VIDEO: Ross Defends Report That Hastert Is ‘In The Mix’ of Federal Corruption Investigation
VIDEO: Ross Defends Report That Hastert Is ‘In The Mix’ of Federal Corruption Investigation
Last night, ABC’s Brian Ross reported that, according to a federal law enforcement source, “the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.”
Subsequently, the Justice Department flatly denied the story.
This morning, Brian Ross appeared on ABC and defended his report. Ross said, “Despite flat and repeated denials from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials…describe the 64-year-old Illinois Republican [Hastert] as ‘very much in the mix’ of the corruption investigation.” Watch it:
Transcript:
ROSS: Good morning Robin. Despite flat and repeated denies from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials insist to ABC news the FBI investigation of capitol hill corruption has widened to include potentially Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Officials describe the 64-year-old Illinois republican as “very much in the mix” of the corruption investigation. Something the speaker told ABC News he was unaware of.
HASTERT: I know nothing about it.
ROSS: Part of the investigation is said to involve a letter Hastert wrote three years ago urging the Secretary of Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes. The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government. The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time. Hastert says the story is untrue and has demanded a retraction. Our sources say Hastert is not considered the formal subject or target at this time but that the FBI will soon seek documents from him and other members of congress based on information from the convicted lobbyist Abramoff. The investigation, of course, is in it’s very early stages. It is very possible it will turn out there is nothing unlawful about Hastert relationship with Abramoff.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
60 Responses to “VIDEO: Ross Defends Report That Hastert Is ‘In The Mix’ of Federal Corruption Investigation”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Any bets on when the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies will start to denegrate Brian Ross?
May 25th, 2006 at 9:58 amAny bets on when the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies will start to denegrate Brian Ross?
Comment by Curlew — May 25, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Yesterday.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:00 amDo I see a smear campaign against Brian Ross and ABC?
May 25th, 2006 at 10:01 amOr - is this “leak” an attempt by the White House to let Hastert know that he better keep his yap shut when he disagrees with them?
I bet Ross went through alot of pocket change getting the story on Has turd . So when will the phone co.’s either get rid of phone booths or install security cameras?
May 25th, 2006 at 10:06 amThis is one “terrorist” that must surely be at the top of the list
May 25th, 2006 at 10:09 amThe house republicans are in an uproar about this! It’s is wonderful to watch them deny it with such passion! I can’t wait until the speaker is in jail!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:10 amthis, and other, developments explains a lot, huh…?
May 25th, 2006 at 10:16 amThe DoJ has denied the report, denied that Hastert was “in the mix,” and used a named person and position.
It would be nice if one could also judge the credibility of Ross’ source.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:18 amI just hope the public revelation of this in the press hasn’t in any way endangered the DOJ’s investigation. The Republican Party is shot through with corruption.
That would be a pisser.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:23 am#8
What was the “named person and position”?
May 25th, 2006 at 10:25 amHappy Fitzmas Friday!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:28 am#8: “It would be nice if one could also judge the credibility of Ross’ source.
Comment by chas — May 25, 2006 @ 10:18 am”
A free press cannot work without confidential sources, especially in these dark times. Ross has used his experience and made a judgement call that the information is accurate.
Since we don’t know who his source is (or sources, plural), the onus falls on Ross alone. It’s his professional reputation that’s on the line, and that’s not something to be taken lightly. I mean, look what happened to Dan Rather, and that was only partially his fault anyway.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:30 amDo you think the FBI will be raiding the Speaker’s Office on Capital Hill? That would be appropriate. To think this clown is 3rd in line to the Presidency. Well, it would be better than either Bush or Cheney.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:36 amPoor Denny. Another walking billboard for term limits.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:50 amRut Roe Raggy…. Rasterts in Rubble!!!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:51 amI’ve been aware of the peril of both Dubious and Chainee being evicted from office, because the speaker of the house is next in line…..
May 25th, 2006 at 10:53 amI’m forgetting my social studies, can anyone answer who would be next in line if the speaker is found to be unsuitable, and how far down the list would we have to go to find an honest and competent national leader……..?
Hasturd…I like it!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:53 amMaybe him & Boner should clean out their offices.
They could catch a ride with Jefferson to the big
house; er, freezer.
#12 chas - what named source are you talking about?
May 25th, 2006 at 11:04 amYou tell me how far we would have to go! Norm Mineta maybe?
Dick Cheney, Vice President
May 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amDennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Ted Stevens, President pro tempore of the Senate
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
ineligible: Lynn Scarlett[1], Acting Secretary of the Interior
Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture
ineligible: Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce (not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.)
ineligible: Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor (not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.)
Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy
Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education
Jim Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
I hope Hastert falls because he is as corrupt as DeLay!
May 25th, 2006 at 11:09 amThis certainly casts Hastert’s level of concern over the FBI raids of Congressional offices in a different light.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:19 amlike a pin to a balloon, its time to let out the hot air on this windbag
May 25th, 2006 at 11:31 amIf there is a congressional outcry because a democrat’s office and home were searched, just think of the reaction if it had been a republican congressman’s office and home that was sacked. Hummm, no doubt just a coincidence.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:33 amBefore convicting Hastert on Brian Ross’ “investigative reporting” you might look into his backgound:
May 25th, 2006 at 11:37 amOn 18 February 1993 Dateline NBC aired an investigative report about General Motors pickup trucks Pickup truck quick summary: A pickup truck is a light truck with an open-top cargo area with fairly short rigid sides and an opening rear gate…. allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents, because fuel tanks were badly designed. Although there were fuel tanks design problems with GM cars before, Dateline’s film showed a sample of a staged low speed accident with the fuel tank exploding. Dateline NBC did not disclose the fact that this accident was staged, including planted with explosives. The viewers were never told about it. It appeared to be a major discovery of investigative reporters. GM investigators discovered a hoax by a study of the Dateline film. GM subsequently filed an anti-defamation lawsuit against NBC. Brian Ross and a few persons responsible for the incident were fired from NBC, and Ross found employment with ABC News,where he continues to work to this day.
At least this explains why Denny came out swinging against the FBI searching William Jefferson’s office - he’s next!!! Deny all you want Denny - they’re after you! Ever notice that Denny is an “n” away from Deny?
May 25th, 2006 at 11:47 amOff topic …Ken Lay found guilty on all charges……..
May 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#24
Great job of mealy mouth obfuscation. How do you relate this incident to Ross other by innuendo. You say ” Brian Ross AND A FEW PERSONS RESPONSIBLE (Emphasis added) for the incident were fired…” Meaning Ross WAS NOT involved in the incident. So what is your point?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#27
nice!
#24 was just a cut n paste job anyway.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pmFaux News just reported that Hastert has filed Libel and Defamation suit against ABC News.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:54 pmWhatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Republican or Democratic? No one has gone to trial or jail. Ken Lay was proven guilty(may he rot in piece), let’s give everyone else due process too!
May 25th, 2006 at 12:58 pmHarry Reid is also in the mix for similar activity associated with Abramoff and his clients:
Nevada Democrat, Senate Minority Leader. Sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton in March 2002 to urge her to reject a casino of the Jena band of Choctaw that would have competed with an Abramoff client. The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid’s group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004. Abramoff also hired as a lobbyist a former Reid legislative aide, Edward Ayoob. Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at the offices of Abramoff’s firm, Greenberg Traurig.
If thinkparanoid.org was really non-partisan they would be going after Reid, too, since he did the same thing.
And Mr Ross, what the phuck does “in the mix” really mean? I’ll tell you. It means you really don’t know anything.
“It is very possible it will turn out there is nothing unlawful about Hastert relationship with Abramoff.”
May 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pmAh, BearFoolPig….read your little paste article…..Democrats did NOT RECEIVE MONEY DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF…they received them from clients or affiliations related to Abramoff…VERY BIG DIFFERENCE…not go run away and come back with a better defense…shoo shoo
May 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pmAh, BearFoolPig….read your little paste article…..Democrats did NOT RECEIVE MONEY DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF…they received them from clients or affiliations related to Abramoff…VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.. unlike Republicans who got it right from Jack’s greasy hands themselves…not go run away and come back with a better defense…shoo shoo
May 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI can’t help noticing that if you read to the end of the transcript, he clarifies that Hastert is not in fact a target of the investigation.
#23: there has been no outcry about searching Jefferson’s home, the issue is about the FBI searching his Congressional office.
#25: there is doubtless no end of political motivation on everyone’s part in this, but we should be glad that for once the House leadership is fighting this. One thing we don’t need is more unfettered executive power, Bush is already wildly out of control.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pmIt has to be bad bad bad if the MSM is actually covering this.
Dumya and Krash-Kart could strangle babies on camera in the rose garden and the MSM would dismiss it as the two just performing the hymlic and it went wrong because of “bad intelligence”.
Oh it is so fun to see the GOP fall like dominoes.
Every day now seems like Fitzmas these days.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#30: …let’s give everyone else due process too!
Comment by Someday we’ll know —
You mean like those in Gitmo? or just RETHUGlicans?
May 25th, 2006 at 1:44 pmFYI: Hastert is #1 on taking money for favors. See Buzzflash article on this.
#1 BABY!
Democrats never received any money, trips, presents or whores directly from Abramoff, it makes no sense to bribe anyone with no power. Although abramoff is generous with his dirty money, he is not wasteful.
So you trolls better go back to the RETHUG school and find some better talking points.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThis one won’t fly.
It gets better. The wire services now report that Hastert has accused the Justice Dept of trying to intimidate him by leaking this to ABC.
#29: can’t find a news story that says he’s suing ABC, but his lawyers are at least threatening. Good luck with that. One of our finest American traditions is it’s almost impossible for a politician to successfully sue for slander or libel. (Not to mention the likely lack of merits of this case.)
May 25th, 2006 at 2:12 pmNot looking too good for hastert is it?
And the trolls have their hands full trying to spin this one.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:19 pmNot looking too good for hastert is it?
And the trolls have their hands full trying to spin this one.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pmThere is a blogsite devoted exclusively to Hastert and his financial shenanigans:
disclosedenny
It’s pretty good. It’s run by Lukery who also hosts wotisitgood4 with some excellent political commentary.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pmI hope Brian Ross isn’t getting set up to follow in Dan Rather’s footsteps (the whole AWOL Bush–TANG memo thing).
May 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pmJust another case of FAKE BUT ACCURATE.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmDon’t you just love that MSM “Honesty”?
Just another case of FAKE BUT ACCURATE.
Don’t you just love that MSM “Honesty�
Comment by C2W? — May 25, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Still looking for those weapons of mass destruction, C2W?
Was the evidence regarding yellowcake URANIUM FAKE BUT ACCURATE?
I just love the smell of cooked wingnut - see you in November, royalist.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#24
I have to agree with you. When I saw this, it immediately smelled of “Rathergate”. It’s just one more dagger in the credibility of the MSM. I hope ABC gets sued for a pretty penny. That won’t help the damage already done to Hastert though. I guess I’ll just have to settle for their continued ratings decline.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pmWhen Hastert is indicted, at least we’ll have your words to remember you by, Randy, ’cause I’m sure you won’t be showing your punk ass around here after that. Somehting to look forward to, I guess.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#46
Are you saying that I am not welcome here? I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded and accepting of all opinions, not that you have to agree with them though. We’ll see after the mid-term elections if the MSM has performed their marching orders from the DNC properly.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#45 ” . . . When I saw this, it immediately smelled of “Rathergateâ€. It’s just one more dagger in the credibility of the MSM. . .
Comment by Randy — May 25, 2006 @ 4:19 pm”
Not really. The underlying story about Bush’s inexplicable absences from TANG are true. The fact that it got turned into “Rather-gate” instead of “AWOL-gate” is just another example of the sheer brilliance of the right when it comes to cynical manipulation of the MSM.
#47 “Are you saying that I am not welcome here?
Comment by Randy — May 25, 2006 @ 5:06 pm”
No, you aren’t welcome here. Unlike conservative websites you won’t be censored for expressing a contrary opinion. But nobody invited you; this is a liberal site you voluntarily came into yourself. Stay as long as you like and post as much as you want. Just don’t expect to be treated with kid gloves because you don’t deserve it.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pmDemocrats did NOT RECEIVE MONEY DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF…they received them from clients or affiliations related to Abramoff…VERY BIG DIFFERENCE
What’s the difference? Oh, the liberal double standard. Thinkparanoid exploits “the details” of Hastert’s ties to the criminal Abramoff that sound just like Reid’s ties:
Reid also sends a letter to the Interior Secretary urging her to refect Choctaw casino. Beneficiary? The Coushatta Tribe. Reid receives a donation the following day, and more donations to follow. Tied to the criminal? Yes.
Reid also receives donations from Abramoff’s clients. Yes, thinkparanoid includes donations from Abramoff clients as a tie to the criminal when it applies to Hastert.
A fundraiser for Reid was held at Abramoff’s offices. At least it wasn’t at Abramoff’s restaurant, right? Still a tie to the criminal.
Reid receives over 66o benji’s from Abramoff clients. Another tie to the criminal, according to thinkparanoid’s standards. Oh, that’s right. It only applies to Republicans.
Non-partisan? Bwahahahahaha!
May 25th, 2006 at 7:04 pm[…] After a second denail from the DoJ, and a lawsuit threat from Hastert’s lawyers (Raw has their letter), ABC’s Brian Ross is still sticking to his story, and ABC is still standing behind him. ThinkProgress has a video of Ross defending his story on ABC’s Good Morning America earlier today, and he was also on ABC World News Tonight (I’ll update if video becomes available). […]
May 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pmThis is the same group that was in a tizzy over Drudge not naming a source regarding Al Gore’s carbon footprint hypocrisy.
Now I am convinced that there can never be any civil political discourse in America as long as people are willing to be unfair and untruthful.
Intellectually dishonest; you are without morals, and you know it.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:40 pmRandy, if you see liberals as accepting and open minded why wouldn’t you want to be just that? I see that it is a choice to be hateful, unaccepting and mean.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:49 pm#53The difference is that Abramoff has been convicted of bribery, but his clients haven’t. If you can convict those clients of bribery, then you have a rational basis to your arguments. Otherwise Abramoff and those he bribed are the known criminals.
This is an argument you should be taking up with thinkprogress, not me, since they “irrationally” tie Hastert to the criminal for the same relationship that Reid has with Abramoff clients.
See their post…
Breaking: Speaker Hastert Under Investigation By the FBI Over Abramoff Ties
CONTRIBUTIONS — DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF AND HIS CLIENTS.
Reid received 66,000 from Abramoff clients. Ties to the criminal.
COUSHATTA CAMPAIGN.
Reid also supported. Ties to criminal
FUNDRAISER AT ABRAMOFF OFFICE.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:21 pmYes Reid does have ties to the criminal, at least according to thinkprogress’s standards.
BearManPig:
Two differences between Hastert and Reid:
1. “[Jack Abramoff] reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government. The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time. Hastert says the story is untrue and has demanded a retraction.”
None of the above is true of Reid, except that he too opposed the legislation and, after the fact, received donations from tribes who also opposed the legislation and who happened to be clients of Abramoff (neither of which actions are illegal or unethical as far as I can tell). (And by the way, if there was nothing wrong with what Hastert did, why would he be reacting to the story so fiercely? And don’t you find it a little bit suspicious how strongly Hastert came out against the FBI raid of Jefferson’s office?)
2. While Reid did oppose the legislation and receive donations from certain tribes that also opposed the legislation, he has a long track record of opposing similar legislation on principled grounds, which suggests that the donations had nothing to do with his opposition:
[from Media Matters:] Reid said the legislation was flawed because it would allow the Bay Mills tribe to build an off-reservation casino “under the guise of settling a land claim.” From the November 19, 2002, Congressional Record:
REID: [A]llowing a tribe to settle a land claim and receive trust land hundreds of miles from their reservation for the express purpose of establishing a gaming facility sets a very dangerous precedent.
This pursuit of off-reservation gaming operations should continue to follow the procedures outlined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law 100-497, which authorizes tribal gaming operations on off-reservation ”after-acquired lands” where the land to be acquired has no relationship to the land upon which the claim was based.
Let me say that the first gaming compact ever approved with an Indian tribe in the history of the country was done in Nevada. So it is not as if Nevada is here opposing this request. The first compact ever approved in the country was in Nevada. That is still an ongoing operation and a very successful one.
The proposed casino would be located just north of Detroit on a major link to Ontario that is in the lower corner of the lower peninsula. Bay Mills is located in the upper peninsula. The legislation is fundamentally flawed because it allows Bay Mills to establish gaming facilities under the guise of settling a land claim.
The land claim is simply — and everybody knows this — an excuse to take land into trust for off-reservation gaming. I object. [end of quote from Reid]
This position was entirely consistent with Reid’s longtime opposition to off-reservation gambling. As early as 1988, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. He proposed separate legislation in 1993 “prohibit[ing] states from opening gaming operations on off-reservation land” [AP, 5/28/93].
May 25th, 2006 at 8:53 pmterm limits now
May 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pmAre you saying that I am not welcome here?
I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded and accepting of all opinions, not that you have to agree with them though.
Nothing of the sort; just commenting on wingnuts’ proclivity for disappearing when they’re proved wrong.
And that’s “accepting of all RATIONAL points of view.” (railing against a “liberal” MSM clearly disqualifies you for this category)
When someone posts crap we call them on it. The liberal “reality based community” is real; your cardboard cutout idea of what a liberal is “supposed to be,” ain’t.
We’ll see after the mid-term elections if the MSM has performed their marching orders from the DNC properly.
Comment by Randy — May 25, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
See what I mean? The MSM is CORPORATE media, and as such, predominately republican. You’re pathetic. Try harder, little wingnut.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:52 pmIt is funny to see Republicans and Democrats offering up as the only defense that the other party does the same thing. About all I agree with each party on is the assessment of the other party. Republicans call Democrats corrupt, and Democrats call Republicans corrupt. That is about the only truth coming from each party. What a shame that some people call this “negative” politics. The last thing we ought do is get rid of the last bit of truth. It is a bipartisan sellout. I noticed that somebody mentioned Harry Reid took money from Abramoff clients, as some sort of “defense” of Republicans. Then somebody responded by saying Reid didn’t take actually money directly from Abramoff, as some sort of “defense” of Democrats. Think about this. You guys wonder why Abramoff went down? He would take money from one tribe to get have the gambling license of another tribe revoked, then he would turn around and go back to the tribe he got de-licensed and take money from them to get them their license back. So, why did Abramoff go down? As somebody pointed out, some of Abramoff’s are big time direct contributors to politicians, including Reid. McCain gets a lot of tribal money as well. It isn’t that the powers that be went after Abramoff out of pure motives. They went after him because he betrayed ANOTHER lobbyist. If the tribes Abramoff did business with weren’t such huge lobbyists themselves, Abramoff would be a free man today. Lobbyists against lobbyists.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:56 am[…] House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) continues to deny he is under investigation in the Jack Abramoff conspiracy case, despite an ABC report by Brian Ross saying he is “in the mix.” […]
May 26th, 2006 at 1:10 pmIt is funny to see Republicans and Democrats offering up as the only defense that the other party does the same thing.
Wrong. Dems (and their supporters) are not offering up as the only defense that the Repubs are doing the same thing. You need to read comments 52, 55, and 56 more closely.
About all I agree with each party on is the assessment of the other party. Republicans call Democrats corrupt, and Democrats call Republicans corrupt. That is about the only truth coming from each party.
Total distortion. While it’s true that there have been a couple of Dems in the last couple of years that have been shown to be corrupt, to compare these relatively few, isolated individuals to what has been called the “culture of corruption” on the Republican side is ridiculous. Not only have there been WAY, WAY more corrupt Republicans, they also are often not single individuals acting alone, but are part of a web of Republican corruption. Further, it’s the Repubs that control everything right now and have stifled investigations into potential corruption. There’s no comparison between Dems and Repubs concerning corruption right now or in the recent past.
somebody responded by saying Reid didn’t take actually money directly from Abramoff, as some sort of “defense†of Democrats.
Yes, that’s true — more accurately, we’ve said this in defense not of Dems in general but of Reid specifically. And it’s a perfectly valid defense. Re-read comments 52 and 56 to see why.
As somebody pointed out, some of Abramoff’s [clients] are big time direct contributors to politicians, including Reid. McCain gets a lot of tribal money as well.
And your point? Just because a contributor to a politician happened to be the sometime client of a criminal lobbyist, does not mean that the politician is guilty of wrongdoing. The politician may have had no involvement or knowledge of the lobbyist’s criminal activity — and this appears to be the case with Reid.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm[…] House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) continues to deny he is under investigation in the Jack Abramoff conspiracy case, despite an ABC report by Brian Ross saying he is “in the mix.†[…]
June 1st, 2006 at 10:17 am