Abramoff gets minimum sentence

[Tim Tellean]

Abramoff Gets Minimum Sentence

Former Lobbyist to Spend 5 Years, 10 Months in Prison


By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 2:00 PM
Jack A. Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a major corruption scandal, was sentenced in Miami today to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise ships. An associate received the same sentence.
U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck sentenced Abramoff, 47, and his former partner, Adam R. Kidan, 41, after considering their pleas for the shortest possible prison terms. Each laid most of the blame on the other for the scam, in which they faked a $23 million wire transfer to obtain financing for the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos from an owner who was later shot to death in a gangland-style hit.
Abramoff and Kidan pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud in the case. Each had faced a minimum of five years and 10 months in federal prison and a maximum of seven years and three months under sentencing guidelines associated with their plea agreements.
The judge opted today for the minimum. But Abramoff faces the prospect of at least a few additional years in prison when he is sentenced in a separate case in Washington, D.C.
In that second case, Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to federal charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. His plea deal with federal prosecutors in that case required him to cooperate with a broad federal investigation of corruption involving members of Congress, congressional staffers, other lobbyists and employees of the Interior Department and other federal agencies.
Among the congressmen whose names have come up in the probe are Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), former chairman of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the former House majority leader. Ney has been identified as the "Representative #1" who, according to court documents, received bribes from Abramoff in exchange for official acts, including congressional statements that promoted the SunCruz deal during contentious purchase negotiations. DeLay, who once described Abramoff as "one of my closest and dearest friends," took three overseas trips with the lobbyist and received more than $70,000 in political contributions from him, his associates and his Native American tribal clients. Ney and DeLay have denied any wrongdoing.
Abramoff also raised funds and made political contributions to President Bush while becoming a major player in Republican efforts to dominate Washington lobbying. He has claimed close ties to the Bush White House, although the president has publicly denied knowing him.
Judge Huck agreed to delay Abramoff's incarceration to allow him to continue cooperating with the corruption probe and a Florida investigation into the February 2001 murder of Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, the former SunCruz owner with whom Abramoff and Kidan quarreled. Boulis was shot to death while driving near his Fort Lauderdale office. Three men have been charged with the killing, one of whom -- allegedly connected to the New York mafia -- was hired by Kidan to provide catering and security services for SunCruz.
Abramoff and Kidan have denied any involvement in the murder or knowledge of it.
Abramoff faces nine-and-a-half to 11 years in prison as a result of his plea deal in the Washington corruption case, which essentially stems from his lobbying activities on behalf of Native American tribes. But Abramoff's attorneys and federal prosecutors agreed that his eventual sentence from that case would run concurrently with the sentence handed down in Miami.
In pleading for the shortest sentence from Huck, Abramoff's lawyers cited his cooperation with federal investigators.
"The literally hundreds of hours he has spent, the hundreds of thousands of documents he has reviewed, and the dozens of topics he has been assisting with in themselves would merit a sentence at the bottom of the stipulated range," attorneys Abbe Lowell and Neal Sonnett wrote in a lengthy memo. In contrast to media portrayals of Abramoff that have "made him into a caricature and distorted a lifetime of accomplishments," the lawyers wrote, their client "is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse."
Submitted along with the memo were letters from more than 260 of Abramoff's friends, relatives and associates, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), whom the lobbyist listed as a reference on loan papers for the SunCruz purchase. Rohrabacher, a staunch conservative and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, called Abramoff a "selfless patriot" who had made a significant contribution to fighting communism while helping to organize college students in support of Reagan's presidential campaigns.
In the SunCruz case, Abramoff admitted that he and Kidan defrauded lenders in the $147.5 million purchase of a fleet of gambling boats based in Florida. The two were charged with faking the wire transfer of a $23 million down payment to create the appearance that they were putting their own money into the purchase in order to obtain a $60 million loan.

[SackAttack]

He's also got guilty pleas in for another case for which he hasn't been sentenced, so I'd imagine that 5 years-ish could grow somewhat.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

He's also got guilty pleas in for another case for which he hasn't been sentenced, so I'd imagine that 5 years-ish could grow somewhat.

Yep, this particular case is seperate from his Capitol Hill issues. But, from what I hear when I'm in Miami, the SunCruz case is far from finished. As it states in the artice, the guy that was defrauded in this case was gunned down gangland style once the fraud accusations started to surface, and the guys arrested for the murder say they got their marching orders from Abramoff's partner.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Tim Tellean

Judge Huck

Has a nice ring to it.

[gstelmack]

Given that the maximum sentence in this case was 7 years 3 months, you have a 17-month range of sentences. 5 years 10 months vs 7 years 3 months just doesn't seem like a wide enough range to be pointing out that he got a min sentence as if someone did him a political favor...

[Tim Tellean]

Ever been to prison? I think a favor of 17 months is something.

[WSUCougar]

Depends on whether it's a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison or a minimum security one with conjugal visits

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Tim Tellean

Ever been to prison? I think a favor of 17 months is something.

Ever seen a grown man naked?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tim Tellean

Ever been to prison? I think a favor of 17 months is something.

Compared to the 70 months he's already going to be there? If the range was greater (say 5 years vs. 15 years), then I'd agree it's a big deal, but we're talking a range of roughly 1/3 of the sentence. Just doesn't seem like all the big a deal.

Heck, it's small enough that I don't get why they've got the range at all. Just call it six years for this crime and be done with the sentencing guidelines altogether.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Heck, it's small enough that I don't get why they've got the range at all. Just call it six years for this crime and be done with the sentencing guidelines altogether.

If they did that, then you'd deprive people of the chance to rant about "activist judges", because they either didn't give a long enough sentence, or gave too short of a sentence, depending on the (usually bat-shiat crazy when they invoke the 'activist judge' phrase) viewpoint.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

If they did that, then you'd deprive people of the chance to rant about "activist judges", because they either didn't give a long enough sentence, or gave too short of a sentence, depending on the (usually bat-shiat crazy when they invoke the 'activist judge' phrase) viewpoint.

True enough, but the federal sentencing guidelines make zero sense. In theory, they are supposed prevent judges from going too soft or too hard on criminals while giving some acknowledgement to prison population. But what you get is wacky ass stuff, like an ounce of cocaine getting you one year in prison and the same amount of crack cocaine getting you 10 years, or two people getting the same sentence for for wildly different acts that don't seem to be on the same level.

Activist Congress, that's our problem.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

True enough, but the federal sentencing guidelines make zero sense. In theory, they are supposed prevent judges from going too soft or too hard on criminals while giving some acknowledgement to prison population. But what you get is wacky ass stuff, like an ounce of cocaine getting you one year in prison and the same amount of crack cocaine getting you 10 years, or two people getting the same sentence for for wildly different acts that don't seem to be on the same level.

Activist Congress, that's our problem.

Oh yeah, I completely agree. Judges should have leeway in determining the amount of punishment for crimes, especially with things like the example you presented.

My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek with my response to Mr. Stelmack. It does seem that this particular sentencing guideline was supposed to be a mandatory, non-flexible sentence, and this 17 month range was some sort of compromise.