Abramoff link to Greenberg Traurig>Jack Oliver>Sen. Talent

[galloglas]

-snip-

"Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff's resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business," spokeswoman Jill Perry said. (Aren't the 2004 Greenberg Traurig checks in the possession of BlackBoxVoting dated AFTER Abramoff "resigned"?)

-snip-

"We have worked with WH Office of Presidential Personnel to ensure that CNMI-relevant positions at various agencies are not awarded to enemies of CNMI," Abramoff's team wrote the Marianas in an October 2001 report on its work for t! he year.
Abramoff's team didn't neglect party politics either: There were at least two meetings with Republican National Committee officials, including then-finance chief Jack Oliver (Senator Jim Talent's Finance Director), as well as attendance at GOP fundraisers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm

see also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407038

Oliver's bio available below.

http://www.bryancavestrategies.com/contents/biographies/oliver.asp

[garybeck]

1. was his resignation before or after

that $12,500 check was written to Diebold?

inquiring minds would like to know.

[leveymg]

2. What is the significance of that check?

Who wrote it -- was it Jack or GT? And, what are they claiming it was for?

Please help to bring the rest of us up to speed. :hi:

[galloglas]

5. Significance of check is...

that the maker of the check was none other than DIEBOLD! Sent to GT some 3 to 3 1/2 months after Jack left them.

So, for what is Diebold paying Greenberg, Traurig?

A more coherent thread can be found at the following location

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/15714.html?1136804937

but, as WaPo noted when discussing Abramoff's departure from Greenberg, Traurig in 3/2004, the firm had already begun cooperating with the Feds.

My own questions would be
1) "What was the money for?"
2) What (or whom) did it buy?
3) And did Diebold and GT faithfully record their transactions. And did Abramoff, or any of his associates, pay bribes to influence officials to oppose any election options other than electronically cast and counted ballots?"

I particularly wish to know if Diebold has paid money to either fund (to me)the questionable "Open Voting Consortium".

Or, specifically, in Missouri, to silence those of us that favor HCPB. Alternatively, to cause Missouri's chief election officers (our SoS and the 116 BoEs) to maintain silence or refuse to meet with HCPB advocates.

Given that Missouri's final selection of machines (in July) was as below, you can see my concern.

Qualified Systems:

Qualified

ES&S AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal

ES&S Model 100 Precinct Ballot Counter

ES&S Model 650 Central Ballot Counter

AccuPoll DRE AVS-1000 v 2.5


Qualified with Contingency

Diebold AccuVote Optical Scan and Gems 1.118.24

Diebold AccuVote TSX DRE with printer module

ES&S/Unisyn InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counter

Sequoia AVC Edge with VeriVote


Qualified with a Disclaimer

Populex Digital Paper Ballot System

[leveymg]

7. How is paying a lobbying firm, even Abramoff's old shop, proof

that these electronic voting machine companies are doing anything other than just advancing their own interests?

Doesn't every damned industry do the same thing when Congressional appropriations and legislation determines the companies livelihood? Think of defense contractors, for instance.

A $12.5G retainer to a lobbying shop appears to be proof that Diebold's playing the game like everyone else.

Is there evidence that these methods are improper? Without proof of bribery or illegal dirty-tricks, this appears to be just more sleazy business as usual. You're performing a public service, regardless, by showing how these guys do business. That's far more than the MSM has done.

I thank you for looking into this, but there's a high burden of proof that has to be met to demonstrate voting fraud.

[galloglas]

8. Well, at the top of the string...

I first mentioned the tie had been established between Abramoff and a Missouri Senator's (Jim Talent) new finance director.

This seems important as Jim Talent was the only US Senator to have gotten funds from the New Hampshire GOP. Important, as Wilms pointed to in another thread, Talent seems tied to the "phone bank busting" operation that was recently reported in the Boston Globe.
It's not proof.
But, even if the axiom "where there's smoke, there is fire" is not always corect, one does look for fire when they see smoke. Abramoff's pleading to six counts this year is, I think, smoke.

that these electronic voting machine companies are doing anything other than just advancing their own interests?

It doesn't. Any more than it proves they are not.
Given Diebold's running from NC, being run out of CA and Leon County, FL, resignation of the CEO, shareholder law suits, etc., their own interests that they pay handsomely to have looked after, may not be the same as those who wish an honest vote.
Besides, any money spent to lobby for the machines is, ultimately, money from the public coffers.

Doesn't every damned industry do the same thing when Congressional appropriations and legislation determines the companies livelihood? Think of defense contractors, for instance.

I do. I think of Halliburton each time I think of Diebold. And, again,corporate interests do not parallel public interests. My vote is my vote... unless a machine steals it.

A $12.5G retainer to a lobbying shop appears to be proof that Diebold's playing the game like everyone else.

Possibly. But, if you had not taken notice, there has been a good deal of press lately about the negative effects of "playing the game like everyone else".
The primary phrase in use is "massive corruption". Indeed, Harding's tenure in office, by comparison, will have its scandal renamed "the Teapot Cupola Scandal".


Is there evidence that these methods are improper?

Yes, I think so.
Legal? Yes.
Improper? Hell, yes! Anything which corrupts the body politic is improper.

Without proof of bribery or illegal dirty-tricks, this appears to be just more sleazy business as usual.

As Abramoff has just pled guilty, and he continues to co-operate with the authorities, we will soon find out what there really is to know.

You're performing a public service, regardless, by showing how these guys do business. That's far more than the MSM has done.

Thank you.

I thank you for looking into this, but there's a high burden of proof that has to be met to demonstrate voting fraud.

Demonstrating fraud does have a high burden of proof.
On the other hand, there is more than one way to skin a cat. And the insertion of corporate entities with corporate agendas into the my voting franchise is not something I asked for nor want.
Consequently, the Urosevich brothers, and their ilk, will be skinned when a large enough percentage of the voting population say "No! It's not good enough!" and are willing to march into the streets shouting "Show Me The Vote!!"

[galloglas]

3. Before, apparently...

In "The Fast Fall and Steep Decline of Jack Abramoff" published by WaPo on 12-29-2005 (a true must read, BTW)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_pf.html

there are these three paragraphs in the middle.

Greenberg Traurig officials have said that they asked Abramoff to resign in March 2004 over unauthorized personal transactions. They have noted that they had no knowledge of his financial arrangement with Scanlon before they received inquiries from The Post.

However, two months before the firm requested Abramoff's resignation, Greenberg lawyers representing Abramoff in the SunCruz bankruptcy summoned Scanlon to the firm's Miami headquarters to ask about the relationship, according to two people close to Scanlon. Scanlon told them he had paid Abramoff $19 million out of the money he had received in public relations fees from tribal clients. Cesar L. Alvarez, president and chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, said the firm will not comment on any meeting with Scanlon.

By the spring of 2004, the Justice Department had launched an investigation of Abramoff and Scanlon that quickly developed into a multi-agency task force.

Additionally, he is reported to have signed on with Cassidy and Associates on 3/24.

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/craighead_hartley_abramoff_delay_blunt

BBV shows (in the below .pdf file) that the check was dated 6/30/04, whereas there is a reference number on the check that is dated 6/16/2004.

http://www.bbvdocs.org/moneytrail/greenberg.pdf

[leveymg]

4. Ok, Diebold wrote a $12.5G check to GT in June, 2004

Q: What do you think this implies?

[galloglas]

6. Implication should correspond to GT invoice.

The check was recovered by intrepid dumpster diving Kathleen Wynne of BBV from a Diebold location in Texas.

Given that the check references a vendor # G00549 and Ref. #1235166, one must assumed it was in exchange for some services rendered, no? Simply because GT is in the business of selling services... specifically, influence peddling.... I think this can be assumed.

Unless there is an ironclad paper trail to MDA for Jerry's kids (I doubt it), we need to find out what this money bought for Diebold; who's pocket it ultimately entered. Additonally, was this a monthly, or a one time, expenditure?

My thought is that GT was still receiving funds invoiced through Abramoff's efforts, or, has an on going relationship with Diebold that needs much explaining.

BTW, per the WaPo article,
"Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff's resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct ! which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business," spokeswoman Jill Perry said."

[Wilms]

9. kick

[Stevepol]

10. Galloglas this is a tremendous post!! Keep up the good work.