This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Congress This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress This template is about one (or many) Person(s). United States: Government This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

A guest on a Sun Cruz boat along with several other alleged 9/11/01 perps less than one week prior to 9/11/01.

I suggested this to KWH, and he wrote: "if we include everyone related to Abramoff the template will be a mile long. However, since involvement with Ney led directly to one of the charges, I think he could be included on a "short list". Others will probably disagree and want him removed. Don't feel afraid to add him if you think he belongs...". He also told me to "be bold", so I'm adding him.

I just added Roger Stillwell. See here. He's not a big fish. But I suspect he will lead to big fish, and, in the interim, since he is charged, he ought to be included. (And a Stillwell article might need to be created) IMHO. -- Sholom 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-29T02:48:00.000Z","author":"Sholom","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sholom-2006-06-29T02:48:00.000Z-Roger_Stillwell","replies":[]}}-->

Table needs a new heading: "Guilty." The following have pleaded guilty through the first quarter of 2006: Tony Rudy, March 31, 2006, graft Jack Abramoff, January 3, 2006, fraud Michael Scanlon, Nov. 21, 2005, bribery

They're part of the "triumvirate" (along with Abramoff) and are mentioned in the first graf of the scandal article.--Wasabe3543 06:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed were named in the House Government Reform Committee report of September 29, 2006, which details the money sent by tribal clients of Abramoff to Americans for Tax Reform in exchange for attending ATR meetings at the White House with President Bush. It also details email exchanges between Abramoff and Reed in which Abramoff asks Reed for assistance getting favors from the White House. --The Cunctator 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-11T06:37:00.000Z","author":"Wasabe3543","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wasabe3543-2006-02-11T06:37:00.000Z-Reed_and_Norquist","replies":[]}}-->

I'm taking Katherine Harris back out of this template. She's getting tangled in a scandal all right -- but it's not Abramoff's scandal, it's the scandal involving Mitchell Wade and MZM Inc -- Wade and MZM in turn were major parts of the Duke Cunningham scandal, but none of this has anything to do with Abramoff.

I think that DeLay should be included here because 1) he has been indicted for a crime that involved Abramoff, 2) Scanlon and Rudy both worked for his office, as did Miller whose complaint to the police brought everything down. Abramoff was the chair of TRMPAC, the PAC that DeLay was indicted over. DeLay is also referenced in the Rudy indictment (Representative B). Abramoff has not been charged over TRMPAC only because the Florida fraud and murder charges trumped Earle's. There should be two lists, first of the people indicted (Abramoff, Scanlon, DeLay), second of the people involved in some way (DooLittle, Ney, Reed, Norquist, Boulis). Boulis is not accused of involvement but his murder certainly involved Abramoff's takeover of the cruise ships. If an indictee has been sentenced the number of years should be stated. --Gorgonzilla 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-01T15:50:00.000Z","author":"Gorgonzilla","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gorgonzilla-2006-04-01T15:50:00.000Z-Criteria_for_inclusion,_Tom_Delay","replies":[]}}-->

Currently, those listed under "named" are those who have been mentioned in plea agreements and indictments. Harry Reid is not one of them. -- Sholom 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) BS. "Named" means "named". Take, for example, Bob Ney. He's in neither a plea agreement or an indictment. Don't compound your bias with lies. --69.122.200.170 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-08T18:57:00.000Z","author":"Sholom","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sholom-2006-06-08T18:57:00.000Z-Criteria_for_inclusion,_Harry_Reid","replies":["c-Kwh-2006-06-15T05:33:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-08T18:57:00.000Z"]}}-->

Whatever, dude.

Ney, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the operations of the House, is never referenced by name, although Ney's spokesman confirmed that Ney is the "Representative #1" repeatedly mentioned in court documents outlining Abramoff's wrongdoing. The court documents depict "Representative #1" as accepting lavish gifts of travel, meals, entertainment and campaign contributions, then awarding congressional contracts to Abramoff's clients, inserting a statement of support in the Congressional Record, and even obtaining a travel visa for a relative of one of Abramoff's clients while in Russia on official business.[1]

-KWH 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-15T05:33:00.000Z","author":"Kwh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kwh-2006-06-15T05:33:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-08T18:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Sholom-2006-06-15T12:38:00.000Z-Kwh-2006-06-15T05:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

The first sentence of the indictment of Neil Volz says: "From in or about January 1995 through in or about February 2002, defendant NEIL U. VOLZ was employed by a Member ofthe United States House of Representatives (“Representative #1”)." [2] Now, tell me, given that Volz worked for Ney at the time, who do you think "Representative #1" might be? -- Sholom 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-15T12:38:00.000Z","author":"Sholom","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Sholom-2006-06-15T12:38:00.000Z-Kwh-2006-06-15T05:33:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Actually named means refered to as a target of the investigation. If everything Ney had done was above board he would be refered to as Rep Ney. He is referred to as Rep #1 precisely because he is accused of criminal conduct and an indictment is expected. Ney's defense attorney has confirmed that he is Rep#1 and there is in any case only one possibility. In contrast there is no mention of Reid or Katherine Harris (who I removed from this template, she is involved in the other GOP scandal, Cunningham) or any of the other congressmen and senators who had no connection to Abramoff other than through the tribes he represented. --Gorgonzilla 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Reid appears to be under investigation. [3] 148.63.236.141 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-15T22:05:00.000Z","author":"Gorgonzilla","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gorgonzilla-2006-06-15T22:05:00.000Z-Criteria_for_inclusion,_Harry_Reid","replies":["c-Sholom-2006-11-20T04:16:00.000Z-Gorgonzilla-2006-06-15T22:05:00.000Z"]}}-->

"Appears to be under investigation" is not good enough for this Template. See the first entry in this section -- we are listing only those "who have been mentioned in plea agreements and indictments" -- Sholom 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-20T04:16:00.000Z","author":"Sholom","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Sholom-2006-11-20T04:16:00.000Z-Gorgonzilla-2006-06-15T22:05:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The Kemel link is silly and unsubstantiated. There is no mention in any of the prosecution documents and no mention in the Senate investigation either. Abramoff is a crook but accusing him of being in league with Al Qaeda is a claim that requires a substantial burden of proof. It is utterly implausible that any Arab terrorists would be interested in using a Jewish lobbyist. --Gorgonzilla 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-07T01:03:00.000Z","author":"Gorgonzilla","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gorgonzilla-2006-04-07T01:03:00.000Z-Kemel","replies":[]}}-->

Since User At Work thought it needed improvement, let's work on it... the template needs to give at least a tiny bit of background/context... I think it is good to keep this neutral, no need to belabor the point with things like "GOP lobbyist". Not saying it is not true, just that there is a better wording which won't make certain folks jump out of their skin to protest. KWH 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-20T20:23:00.000Z","author":"Kwh","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kwh-2006-06-20T20:23:00.000Z-Template_header","replies":[]}}-->

In 2005, a series of investigations was begun into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The investigations grew to implicate multiple high-ranking politicians and resulted in charges and conviction of Abramoff and other Washington insiders, unveiling much of the hidden world of lobbying and campaign finance in the United States.

My own pet peeve: I'm not fond of the passive tense. "was begun" -- was begun by whom? How about something more along the lines of "In 2005 federal prosecutors and Congress began investigations into the activities...." -- Sholom 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z","author":"Sholom","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sholom-2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z-Template_header","replies":["c-User_At_Work-2006-06-20T22:06:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z","c-Kwh-2006-06-21T15:44:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

I personally think it displays bias to write a brief summary of Jack Abramoff and not mention his partisanship; my concern is less about what upsets people than what is accurate. It's hard to think of anyone who would be more accurately described as a GOP lobbyist than Abramoff. He was the king. By describing the problems as "Washington insiders", "lobbying", and "campaign finance", the old description strongly implies its a nonpartisan scandal. I personally think the world of legal and legitimate lobbying and campaign finance involving both parties is sordid and scandalous, but that's not why Abramoff and his associates are being packed off to jail, and it's not even evident that lobbying and campaign finance are even going to be affected profoundly by this.

It's more possible, in my opinion, that if the earmarking/bribery scandal involving Duke Cunningham gets drawn together with other earmarking stories (like Jerry Lewis (politician) and Dennis Hastert and William Jefferson and just about every other politician) then we'd see a scandal defined by the corruption of the "hidden world" of Washington lobbying.

The Abramoff scandal, like DeLay's other problems, is better defined by the sheer brazen partisanship of the players, who took as much (if not more) effort to consolidate power as they did to line their own pockets. Certainly some players, like Kidan and Scanlon, were in it for the money, but most were in it for the power, access, and authority. That's my take. --User At Work 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-20T22:06:00.000Z","author":"User At Work","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-User_At_Work-2006-06-20T22:06:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Sholom - I agree with you on tense. And UAW, you're somewhat preaching to the converted, but I'll try to bullet-point my concerns with this particular verbiage:

• If anything, "Republican" is more proper than "GOP" in this context.
• "Lobbyist" isn't implicitly a partisan job description, like Representative or Senator, activist or fund-raiser. To me, it sounds like saying "Democratic dentist". Yes - lobbyists make their living by who they are able to gain access to, but that happens more on the individual level than the party level.
• Headlining something like this is just asking for trouble. I don't believe that Wikipedia should censor itself to please certain interests, but there's obviously some people who will cover their ears and start screaming and edit-warring when they see that, and then start hollering about liberal bias. The facts within the articles speak for themselves, there's no need to challenge people's sacred cows. Some will believe that it's an all-encompassing Culture of Corruption, some will believe that it's a few bad apples - there's room for that difference of opinion.
• As a note, I endorse the term "Republican activist" at Jack Abramoff as being descriptive of Abramoff's role in various non-profits like NCPPR, as well as his role in independently supporting candidates/causes. KWH 15:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-21T15:44:00.000Z","author":"Kwh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kwh-2006-06-21T15:44:00.000Z-Sholom-2006-06-20T20:43:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

So far as I can tell the only reason to include Byron Dorgan is to incorrectly imply that Democratic politicians have played a major role in the Abramoff scandal. I would revert the changes but I want to avoid getting entrapped in an edit war with anonymous users. -User At Work 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-08-25T15:35:00.000Z","author":"User At Work","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-User_At_Work-2006-08-25T15:35:00.000Z-Criteria_for_Inclusion:_Byron_Dorgan","replies":[]}}-->

I added William Heaton to the "Named but not charged"-category, as he was named (Staffer C) in the plea of Bob Ney. Someone should create an Heaton article as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.216.39.102 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-12-08T20:08:00.000Z","author":"84.216.39.102","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-84.216.39.102-2006-12-08T20:08:00.000Z-William_Heaton","replies":[]}}-->

Guam official Tony Sanchez and attorney Howard Hills have been indicted for their roles in dealings with Abramoff and ought to be included under a "charged" section.

I don't think Doolittle has been named in any of the court documents yet. We have a pretty high bar for including mention of politicians in the template. I'm going to remove it for now, because we should discuss it first. --User At Work 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-19T21:40:00.000Z","author":"User At Work","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-User_At_Work-2007-06-19T21:40:00.000Z-Criteria_for_inclusion:_John_Doolittle","replies":[]}}-->