It’s obviously premature to celebrate “victory” in Libya when no one knows what will happen next, or how difficult and bloody the process of state-building will be. (And Gadhafi is not yet actually gone.) But the news is good, and Obama’s strategic approach to the conflict — allowing France and NATO to take the lead to minimize the chance that America was seen as leading another Iraq-style war of aggression — seems to have been the right one. (Strategically. Not necessarily legally.) As Steve Kornacki wrote this morning, this should be the end of the “Obama is too weak to lead” talking point from the right. It should be, but … it isn’t.

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page takes a break from excusing the criminality of the executives in charge of its parent company to deliver an official house reaction to the developments in Tripoli that starts off cautious and then just descends right back into the exact same lame arguments it’s been using for the last six months:

Having helped to midwife the rebel advances with air power, intelligence and weapons, NATO will have some influence with the rebels in the days ahead. The shame is how much faster Gadhafi might have been defeated, how many fewer people might have been killed, and how much more influence the U.S. might now have, if America had led more forcefully from the beginning.

Planning for this moment is precisely why we and many others had urged the State Department to engage with the rebels from the earliest days of the revolt, but the U.S. was slow to do so and only formally recognized the opposition Transitional National Council in mid-July. The hesitation gave Gadhafi hope that he could hold out and force a stalemate.

Libyans will determine their own future, but the U.S. has a stake in showing the world that NATO’s intervention, however belated and ill-executed, succeeded in its goals of removing a dictator, saving lives, and promoting a new Libyan government that respects its people and doesn’t sponsor global terrorism.

I’m not sure how long the editors of the Wall Street Journal think your average revolution lasts, but assuming Gadhafi’s hold on power is as weak as it appears today, I would argue — as a layman, of course — that NATO’s intervention seems neither “belated” nor “ill-executed.” (I mean, it seems well-executed, in the sense that it seems to have accomplished its goal?)

But it’s the line about America leading “more forcefully from the beginning” that the neocons and GOP hawks will continue to cling to no matter what actually happens in Libya. It’s the same argument BFF Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham used in their joint response to this weekend’s developments: “Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

All-out war! From day one! With the full force of American airpower! One definite way to make a civil war faster and less bloody is for a foreign country to enter it fully, right? (It tends to unite the populace, for one thing!) And conflicts are always less bloody when America drops more American bombs. That’s how we won Vietnam!

There’s no point in countering McCain and the Journal’s arguments with reason, of course, because these are not actually fact-based responses to news, they’re just rote recitations of Republican dogma: Obama weak! (Except domestically, where he is an autocrat.)

And this is the “respectable” Republican talking point. The line from the real nuts — I’m guessing something along the lines of “radical Obama allows Muslim Brotherhood to seize control in Libya” — will begin bubbling up from the sewers to talk radio and Fox News and Michele Bachmann’s campaign soon enough.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

McCain: Afghan drawdown ‘unnecessary risk’

John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham express concern about withdrawal plans

  • more
    • All Share Services

McCain: Afghan drawdown 'unnecessary risk'U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz, speaks with other U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, and Lindsay Graham, R-SC, unseen, during a press conference in Kabul, Afghanistan Sunday, July 3, 2011. Three U.S. Senators visiting Kabul on Sunday say they worry that President Barack Obama's planned withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by September 2012 could undermine Afghan morale, embolden the insurgency, and hamper efforts to defeat Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)(Credit: AP)

Three U.S. senators visiting Kabul said Sunday they are worried that President Barack Obama’s planned withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by September 2012 could undermine Afghan morale, embolden the insurgency and hamper efforts to defeat Taliban fighters.

John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham said they are heartened by the progress of Afghan security forces, but worry that Obama’s withdrawal plan could deplete American military strength before dealing a decisive blow to the Taliban, especially in eastern Afghanistan. That part of the country is a haven for the Afghan and Pakistani wings of the Taliban, and al-Qaida affiliates.

“I believe that the planned drawdown is an unnecessary risk,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, who claimed that no military leader has spoken in favor of the timetable.

Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine general expected to carry out the president’s drawdown order, has said the schedule is a bit more aggressive than the military had anticipated. Allen has cautioned that successfully winding down the war will require new progress on a wide front, including more help from allies and less Afghan corruption.

McCain — during a stop at the Kabul headquarters of the foreign military contingent, called the International Security Assistance Force — said he’s concerned there may not be enough American troops for a move from southern Afghanistan to the east to “finish the job there.” There are currently about 90,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan among a total international force of more than 132,000.

NATO has deployed the bulk of its forces to Helmand and Kandahar, two southern provinces where Afghan Taliban influence is strong, but international terrorist groups are less influential.

McCain said the drawdown will deprive NATO “to a significant degree” as it attempts to pacify eastern Afghanistan next summer.

Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, cited gains in Afghan security force recruitment and capability and said he was optimistic that native forces would soon be ready to take over security. But Graham also worried Obama’s withdrawal plan may reduce U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan too quickly.

“Withdrawal is what the enemy hopes to hear,” said Graham. “Our goal is to make sure that the enemy doesn’t hear withdrawal and the Afghan people don’t hear withdrawal.”

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said it was important to reassure Afghans that they will continue to receive help long after the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

“We’re certainly going to be here in great numbers until the end of 2014 and I hope as a result of a strategic long-term partnership with Afghanistan that we will have a military presence here and cooperation here with our Afghan partners for a long time after that,” said Lieberman.

The senators were skeptical about Western efforts to reach a negotiated peace with the Taliban’s leadership and suggested that political compromises with the insurgents could betray the Afghan people.

“I don’t think there will be serious negotiations with the Taliban until they are convinced that they cannot succeed in the attaining their goals through the force of arms on the battlefield,” said McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

Lieberman said that the Taliban would not seriously consider peace until coalition and Afghan forces “basically beat down and wear down the Taliban fighters and they lose their will increasingly and the leadership is isolated.” Lieberman called the idea that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, NATO leaders and insurgent commanders could talk out their differences at a peace conference “a dream, a fantasy.”

The senators’ harshest observations were reserved for Pakistan, home of many of the insurgent groups NATO forces are currently fighting in Afghanistan.

“There’s growing anger, it’s not just impatience, in the Congress of the United States toward Pakistan,” said Lieberman. “We want to have a good relationship with them but we’re tired of seeing them be both our allies and our enemies and supporting our enemies at the same time. They’ve got to decide to be our allies and we’ll be good allies to them, or we won’t.”

Shortly before the senators’ news conference in Kabul, an improvised bomb exploded on the other end of the capital, wounding three Afghan policemen, the Afghan Interior Ministry said. Insurgents have focused many of their attacks on Afghan security forces to undermine their development and NATO’s plans to transfer security operations to Afghan control.

Continue Reading Close

Puppet John McCain returns to “The Daily Show”

Jon Stewart grills the senator's cloth doppelganger about illegal immigrants' responsibility for wildfires

  • more
    • All Share Services

Puppet John McCain returns to

Sen. John McCain made some controversial claims over the weekend about illegal immigrants’ responsibility for border-region wildfires. “[W]e are concerned particularly about areas down on the border where there is substantial evidence that some of these fires are caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,” McCain said at a news conference, suggesting that “the answer to that part of the problem” was to “get a secure border.” (The senator has since denied that he was referring specifically to Arizona’s devastating Wallow fire with his remarks.)

As Salon’s Justin Elliott has pointed out, McCain’s “substantial evidence” has been hard to confirm — and last night, Jon Stewart tried to clear things up by interviewing the politician’s cranky puppet counterpart.

See the full clip here:

The Daily Show – Aliens vs. Senator
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart’s McCain puppet debuted in January with this appearance:

 

Continue Reading Close

Emma Mustich is a Salon contributor. Follow her on Twitter: @emustich.

What other American problems can we blame on immigrants?

Why stop with wildfires?

  • more
    • All Share Services

What other American problems can we blame on immigrants?Sen John McCain. Right: The Monument Fire burns a hillside just south of Sierra Vista, Ariz. on Sunday, June 19, 2011.

John McCain said last Sunday that there is “substantial evidence” that illegal immigrants started “some of” the wildfires consuming hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the American Southwest. While “officials” and “people who know what they’re talking about” have not produced or even claimed to have any evidence that illegal immigrants specifically were responsible for starting any of the fires that have burned across Arizona this month, that has not stopped certain brave commentators from speaking truth to the massive political power that is Big Mexican Arson.

The Corner’s Mark Krikorian has the next best thing to “substantial evidence”: He has secondhand anecdotal evidence from a guy on a panel at his anti-immigration think tank:

This is an empirical question — some fires are caused by illegal aliens and drug smugglers (either campfires that got away from them or deliberate diversionary fires) and others are not. But the authorities are unwilling to discuss in public the possibility that a politically favored group (illegal aliens and smugglers) might have caused the fires — kind of like the unwillingness to identify the religious tradition that Europe’s rioting “youths” belong to.

Arizona reporter Leo Banks talked about this recently:

The thing that kills me about these fires is Border Patrol and Forest Service won’t discuss that they are started — that they are sometimes started — and we don’t have 100-percent probability on this but we can be 95-percent sure — that illegal aliens and smugglers start fires.

It’s an empirical question! And … there is still no evidence for it, but that’s because of a conspiracy of silence. Every single authority involved is merely protecting a “favored group” of … drug smugglers.

It’s not just wildfires, either. I have substantial evidence — based on some stuff I heard some guys say — that illegal immigrants are also behind most of the rest of our problems.

  • Unemployment: Immigrants stole all the jobs.
  • Rising sea levels: While no one will speak on the record about it, because of “political correctness,” most scientists and experts agree that the sea levels are rising because so many thousands of immigrants are swimming to America to sell drugs (the effect is akin to adding ice cubes to a glass).
  • Tornadoes: Immigrants are often “hopped up” on the illegal drugs they are sneaking in the country to sell. With enough of a “buzz,” meteorologists say (off the record), a couple dozen illegals could excitedly run in circles with enough speed and force to cause the deadly twisters that tore through the nation last month. 

We must build the danged fence before thousands more die.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 225 in John McCain, R-Ariz.