John Doolittle has been named as a co-conspirator in the corruption trial of a former aide.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia trial of Kevin Ring on a 10-county federal indictment took a turn toward Doolittle’s involvement last week when the Justice Department was instructed to identify by name all public officials alleged to be co-conspirators.
In documents filed last Thursday, Doolittle’s was the most prominent name on the list of co-conspirators.
Among the other 10 identified by the Justice Department were Doolittle’s wife, Julie, the ex-congressman’s former media spokeswoman Laura Blackann, former chief of staff David Lopez and two former Doolittle legislative directors, Gregory Orlando and Peter Evich.
The judge handling the case agreed Friday to list Doolittle and the others as co-conspirators, which means their e-mails can be admitted as evidence rather than as hearsay.
Tom Hudson, president of the Placer County Republican Party, said that any connection after several years of Justice Department scrutiny is more about “bad-mouthing” John and Julie Doolittle than about justice.
“I think the fact that they have never been indicted after an extensive witch hunt is about the best proof of their innocence that we can get,” Hudson said.
And the TPMMuckraker has this to say:
Ring, a former top aide to Doolittle, was indicted last year for allegedly bribing lawmakers and members of the executive branch, after he left Capitol Hill and went to work for Abramoff. The indictment charged that, among other crimes, Ring provided lavish meals and events tickets to members of Doolittle's staff, and that Ring provided Doolittle's wife, Julia, with a lucrative non-profit job, arranged by Abramoff. Julia Doolittle has also been named as a co-conspirator.
Prosecutors said they plan to submit statements from 11 alleged co-conspirators, including the Doolittles and four former Doolittle aides.
Neither Doolittle, who last year did not seek a 10th term representing the sprawling 4th Congressional District, nor his wife has been charged with a crime. They could not be reached for comment Monday.
Ring, whose trial began Sept. 11, is charged with 10 counts, including bribery and conspiracy to commit fraud, in connection with his work as a lobbyist for the firm of Jack Abramoff.
...The 46-page indictment referred to Doolittle only as "Representative 5," although other information made it clear to whom it referred.And there's this "breaking news" from The Union:
The indictment charged that Ring and the Abramoff firm provided members of Doolittle's staff with lavish meals and event tickets, and the congressman's wife with $96,000 for a job with a nonprofit group, arranged by Abramoff.
Naming unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment is frowned upon by the Justice Department and courts.
"In the absence of some significant justification," says the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, "federal prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments."
But in a written response to questions from Judge Ellen Huvelle, federal prosecutors said they intend to submit statements from 11 alleged co-conspirators outside the Abramoff firm. They include the Doolittles, four former Doolittle aides and five former aides to other congressmen.
Though Doolittle never has been directly charged with any crime, the ongoing scandal around him was one of the factors that led to his decision not to seek a tenth term in Congress, party insiders said at the time. Doolittle had risen to the top tier of the party's power structure in the House of Representatives.This evening, CBS has finally joined the others in reporting the story:
Dozens of alleged bribes and favors are now revealed in Federal Court documents obtained by CBS-13. The indictment, filed against a lobbyist working for the firm of Jack Abramoff, was once a staff member in Doolittle's office. It also links the former Congressman with Abramoff, now in prison for corruption.CBS ended their story with this statement: "Federal prosecutors would not comment, however, on whether charges were pending against the former Congressman."
"If he's innocent, he's innocent, but they need to find out," said one voter we spoke with about the indictment. Though another thought "we definitely need to investigate more."
According to the indictment, "Lawmaker #5", who CBS-13 confirmed through emails and evidence submitted in the court hearings is John Doolittle, was showered with gifts, including a job for his wife that paid more than $90,000 at a non-profit that would make sure she wasn't "overburdened with work."
The firm also allegedly helped Doolittle with fundraisers. The indictment says that lobbyists gave him great tickets to sporting events plus private suites for the Dixie Chicks and Faith Hill concerts. He was also wined and dined at posh restaurants.
"Who can you trust," said Rich Palmer, who lives in Doolittle's former district. "I look at every ballot. You do background checks on these people and you don't know what's really going on."
Maybe because the Department of Justice is going to indict him?
The Defendant’s proposals and the Government’s specific objections and responses are described below:
1. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: "Abramoff recalled the circumstances surrounding Julie Doolittle working for him at Greenberg Traurig. He said Doolittle called him and said he was calling as a friend and made it clear there was no obligation but that Julie Doolittle was looking to expand her work portfolio and described the type of work she did. Abramoff said Doolittle made it clear there was no obligation. Doolittle was insistent there was no pressure." (p.3)
Government's Response: The proposed statement does not impeach the exhibit because it refers to a conversations in 2000, which are prior to the employment in 2002 referenced in GX 385. Moreover, John Doolittle’s statement about his intent for Julie to have a job does not impeach the credibility of Abramoff’s statement that she need not work hard in the Spy Museum job. If the Court were to admit the statement, the Government would seek to admit: “Abramoff also speculated that Doolittle and Lopez were playing 'good cop, bad cop,' and explained Doolittle would say 'no pressure,' but Lopez would stay on him." "Abramoff said after he was asked, it was clearly his intention to find a job for Julie Doolittle. Abramoff said he was being pushed by Lopez and he (Abramoff) wanted to get it done. Abramoff explained that he could not just say he was unable to find a job for Julie Doolittle." "Abramoff said Doolittle was doing things for his client, so it would be good for Abramoff to be sure the job for Julie Doolittle got done." (p.5)
2. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: "Abramoff said Julie Doolittle was interested in making sure she was not hired just because she was Doolittle's wife. He said Julie Doolittle did a good job on the "Spy Event," even though the event did not happen. Abramoff said he made some effort to make it clear that her presence was based on her competence." (p.4)
Government's Response: The proposed statements do not impeach the exhibit regarding Abramoff’s desire for Julie Doolittle to do little work. The proposed statement is instead Abramoff’s interpretation of the reasons Julie Doolittle wanted to be hired. Defendant seeks to introduce this as substantive evidence that Julie Doolittle wanted to do actual work rather than impeach the credibility of Abramoff’s statement that he did not care how much work, if any, that she actually did.
3. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: "Most of Julie Doolittle's work was associated with the "Spy Event" but she did work on one or two other projects for Abramoff as well. Abramoff thought Julie Doolittle tried to work on the promotion of his restaurants Signatures and Stacks, however the "dysfunctional" management in place at the time made her efforts impossible." (p.4)
Government's Response: The proposed statement does not impeach the exhibit statement that discusses only the work on the Spy Museum. Defendant is seeking to admit this as substantive evidence that Julie Doolittle “tried to do work” for Signatures, which is not proper impeachment material.
4. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: "Abramoff said he did not know what Julie Doolittle's duties at Toward Tradition would be, but she was not going to be a ghost employee." (p.6)
Government's Response: The proposed statement does not impeach the exhibit statement regarding employment for CAF in 2002 because the statements relate to the Toward Tradition employment in 2000. If the Court would allow the statement, then the Government seeks to admit the following statements: "She would do actual work, but the job was being formed around the paycheck first. Abramoff said he would not have involved Toward Tradition in a sham. Abramoff did not think he had conversations with Julie Doolittle at this point regarding what she would do. He said there were later conversations in which he learned she wanted to work." (p.6).
5. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: "Abramoff said Julie Doolittle had a strong work ethic and there was going to be work done. He said when he met Julie Doolittle he got the impression that she was a "go getter" and he thought she would have been offended by a job with no work."
Government's Response: The proposed statement does not impeach the exhibit statement, which focuses on Abramoff’s intent in providing the job rather than Julie Doolittle’s desire with respect to the job. If the Court were to admit the statement, the Government would seek to admit the sentences that the Defendant skipped that come directly after the proposed statement "offended by a job with no work.” Specifically, the Government would seek to admit: "Abramoff did not remember Julie Doolittle saying the 'wife and mother thing' but he clearly knew this. Abramoff said he hired Julie Doolittle because of his relationship with Doolittle." (p.9).
6. Defendant’s Proposed Impeachment Material: “Abramoff did not remember how much Julie Doolittle was paid but thought it was "in line" for the industry." (p.9)
Government’s Response: The proposed statement does not impeach Abramoff’s statement in the exhibit that he did not want her to do much work. If the Court were to admit it, the Government believes that the following should be admitted: "Abramoff said in the end, when he looks at the amount of work she did and the amount of money she got, they were not correlated." (p.11)Ring also requested to offer evidence to impeach the e-mail between him and Padgett Wilson which stated,"And as for DOJ staffers, those guys should get anything they want for the rest of the time they are in office- opening day tickets, Skins v Giants, oriental massages, hookers, whatever…"
Defendant's [100] Motion in Limine to Strike granted for the reason stated on the record in open court. Defendant's Oral Motion to Strike Exhibits #330 and #701 heard and granted in part and denied in part; only Exhibit #330 is stricken.Exhibit 330 is a 9/12/2000 Email from Abramoff to Ring, "RE: Doolittle/HR 1814.
The government is not trying to prove that a legal campaign contribution rose to the level of a bribe or illegal gratuity. Rather, the email shows Ring's and his coconspirators' intent and the transactional approach they took to giving anything to a public official. For example, in GX 30, Ring wrote that "Doolittle should get more dough. We need to reward our friends." Moreover, a jury instruction will cure any potential confusion.
“It is really funny that at the same time Rep. Doolittle, OSHA and others are saying good things about Saipan, Mr. Miller and (US.) Sen. (Daniel) Akaka have opted to ignore the true picture,” said Mr. Pierce, as he protested the American Samoa experience is far from being “remotely similar to that of Saipan today.”Why would Pierce think it funny? He was emailing Ring and Abramoff and it appears that he was part of the deception team.
A May 22, 2001 Saipan Tribune article details the congressional support from former Majority Whip Tim Delay, former Senator Conrad Burns and Former Rep. John Doolittle.
No percipient witness, for example, testified about Mr. Ring’s relationship with the office of Congressman John Doolittle, even though that relationship formed the basis of many, if not most, of the government’s accusations against Mr. Ring.Most of the document is weak and a repeat of arguments that the defense already submitted in other arguments, but there are a few interesting remarks. Ring's defense is that he did nothing that all lobbyists didn't do or don't do. Here is a statement from the motion that speaks to that theory:
Indeed, Mr. Volz and Mr. Boulanger’s testimony could just as easily have been used to show that individuals like Alan Slomowitz or Ron Platt were part of the conspiracy. Both individuals lobbied with the Greenberg Traurig team; Mr. Platt was quoted in the Washington Post saying that lobbyists had no obligation to help public officials comply with the gift rules, and Mr. Slomowitz had followed Mr. Abramoff from Preston Gates to Greenberg Traurig. Both men would have been familiar with Mr. Abramoff’s asserted “win-at-all-cost” mentality, which Mr. Boulanger described as his basis for not caring about the rules.Today the Government filed Opposition to Request for Acquittal laying out the evidence that supports the indictment:
In over two weeks of testimony, the jury has seen and heard significant evidence of Defendant’s criminal acts. Based on the Defendant’s own emails, the jury has seen sufficient evidence to determine that the Defendant conspired to corrupt public officials, see, e.g., GX 586 (Defendant telling his fellow lobbyists to “thank” public officials for their assistance in getting $16.3 million from the Department of Justice); actually providing an illegal gratuity, see, e.g., GX 603 (Defendant justifying tickets for Coughlin based on his assistance in expediting the immigration request for Eshkol Academy), and describing how Defendant himself used things of value to induce future official actions see, e.g., GX 103 (“You are going to eat free off our clients. Now get us some abstinence money.”)The DOJ's document as succinct and clear as the defense document is rambling and muddy.
Beth Sussman from the The National Journal reports that the FBI estimated that Abramoff had a treaure chest of $5.1 million of tickets to suites in Washington, DC area arenas. Tickets were rewards to congressional staffers, members of Congress and officials who used their positions to advance clients' interests.
Read more on Kevin Ring and the Doolittle and CNMI Connection:
Kevin Ring Indicted September 8, 2008
As Pedicted Boulanger Charged January 28, 2009
Boulanger Pleads Guilty January 30, 2009
Revealing Plea Agreement February 4, 2009
Abramoff Scandal Nets One MoreFebruary 20, 2009
Ruling in Kevin Ring Case: Charges Stand June 26, 2009
Order on Motions in Kevin Ring Case July 1, 2009
Kevin Ring Exhibits: CNMI Connection Exposed Through E-mails August 13, 2009
Abramoff Scandal: Trail Leading to the CNMI August 25, 2009
Abramoff Scandal: Bigger Fish to Be Caught September 5, 2009
Kevin Ring Trial Has Begun -You won't hear about it from CNMI news sources... September 13, 2009
Kevin Ring Trial: Boulanger and Copland Testify September 23, 2009























