[Senate Report 109-325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




109th Congress 2d Session        SENATE                 Report
                                                       109-325
_______________________________________________________________________
 
        ``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS

                               ----------                              

                              FINAL REPORT

                               Before the

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                           SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

                               ----------                              





               September 5, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
        ``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS
109th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                          Report
                                                                109-325
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



        ``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS

                               __________

                              FINAL REPORT

                               Before the

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

                               __________


                               
                               

               September 5, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
              BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
                          INVESTIGATION STAFF

PABLO E. CARRILLO, Esq., Chief Investigative Counsel for the Majority
BRYAN D. PARKER, Esq., Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel for the
 Majority
JEANNE L. BUMPUS, Esq., Staff Director for the Majority
BRANDON I. ASHLEY, Staff Assistant for the Majority
KATHERINE B. ROSSI, Staff Assistant for the Majority
SARA G. GARLAND, Staff Director for the Minority
DAVID MONTES, Professional Staff for the Minority
EAMON P. WALSH, Research Assistant for the Minority
ALLISON C. BINNEY, Esq., General Counsel for the Minority
EMMETT M. O'KEEFE, Esq., Counsel for the Vice Chairman


A special thanks to the efforts and support of the entire staff of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs through the course of this 
investigation.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Investigation Staff..............................................   iii
Table of Names...................................................    ix
Table of Entities................................................  xiii
Investigation Hearings...........................................  xvii
Introduction.....................................................     1
Executive Summary and Findings...................................     7

                    PART ONE--FACT SUMMARY BY TRIBE

I. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians...........................    13
    A. Introduction..............................................    13
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................    14
    C. Background on Abramoff and the Tribe's Relationship--
      Building Trust and Confidence..............................    15
    D. Substantial Fees and Conduits--Setting the Stage for 
      Scanlon....................................................    18
    E. Abramoff Brings Scanlon to the Choctaw....................    24
    F. Abramoff Has the Choctaw Fund His Pet Projects............    27
        1. 2000 Scotland Golf Trip...............................    27
        2. Sports Suites.........................................    27
        3. Liberty Consulting Services, LLC......................    28
    G. Conclusion................................................    28
II. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.................................    31
    A. Introduction..............................................    31
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................    33
    C. Abramoff and Scanlon Get the Louisiana Coushatta's 
      Business...................................................    34
    D. Scanlon's Grassroots Projects for the Tribe...............    39
    E. Conclusion................................................    43
III. Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan..........................    45
    A. Introduction..............................................    45
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................    46
    C. Christopher Petras--Abramoff and Scanlon's Access to the 
      Tribe......................................................    47
    D. The ``Slate of Eight''--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan 
      Horse......................................................    48
    E. The Tribe Hires Abramoff and Scanlon......................    54
    F. Abramoff on Tribal Client Management--``keeping our people 
      in power''.................................................    58
    G. Christopher Petras' Hearing Testimony Is Not Credible.....    63
        1. Petras' Relationship With Abramoff and Scanlon........    63
        2. Problems With Petras' Testimony.......................    65
    H. Abramoff and Scanlon Privately Express Contempt for the 
      Tribe......................................................    68
    I. Conclusion................................................    70
IV. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.......................    73
    A. Introduction..............................................    73
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................    74
    C. Abramoff and Scanlon Offer the Promised Land..............    75
    D. Scanlon Works on C. Patencio and Siva's Election Campaigns    79
        1. Mail..................................................    81
        2. Door-to-Door..........................................    82
        3. Telephone.............................................    82
        4. Candidates' Meeting...................................    82
    E. C. Patencio and M. Patencio Pave the Way for Abramoff and 
      Scanlon....................................................    83
    F. Abramoff and Scanlon Seek Additional Money From the Tribe.    90
    G. Abramoff and Scanlon's Work for the Tribe.................    91
    H. 2003 Tribal Elections.....................................    93
    I. Chapman and Sierra Dominion Consulting....................    94
        1. Payments to Chapman...................................    94
        2. Payments to Sierra Dominion...........................    98
    J. Conclusion................................................    99
V. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Tigua).................................   101
    A. Introduction..............................................   101
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................   102
    C. Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed Work Against the Tigua........   103
    D. Abramoff and Scanlon Seek the Tribe's Money...............   106
    E. Secrecy and Contributions.................................   114
    F. Abramoff and His Colleagues Set the Plan in Motion in the 
      House......................................................   115
    G. Scanlon Purportedly Sets the Plan in Motion in the Senate.   117
    H. Things Begin To Unravel...................................   120
    I. Abramoff Asks the Tigua To Finance a Golfing Junket to 
      Scotland...................................................   121
    J. The Tribe Meets With Congressman Ney......................   123
    K. Election Reform Passes Without the Tigua Provision........   125
    L. The Elder Legacy Project..................................   127
    M. Abramoff and Scanlon Attempt To Obstruct the Investigation   127
    N. Conclusion................................................   128
VI. Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico...............................   129
    A. Introduction..............................................   129
    B. Background on the Tribe...................................   129
    C. The Search for a New Lobbyist.............................   130
    D. Implementing the Plan.....................................   132
    E. The Database..............................................   134
    F. A Happy Ending, in Spite of ..............................   136

              PART TWO--``GIMME FIVE''--ANALYSIS BY ENTITY

Introduction.....................................................   137
I. Capitol Campaign Strategies...................................   141
    A. Background................................................   142
    B. Abramoff Conceals His Financial Relationship With Scanlon.   143
    C. Abramoff Induces the Tribes Into Hiring and Paying Scanlon   145
    D. What Happened to the Money That the Tribes Paid Scanlon?..   149
        1. Snapshots of CCS' Representation of the Tribes........   149
            a. Transaction #1 (Miscellaneous)--Huge Profit 
              Margins............................................   150
            b. Transaction #2 (August 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta 
              and Agua Caliente Pay CCS a Total of $5,000,000....   152
            c. Transaction #3 (October 2001-January 2002)--
              Louisiana Coushatta Pays CCS $2,170,000............   153
            d. Transaction #4 (January-April 2002)--Several 
              Tribes Pay CCS Over $22,000,000....................   157
            e. Transaction #5 (October 16, 2002)--Louisiana 
              Coushatta Pays CCS $950,000 and the Agua Caliente 
              Pays $1,745,000 to CCS.............................   161
            f. Transaction #6 (January-March 2003)--Louisiana 
              Coushatta Pays CCS $5,000,000......................   163
        2. The ``Database''......................................   165
            a. The Pitch.........................................   165
            b. The Facts.........................................   171
        3. CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots Organizations.......   174
    E. Conclusion................................................   177
II. American International Center................................   179
    A. Introduction..............................................   179
    B. A Day at the Beach--How AIC Was Started...................   180
    C. Making It Look Real--Abramoff Has AIC Post a Website......   183
    D. How Abramoff and Scanlon Used Conduits To Represent the 
      Tribes.....................................................   187
    E. AIC as a ``Gimme Five'' Entity............................   191
    F. Conclusion................................................   193
III. Capital Athletic Foundation.................................   195
    A. Introduction..............................................   195
    B. General Background on CAF.................................   196
    C. Abramoff Attempts To Secure Federal Funding for CAF, and 
      Fails......................................................   197
    D. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Tribal Funds for CAF 
      Seed Money in 2001.........................................   198
        1. Abramoff and Scanlon Divert Louisiana Coushatta Money 
          to CAF.................................................   198
        2. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2001................   201
    E. In 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon Scam Other Tribes Into 
      Paying Into CAF............................................   203
        1. Abramoff Deceives the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe 
          Into Partially Funding a Golfing Trip to Scotland--June 
          Through November 2002..................................   203
        2. Abramoff and Scanlon Deceive the Mississippi Band of 
          Choctaw Indians Into Sending $1 Million to CAF--January 
          and August 2002........................................   206
        3. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Another $1 Million 
          From the Choctaw--October 2002.........................   209
        4. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2002................   212
    F. In 2003, Abramoff Funnels Tribal Money Through Conduits to 
      CAF........................................................   219
        1. Kaygold Sends Tribal Funds to CAF.....................   219
        2. Abramoff and Scanlon Use ARA as a Conduit To Funnel 
          Louisiana Coushatta Funds to CAF.......................   219
        3. Abramoff's Use of CAF Funds in 2003...................   222
    G. Conclusion................................................   223

                           PART THREE--OTHER

I. Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.............   225
    A. Background................................................   225
        1. Abramoff Has His Tribal Clients Pay CREA..............   226
        2. Federici Promises To Help Abramoff in Exchange for, or 
          Because of, CREA Contributions.........................   229
    B. Abramoff and Federici Start Working Together..............   230
    C. Contributions in Exchange for Access?.....................   233
    D. What Did Federici Do for Abramoff at Interior?............   236
    E. What, if Anything, Griles Did for Abramoff's Clients Is 
      Unclear....................................................   239
    F. Conclusion................................................   244

                       PART FOUR--RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Introduction..................................................   247
B. Contracting for Legal, Lobbying and Other Professional 
  Services.......................................................   247
    1. No New or Revised Federal Legislation Needed..............   247
    2. Best Practices Recommendations............................   247
        a. Contracting for legal, lobbying and other services 
          should follow a specific, open and competitive process.   248
        b. Contracting rules should be structured to prevent 
          conflicts of interest..................................   248
        c. Contracting and conflict of interests rules should 
          include appropriate sanctions..........................   249
        d. Tribes should consider working with tribal 
          organizations and educational institutions to develop 
          model codes and education programs addressing 
          contracting and conflicts of interests.................   249
C. Integrity of Tribal Elections.................................   249
D. Tribal Political Contributions................................   250
E. Referrals to Other Committees.................................   251
    1. Possible Misuse of Tax Exempt Organizations...............   251

                            PART FIVE--VIEWS

I. Additional Views of Senator Daniel K. Inouye..................   253
    A. Introduction..............................................   253
    B. Discussion................................................   253

                           PART SIX--EXHIBITS

I. Appendix One (Dated Exhibits).................................   255
    A. Pre-2001 Exhibits.........................................   255
    B. 2001 Exhibits.............................................   285
    C. 2002 Exhibits.............................................   423
    D. 2003 Exhibits.............................................   831
    E. 2004 Exhibits.............................................  1044
II. Appendix Two (Undated Exhibits)..............................  1107
III. Appendix Three (Documents Transmitted to Senate Finance 
  Committee).....................................................  1278
                             TABLE OF NAMES

Abramoff, Jack: former lobbyist, Greenberg Traurig; Preston 
Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.

Baggett, Fred: Chair, National Governmental Affairs Practice, 
Greenberg Traurig.

Ben Zvi, Shmuel: former high-school friend of Abramoff.

Benn, Charlie: Director of Administration, Office of the Chief, 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Biederman, Amy: former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

Boulanger, Todd: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Bozniak, Allison: former assistant to Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig.

Cathcart, Christopher: former associate, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies.

Chapman, Michael: former business associate of Abramoff and 
Scanlon.

Doolittle, Julie: president, Sierra Dominion Financial 
Solutions.

Federici, Italia: president, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy.

Griles, J. Steven: former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of 
the Interior.

Grosh, David: former director, American International Center.

Halpern, Gail: former tax advisor to Abramoff.

Hisa, Carlos: Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of 
Texas.

Kahgegab, Maynard: former Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Kilgore, Donald: Attorney General, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians.

Kuhn, Jennifer: vice-president, Finance and Development, 
Americans for Tax Reform.

Lane, Rodney: former assistant to Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig; 
former business associate of Abramoff.

Lapin, Rabbi Daniel: president, Toward Tradition.

Lippy, Laura: assistant to Abramoff.

Mann, Brian: former director, American International Center.

Martin, Phillip: Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Martin, Terry: Governmental Affairs/Administrative Liaison, 
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana.

McConnon, BR: president, Democracy Data & Communications.

Mielke, David: outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia.

Milanovich, Richard: Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians.

Norquist, Grover: president, Americans for Tax Reform.

Norton, Gale: former Secretary, U.S. Department of the 
Interior.

Otto, David: former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Paisano, Stuwart: former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia.

Pego, Robert: former council member, Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe.

Petras, Christopher: former legislative director, Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Patencio, Candace: former council member, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians.

Reed, Ralph: president, Century Strategies.

Ridenour, Amy: president, National Center for Public Policy 
Research.

Ring, Kevin: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Rogers, Nell: planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Rossetti, Michael: former Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior.

Scanlon, Michael: president, Capitol Campaign Strategies; 
Scanlon Public Affairs; Scanlon Gould Public Affairs; American 
International Center; Principal, Atlantic Research & Analysis.

Schwartz, Marc: president, Partners Group Consultants; former 
spokesperson, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas.

Short, Stephanie Leger: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Sickey, David: Council member, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

Sickey, Kevin: Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

Siva, Virginia: Tribal Council member, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians.

Smith, Michael: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Sprague, Bernie: Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Stetter, Aaron: former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

Van Hoof, Kathryn: former outside counsel, Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana.

van Horne, Jon: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Vasell, Shawn: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Volz, Neil: former associate, Greenberg Traurig; former chief 
of staff, U.S. Congressman Robert W. Ney.

Worfel, William: former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana.
                           TABLE OF ENTITIES

                Entities Owned or Controlled by Abramoff

Aeneas Enterprises: a consulting firm that received payments 
from another Abramoff controlled entity called Grassroots 
Interactive, which did business with, among others, Tyco 
International and International Interactive Alliance.

Archives: a company that owned Stacks, formerly a kosher deli 
located in Washington, DC.

Beis Avrohom Chaim: a company used to acquire real estate.

Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''): a charitable foundation 
used to fund Abramoff's private Jewish boys' school, called the 
Eshkol Academy, and other projects with which he was in some 
way associated.

Eshkol Academy: See Capital Athletic Foundation, supra.

Grassroots Interactive (``GRI''): See Aeneas Enterprises, 
supra.

Kaygold: a company used to collect ``consulting fees'' from 
entities owned or controlled by Scanlon.

Lexington Group: a company that performed lobbying-type 
services.

Livsar Enterprises: a company that owned Signatures, formerly a 
restaurant-bar located in Washington, DC.

Sports Suites: a company that leased, with money provided by 
some of Abramoff's Tribal clients, sky boxes at sports and 
concert venues in Washington, DC and Baltimore, Maryland.

                Entities Owned or Controlled by Scanlon

American International Center (``AIC''): a supposed think tank 
used to collect money for services performed by others and to 
secretly pay money to Abramoff.

Atlantic Research and Analysis (``ARA''): a company used to 
secretly pay money to Abramoff.

Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS''): a grassroots/political 
consulting firm that secretly paid money to Abramoff.

Christian Action Network: a fictitious grassroots organization.

Christian Research Network: a fictitious grassroots 
organization.

Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion (``CCAGE''): a 
fictitious grassroots organization.

Global Christian Outreach Network (``GCON''): a fictitious 
grassroots organization.

Scanlon Capital Management: a company used to invest money.

Scanlon Gould Public Affairs: a grassroots/political consulting 
firm that secretly paid money to Abramoff.

Scanlon Venture Capital: a company used to invest money.

                                 Other

Alexander Strategies Group (``ASG''): a consulting firm owned 
or controlled by former Congressman Tom DeLay's former chief of 
staff Ed Buckham to or through which Abramoff or Scanlon 
directed their Tribal clients to pay money.

Americans for Tax Reform (``ATR''): a non-profit anti-tax 
organization headed by conservative activist Grover Norquist to 
or through which Abramoff or Scanlon directed their Tribal 
clients to pay money.

Capitol Media: a grassroots/political consulting firm owned or 
controlled by former Christian Coalition Executive Director 
Ralph Reed.

Century Strategies: a grassroots/political consulting firm 
owned or controlled by former Christian Coalition Executive 
Director Ralph Reed.

Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA''): 
an environmental non-profit organization to or through which 
Abramoff or Scanlon directed their Tribal clients to pay money.

Democracy Data and Communications (``DDC''): a firm that built, 
operated and maintained political databases for Scanlon and his 
Tribal clients.

Greenberg Traurig (``GT''): a lobbying firm with which Abramoff 
was associated during the relevant period.

Kollel Ohel Tiferet: an entity used to enable the CAF to 
distribute money to a sniper workshop in Israel.

Liberty Consulting: a consulting firm owned or controlled by 
former Congressman Tom DeLay's former deputy chief of staff 
Tony Rudy to or through which Abramoff or Scanlon directed some 
of their Tribal clients to pay money.

National Center for Public Policy Research (``NCPPR''): a non-
profit educational foundation on whose board Abramoff sat, to 
or through which he or Scanlon directed some of their Tribal 
clients to pay money.
                         INVESTIGATION HEARINGS

                             First Hearing

    Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al., 
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 9:30 am, Room 216 of the Hart 
Senate Office Building.
    Panel One--Mr. Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist, Greenberg 
Traurig, and Mr. Michael Scanlon, president, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies. Mr. Scanlon was invited, but did not appear before 
the Committee on this date.
    Panel Two--The Honorable Richard Milanovich, Chairman, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and The Honorable Bernie 
Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
    Panel Three--Dr. Christopher Petras, former legislative 
director, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

                             Second Hearing

    Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al., 
Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 3:00 pm, Room 216 of the Hart 
Senate Office Building.
    Panel One--Mr. Marc Schwartz, president, Marc Schwartz 
Partners and The Honorable Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
    Panel Two--Mr. Michael Scanlon, president, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies.

                             Third Hearing

    Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al., 
Wednesday, June 22, 2005, 9:30 am, Room 216 of the Hart Senate 
Office Building.
    Panel One--Mr. Charlie Benn, Director of Administration, 
Office of the Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; 
Donald Kilgore, Esq., Attorney General, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians; and Ms. Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band 
of Choctaw Indians.
    Panel Two--Mr. Kevin Ring, former Abramoff associate and 
Mr. Shawn Vassell, former Abramoff associate.
    Panel Three--Mrs. Amy Ridenour, president, National Center 
for Public Policy Research; Ms. Gail Halpern, Abramoff's former 
tax advisor; Mr. Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center; Mr. David Grosh, former director, 
American International Center; and Mr. Aaron Stetter, former 
Scanlon associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

                             Fourth Hearing

    Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al., 
Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 9:00 am, Room 216 of the Hart 
Senate Office Building.
    Panel One--The Honorable Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana and Mr. David Sickey, Tribal Council Member, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.
    Panel Two--Mr William Worfel, former Tribal Council member, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Mrs. Kathryn Van Hoof, former 
outside counsel, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and Mr. Fred 
Baggett, managing shareholder; Chair, National Governmental 
Affairs Practice, Greenberg Traurig.
    Panel Three--Mr. B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications; Mr. Christopher Cathcart, former associate, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies; and Ms. Gail Halpern, Abramoff's 
former tax advisor.
    Panel Four--Mr. J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, 
U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Michael Rossetti, Esq., 
former counsel to the Secretary of the Interior, U.S. 
Department of the Interior; and Ms. Italia Federici, president, 
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Ms. Federici 
was invited, but did not appear before the Committee on this 
date.

                             Fifth Hearing

    Oversight Hearing on In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al., 
Wednesday, November 17, 2005, 10:00 am, Room 216 of the Hart 
Senate Office Building.
    Panel One--Ms. Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.
                              INTRODUCTION

        Etched in the history of our great nation is a long and 
        lamentable chapter about the exploitation of Native 
        Americans. It began with the sale of Manhattan, and has 
        continued ever since. Every kind of charlatan and every 
        type of crook has deceived and exploited America's 
        native sons and daughters. While these accounts of 
        unscrupulous men are sadly familiar, the tale we hear 
        today is not. What sets this tale apart, what makes it 
        truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the 
        apparent exploitation and deceit.

    Opening Statement of then-Committee Ranking Majority Member 
John McCain, during the Committee's September 29, 2004, hearing 
on allegations made by Tribes against Jack Abramoff and Michael 
Scanlon

        [J]ust speaking as an enrolled member of an Indian 
        tribe, not the chairman of this committee, I have to 
        tell you that for 400 years people have been cheating 
        Indians in this country, so you're not the first one, 
        Mr. Scanlon. It's just a shame that in this enlightened 
        day that you have added a new dimension to a shameful 
        legacy of what's happened to American Indians. You're 
        the problem, buddy, of what's happened to American 
        Indians.

    Closing remarks of then-Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 
during the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing on 
allegations made by Tribes against Jack Abramoff and Michael 
Scanlon

        [It] [n]eeds to have a bit more about how the tribes in 
        the past were left helpless at the whims and good will 
        of non-tribal members. Some reference to the past and 
        how they were always given the [short] end of the stick 
        would be pretty important, I think.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Todd Boulanger, 
February 26, 2004 (critiquing draft letter intended for The 
Washington Post and Senate Indian Affairs Committee regarding 
Committee investigation)

        Yes, I did wrong, but I did a hell of a lot right too. 
        Basically, I was the best thing they had going. I knew 
        it, they knew it. My mistake was not informing them 
        (about Scanlon).

    Jack Abramoff to contributing editor David Margolick, 
Vanity Fair, ``Washington's Invisible Man,'' April 2006

                           Factual Background

    On the afternoon of June 18, 2001, in Washington, D.C., 
racquetball was the order of the day.\1\ Having brought former 
congressional communications director Michael Scanlon with him 
to the lobbying shop at Greenberg Traurig for what ended up as 
a brief stint, Jack Abramoff wanted to get together with 
Scanlon for a round.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011945) (June 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, Scanlon, who was now out on his own, wanted to talk 
shop: ``A few weeks ago you mentioned something to me--I took 
the concept and have put together a plan that will make serious 
money. We also talked briefly about it in the beginning of the 
year but I think we can really move it now.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon went on to describe ``the broad strokes'': ``I have 
been making contacts with some larger Public Affairs companies 
in town for a few months. I have two solid relationships that 
will seriously consider acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies. 
The problem is that there is not much in CCS right now.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``However,'' he continued, ``if we build up Capitol 
Campaign Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large 
firm by the end of next year at 3x [sic] the firm revenue. 
Bottom line: If you help me get CCS a client base of $3 million 
a year, I will get the clients served, and the firm acquired at 
$9 million. We can then split the [sic] up the profits. What do 
you think?'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's response was brief: ``Sounds like a plan, but 
let's discuss when we are together.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This appears to be the genesis of a partnership the two 
would later infamously label as ``gimme five''--their secret 
plan ``to put in $5[million] revenue/yr [in fees from tribes, 
into] CCS.'' \6\ Later, the term ``gimme five'' came to mean 
kickbacks to Abramoff from payments made by any of Scanlon's 
Tribal clients to Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane 
(GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By Spring 2003, Abramoff and Scanlon's secret financial 
arrangement was apparently straining. The two had failed to get 
a Tribal client's casino reopened. And Scanlon, apparently 
awash in cash, seemed to have outgrown the partnership and 
appeared more interested in putting his ill-gotten gains to 
work.
    He offered Abramoff, ``I have a few real estate 
developments in the pipeline--One really big one--and a couple 
of small ones that I may need to raise outside capital for. I 
can guarantee the returns on rate and time, and if you wanted 
to do more down the road taking a run at the upside potential 
you could get into some of the longer term stuff ... (I'm 
turning a 100% return on a one year project next month).'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012012) (March 25, 2003). 
Scanlon might have been referring to his resale of an expensive five-
bedroom canal-front home near Rehoboth, Delaware, he had bought in 
November 2001, apparently with Tribal proceeds, in one of that area's 
most prestigious neighborhoods--reportedly for $1,200,000 more that he 
paid. See Cris Barrish, Abramoff cohort spent millions on Sussex 
homes--As a Rehoboth lifeguard last year, he made $11.35 an hour, The 
News Journal, May 14, 2006. Early in 2003, Scanlon also reportedly paid 
$1,600,000 in cash for a home on Baltimore Avenue (across the street 
from where he ran his supposed international think tank, the American 
International Center) where he later opened offices. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``OK, let's chat when we are next 
together. Meanwhile, let's get some more fucking money!'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-000012012) (March 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Making money was certainly nothing new to Abramoff. When he 
left the premier Washington, D.C. offices of the lobbying firm 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds in December 2000 for a 
relatively new Washington lobbying group at Greenberg Traurig, 
Abramoff brought with him a book of business worth more than $6 
million annually, according to Abramoff's own estimates.\9\ 
This helped Greenberg Traurig generate a 500 percent increase 
in lobbying fees over the previous year.\10\ With that 
increase, Greenberg Traurig reportedly vaulted into the top ten 
Washington lobbying firms--jumping from sixteenth place to 
fourth.\11\ While Abramoff's impact on ``K Street'' \12\ during 
this period is generally well-known, the precise nature of his 
relationship with Scanlon has been, until recently, a closely-
held secret--concealed, most importantly from Abramoff and 
Scanlon's Tribal clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ John Bresnahan, Jack Doubles Down, Washington Business Forward, 
November/December 2002 (citing estimates provided by Abramoff).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ ``K Street'' is a commonly used term for the numerous think 
tanks, lobbying firms, law firms and associations located on and around 
this major thoroughfare in Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By February 5, 2004, time was running out for Abramoff and 
Scanlon's secret business arrangement. In a conference room at 
Greenberg Traurig, Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt 
interviewed Abramoff on allegations that he and Scanlon may 
have bilked several Tribes out of millions of dollars in 
fees.\13\ With Abramoff were Greenberg Traurig spokesperson 
Jill Perry and associates Todd Boulanger, Kevin Ring, Allen 
Foster, and Jon van Horne.\14\ Things apparently heated-up 
quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010599-614) (February 3, 2004) 
(embedding transcript of Abramoff interview with Schmidt).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt began, ``As I'm sure you know I'm working on a 
story about your work with some of these gaming tribes and your 
relationship with Mike Scanlon and his company and the work 
that the two of you have done in tandem for some of the tribes 
and so that's what I want to talk to you about ... So, I want 
to ask you, basically what your relationship is with his firm, 
well he's got several firms. As I understand it from the tribes 
that I've talked to, you guys work together and you recommend 
that they hire him.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff deftly answered--truthfully but non-responsively: 
``In terms of Mike or any other third party, you know the firm 
does not have any formal relationship, to my knowledge, with 
any third party vendor used by any of the tribes for some of 
their activities and so probably best to have you go ahead and 
check directly with him and if you have specific questions 
again, we'll take them and we'll look at them, but in general I 
think we feel at liberty to discuss in general our practice, 
which we're delighted to do, with the tribes.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt pushed: ``Okay, but you basically recommend to 
these tribes that they hire him?'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once again, Abramoff strained to avoid answering the 
question, but was quickly running out of wiggle room: ``We have 
recommended that different tribes hire different vendors for 
different needs that they might have. Again, I'm going to defer 
in terms of any discussion of Scanlon or his company or any 
specific third party vendor.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt pushed more: ``Well, do you recommend his company 
and do you know what they are doing for the tribes and do you 
endorse what he's doing?'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff offered, ``Well, again I think that some of this 
gets into the area of our confidential dealings with our 
clients so I'm happy, we'll go back and look at that 
question.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt finally cut to the chase: ``Do you have an 
ownership stake in Capitol Campaign Strategies or Scanlon Gould 
or any of Mike Scanlon's other ventures?'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even a pregnant pause here might be looked on with some 
suspicion. So, Abramoff had no choice: ``No. No, I don't. ...'' 
\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As future events would soon reveal, this of course was a 
lie.
    Perhaps mindful of his actual financial arrangement with 
Scanlon, which he withheld from Schmidt, Abramoff was very 
concerned about how the interview went. Among others, he wrote 
to Candace Patencio, an ally at the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians.\23\ The next race for Chairman was the topic 
of conversation. Abramoff wrote, ``I think you are right that 
we really need Richard [Milanovich] to beat [his opponent]. 
[His opponent] is poison. She has been feeding The Washington 
Post a hit piece about Scanlon and me. It's going to be 
horrible. It is so obvious it's her doing this too. Can't wait 
to see you on the 23rd.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente of Cauhilla Band (GTG-E000057926) (February 3, 
2004).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A couple of days later, on February 5, 2004, Abramoff's 
most senior associate, Todd Boulanger reached out to Abramoff 
and colleague Kevin Ring: ``Someone on the [Saginaw Chippewa 
Tribal] council trashed us, our work, and [S]canlon ... We are 
going to get smoked here.'' \25\ He added, ``[Abramoff] should 
[file suit for slander] ... after what happe[n]ed a couple of 
months ago. We are dead.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000028537) (February 5, 2004).
    \26\ Id. (ellipses in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likely appreciating that the thrust of the pending Post 
story was true, Abramoff could only offer, ``Where are you 
now?'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boulanger answered, ``Going to bed. I'm really [sic] in a 
terrible mood.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff could only reply, ``Me too.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Conduct of the Investigation and the Report

    On February 22, 2004, The Washington Post published 
Schmidt's article, entitled ``A Jackpot From Indian Gaming 
Tribes; Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years.'' 
Based on the allegations of misconduct made by several Tribes 
documented in the Post article, then-Chairman Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, authorized 
then-Ranking Majority Member John McCain to conduct an 
investigation of these matters. Following Senator Campbell's 
retirement at the end of the 108th Congress, Senator McCain 
continued the investigation during the 109th Congress, as 
Chairman of the Committee. Ultimately, the Committee examined 
Abramoff and Scanlon's dealings with six tribes: the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas 
and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico.
    While a Department of Justice task force reportedly began a 
parallel inquiry into related matters, the Committee sought to 
answer several questions, including but not limited to the 
following: (1) are the Tribes' allegations of misconduct 
regarding Abramoff and Scanlon true; (2) if so, how much did 
those Tribes pay Abramoff and Scanlon's partnership, as well as 
third-parties at their direction, as a result of that 
misconduct; and (3) did those Tribes receive the intended 
benefit of the tens of millions of dollars that they paid 
Scanlon and Abramoff. With this Report, the Committee attempts 
to set forth definitive conclusions and the bases for those 
conclusions regarding each of those areas, and others.
    After an intensive two-year investigation--consisting of 
five hearings, 70 formal requests for documents, including 
subpoenas, resulting in the production of about 750,000 pages; 
and about 60 depositions and witness interviews, \30\ the 
Committee found that, as Scanlon's secret partner, Abramoff 
received about half of the profit that Scanlon collected from 
the $66 million in fees he obtained from six of his Tribal 
clients from 2001 through 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Where witnesses whom the Committee interviewed were not put 
under oath, they were reminded of the applicability of the False 
Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001, and the federal criminal statute 
prohibiting the obstruction of congressional investigations, under 18 
U.S.C. sec. 1505. Because all witness interviews and depositions were 
conducted in executive session, the Committee will not release 
summaries or transcripts of those proceedings in toto unless said 
release is duly authorized.
    In the course of the Committee's investigation, several witnesses 
declined to provide the Committee with important information under 
oath, citing their right against self-incrimination under the Fifth 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or indicated that they intended to 
assert their Fifth Amendment right if called to testify. These 
witnesses include not only Abramoff and Scanlon but also former 
Abramoff associates Todd Boulanger, Kevin Ring, Shawn Vassell, and Neil 
Volz as well as former Scanlon associate Christopher Cathcart. Cathcart 
did, however, submit to several informal interviews with staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Principally, this Report focuses on allegations of 
misconduct made by the covered Tribes. Generally, those 
allegations relate to the activities of entities owned or 
controlled by Abramoff and/or Scanlon, including Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, the American International Center and the 
Capital Athletic Foundation. This Report also addresses 
payments that those Tribes made at Abramoff or Scanlon's 
direction to particular third parties--payments that were 
apparently used by third parties, like the Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, for purposes unintended 
by the Tribes. While some of the Tribes have expressed concern 
about discreet billing anomalies, those Tribes have generally 
not alleged wrongdoing arising from the federal lobbying 
activities of Greenberg Traurig, the firm with which Abramoff 
was associated. Therefore, this Report does not address those 
activities.
    Also beyond the scope of this Report is an in depth 
discussion of the internal political or organizational 
conditions within each of the Tribes that may have rendered 
them susceptible to exploitation by Abramoff and Scanlon. Those 
are internal Tribal matters.
    Part I of this Report, presented in chapters relating to 
each Tribe, provides the factual background as to how each 
Tribe came to hire Abramoff and Scanlon and discusses how 
Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of those Tribes caused 
unique harm to each of them. After these chapters, the Report 
explicates Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' arrangement 
and how it injured the Tribes generally. Each chapter in Part 
II addresses these issues by focusing on the relevant ``gimme 
five'' entity. Part III of this Report discusses ancillary 
issues that have arisen during the course of the investigation, 
namely, the Tribes' payment of money to a non-profit called the 
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA''). 
Finally, Part IV of the Report contains the Committee's 
recommendations flowing from its investigation.

                            Committee Action

    On June 12, 2006, the Committee invited Members and any 
duly designated staff to review a completed draft of the Report 
in anticipation of a business meeting to be convened for the 
purpose of voting the Report out of Committee and filing it 
with the Senate. It also gave Members the opportunity to accept 
a confidential copy of the draft in their offices on June 20, 
2006. On June 22, 2006, the Committee held a business meeting, 
at which time it voted 13 to 0 to approve this Report and file 
it with the Senate. Voting with the majority were Senators 
McCain, Dorgan, Domenici, Thomas, Smith, Murkowski, Crapo, 
Burr, Coburn, Conrad, Akaka, Johnson, Cantwell. No Members 
voted in the negative. Senator Inouye submitted additional 
views.
                     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

    After (or at the same time when) several Tribes hired 
Abramoff as their federal lobbyist, Abramoff urged some of them 
to hire Scanlon to provide grassroots support. Abramoff, 
however, failed to disclose that he and Scanlon were partners. 
Evidence obtained over the course of a two-year investigation 
indicates that Abramoff and Scanlon had agreed to secretly 
split, between themselves, fees that the Tribes paid Scanlon 
from 2001 through 2003. Abramoff and Scanlon referred to this 
arrangement as ``gimme five.''
    As a general proposition, the scheme involved the 
following: getting each of the Tribes to hire Scanlon as their 
grassroots specialist; dramatically overcharging them for 
grassroots and related activities; setting aside for themselves 
an unconscionable percentage of what the Tribes paid at a 
grossly inflated rate--a rate wholly unrelated to the actual 
cost of services provided; and using the remaining fraction to 
reimburse scores of vendors that could help them maintain vis-
a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of competence. One 
example of this fee-splitting arrangement arises from a payment 
of $1,900,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan. On 
or about July 9, 2002, Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``800 for 
you[,] 800 for me[,] 250 for the effort the other 50 went to 
the plane and misc expenses. We both have an additional 500 
coming when they pay the next phasem [sic].'' Indeed, on July 
12, 2002, after that payment arrived, Scanlon made three 
payments to Abramoff, including a payment of $800,000.
    In some cases, Abramoff and Scanlon obtained lobbying and 
grassroots contracts by insinuating themselves into Tribal 
Council elections and assisting with the campaigns of 
candidates who were calculated to support their proposals. In 
other cases, Abramoff and Scanlon were even more aggressive, 
for example, helping to shut down the casino of one Tribe, only 
to pitch their services--for millions of dollars--to help that 
same, now desperate Tribe reopen its casino.
    Typically, the most expensive element of Scanlon's 
proposals to the Tribes related to a purportedly elaborate 
political database. But, in all cases, it appears that the 
degree to which Scanlon marked-up his actual costs was 
unconscionable. For example, while Scanlon told the Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana that their ``political'' database would cost 
$1,345,000, he ended up paying the vendor that actually 
developed, operated and maintained that database about 
$104,560. The dramatic mark-ups were intended to accommodate 
Scanlon's secret 50/50 split with Abramoff.
    In total, six tribes paid Scanlon's companies, in 
particular a company called Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(``CCS'') (which also did business as Scanlon Gould Public 
Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs), at least $66,000,000 over 
the three-year period. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe 
paid CCS as follows: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw''), $14,745,650; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
(``Louisiana Coushatta''), $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa 
Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw Chippewa''), $10,007,000; the Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''), 
$7,200,000; the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), 
$4,200,000; and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of 
Sandia''), $2,750,000. Of that $66,000,000, Abramoff secretly 
collected from Scanlon, through (among other entities) an 
entity called Kaygold, about $24,000,000. This constituted 
about one-half of Scanlon's total profit from the Tribes.
    The $66,000,000 figure includes only those payments made by 
the Tribes to Scanlon for grassroots activities. The total cost 
of doing business with Abramoff and Scanlon was actually much 
higher. To determine that cost, one must add to the $66,000,000 
figure, payments made by the Tribes to the lobbying firms with 
which Abramoff was associated and payments made by the Tribes 
directly to other entities owned or controlled by Abramoff, 
such as the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), or by 
Scanlon, such as the American International Center 
(``AIC'').\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ According to records in the Committee's possession, two of 
Abramoff's Tribal clients made payments to the AIC: the Choctaw, 
$2,655,654 and the Coushatta, $3,653,200. So, the total that all of 
Abramoff's Tribal clients paid the AIC was $6,308,854. During the 
relevant period, Scanlon paid Abramoff through the AIC a total of 
$991,000 and an additional $950,000 through another entity that he 
controlled, called Atlantic Research & Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most of the money that the Tribes paid Scanlon appears to 
have been used by Scanlon and Abramoff for purely personal 
purposes--purposes unintended by the Tribes. Generally, 
Abramoff seems to have used his share of the proceeds he 
received from Scanlon to float his restaurant ventures and, 
through CAF, operate his Jewish boys' school in Maryland. 
Likewise, Scanlon seems to have used his share to purchase real 
estate and other investments. The Committee, therefore, finds 
that most of the Tribes received little of the intended benefit 
for the significant sums they paid to Scanlon and that most of 
the money paid by the Tribes was used for purposes unintended 
by the Tribes. Against that backdrop, understanding under what 
circumstances the Tribes paid Scanlon becomes important.
    Probably Abramoff's most valued Tribal client was the 
Choctaw. Since 1995, when the Choctaw first hired Abramoff, a 
history of dramatic victories emerged, with Abramoff 
successfully advocating the Tribe's sovereignty and anti-tax 
interests before Congress. In many instances, Abramoff had the 
Tribe use conduits to conceal its grassroots activities from 
the world--activities often conducted by former Christian 
Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed. After this history of 
success, in early 2001, things changed. Following Abramoff's 
guidance, the Tribe hired Scanlon. And, to implement its 
grassroots strategies, the Tribe, at Abramoff and Scanlon's 
direction, paid to or through conduits owned or controlled by 
Abramoff and Scanlon. As an example of how much Scanlon sought 
from the Choctaw, he had the Tribe pay him $4,500,000 for 
efforts related to a single program--a grandiose idea Scanlon 
called ``Operation Orange.'' During the relevant period, 
Abramoff manipulated the Tribe into funding, among other 
things, a much reported golfing trip to Scotland. The Tribe 
thought that its money, which it paid to a non-profit on whose 
board Abramoff sat, would be used for anti-tax and other policy 
work. At the end of the day, having collected about $15,000,000 
from the Choctaw during the relevant period, Scanlon secretly 
kicked back to Abramoff about $6,364,000--about 50 percent of 
his total profit from the Tribe.
    Specifically citing the work he had done for the Choctaw, 
Abramoff subsequently secured contracts for himself and Scanlon 
from the Louisiana Coushatta. Regrettably, of all the Tribes 
that hired Scanlon, the Louisiana Coushatta ended up paying 
Scanlon the most. Initially, the Tribe hired Scanlon to help 
with its compact renegotiations with the State of Louisiana. 
But, after having successfully done so, Scanlon dramatically 
expanded his scope of work, which ranged from squelching 
supposedly ubiquitous threats to the Tribal casino's customer 
market share to supposedly getting the ``right'' candidates 
elected to the Louisiana State Legislature. To its detriment, 
the Tribe trusted Abramoff and Scanlon's expertise in Indian 
gaming and were captured by their lure of making the Coushatta 
``the Choctaw of Louisiana.'' Accordingly, it deferred to 
Abramoff and Scanlon's judgment when they recommended that it 
fund very expensive grassroots campaigns. Ultimately, having 
collected about $30,000,000 from the Louisiana Coushatta during 
the relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff 
about $11,450,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from 
the Tribe. This includes a payment of $1,000,000 that Abramoff 
and Scanlon manipulated the Tribe into paying to Abramoff's 
private charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF'').
    Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts to sign on the Saginaw 
Chippewa and the Agua Caliente as clients are notable. With 
both Tribes, Abramoff and Scanlon insinuated themselves into 
Tribal Council elections to maximize their chance of getting 
hired afterwards. In particular, they provided, among other 
things, strategic advice and material support to some of the 
candidates. Those who ran in the Saginaw Chippewa election 
called themselves the ``Slate of 8.'' The weight of evidence 
obtained by the Committee indicates that, in both the Saginaw 
Chippewa and Agua Caliente cases, those candidates who were 
elected to the Council with Abramoff and Scanlon's assistance 
ultimately supported Abramoff and Scanlon's contract proposals 
because of, or in exchange for, the assistance that Abramoff 
and Scanlon provided them.
    Key to Abramoff and Scanlon's success in getting contracts 
with the Saginaw Chippewa and the Agua Caliente was the 
assistance of non-Tribal Members Christopher Petras and Michael 
Chapman, respectively. In the course of the Tribe's dealings 
with Abramoff and Scanlon, Abramoff and Scanlon apparently 
provided each things of value. Evidence indicates that, over 
the course of Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of the 
Saginaw Chippewa, Abramoff and Scanlon provided Petras with a 
great deal of attention during his frequent trips to 
Washington, D.C. (which, with private cars, tickets to sporting 
events and concerts, meals at posh restaurants, and meetings 
with prominent personalities, one former Abramoff associate 
described as a ``dog and pony show'') and some favors. 
Likewise, for the services that Chapman provided Abramoff and 
Scanlon over the course of the Agua Caliente retainer, Chapman 
received about $271,482.
    From June 2002 through October 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa 
paid Scanlon about $3,500,000 for among other things ``a 
strategy for making [the Tribe] the most dominant political 
entity in Michigan'' that Scanlon called ``Operation Redwing.'' 
Of those proceeds, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff 
about $540,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from the 
Tribe during this period. Similarly, from the Agua Caliente, 
Scanlon collected about $7,200,000 from the Agua Caliente 
during the relevant period and appears to have secretly split 
about 50 percent of his total profit from that Tribe with 
Abramoff.
    How Abramoff and Scanlon had the Tigua hire them was 
particularly aggressive. In late 2001 through early 2002, 
(largely with the assistance of Ralph Reed) Abramoff and 
Scanlon successfully helped Texas authorities shut the Tigua's 
casino down, as violating federal law. Despite the fact that 
the Louisiana Coushatta's casino was in southwest Louisiana and 
the Tigua's was in El Paso, Texas, Abramoff and Scanlon 
succeeded in persuading the Louisiana Coushatta that the Tigua 
posed a threat to its customer market share. So, the Louisiana 
Coushatta largely funded the grassroots effort to help close 
their casino.
    Having succeeded in helping shut down the Tribe's casino, 
Abramoff and Scanlon then pitched their services to help reopen 
it. In pitching their services, Abramoff offered to represent 
the Tribe on a pro bono basis if it hired Scanlon for millions 
of dollars to provide grassroots support for his federal 
lobbying effort. He did so without telling the Tribe of his 
financial arrangement with Scanlon.
    After they signed the Tigua on as a client, Abramoff and 
Scanlon promised to, among other things, insert language 
allowing the Tribe to re-open its casino. Cumulatively, Scanlon 
called this plan ``Operation Open Doors.'' Abramoff and Scanlon 
were ultimately unsuccessful, despite that they collected (and 
split between themselves) millions of dollars from the Tribe. 
Having collected about $4,200,000 from the Tigua during the 
relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about 
$1,850,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from the 
Tribe.
    The Pueblo of Sandia hired Abramoff and Scanlon to help 
them with the lobbying aspects of a legal dispute related to 
Sandia Mountain, revered by the Tribe as sacred. Abramoff 
pitched his and Scanlon's services as a ``package deal,'' 
actually insisting that the Tribe hire Scanlon as its public 
relations specialist. He even offered to reduce Greenberg 
Traurig's retainer in contemplation of the Tribe's hiring 
Scanlon, but insisted that Scanlon's asking price could not be 
reduced further because his ``10 percent profit margin'' was 
``locked in.'' After having paid Scanlon about $2,750,000 for 
grassroots work intended to support Abramoff's federal lobbying 
effort, the Tribe became dissatisfied with the quality of 
Scanlon's effort and ceased the representation. From those 
proceeds that Scanlon collected from the Pueblo Sandia during 
the relevant period, on information and belief, Scanlon 
secretly split about 50 percent of his total profit from the 
Tribe, with Abramoff.
    A couple of ``gimme five'' entities--entities owned or 
controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon that they used in their 
kickback scheme--are especially worth noting. One is an 
``international think tank'' called the American International 
Center (``AIC''). With two of Scanlon's beach buddies sitting 
on its board, AIC's purpose was actually to collect fees 
associated with activities conducted by others and, in some 
cases, divert those fees to entities owned or controlled by 
Scanlon or Abramoff. In other words, AIC was a sham. From 2001 
through 2003, the Choctaw and the Coushatta paid AIC about 
$6,308,854. While much of this money went to vendors such as 
Reed as intended (to conduct grassroots activities supportive 
of several Tribes' gaming interests), millions did not.
    CAF, Abramoff's private charity, is a particularly 
interesting ``gimme five'' entity. In total, four of the Tribes 
paid CAF about $2,075,000. The totals for each Tribe is as 
follows: the Louisiana Coushatta, $1,000,000; the Choctaw, 
$1,000,000; the Saginaw Chippewa, $25,000; and the Alabama 
Coushatta, $50,000, which was not even a client. Evidence 
obtained by the Committee indicates that Abramoff treated CAF 
as his own personal slush fund, using CAF for a number of 
activities wholly unrelated to its charitable mission and tax-
exempt status. Such activities included, for example, evading 
taxes, financing lobbying activities and purchasing military-
related equipment.
    In 2001, the single largest contributor to CAF was the 
Louisiana Coushatta, supposedly giving CAF $1,000,000. However, 
the Tribe never intended to make a charitable contribution to 
CAF. While it thought that its money was going to fund its 
grassroots activities, the money simply padded the coffers of 
CAF for Abramoff's discretionary use.
    In 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon manipulated the Choctaw into 
sending directly and indirectly $2,000,000 to CAF, making the 
Choctaw CAF's largest donor that year. However, the Choctaw 
never intended to contribute to CAF. The Tribe thought that its 
payments to CAF were going to pass through to grassroots 
organizations working to oppose the expansion of gaming in the 
Tribe's customer market. The Tribe's money was not used for its 
intended purpose.
    As described above, Abramoff also deceived the Saginaw 
Chippewa into paying $25,000 to CAF that year. While the Tribe 
was led to believe that CAF ``create[d] programs that teach 
leadership skills to disadvantaged youth in the D.C.-area in an 
effort to keep them off the streets and enhance their 
educational opportunities'' and was a charity important to an 
important Member of Congress, the Tribe's ``donation'' was used 
to partially fund a widely publicized golf trip to Scotland for 
Congressman Bob Ney and others.
    For 2003, CAF's tax records do not list any Tribe as a 
donor. However, substantial evidence indicates that a $47,891 
contribution to CAF listed as having been made by Abramoff's 
corporate alter ego, Kaygold, and a $950,000 contribution from 
a Scanlon-controlled entity called Atlantic Research & Analysis 
(``ARA'') were actually funds from some of the Tribes, paid as 
a result of Abramoff and Scanlon's manipulation.
    Among the third parties that Abramoff had some of his 
Tribal clients pay money was an environmental organization 
called the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy 
(``CREA''). From 2001 through 2003, Abramoff managed to have 
these Tribes ``contribute'' at least $250,000 to CREA, 
sometimes under false pretenses. The Coushatta, for example, 
paid CREA $25,000 to help the Department of the Interior with a 
``national park study,'' which was apparently never conducted. 
Likewise, the Saginaw Chippewa made a $25,000 donation, having 
been told that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton was 
``involved'' with and supported CREA and that supporting such 
``a project'' that the Secretary was involved with would ``look 
good'' for the Tribe. In both cases, the Tribes were deceived.
    In any event, with the possible exception of the Choctaw, 
the Committee has found no evidence that those Tribes that gave 
to CREA did so because of any interest in CREA's mission. In 
fact, Abramoff apparently had his clients contribute to CREA, 
described by CREA president Italia Federici as a ``mom and 
pop'' operation, because he believed that Federici would help 
him possibly influence tribal issues pending at the Department 
of the Interior. Ample evidence indicates that she repeatedly 
told Abramoff that she would talk with a particular senior 
Interior official to help ensure that the concerns of 
Abramoff's clients were addressed. However, what she, or her 
working contact at Interior, former Deputy Secretary J. Steven 
Griles, actually did at Interior for the benefit of Abramoff's 
Tribal clients, remains unclear.
                    PART ONE--FACT SUMMARY BY TRIBE

                               CHAPTER I

                  MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

        Lets [sic] do this, lets [sic] plan a swing to the big 
        three [Choctaw, Coushatta, and Saginaw] as soon as is 
        convenient to go over existing operations and hit them 
        for new ones--Ill [sic] start working gup [sic] the 
        reports (choctas [sic] is almost done) and the new 
        proposals. We will take two maybe three days and take 
        no prisoners--we are coming home with a bag of cash.

    Email from Michael Scanlon to Jack Abramoff, May 31, 2002.

        You know, it's the lack of care for people and just the 
        personal greed. And who knows? I don't understand that 
        point of view.

    Nell Rogers on Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, April 29, 
2005.

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    When the Committee first began this investigation in 
February 2004, many of Jack Abramoff's and Michael Scanlon's 
long-time friends and clients came to their defense. Among them 
were Chief Phillip Martin and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians (``Choctaw''). Six months into the Committee's 
investigation, however, Chief Martin wrote to Senators John 
McCain and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who were leading the 
investigation:

        In light of information we have recently obtained from 
        various sources, it now appears that our Tribe may in 
        fact have been the victim of serious wrongdoing by 
        Abramoff and Scanlon. Thus, despite my prior concerns, 
        I appreciate your Committee's work on this matter.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter from Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, to Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Ranking Majority 
Member John McCain, Committee on Indian Affairs (no Bates number) 
(August 9, 2004).

    Indeed, of all the Tribes that Abramoff and Scanlon 
betrayed, their misdeeds were perhaps most painful for the 
Choctaw, which Abramoff had represented for nearly a decade. 
Nell Rogers, the Tribal planner who had dealt most closely with 
Abramoff and Scanlon, gave an impassioned, tearful account 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
during her interview with Committee staff:

        Staff: If Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon were 
        sitting in this room today and you had a chance to look 
        them in the eye, what would you tell them?
        Rogers: I would tell them that--there are a lot of 
        things that I could say about being angry or bitter. 
        But I think the worst is that they betrayed the tribe. 
        They betrayed the Chief who had a great deal of 
        confidence in them. They betrayed me ... But I think at 
        the end of the day, it's the betrayal that's worse. And 
        I think of the people whose lives they've destroyed. I 
        think of all those young kids who worked at Greenberg 
        and Preston Gates with them, who, fairly or unfairly, 
        are going to have to bear that burden.
        And I think about the other tribes. I mean, you know, 
        let's face it. The tribes they dealt with were not the 
        poorest of the poor tribes. Of all those tribes, 
        Choctaw, though, probably has the greatest needs, the 
        biggest tribe, was the poorest tribe. And they used the 
        success they had with Choctaw to gain entree with the 
        other tribes.
        You know, not only did they betray Choctaw but they 
        betrayed the tribe's good name and Chief's reputation. 
        And, you know, Phillip Martin has spent his life 
        working for not only this tribe but for Indian people. 
        And for him to have to be smeared like this is 
        intolerable. I've spent my whole life working. You 
        know, it's the lack--it's the lack of care for people 
        and just the personal greed. And who knows? I don't 
        understand that point of view.\2\

    \2\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005). During his 
interview, Chief Phillip Martin expressed similar feelings of betrayal 
caused by Abramoff and Scanlon. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is a federally 
recognized Indian tribe of nearly 10,000 members, most of whom 
reside on eight reservation communities located on trust lands 
scattered over a five-county area in East-Central 
Mississippi.\3\ The Tribal capital is in Choctaw, 
Mississippi.\4\ The majority of Tribal members are full-blood, 
Choctaw language speaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 52 (June 22, 2005) (prepared statement 
of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Choctaw Indians are the descendants of those Choctaw 
people who resisted efforts by the Federal Government around 
1830-1840 to remove them to Oklahoma, then known as Indian 
Territory.\6\ Although the Choctaw chose to stay in 
Mississippi, they did not receive their initial reservation 
lands until 1944 and it was not until the following year that 
they were federally recognized.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe has developed a stable governmental structure 
providing a full panoply of governmental services.\8\ These 
include a school system, police and fire protection services, 
courts, hospitals, clinics, and housing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For many years the Choctaw struggled to survive. By 1964, 
ninety percent of the Tribe's population lived in poverty.\10\ 
The Choctaw's situation improved when Chief Phillip Martin 
began a campaign to bring economic development to the 
reservation.\11\ The Choctaw are unusual in their development 
because they first gained economic success through their non-
gaming business ventures, before opening the Silver Star Hotel 
and Casino in 1994.\12\ In 2000, the Tribe announced an 
expansion to include another casino, the Golden Moon, and a 
shopping complex.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Choctaw Chronology (visited March 21, 2006)  (providing a detailed 
chronology of Choctaw history).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe now is the third largest employer in Mississippi, 
employing nearly 9,200 people in 25 different enterprises 
including greeting card manufacturing, wiring harness 
production for the automotive industry, a nursing home, and a 
world renowned golf course, the Dancing Rabbit.\14\ The annual 
Tribal payroll is over $1,237,000 and covers many non-member 
employees.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 52 (June 22, 2005) (prepared statement 
of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians); 
Economic Development History How We Got Here (visited March 21, 2006) 
 
(providing an overview of the Choctaw's economic development).
    \15\ Economic Development History How We Got Here (visited March 
21, 2006)  (providing an overview of the Choctaw's 
economic development).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. BACKGROUND ON ABRAMOFF AND THE TRIBE'S RELATIONSHIP--BUILDING TRUST 
                             AND CONFIDENCE

    The Choctaw have long enjoyed a government-to-government 
relationship with the Federal Government, particularly with the 
United States Congress.\16\ In the beginning, Chief Martin of 
the Choctaw preferred to lobby Congress himself.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \17\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005); Interview of Nell 
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, 
Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That changed in 1994. Either through retirement or defeat, 
many of the Members of Congress who provided the institutional 
memory on American Indian issues were gone.\18\ At the same 
time, the opening of the Choctaw's Silver Star Hotel and Casino 
in 1994 gave rise to an array of new issues and concerns that 
required the Tribe to track and address them at the federal 
level.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 12 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Nell 
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, tribes apparently began to see a slew of proposed 
legislation they believed were inimical to their interests.\20\ 
One of the first major initiatives came from the U.S. House of 
Representatives, in a bill seeking to apply the unrelated 
business income tax (``UBIT'') to tribal enterprises.\21\ 
Confronted with this legislation and a sea of unknown faces in 
Congress, the Choctaw decided to hire outside lobbyists.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coincidentally, around the same time, Nell Rogers, the 
Tribe's planner responsible for legislative affairs, was 
speaking with a friend in California who knew Abramoff's 
father.\23\ Aware that Abramoff had once been a Republican 
activist, Rogers' friend suggested she speak with Abramoff.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Id. Rogers' friend had actually attended a fundraiser that 
Abramoff's father had thrown in support of Abramoff's bid for the Chair 
of the College Republican National Committee. Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through further due diligence, Chief Martin and Rogers 
learned that Abramoff worked for Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds (``Preston Gates''), and that Meeds was former 
Congressman Lloyd Meeds from Washington State.\25\ The Choctaw 
had known and respected Meeds during his tenure in Congress, as 
a member of at least one House committee that had jurisdiction 
over Indian issues.\26\ The Tribe decided to contact Preston 
Gates.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After a brief telephone call, Meeds and Abramoff traveled 
to the Choctaw reservation.\28\ There they made a presentation 
about their firm's capabilities and connections, and discussed 
the Tribe's legislative concerns.\29\ Rogers was extremely 
fascinated by how Abramoff proposed mobilizing other groups to 
assist the Choctaw in its legislative battle: ``I came away 
thinking this is really different and unusual. It was. It was 
an unusual approach that you would engage other groups to help 
you in a campaign to say `these are good guys.' '' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the meeting, Chief Martin and Rogers concluded that 
the Choctaw needed to educate the new members of Congress about 
Indian Country and the issues it faced.\31\ They therefore 
hired Preston Gates.\32\ The issues on which Preston Gates 
would lobby were not limited to the UBIT. At the time, Rogers 
recalled, there seemed to be daily issues emerging that 
adversely affected tribes, a ``sea change of proposals'' that 
were ``hostile to the tribes.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To help the Choctaw in its campaign to educate the new 
Members of Congress, Abramoff mobilized his friends and 
colleagues at various think tanks and grassroots organizations. 
The Preston Gates team recast the issue from an Indian issue 
into a tax issue.\34\ Abramoff then enlisted the aid of his 
long term friend and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and his 
organization Americans for Tax Reform (``ATR''), which, 
according to its website, ``opposes all tax increases as a 
matter of principle'' and serves as ``a national clearinghouse 
for the grassroots taxpayers movement.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ See Jim Vandehei, Rain Dance, Mississippi's Choctaw Find an 
Unlikely Ally In a GOP Stalwart, The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2000.
    \35\ ATR opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. 
(visited May 21, 2006) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to one document in the Committee's possession, 
Abramoff described ATR as ``an effective conduit of support for 
other groups which have provided assistance to Indian gaming's 
efforts to fight the tax proposal.'' \36\ There were a number 
of anti-tax grassroots groups in various states, and ``it was 
ATR's job to make contacts with those groups, to assist them in 
making contacts with members of the Ways and Means Committee or 
other committee members.'' \37\ The Choctaw apparently paid ATR 
a total of $60,000 in 1996 to oppose the UBIT tax.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ February 22, 1996, List of Suggested Contributions, 
Republicans and Conservative Organizations (GTG-E000106655-57)
    \37\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \38\ Id. This apparently was not the only time that Abramoff and 
his clients had sought to hire Norquist and ATR. During the UBIT battle 
for the Choctaw, Abramoff discussed with a colleague the possibility of 
Brown Forman, a company in the wine and spirits business, retaining 
Norquist as a lobbyist:

      I spoke this evening with Grover. He said that, if they want the 
taxpayer movement, including him, involved on this issue and anything 
else which will come up over the course of the year or so, they need to 
become a major player with ATR. He recommended that they make a $50,000 
contribution to ATR. It seems that, on another ``sin tax'' matter, he 
is getting a similarly large contribution to get involved. ... He would 
prefer donations to ATR.

    Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, to 
Mark Ruge, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000106493) 
(October 22, 1995). Abramoff said that keeping the arrangement with 
Norquist and ATR secret was important. After all, Abramoff wrote, 
``[w]e do not want opponents to think that we are trying to buy the tax 
payer [sic] movement.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & 
Rouvelas Meeds, to Pamela Garvie, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds 
(Greenberg Traurig production) (GTG-E000106492) (October 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and his colleagues at Preston Gates eventually 
succeeded in their efforts, and the UBIT tax failed in the 
Senate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three years later, however, the Choctaw were still battling 
congressional attempts to tax its Tribal revenue. In so doing, 
in September 1999, the Choctaw paid ATR another $25,000.\40\ 
Rogers believed that the payment was in furtherance of ATR's 
opposition to a sales tax issue at the time.\41\ According to 
Rogers: ``Well, we did not support the general work of ATR 
unless we had a tax issue. That's what I mean by saying general 
work. We would have expected them to take a position opposing--
we did expect them to take a position opposing the sales tax.'' 
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On this issue, Abramoff enlisted other allies. The Choctaw 
paid Americans for Economic Growth (``AEG'') $45,000 in 1999 
for its work opposing the sales tax.\43\ The payments were 
intended for grassroots work and the anti-tax program in 
1999.\44\ Rogers understood that AEG would be ``contacting 
their supporters, contacting members of Congress'' and 
``staffers that they might have known to talk to them about the 
tribe--this was after they had been to visit [the Choctaw 
reservation]--to let them know what the tribe was about. That 
was our understanding of what they would do.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The outside groups were not limited to grassroots 
organizations. Abramoff put together visits to the Choctaw 
reservation for reporters and public policy groups, with the 
goal of demonstrating the Tribe's success in an environment 
unfettered by unnecessary government regulation.\46\ One group 
that visited the reservation was the National Center for Public 
Policy Research (``NCPPR''), which was headed by long-time 
Abramoff friend Amy Ridenour. Ridenour visited the Tribe, 
``wrote some articles about the tribe, the tribe's economic 
development, cultural preservation of the tribal community. And 
we had made a contribution--had said that we would make a 
contribution to the National Center.'' \47\ The Tribe paid 
NCPPR $5,000 in 1999.\48\ Others who attended were 
representatives from think tanks including Doug Bandow from the 
Cato Institute.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id. According to one news article, Bandow resigned from the 
Cato Institute, after admitting he received money from Abramoff to 
write between 12 and 24 articles in the mid '90s addressing topics 
important to Abramoff's clients. Eamon Javers, Op-Eds for Sale, 
BusinessWeek Online, December 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Choctaw's campaign against the sales tax was ultimately 
successful.
    The UBIT and sales tax issues were only two among the many 
issues on which Abramoff and his team lobbied for the Choctaw. 
As time passed, and Abramoff and his team repeatedly succeeded 
in their lobbying efforts for the Choctaw, the Tribe developed 
a great deal of trust and confidence in Abramoff and his 
capabilities.\50\ Another Abramoff trait that engendered trust 
with the Choctaw was that he ``always presented himself as a 
deeply religious person ... his conversations were spiked with 
references to a good cause or working for a good cause. And he 
talked quite a bit about his religious beliefs and what he 
could and what he couldn't do.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was during the UBIT battle that Abramoff assumed primary 
responsibility for the Choctaw account.\52\ In fact, he 
remained ultimately responsible for the account throughout his 
tenure at Preston Gates and, later, at Greenberg Traurig.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. SUBSTANTIAL FEES AND CONDUITS--SETTING THE STAGE FOR SCANLON

    As the Tribe's trust and confidence in Abramoff grew, 
Rogers would often discuss with Abramoff issues affecting the 
Tribe, both at a local and national level.\54\ In 1999, Rogers 
and Abramoff discussed various legislative proposals in 
Mississippi and elsewhere that threatened the market share of 
the Choctaw's casino operations, and which the Tribe wanted to 
somehow counter.\55\ It just so happened that a few months 
earlier, Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the 
Christian Coalition and one of Abramoff's long-time friends, 
had reached out to Abramoff: ``Hey, now that I'm done with 
electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate 
accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts.'' 
\56\ Abramoff saw an opportunity: he suggested a grassroots 
effort and recommended the Choctaw hire Reed to orchestrate an 
anti-gaming effort.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000079102) (November 12, 
1998).
    \57\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe agreed to hire Reed to mobilize grassroots 
opposition to various legislative proposals throughout the Gulf 
Coast \58\ that would have increased gaming, thereby 
diminishing the Choctaw casino's market share.\59\ No one from 
the Choctaw had any direct contact with Reed; rather, Abramoff 
served as the liaison with Reed and his firm, which eventually 
became a subcontractor to Preston Gates.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ The Committee has seen no evidence that the Choctaw undertook 
or authorized any work by Abramoff or Scanlon, or anyone else, to 
oppose gaming in other Southern states, such as Louisiana and Texas.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 1999, Abramoff and his associate, Shawn Vasell, 
spoke with Reed about the Choctaw's grassroots needs.\61\ 
According to a draft engagement letter from Reed to Abramoff, 
Reed was hired to defeat a bill that had passed the Alabama 
House of Representatives ``authorizing dog tracks in the state 
to install video poker and other casino-style games on their 
sites.'' \62\ Reed promised to ``build a strong grassroots 
network across the state against the extension of video poker 
and [REDACTION].'' \63\ He claimed that no firm had better 
relationships than his with the grassroots conservatives in 
Alabama, including the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama 
Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, the Christian Family 
Association, and ``leading evangelical pastors such as Frank 
Barker of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.'' \64\ 
Reed boasted that ``Century Strategies has on file over 3,000 
pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households in Alabama 
that can be accessed in this effort.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Shawn Vasell, 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000111956) (March 26, 1999).
    \62\ Ralph Reed document production (Bates number 5908-09) (March 
26, 1999) (letter from Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff).
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reed promised to leverage his contacts for the Tribe:

        Working closely with your existing team at Preston 
        Gates, we can play on [sic] operational role in 
        building a strong anti-video poker grassroots structure 
        that will leverage the considerable contacts and 
        reputation of our principals within Alabama, the 
        conservative faith community, and state elected 
        officials.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Id.

Reed proposed a $20,000 monthly retainer for his services, and 
ended his letter by writing, ``We look forward to bringing 
about the desired results for you.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After receiving Reed's proposed engagement agreement, 
Abramoff responded, ``Ralph, I spoke with Nell this evening. 
She wants much more specifics. They are not scared of the 
number, but want to know precisely what you are planning to do 
for this amount.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111956) (March 29, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Reed told Abramoff he was devoting half his staff to 
the project for two weeks, but needed the green light to begin, 
Abramoff directed:

        Please page me with a page of no more than 90 words ... 
        informing me of your completion of the budget and 
        giving me a total budget figure with category 
        breakdowns. Once I get this, I will call Nell at 
        Choctaw and get it approved.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111992) (April 4, 
1999).

    On April 6, 1999, Abramoff informed Reed that he ``spoke 
with our managing partner [at Preston Gates] and he has 
approved the subcontractor arrangement'' and instructed Reed to 
``get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to 
get us checks asap.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7029) (April 6, 
1999) (Ralph Reed document production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Abramoff believed he could not get money quickly 
enough to Reed, Abramoff suggested that the Choctaw pay Reed 
directly: ``Ralph, I am not sure that I can get this wire 
moving fast enough today. Give me your wire info and I'll do 
what I can.'' \71\ Abramoff then asked, ``Any chance that a 
wire from Choctaw directly would be OK?'' \72\ Reed's response 
is unknown; however, the Committee has seen no evidence that 
the Choctaw paid Reed or his firms directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111977) (April 9, 
1999).
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By mid-April, things were moving. In an e-mail entitled 
``Disbursement on behalf of Choctaw Indians,'' Abramoff assured 
Reed that the money was on its way.\73\ Using the Choctaw's 
money, Reed paid for grassroots activities including, 
telemarketing (patch-through, tape-recorded messages and call-
to-action phone calls), targeted mail, legislative counsel and 
local management, rallies, petitions, ``voter contact, 
television and radio production, the remainder of phones, the 
statewide fly-around, the pastor's and activist rally, the 
church bulletin inserts, and other items.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111974) (April 12, 
1999).
    \74\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000112006) (April 21, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reed also claimed that he was leveraging his contacts 
within the Christian community for the Choctaw's benefit. Reed 
reported to Abramoff that there would be ``a saturation 
statewide radio buy with a new ad by Jim Dobson that he will 
record tomorrow.'' \75\ Reed assured Abramoff, ``We are opening 
the bomb bay doors and holding nothing back. If victory is 
possible, we will achieve it,'' \76\ and, one day later, again 
promised, ``All systems are go on our end and nothing is being 
held back.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Id.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000112006) (April 22, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid Reed $1,300,000 
through Preston Gates, with another $50,000 outstanding.\78\ 
For reasons unclear to the Committee, in late 1999 the Tribe 
discontinued paying Reed through Preston Gates. Rogers recalled 
that there came a time when either Reed or Preston Gates (or 
both) became uneasy about money being passed through Preston 
Gates to Reed.\79\ Abramoff thus searched for another conduit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ Email from [REDACTED] to Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & 
Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E00018933) (May 10, 1999).
    \79\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff turned to his long-time friend Norquist to have 
his group ATR serve as a conduit for the Choctaw money.\80\ 
Earlier, on May 20, 1999, Norquist had asked Abramoff, ``What 
is the status of the Choctaw stuff. I have a $75K hole in my 
budget from last year. ouch [sic].'' \81\ Thus, in the fall of 
1999, Abramoff reminded himself to ``call Ralph re Grover doing 
pass through.'' \82\ When Abramoff suggested the Choctaw start 
using ATR as a conduit, the Tribe agreed.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000079255) (September 24, 1999).
    \81\ Email from Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform, to Jack 
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000114915) (May 
20, 1999).
    \82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000079255) (September 24, 1999).
    \83\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late 1999, the Choctaw paid ATR $325,000.\84\ In a 2005 
interview with The Boston Globe, Norquist said that ATR had 
sent $300,000 of that $325,000 to Citizens Against Legalized 
Lottery (``CALL'').\85\ Norquist explained that he sent the 
money to CALL because the Tribe wanted to block gambling 
competition in Alabama.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Michael Kranish, Antitax Activist Says He got $1.5M from 
Tribes, The Boston Globe, May 13, 2005.
    \86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Out of the Choctaw's $325,000, ATR apparently kept $25,000 
for its services. According to Rogers, Norquist demanded that 
he receive a management fee for letting ATR be used as a 
conduit:

        But I remember when we discussed needing a vehicle for 
        doing the pass-through to Century Strategies that Jack 
        had told me that Grover would want a management fee. 
        And we agreed to that, frankly didn't know any other 
        way to do it at that time.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).

    On a similar project in early 2000, Reed and Abramoff 
discussed using four groups instead of one as conduits to pay 
Reed: NCPPR, ATR, Toward Tradition and one unidentified 
group.\88\ Abramoff later advised Reed that ``Rabbi Lapin [head 
of Toward Tradition] does not have a c4'' \89\ and asked Reed 
for ``the name of the c4 you want to use (include address) and 
we'll divide it among the three groups.'' \90\ Within days, 
Abramoff advised Reed that Amy Ridenour, president of NCPPR, 
``does not have a c4, only a c3, so we are back to ATR only.'' 
\91\ Abramoff asked Reed, ``Let me know if it will work just to 
do this through ATR until we can find another group.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ See Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack 
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000020203) 
(January 27, 2000) (listing the names of the heads of the groups they 
contemplated using as conduits).
    \89\ Abramoff's designation of groups as a c4 or c3 group 
apparently refers to their tax exempt status under either subsection 
(c)(3) or (c)(4) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.
    \90\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020287) (January 28, 
2000).
    \91\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7096) (February 
2, 2000) (Ralph Reed document production).
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though Reed did not respond, on February 2, 2000, Abramoff 
informed Reed, ``We'll have $300K for Monday and more shortly 
thereafter.'' \93\ This project apparently was centered on 
opposing a video poker initiative.\94\ The Choctaw made the 
first of three $300,000 payments to ATR on February 7, 2000. 
Abramoff warned Reed, however, that ``I need to give Grover 
something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit 
lighter.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020517) (February 3, 
2000).
    \94\ See Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack 
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000020467) 
(February 17, 2000); see also Michael Kranish, Antitax Activist Says He 
got $1.5M from Tribes, The Boston Globe, May 13, 2005.
    \95\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020508) (February 7, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this time, Abramoff advised Reed that the Choctaw 
might be limited in the amount of money it could devote to his 
activities.\96\ In response, Reed assured Abramoff that he was 
also seeking money from ``national anti-gambling groups, 
Christian CEOs, and national pro-family groups.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & 
Rouvelas Meeds, and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7096) 
(February 2, 2000) (Ralph Reed document production).
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe was nevertheless able to continue funding Reed's 
efforts. On February 17, 2000, Abramoff advised Reed that ``ATR 
will be sending a second $300K today.'' \98\ This money, too, 
came from the Choctaw.\99\ Norquist kept another $25,000 from 
the second transfer, which apparently surprised Abramoff.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020467) (February 17, 
2000).
    \99\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000078903) (February 22, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 2, 2000, Abramoff told Rogers he needed ``more 
money asap'' for Reed, and requested ``a check for $300K for 
Americans for Tax Reform asap.'' \101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Nell Rogers, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (GTG-
E000110996) (March 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's executive assistant Susan Ralston asked him, 
``Once ATR gets their check, should the entire $300K be sent to 
the Alabama Christian Coalition again?'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Email between Susan Ralston, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, and Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-
E000110996) (March 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Yes, but last time they sent $275K, so 
I want to make sure that before we send it to ATR I speak with 
Grover to confirm.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rogers did not speak with anyone at ATR about using ATR as 
a conduit.\104\ As far as Rogers knew, ATR was not involved and 
was not considering getting involved in any of the efforts the 
Choctaw ultimately paid Reed and others to oppose.\105\ Based 
on everything Rogers knew, ATR simply served as a conduit to 
disguise the source of the Choctaw money ultimately paid to 
grassroots groups and Reed.\106\ Rogers told Committee staff 
that she understood from Abramoff that ATR was willing to serve 
as a conduit, provided it received a fee.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \105\ Id.
    \106\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
    \107\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (June 16, 2005). Interview of 
Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in 
Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Choctaw's intent and understanding was that the money 
would pass through ATR and ultimately reach either Reed or a 
grassroots organization engaging in anti-gaming 
activities.\108\ It was never intended as a contribution to 
support ATR's general anti-tax work.\109\ As far as Rogers was 
concerned, ATR was serving as a conduit on a project that had 
nothing to do with taxes and that was designed to oppose 
gaming.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At some point, Rogers recalled that Norquist apparently 
began getting nervous about his role as a pass-through.\111\ 
Rogers thought that part of Norquist's discomfort derived from 
press accounts reporting that ATR was one of the largest 
contributors to an organization that was fighting against the 
expansion of gaming.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question arises why the Choctaw paid money to Reed 
through various conduits, such as Preston Gates and ATR, rather 
than directly. Rogers told Committee staff, ``I always assumed 
it's because Ralph was more comfortable with that.'' \113\ 
Rogers understood from Abramoff that ``Ralph Reed did not want 
to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests. It was 
our understanding that the structure was recommended by Jack 
Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reed's political concerns.'' \114\ 
Nevertheless, the work Reed and his company Century Strategies 
performed and for which they were paid through Preston Gates 
and ATR was on the Tribe's behalf and for its benefit.\115\ The 
Tribe has no complaints about the quality of work Reed 
undertook on its behalf.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (June 16, 2005).
    \115\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once ATR ceased serving as a conduit, Abramoff and Reed 
looked for other conduits for the Tribe to route money to 
Reed's Century Strategies. After he left Preston Gates for 
Greenberg Traurig in 2001, Abramoff suggested the Tribe pay 
into entities owned or controlled by Michael Scanlon. In 2001, 
the Choctaw paid money into American International Center 
(``AIC''), which Abramoff described as vehicle for passing 
money through to Reed.\117\ By the Committee's accounting, the 
Tribe paid AIC $1,485,656 in 2001, and $1,170,000 in 2002.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               E. ABRAMOFF BRINGS SCANLON TO THE CHOCTAW

    In late 2001, the Choctaw were again looking for a 
grassroots specialist to help with certain state issues.\119\ 
Because of the Tribe's and Rogers' relationship with and trust 
in Abramoff, they asked him to recommend a grassroots 
specialist.\120\ This time, Abramoff did not turn to Reed; he 
instead introduced the Tribe to Scanlon.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Id.
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon traveled together to Mississippi to 
meet with the Choctaw.\122\ Abramoff introduced Scanlon as an 
independent consultant and an expert in grassroots 
operations.\123\ Abramoff claimed that Scanlon worked with the 
Christian community in grassroots campaigns, get out the vote 
campaigns and public relations campaigns.\124\ He also said 
Scanlon was Congressman Tom DeLay's former staffer and later 
described him as ``DeLay's dirty tricks guy.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Id.
    \124\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
    \125\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff recommended that the Tribe hire Scanlon.\126\ 
Abramoff did not recommend anyone else.\127\ Trusting in and 
relying on Abramoff, the Tribe did so.\128\ From the outset, 
the Tribe understood that Scanlon would hire vendors to perform 
much of the work, and that Scanlon and his company Capitol 
Campaign Strategies would provide the strategy, hire and 
coordinate the vendors, and make the contacts.\129\ Although 
the Tribe expected Scanlon would take a reasonable fee for his 
work, it intended that most of its payments to Scanlon would be 
used for grassroots activities such as polling, surveying, 
media, and analysis.\130\ The Choctaw never intended that any 
of the money it paid Scanlon would go to Abramoff.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Id.
    \127\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
    \128\ Id. Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \129\ Id.
    \130\ Id.
    \131\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe, and in particular Chief Martin, were always 
concerned about how high Scanlon's fees were.\132\ Rogers 
sometimes asked Scanlon for a reduced budget.\133\ To justify 
Scanlon's charges, both Abramoff and Scanlon explained that the 
cost of Scanlon's work was consistent with the cost of the work 
Reed had done for the Choctaw.\134\ They also explained that it 
was ``the cost of operating under the radar.'' \135\ In some 
instances, Scanlon did reduce his original, proposed budget, 
but not often.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \133\ Id.
    \134\ Id.
    \135\ Id.
    \136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to combating market threats, Scanlon promised 
to turn the Choctaw into a political powerhouse at the state 
level. And so, on October 16, 2001, Abramoff asked Scanlon, 
``By the way, even with this [project] done, don't we have a 
large longer term project to do for them there? Remember we 
promised when we had dinner with the Chief that we would make 
them the most powerful folks in the state.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1131592) (October 
16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon was referring to a grandiose plan he called 
Operation Orange. The Tribe did not agree to Operation Orange 
in its entirety, but instead directed Scanlon to pursue 
discreet parts of it aimed at threats to its casino's market 
share.\138\ Contemporaneously, the Tribe saw evidence that 
Scanlon was carrying out parts of Operation Orange it had 
commissioned.\139\ The Tribe paid roughly $4,500,000 over two 
years for Scanlon's efforts related to Operation Orange.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \139\ Id.
    \140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the same two years, the Tribe also paid Scanlon 
another $1,000,000 for a separate project.\141\ Rogers 
understood that Scanlon and his companies were conducting 
polls, performing research, including opposition research, 
directly lobbying opinion makers, using third parties, and 
engaging in letter campaigns.\142\ Scanlon told the Choctaw he 
was mobilizing Christian grassroots groups, such as Global 
Christian Outreach Network and Concerned Citizens Against 
Gaming Expansion.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ Id.
    \142\ Id.
    \143\ See Id. Unknown to the Choctaw was that these organizations 
were bogus. A full explanation about how Scanlon apparently used such 
bogus organizations as a part of his and Abramoff's ``gimme five'' 
scheme is set forth below in Part 2, Chapter 1, ``Capitol Campaign 
Strategies'' section, Page 3, ``CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots 
Organizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In earlier grassroots efforts to protect its market share, 
the Tribe had grown accustomed to sending payments through 
conduits at Abramoff's direction. Abramoff and Scanlon 
continued the practice of directing the Tribe to route money 
through conduits. Abramoff and Scanlon identified the following 
as pass-through vehicles for the Choctaw: American 
International Center, Capital Athletic Foundation, Scanlon-
Gould Public Affairs, and, National Center for Public Policy 
Research.\144\ Common among all of them was that they were all 
entities over which Abramoff or Scanlon exercised considerable 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the Choctaw paid approximately $17,500,000 to 
companies owned or controlled by Scanlon. Unknown to the 
Choctaw, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about 
$6,364,000--about 50% of his total profit from the Tribe. 
Additionally, at Abramoff and Scanlon's direction, the Tribe 
paid another $2,000,000 to non-profit organizations where 
Abramoff was a director.\145\ The payments from the Tribe to 
Abramoff and Scanlon-related entities is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon 
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on 
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of the this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Payments by Choctaw to Abramoff/Scanlon Entities


Payments by Tribe to Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS)

06/29/01................................................        $200,000
07/18/01................................................         $43,650
07/31/01................................................         $50,000
08/29/01................................................      $1,500,000
09/27/01................................................      $1,000,000
10/18/01................................................        $207,000
11/02/01................................................      $1,670,000
11/13/01................................................      $2,350,000
12/31/01................................................        $250,000
02/22/02................................................      $1,600,000
10/15/02................................................        $800,000
12/11/02................................................        $330,000
12/11/02................................................        $600,000
09/03/03................................................         $48,333
09/03/03................................................         $48,334
09/03/03................................................         $48,333
09/11/03................................................        $500,000
10/16/03................................................        $450,000
10/16/03................................................        $300,000
11/18/03................................................        $300,000
11/18/03................................................        $150,000
12/10/03................................................        $300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     $12,745,650

Payments by Tribe to Scanlon Gould Public Affairs (SGPA)

04/29/02................................................      $1,000,000
10/15/02................................................      $1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $2,000,000

Payments by Tribe to American International Center (AIC)

02/27/01................................................        $200,000
04/09/01................................................        $150,000
05/02/01................................................        $175,000
05/11/01................................................        $960,654
02/22/02................................................      $1,000,000
12/11/02................................................        $170,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $2,655,654

Payments by Tribe to Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF)

01/03/02................................................        $500,000
08/05/02................................................        $500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $1,000,000

Payments by Tribe to National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR)

10/15/02................................................      $1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $1,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Grand Total.....................................     $19,401,304

The Tribe would not discover, until after this Committee 
started its investigation, the scam that Abramoff and Scanlon 
were running on it.

           F. ABRAMOFF HAS THE CHOCTAW FUND HIS PET PROJECTS

1. 2000 Scotland Golf Trip

    In 2000, Abramoff had the Choctaw pay twice to the NCPPR: 
$25,000 on May 19 and $40,000 on June 27.\146\ It has been 
widely reported that the NCPPR used those funds to finance 
partially a golf trip to Scotland for Abramoff, Congressman 
DeLay and his staff, and others.\147\ The Tribe never intended 
for those funds to be used to finance a trip for any member of 
Congress; rather, it was intended as a donation for some anti-
tax and anti-NACS [National Association of Convenience Stores] 
work.\148\ Any use of the funds to finance that Scotland trip 
was done without the Choctaw's knowledge or authorization.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \147\ Id.
    \148\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
    \149\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sports Suites

    For three years, the Choctaw paid into what Abramoff 
labeled the ``Sports Suites'' program: $170,374 in 1999, 
$233,679 in 2000, and $223,679 in 2001.\150\ Rogers understood 
that ``Sports Suites company to be a company basically that was 
a Jack Abramoff company but that several tribes paid shares 
into so that the suites could be used for fundraisers or 
similar kinds of events.'' \151\ Abramoff told Rogers that he 
would represent the tribal participants as the owners of the 
Sports Suites.\152\ Rogers said she would find it objectionable 
if Abramoff used the Sports Suites boxes for the benefit of 
other clients or his family, unless they paid for their use of 
the Sports Suites.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Id.
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Id.
    \153\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rogers believed that Choctaw derived benefit from 
participating in the Sports Suites program:

        In some regards I do [believe the Tribe derived a 
        benefit] because the box had copies of the Choctaw 
        Revolution.\154\ It had the tribal profile. It had 
        information about manufacturing opportunities or 
        economic development opportunities on the reservation. 
        And we actually had calls or ran into people who had 
        picked up information about the tribe and who had 
        contacted the tribe because of that. And there were 
        fundraisers held for members of Congress there, 
        including some in our delegation as well as other 
        members who had interest in Indian issues or who had 
        responsibility for Indian issues. So in that regard, I 
        think that the tribe did have some benefit.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ The Choctaw Revolution: Lessons for Federal Indian Policy was 
a book written about the success of the Choctaw in 1998 by Peter 
Ferrara and published by ATR. The Choctaw reportedly paid Ferrara for 
his work on the book. Eamon Javers, ``Op-Eds for Sale,'' BusinessWeek 
Online (December 16, 2005).
    \155\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Liberty Consulting Services, LLC

    On January 30, 2002, Abramoff instructed his assistant 
Illisa Gertner to send an invoice for Liberty Consulting 
Services (``Liberty'') in the amount of $5,000 for ``Consulting 
Services.'' \156\ Abramoff instructed Gertner to include a 
cover sheet saying, ``Per my email about Alexander Strategy 
Group, attached please find the invoice for Liberty.'' \157\ 
Abramoff told the Tribe that Liberty ``was another lobbying 
group that was going to oppose NACS [National Association of 
Convenience Stores]. ...'' \158\ The Choctaw paid Liberty 
Consulting a total of $25,000 in 2002.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Illisa 
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107717-18) (January 30, 2002) 
(attaching Liberty Consulting Services invoice).
    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unknown to the Choctaw, Liberty was actually a company set 
up by Tony Rudy, while he was serving on Congressman DeLay's 
staff, as his Deputy Chief of Staff.\160\ When Rudy pled guilty 
to committing conspiracy on March 31, 2006, he admitted, among 
other things, that Liberty performed no services to justify 
receipt of the payments from the Choctaw:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 7, U.S. 
v. Tony C. Rudy (Dist. D.C., March 31, 2006) (CR-06-082).

        From February 2002 through July 2002, Abramoff, with 
        Rudy's knowledge and consent, arranged for payments 
        totaling $25,000 to be made to Liberty Consulting by 
        one of Firm B's [Greenberg Traurig] clients, a Native 
        American Tribe in Mississippi [Choctaw]. The payments 
        were made in five monthly installments, which were 
        usually sent by mail. Rudy knew that no additional 
        services were being provided to the client for 
        payments.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             G. CONCLUSION

    All the money that Scanlon and Abramoff bilked from the 
Choctaw had very significant consequences for the Tribe. During 
her interview, Rogers identified numerous unmet needs of the 
Tribe, where the lost money would have been critical: 
``[s]cholarships; health care, in particular; education; 
courts; police.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nonetheless, after the first few The Washington Post 
articles ran, Abramoff attempted to have the Choctaw dissuade 
the Committee from investigating. Rogers said Abramoff ``asked 
me if I would ask the Chief to approach Senator McCain and 
suggest that each of the tribes, since they had their own 
police departments and courts, conduct their own internal 
investigations.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even as details of his and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme 
began to emerge, Abramoff attempted to conceal his and 
Scanlon's wrongdoing from the Tribe. In a telephone 
conversation with Rogers, Abramoff claimed that he used his 
school as a conduit to pass Choctaw money to grassroots 
organizations. According to Rogers:

        He [Jack] said that he--he said, ``Well, Nell, I have 
        to tell you, I took some of the money Mike had''--yeah. 
        He said, ``I took some of the money that Mike had and I 
        gave it to the school and they passed the money 
        through. And the people they passed it to will never 
        tell.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ Id.
                               CHAPTER II

                      COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

        Abramoff: Can you let me know how much more (than the 
        current +/- 660K) we would each score should Coushatta 
        come through for this phase, and Choctaw continue to 
        make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at for 
        the school's sake.
        Scanlon: Coushatta is an absolute cake walk. Your cut 
        on the project as proposed is at least 800k ... Total 
        [:] 1.5. mil on top of the 660. For a toal [sic] of 
        2.1. Not bad :) :) [sic]
        Abramoff: How can I say this strongly enough: YOU IZ DA 
        MAN.
        Scanlon: Ill [sic] take the man title for now--but not 
        tomorrow, you return to being the man at midnight! 
        Let's grow that 2.1 to 5!!! We need the true give me 
        five!
        Abramoff: Amen!!

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, September 
10, 2001

        Abramoff: I'm actually in a bad cash position ... I 
        need [the expected payment from the Agua Caliente] 
        badly. Other than [that Tribe], what next on the money 
        train? [The Choctaw] coming through soon?
        Scanlon: The next big money we have coming our way is 
        Coushatta, and that will be in early January--the exact 
        amounts I'm still hammering out.

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, December 
17, 2002

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    By February 22, 2004, when The Washington Post published 
its article entitled, ``A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes; 
Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years,'' Abramoff 
and Scanlon's scheme to defraud several Native American tribes 
out of tens of millions of dollars was beginning to unravel.
    Soon after the article's publication, former Abramoff 
associate Kevin Ring emailed a colleague, ``I know more than 
[the] article and the truth is worse.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email between Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig, and Matt DeMazza 
(GTG-E000257509) (February 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ring continued, ``Now what do you think of my partner Jack? 
Not too shady, eh?'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Referring to how much the Tribes covered in the article 
reportedly paid Abramoff and Scanlon, Ring's colleague could 
only reply, ``that's a lot of cake.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among all of Abramoff's Tribal clients, the Coushatta Tribe 
of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') paid Scanlon the most. 
Between 2001 and 2003, Abramoff and Scanlon successfully had 
the Tribe pay them (or entities owned or controlled by them) 
about $32,000,000: about $27,000,000 to Capitol Campaign 
Strategies (``CCS''); another $3,600,000 to the American 
International Center (``AIC''); $1,000,000 to the Capital 
Athletic Foundation (``CAF'') through the firm of Greenberg 
Traurig; and another $950,000 through a Scanlon-controlled 
entity called Atlantic Research & Analysis (``ARA''). Of the 
$27,000,000 the Tribe paid to CCS, Scanlon appears to have 
kicked back roughly a third to Abramoff in ``referral fees.'' 
This constituted about one-half of Scanlon's net profit. In 
addition, of the $3,600,000 the Tribe paid to AIC, Scanlon 
diverted almost $1,000,000 to an entity called Kaygold, which 
Abramoff privately described to his tax advisor as ``really 
me.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012336) (December 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the course of their three-year business relationship 
with the Tribe, Abramoff and Scanlon were indifferent to the 
trust that the Louisiana Coushatta put in them as its paid 
representatives and advocates. At no time did they ever tell 
the Tribe that Abramoff had a financial interest in CCS or that 
Abramoff received a hefty percentage of the millions of dollars 
that the Tribe paid CCS or AIC.\5\ Similarly, the Tribe never 
knew that the cost of services charged by Scanlon was 
dramatically inflated so that Abramoff could get a big piece of 
a big pie.\6\ The Tribe likewise never knew most of the money 
it paid Scanlon actually went to finance Scanlon's private 
investments and to float Abramoff's business ventures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
    \6\ See Id.
    \7\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, at no time was the Tribe ever told that any of 
the money it paid Scanlon would be diverted to Abramoff's 
private charity--for distribution mostly to Abramoff's Jewish 
boys' school.\8\ The Tribe was also never told that any of its 
payments to Scanlon would actually be used to conduct public 
relations activities for other Tribes, on matters wholly 
unrelated to the Louisiana Coushatta.\9\ Abramoff and Scanlon 
also concealed from the Tribe their representation of the 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), whose interests the 
Louisiana Coushatta hired Abramoff and Scanlon to oppose.\10\ 
Abramoff or Scanlon also deceived the Tribe into making a 
sizeable ``contribution'' to an obscure environmental advocacy 
group.\11\ Regrettably, there was much the Tribe did not know 
about the activities of Abramoff and Scanlon--its ``trusted'' 
advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See Id.
    \9\ See Id.
    \10\ See Id.
    \11\ A fuller discussion of this transaction is contained in Part 
III, Chapter 1, Section A, entitled, ``Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy: Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Chapter will, drawing from evidence that the Committee 
has already released to date and new information that the 
Committee is now releasing in conjunction with this Report, 
attempt to explicate the foregoing activities.

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    The Louisiana Coushatta's traditional homelands are in 
Alabama; however, in the late 18th Century a group of 
approximately 100 Coushatta led by a tribal leader named Red 
Shoes moved to Louisiana around the Red River.\12\ Since then, 
its population has grown to over 850 enrolled members.\13\ 
Traditionally, the Louisiana Coushatta belonged to the southern 
section of the Creek Confederacy, a loose association of 
Muskogee family tribes occupying and controlling a vast area 
across the South.\14\ The Tribe is composed of seven large 
clans and several more smaller clans, which form the foundation 
of its society.\15\ As members of the Creek Confederacy, the 
Coushatta lived in an agriculturally based economy.\16\ It grew 
corn, peas, beans, squash, potatoes, and rice.\17\ 
Sophisticated trade networks were developed covering thousands 
of miles.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Early Records Show Coushatta Living in Northern Alabama, 
(visited March 20, 2006)  (discussing the early history of the 
Coushatta); A History of the Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana, (visited March 19, 2006), http://www.coushattatribe.org/
history.html>.
    \13\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 11 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of 
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \14\ Id. at 10.
    \15\ The Culture of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, (visited 
March 20, 2006)  
(describing the culture and social organization of the Louisiana 
Coushatta).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1898, the Federal Government took land into trust for 
the Tribe.\19\ In 1953, during the Termination Era, during 
which the government terminated its trust relationship with 
certain tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') ended 
its trusteeship with, and discontinued its services to, the 
Louisiana Coushatta.\20\ However, after twenty years of 
struggle, the Louisiana Coushatta's federal recognition as a 
tribe was restored in 1973 and it held its first elections in 
1985.\21\ In 1980, the current reservation near Elton, 
Louisiana was formally established.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 10 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of 
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \20\ Id. at 10-11.
    \21\ Id. at 11.
    \22\ The Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, 
(visited March 20, 2006)  (providing a chronology of Louisiana Coushatta 
history).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past twenty years, the Tribe has increased its 
reservation land base from the original 35 acres of land to 154 
acres.\23\ This land is used for Tribal housing, economic 
development projects such as crawfish farming and cattle-
raising, and to house its numerous governmental programs and 
services.\24\ The Louisiana Coushatta have established a Tribal 
police department; community, health and learning centers; and 
other social programs.\25\ The Tribe has enjoyed economic 
prosperity largely due to the success of its Grand Casino in 
Kinder, Louisiana, which opened in 1995.\26\ The Louisiana 
Coushatta currently employs 2,800 people, with a total annual 
payroll in the range of $80 million.\27\ In addition, they 
contribute approximately $7 million per year to state and local 
governments.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ The Government of the Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe 
of Louisiana, (visited March. 20, 2006)  (describing the governing 
structure of the Louisiana Coushatta).
    \24\ The Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, 
(visited March 20, 2006)  (providing a chronology of Louisiana Coushatta 
history).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 10-11 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of 
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \28\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     C. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON GET THE LOUISIANA COUSHATTA'S BUSINESS

    By the Spring of 2001, the Louisiana Coushatta was set to 
renegotiate its gaming compact with the State of Louisiana, 
which it needed to continue operating its casino in the State 
legally.\29\ Its compact was due to expire later that summer 
and the Tribe wanted to get a 25-year compact with the State as 
the Cherokees had obtained in North Carolina, to avoid having 
to renegotiate with the Governor's office every seven 
years.\30\ But, with 2001 being a gubernatorial election year, 
the Tribe was concerned about its prospects for success with 
then-Governor Mike Foster.\31\ The Tribe was expecting a ``very 
vigorous fight'' \32\ and had doubts about whether its 
lobbyists at the time were aggressive enough to get the best 
deal.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) 
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana).
    \30\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \31\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \32\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of 
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \33\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sometime during this same period, two members of the 
Louisiana Coushatta's Tribal Council, William Worfel and 
Bertney Langley, called Kathryn Van Hoof, the Louisiana 
Coushatta's outside counsel, from a meeting of the United South 
and Eastern Tribes (``USET'').\34\ They told her that they had 
just spoken with Terry Martin, a representative of the 
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (``Chitimacha'').\35\ Martin 
recommended to Worfel and Langley that they contact a prominent 
Washington, D.C. lobbyist and a public relations consultant his 
Tribe had used and with whom they were very satisfied.\36\ 
Their names: Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon.\37\ Martin 
suggested that they might be able to help with the Tribe's 
compact.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \36\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). Worfel 
understood that Martin and Abramoff were ``tight.'' Id. He recalls that 
``[Abramoff and Scanlon] would talk about Terry [Martin] a lot to me'' 
and Martin ``promoted [Abramoff and Scanlon] a lot.'' Id. See also 
``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of William 
Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
    \37\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \38\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, Worfel and Langley asked Van Hoof to meet with Martin 
in Marksville, Louisiana that day.\39\ At that meeting, Martin 
told Van Hoof about Abramoff's history with his Tribe.\40\ He 
also discussed Abramoff's successful representation of the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'') on several 
funding issues and noted how happy that Tribe was with 
Abramoff's representation.\41\ He told Van Hoof that Abramoff 
was well-connected and a friend of former Congressman Tom 
DeLay.\42\ Martin discussed the possibility that Abramoff could 
help the Louisiana Coushatta with its compact 
renegotiations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) 
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
    \40\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Van Hoof returned to the Louisiana Coushatta Tribal 
Council, which was then comprised of not only Worfel and 
Langley but also Chairman Lovelin Poncho and councilmen Leonard 
Battise and Harold John, and conducted some basic due diligence 
on Abramoff.\44\ She then delivered an oral report to the 
Tribal Council on her meeting with Martin about Abramoff.\45\ 
Van Hoof described how hiring Abramoff could help the Tribe 
implement a strategy to convey, in particular to the Governor 
and the State legislature, that it had political ``stroke'' in 
Washington.\46\ After Van Hoof's presentation, the Tribal 
Council asked Van Hoof to invite Abramoff to meet with the 
council about possibly representing the Louisiana Coushatta as 
its lobbyist in Washington, D.C.\47\ Van Hoof complied.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In anticipation of his meeting with the Tribal Council, 
Abramoff spoke with Van Hoof more fully about the Louisiana 
Coushatta's lobbying interests.\49\ He was preparing a formal 
plan and budget proposal for the Tribal Council.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About a week or two after Van Hoof's presentation to the 
Tribal Council, probably in March 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon 
went to Louisiana to meet with the Tribal Council at the 
Tribe's administration building.\51\ During the meeting, 
Abramoff described his background, political connections, and 
capabilities.\52\ In particular, he mentioned that he ``knew 
federal Indian law,'' ``federal legislation,'' and ``how to get 
things passed through the legislature.'' \53\ Referring to 
appropriations earmarks, Abramoff said that his team could get 
``line items' for the Tribe.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Id.; Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005) (recalling only Abramoff's attendance). Also present was 
administrative assistant, Michelle ``Missy'' Litteral; Interview of 
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). At this meeting, it was 
suggested that Abramoff and Scanlon would talk more openly if the 
council turned off its recorder. See id.
    \52\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id. Worfel testified that ``[he] heard [reference to earmarks] 
so much.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He also mentioned that he ``worked with people'' in the 
Department of Interior and with Members of Congress.\55\ 
Abramoff specifically mentioned his relationship with 
Congressman DeLay and former DeLay associate Scanlon.\56\ 
Abramoff described how Scanlon's background as a media 
consultant and in public relations could help make it appear 
that the Louisiana Coushatta had connections in Washington.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \56\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \57\ Id.; see also Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-
Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 
13-14, 2005) (Worfel describing how Scanlon said he could do ``media 
blitzes,'' ``phone calls,'' ``phone banks,'' ``advertising on 
television,'' etc.); ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) 
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff also cited his success with the Choctaw.\58\ That 
impressed Worfel and the Tribal Council; the Tribe had been 
trying to model itself and its casino operations on the 
economic development strategy that Chief Phillip Martin used to 
make the Choctaw among the most respected tribes in Indian 
Country.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \59\ Id. Months later, Abramoff and Scanlon would cite their 
association with the Choctaw in furtherance of their scheme to defraud 
the Tribe: When Abramoff pitched Scanlon in connection with a plan to 
elect Louisiana officials calculated to be supportive of the Tribe's 
gaming interests, called the ``Louisiana Political Program,'' Abramoff 
told Worfel that Chief Phillip Martin had spent $13 million ``to get 
the governor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out of Alabama so it 
wouldn't hurt ... his market in Mississippi.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff proposed a plan for establishing relationships 
with Members of Congress and participating in various campaign-
related activities and events to help the Tribe convey to 
others that it had influence in Washington, D.C.\60\ For 
example, Abramoff provided the Tribe with information about a 
DeLay golf tournament, saying that participating would convey 
the impression that it had some real ``stroke'' in Washington 
and would also build some good will with DeLay.\61\ 
Participation in events such as these and payments on ``lists 
of suggested contributions'' would, Abramoff suggested, provide 
name recognition and access.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In pitching himself to the Tribal Council, Scanlon 
represented that CCS could organize direct mail and telephone 
campaigns that would urge public officials to support issues 
important to CCS's clients.\63\ At the council meeting, Scanlon 
described himself as a ``bulldog''--``the one who puts fires 
out'' and ``[who] did the groundwork, like on the ads, the 
radio blitz, the phone banks, and all that.'' \64\ Scanlon 
represented that CCS ``could provide effective advice about 
strategies focusing on specific public officials in order to 
obtain official support for, or neutralize opposition to, the 
interests of CCS' clients.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
    \64\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \65\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The main operational feature of Scanlon's proposal was an 
elaborate political database.\66\ To support that database, 
Scanlon said that he would provide a range of ``electronic-
related services.'' \67\ Polling would identify the likes and 
dislikes of those who may be inclined to support the Louisiana 
Coushatta's casino.\68\ He would also ``need to [get] a list of 
[the Tribe's] vendors and ... associates, ... tribal members, 
everybody that does business with the casino and the tribe, and 
try to get them to start making phone calls, letter-writing 
campaigns....'' \69\ Having identified the universe of 
individuals whose preferences were consistent with the 
interests of the Tribe, Scanlon promised to use this 
``customized'' database to mobilize them.\70\ Scanlon said that 
this would, for example, ``have them flood the offices of 
policy makers with calls.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \67\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
    \68\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \69\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \70\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \71\ Id. There were at least two other meetings between the Tribal 
Council and Abramoff and Scanlon--another one in the Spring of 2001 
(about two or three weeks after the first) and one in February 2004. 
Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005) (during which 
compact renegotiation, Texas threats, Delta Downs and Pinnacle were 
discussed). Worfel and Poncho met with Abramoff at least one other time 
early in 2004 at Abramoff's office in Greenberg Traurig. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on representations Abramoff and Scanlon made to the 
Tribal Council at this meeting, Van Hoof understood that 
Scanlon had ``vast experience'' in public relations and that 
Scanlon was ``part of the package'' with Abramoff's 
representation of the Louisiana Coushatta.\72\ Worfel came to 
believe that Scanlon's company was a branch of Greenberg 
Traurig.\73\ When Abramoff first met with the Tribal Council, 
Abramoff said that Scanlon worked for him, and Van Hoof always 
referred to ``Jack and his guys.'' \74\ But, Van Hoof and 
Worfel agree, Abramoff never told the Council that he would 
personally collect a share of those proceeds that the Tribe 
paid Scanlon.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \73\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \74\ Id.
    \75\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Impressed with their proposals, the Tribal Council hired 
Abramoff and Scanlon as their federal lobbyist and grassroots 
political/media consultant, respectively.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Their tasks were to ``assist [the Tribe] with the renewal 
of its compact with the State of Louisiana, regional gaming 
issues, and obtaining its public policy goals in Washington, 
D.C.'' \77\ Under an agreement executed on March 20, 2001, the 
Tribe was to pay Greenberg Traurig, the firm with which 
Abramoff was associated, $125,000 per month plus reasonable 
expenses.\78\ The Tribe was willing to pay this high retainer 
because it reflected, according to Van Hoof, ``a concentrated 
effort within a short period of time'' or ``a short-term 
blitz'' while the Tribe was renegotiating its compact.\79\ Van 
Hoof assumed that the retainer amount would decrease after the 
compact period.\80\ In fact, she was surprised to learn, after 
she was no longer with the Tribe, that the Tribe had continued 
to pay Greenberg Traurig a retainer at the original amount.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \78\ Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001189-91) (March 
16, 2001).
    \79\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \80\ Id.
    \81\ Id. Despite a provision in its agreement with Greenberg 
Traurig to the contrary, the firm's expenses (which were not itemized 
in its bills to the Tribe) were deducted from the retainer. Id. Van 
Hoof could not explain why the Tribe agreed to this arrangement. While 
Van Hoof served as outside counsel to the Louisiana Coushatta, she was 
never advised of what expenses Abramoff and his team at the firm 
incurred. Id. Typically, those expenses amounted to about $15,000 to 
$18,000 per month. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former 
associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005). 
Occasionally, Leger questioned some of those expenses, including an 
anomalous charge for the charter of a helicopter. See id. But, 
inevitably the response would be ``That's the way Jack wants it to 
be.'' Id. Also, according to Short, two of Abramoff's associates, Shana 
Tesler and Samuel Hook, did not work all those hours for which 
Greenberg Traurig billed its clients. See id. She recalled, ``[T]owards 
the end, [Tesler] and Sam [Hook] were not at Greenberg, physically, 
often at all.'' Id. ``It was common knowledge within our group that 
they weren't there, but hours were on our bills.'' Id. However, where 
the Louisiana Coushatta and other Tribes who were so charged for these 
hours paid a retainer, i.e., were not billed hourly, they were not 
injured by those billings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Separately, the Tribe was to pay CCS, Scanlon's company, 
for grassroots activities related to the compact 
renegotiations--``the ground effort.'' \82\ Referring to this 
ground effort, on April 12, 2001, Abramoff told Van Hoof that 
``Mike [Scanlon] believes we can't wait any longer for [it].'' 
\83\ The asking price, $534,500.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33) (April 
12, 2001).
    \83\ Id. Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn 
Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33) 
(April 12, 2001).
    \84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With those agreements, the Tribe placed their trust in 
Abramoff and Scanlon. As Worfel testified, ``You trust them 
because they worked for Greenberg. It's supposed to be one of 
the most prestigious law firms in D.C. and America, and these 
people worked for these guys.'' \85\ Worfel trusted Abramoff, 
in particular, because it had been reported that he was one of 
the best lobbyists in Washington, D.C.; the Tribe was paying 
him a lot of money to represent its interests in D.C. and in 
the states; and (as described below) he and Scanlon originally 
``got good results.'' \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In her interview, Short recalled that Worfel told her that 
the Tribe wanted to be the ``Choctaw of Louisiana.'' \87\ 
According to Short, the Louisiana Coushatta were ``in awe of 
the Mississippi Choctaw ... because Chief Martin has done an 
amazing job with his tribe. ...'' \88\ ``And so I think,'' 
Leger continued, ``Chief Martin trusted Jack, and had Jack 
doing all these things for them. I think that gave him 
automatic credibility with William [Worfel]. And then meeting 
with him, I think, just sealed the deal.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, 
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
    \88\ Id.
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the Tribe hired Abramoff and Scanlon, the Tribal 
Council asked Van Hoof to liaise between the Tribe, on the one 
hand, and Abramoff and Scanlon, on the other.\90\ From the 
Spring through the Fall of 2001, she did so.\91\ During the 
Fall of 2001 onward, Worfel replaced Van Hoof as the Tribe's 
point of contact with Abramoff and Scanlon.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             D. SCANLON'S GRASSROOTS PROJECTS FOR THE TRIBE

    As described above, initially Scanlon was hired to help the 
Tribe on its renegotiations with the State of Louisiana 
regarding its gaming compact. Scanlon promised to develop and 
implement a media blitz, a letter writing campaign to the 
governor and local officials, phone banks, and opposition 
research.\93\ That would be accomplished by Scanlon's 
``political database.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \94\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Louisiana 
Political Budget Outline'' (October 23, 2001) (``we need to modify your 
political database into a statewide format'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A draft of a program budget outlines what Scanlon proposed 
to do for the Tribe regarding the compact renegotiations. Using 
language very similar to what he used with other Tribes, 
Scanlon proposed a five-point plan focused around the 
development and use of an elaborate political database.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Louisiana Coushatta document production (no Bates number) 
(June 26, 2001) (`` `The Coushatta Political Program,' by Michael 
Scanlon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apparently, Abramoff and Scanlon split the fees that the 
Louisiana Coushatta paid for CCS' work on the compact 
renegotiations: on April 12, 2001, and April 18, 2001, Abramoff 
and Scanlon each urged Van Hoof that the Tribe come up with 
$200,000 for an ``organizational phase'' of this political 
program.\96\ On or about April 26, 2001, the Tribe paid CCS 
$200,000, as requested. Soon thereafter, on or about April 30, 
2001, CCS paid Abramoff $75,000--itemized in CCS' accounting 
ledger as a ``referral expense.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn 
Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33) 
(April 12, 2001) (``I still do not have the budget for the complete 
effort, but Mike believes we cannot wait any longer for the on ground 
effort, so I need to get this to you for approval. ... Please let me 
know if I can give Mike the go ahead.''); Email from Michael Scanlon, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies, to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana, ``Re: Political Program funding'' (COUSH-MiscFin-0000368) 
(April 18, 2001) (``The total for the program is $539,000. In order to 
get started the tribe will need to pay $200k up front to cover the 
organizational program. ... If there [sic] is any way to get the 
initial money out today it would be great!'').
    \97\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel did see evidence that Scanlon's strategy was 
implemented.\98\ In July 2001, Governor Foster signed the 
compact.\99\ Most of the Tribal Council, and Van Hoof, were 
satisfied with the work that Scanlon conducted on the compact 
renegotiations.\100\ But, afterwards, the scope of work 
dramatically increased.\101\ Soon after his first meeting with 
the Tribal Council, Abramoff raised with the Tribe the idea of 
fighting the expansion of gaming in Texas and dockside gaming 
projects elsewhere in Louisiana.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \99\ Id.
    \100\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \101\ Id.
    \102\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, Abramoff and Scanlon, on whom the Tribe relied as 
experts, persuaded the Tribal Council that threats to the 
Tribe's gaming interests were everywhere--state-sponsored 
gambling, slot machines at horse tracks, the possibility of 
Texas legalizing gaming, and competing casinos possibly being 
built by other tribes.\103\ According to Worfel, ``It was 
always one crisis after another. There were real threats and 
some not so real, looking back with hindsight.'' \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ See Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) 
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
    \104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel continued:

        Texas gaming was one of those oversold threats. In 
        2001, we were told by Abramoff that Texas was one vote 
        away from allowing casino gambling. I have since 
        learned that legalized casino gambling was far from 
        being approved by the Texas Legislature. In addition, 
        we have learned that Jack and Mike were working for 
        other tribes in Texas that were trying to get gaming, 
        when they were supposed to be watching out for us.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel asked rhetorically:

        What should you spend to save a $300-million a year 
        business when the lawyers who work for you tell you 
        that it could all be gone if we do not act now? Our 
        tribe has one and only one business. We made tough 
        decisions and we acted always in the best interests of 
        our tribe.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Id.

    Thus, the Tribe hired Scanlon to implement a number of 
grassroots activities on behalf of the Louisiana Coushatta to 
battle the numerous threats--both real and imagined--that the 
Tribe faced. Over the following three years, separate from its 
payments to Greenberg Traurig, the Louisiana Coushatta paid 
entities owned or controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon about 
$32,000,000. Those payments are set forth below.

      Payments by Louisiana Coushatta to Abramoff/Scanlon Entities


Payments by Tribe to Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS)

    4/26/01.............................................        $200,000
    5/30/01.............................................         283,500
    6/29/01.............................................         850,000
    7/13/01.............................................         200,000
    7/26/01.............................................         102,000
    7/26/01.............................................         292,500
    7/26/01.............................................          97,500
    10/5/01.............................................         940,000
    10/31/01............................................         700,000
    10/31/01............................................       2,170,000
    1/18/02.............................................       1,000,000
    1/18/02.............................................       1,500,000
    1/18/02.............................................       1,505,000
    1/24/02.............................................         800,000
    2/6/02..............................................       1,200,000
    3/15/02.............................................       3,405,000
    4/3/02..............................................       2,100,000
    8/2/02..............................................       2,100,000
    10/16/02............................................         950,000
    2/14/03.............................................       5,000,000
    4/22/03--Coushatta/AIC..............................       1,300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................      26,695,500
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

Payments by Tribe to American International Center (AIC)

    3/16/01--Southern Underwriters......................         400,000
    3/21/01.............................................         258,000
    3/30/01.............................................         298,000
    4/27/01.............................................         397,200
    4/9/03..............................................       2,300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       3,653,200
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

Payments by Tribe to Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF)

    11/13/01--Greenberg Traurig.........................       1,000,000
    5/8/03--Atlantic Research & Analysis................         950,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       1,950,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
          Grand Total...................................      32,298,700

    As the foregoing indicates, during the first quarter of 
2002 alone, the Tribe made continuous payments to Abramoff and 
Scanlon, totaling over $9,000,000. But, on June 2, 2002, 
Abramoff wrote Scanlon, ``[The Louisiana Coushatta] are ripe 
for more pickings. We have to figure out how.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252622) (June 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In furtherance of the grassroots strategy devised for the 
Tribe, Abramoff and Scanlon persuaded the Tribal Council to 
financially support other groups opposed to gaming expansion, 
namely Christian evangelical conservatives, to help the Tribe 
protect its share of the regional gaming market.\108\ Abramoff 
specifically proposed that the Tribe work with former Christian 
Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.\109\ According to Van 
Hoof, Abramoff understood that gaming opponents, like Christian 
conservatives, would of course eschew direct contributions from 
the Tribe.\110\ Worfel recalled that Van Hoof ``came back and 
told us that [sic] a guy named Ralph Reed. She was real careful 
about a Ralph Reed person. It can't get out. He's Christian 
Coalition. It wouldn't look good if they're receiving money 
from a casino-operating tribe to oppose gaming. It would be 
kind of like hypocritical.'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id.
    \111\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). From 
2001 through 2004, most, if not all, of the Louisiana Coushatta's 
revenue came from its casino profits. Id. See also id. ( ``[Reed's name 
could not be mentioned,] I guess because he would be judged as a 
hypocrite.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel testified that, on the Tribe's behalf, Abramoff 
hired Reed to help prevent the expansion of gaming in 
Louisiana.\112\ In that capacity, Worfel understood, Reed was 
supposed to mobilize ``the Christian Coalition'' to engage on 
several legislative initiatives relating to gaming, including, 
opposing bills providing for dockside gaming and supporting an 
amendment that raised taxes on the river boats.\113\ 
Furthermore, Worfel recalled, Van Hoof told him that Reed would 
``supposedly get a lot of pastors or preachers or ministers ... 
together.'' \114\ But, once again, Worfel recalled Van Hoof 
cautioning him that Reed ``did not want his name being 
revealed.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ Id.
    \115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Against that backdrop, Abramoff asked whether the Tribe had 
any business through which payments to Reed could be made.\116\ 
In a meeting that included Louisiana businessman Aubrey Temple, 
Temple volunteered the use of one of his businesses as a 
conduit.\117\ It was an apparently moribund insurance company 
called Southern Underwriters.\118\ So, on or about March 16, 
2001, the Tribe paid $400,000 to AIC, a Scanlon-controlled 
entity, through Southern Underwriters.\119\ From Abramoff, Van 
Hoof understood that AIC was an entity that supported anti-
gaming efforts, which the Tribe could support.\120\ She also 
understood that the Tribe's money that went through AIC was to 
go to Reed, for coalition-building against gaming initiatives 
that would have competed with the Tribe.\121\ She also 
understood that, by paying Reed through AIC, the Tribe's 
identity as the original source of those funds would be 
disguised.\122\ When the Tribe paid AIC in March 2001, it did 
not know that Abramoff and Scanlon would later extract secretly 
millions in ``gimme five'' proceeds from Tribal payments routed 
through that entity. How Abramoff and Scanlon did so is fully 
explained in Part 2, Chapter 2, Section E, of this Report, 
entitled, ``American International Center: AIC as a ``Gimme 
Five Entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Id.
    \119\ Id.
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
    \122\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             E. CONCLUSION

    Specifically citing the work he had done for the Choctaw, 
Abramoff subsequently secured contracts for himself and Scanlon 
from the Louisiana Coushatta. Of all the Tribes that hired 
Scanlon, the Louisiana Coushatta ended up paying Scanlon the 
most. Initially, the Tribe hired Scanlon to help with its 
compact renegotiations with the State of Louisiana. But, after 
having successfully assisted the Tribe, Scanlon dramatically 
expanded his scope of work, which ranged from squelching 
supposedly ubiquitous threats to the Tribal casino's customer 
market share, to supposedly getting the ``right'' candidates 
elected to the Louisiana State Legislature.
    To its detriment, the Tribe trusted Abramoff and Scanlon's 
expertise in Indian gaming and were captured by their lure of 
making the Louisiana Coushatta ``the Choctaw of Louisiana.'' 
Accordingly, it deferred to Abramoff and Scanlon's judgment 
when they recommended that it fund very expensive grassroots 
campaigns.
    Ultimately, having collected about $30,000,000 from the 
Louisiana Coushatta during the relevant period, Scanlon 
secretly kicked back to Abramoff about $11,450,000--about 50 
percent of his total profit from the Tribe. This includes a 
payment of $1,000,000 that Abramoff and Scanlon manipulated the 
Tribe into paying to CAF, Abramoff's private charity.
    Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon 
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the 
Tribe, on an entity-by-entity basis, is contained below in Part 
2 of this Report.
                              CHAPTER III

                   SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

        Don't forget to get to [Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief 
        David] Otto and set up a meeting asap. We need that 
        moolah. We have to hit $50M this year (our cut!).

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, January 16, 
2002

        Understanding tribal politics, and keeping our people 
        in power, is the priority of client management.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Todd Boulanger, May 
30, 2002

        We do a recall, election and take over. Let's discuss.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Jon van Horne, 
February 14, 2002

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    Among the documents obtained by the Committee is an email, 
dated February 9, 2004, in which Abramoff authorized his 
associate, Shana Tesler, to pay the legislative director of the 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa''), 
Christopher Petras, $2500 of Abramoff's own money to help the 
former Chief of that Tribe with a recall effort there.\1\ This 
exchange reflects the end of Abramoff and Scanlon's aggressive 
campaign to keep the Saginaw Chippewa as a client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shana Tesler, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Their approach was to insinuate themselves into internal 
tribal matters by influencing tribal elections to secure 
lucrative contracts from the Tribe--a strategy that most 
observers who have discussed the matter with the Committee 
agree is egregious.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See, e.g., ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 23 (September 29, 2004) 
(testimony of Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon successfully secured tribal business 
in this way from not only the Saginaw Chippewa but also the 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente'').\3\ 
There are also fragments of information that suggest that they 
might have done so with the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
(``Louisiana Coushatta'').\4\ But Abramoff and Scanlon's 
representation of the Saginaw Chippewa presents what may be the 
most compelling case of how they did so to further their 
``gimme five'' scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ A full discussion as to how Abramoff and Scanlon did so with 
regard to the Agua Caliente is contained infra in Part 1, Chapter 4, 
``Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.''
    \4\ See e.g., Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and 
Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April 
17, 2001) (produced by Capitol Campaign Strategies). Here, Abramoff 
advises Scanlon, ``It is critical that you run the [Louisiana 
Coushatta] chairman's campaign, and that he wins! We're charging these 
guys up the wazoo, so this will be the key deliverable. Make sure you 
bill your hours like a demon. Almost no one else is billing this client 
yet, so there is plenty of room. You should be able to qualify for a 
hefty bonus just on this one ...'' Id. And, Scanlon replies, ``I will 
bill away! I need that bonus to by [sic] me a brand new cadillac!'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    The Saginaw Chippewa's traditional homelands comprise all 
of Michigan and parts of Canada.\5\ Their current reservation, 
Isabella Reservation, was established under the Treaty of 
October 18, 1864, and is adjacent to the city of Mt. Pleasant, 
Michigan.\6\ The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe traces its roots 
to three bands of Ojibwa Anishnabek known as the Saginaw, Swan 
Creek, and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians.\7\ According 
to the 2000 census, the tribal population is 3,102.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Ojibwe History (visited March 20, 2006)  (detailing the history of the Ojibwe 
peoples).
    \6\ The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16, 2006) 
 (discussing the history 
of the Saginaw Chippewa).
    \7\ Brief History of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Culture 
(visited March 20, 2006)  
(providing the history of the Saginaw Chippewa); The Saginaw Chippewa 
Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16, 2006)  (discussing the history of the Saginaw 
Chippewa).
    \8\ U.S. Census Bureau Profile of General Demographic 
Characteristic of the Saginaw Chippewa (visited March 20, 2006)  
(listing the population of people claiming Saginaw Chippewa heritage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chippewa are a classical Woodlands culture and their 
language stems from the Algonquian family; therefore, they were 
hunter-gathers and practiced horticulture. Traditionally, they 
grew rice and made sugar, hunted and fished, and later became 
adept fur traders.\9\ There are approximately fifteen to twenty 
clans traced through paternal lineage that make up the tribal 
social network.\10\ Although the Saginaw Chippewa share a 
common dialect, culture, tradition, and spiritual practices 
with other Michigan Chippewa, they are a distinct social 
group.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Ojibwe History (visited March 20, 2006)  (detailing the history of the Ojibwe 
peoples).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1937, the Tribe, reorganized under the Indian 
Reorganization Act, created the current Tribal government.\12\ 
The Tribal Council consists of twelve members elected from 
three electoral districts and includes the chief, sub-chief, 
treasurer, and secretary.\13\ In 1993, the Tribe signed a 
gaming compact with the State of Michigan.\14\ Soon thereafter, 
it opened the Soaring Eagle Resort and Casino.\15\ The Tribe 
added and opened its 512 room hotel and entertainment complex 
in 1997.\16\ The Soaring Eagle Resort and Casino is one of the 
biggest Indian casinos in the nation with estimated revenue of 
approximately $400 million per year.\17\ The Tribe currently 
employs over 4,000 people.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Brief History of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Culture 
(visited March 20, 2006)  
(providing the history of the Saginaw Chippewa); Where You Live: 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (visited March 21, 2006)  (providing a brief 
history of the Saginaw Chippewa).
    \13\ The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16, 
2006)  (discussing the 
history of the Saginaw Chippewa).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Soaring Eagle Casino Has Soared Over $3 Billion Since Opening 
in 1998 (visited March 20, 2006)  (discussing the 
success of the Soaring Eagle Casino).
    \16\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). See also 
Michigan's Tribal Gaming Industry Continues to Grow (visited March 20, 
2006)  (discussing the growth of the Soaring 
Eagle Casino); Tribal quality of life boosted by casino revenues 
(visited March 20, 2006)  (discussing the expansion of the Soaring 
Eagle Casino).
    \17\ Casino rivals step up efforts to lure gamblers (visited March 
20, 2006)  
(estimating Soaring Eagle Casino's revenue); Tribe, region benefit from 
casino revenues (visited March 20, 2006)  (providing an estimate of 
Soaring Eagle Casino's revenue).
    \18\ Soaring Eagle Casino Has Soared Over $3 Billion Since Opening 
in 1998 (visited March 20, 2006)  (discussing the 
success of the Soaring Eagle Casino).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. CHRISTOPHER PETRAS--ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S ACCESS TO THE TRIBE

    Sometime during 1998, Christopher Petras was approached at 
a concert at the Soaring Eagle Resort about submitting an 
application to the Tribe's newly created Legislative Affairs 
Department.\19\ At the time, Petras, who is not a tribal 
member, ``had been teaching political science and was familiar 
with Government processes to some extent.'' \20\ In December 
1999, Petras was hired by the Tribe as a policy research 
analyst for five years and later served as the Tribe's director 
of legislative affairs.\21\ According to Petras, his 
responsibilities were ``[t]o basically work with the Tribal 
Council on policy issues [and] conduct research.'' \22\ Whereas 
Tribal legislative assistant Kim Sawmick covered state issues 
for the Tribe, Petras focused on federal legislative matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. at 38.
    \22\ Id. at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Petras, in 2000, Sawmick told him that the 
Tribal Council was interested in looking for representation in 
Washington, D.C. to work with its other lobbyist Larry 
Rosenthal, who was then one of Abramoff's keenest 
competitors.\23\ In 1999, the Tribe had hired Rosenthal to 
serve as its Democratic lobbyist; the Tribe was now looking for 
a new Republican counterpart.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ See id. at 39.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Petras went on the Internet and typed in ``cue words, 
basically `tribes' and `lobbyist.' '' \25\ Of the names that 
came up, he contacted three firms and traveled with Sawmick to 
D.C. to meet with them.\26\ Around May 2000, they met Abramoff, 
who was then at Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.\27\ 
During that meeting, Abramoff brought in Scanlon.\28\ In his 
interview with staff, then-Sub-Chief David Otto recalled that 
Abramoff gave an ``impressive'' presentation to the Tribal 
Council.\29\ According to Petras, after that meeting, Sawmick 
recommended that the Tribe bring Abramoff in for an interview, 
which led to a decision by the Tribal Council to hire 
Abramoff.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
    \29\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \30\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, Otto and current Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague 
recalled differently. Otto remembered that Petras actually 
recommended Abramoff as his choice for the job.\31\ And, 
Sprague told staff, in his interview, that Petras ``brought 
in'' Abramoff.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \32\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). Sprague also 
recalled that sometime after June 2002 Petras told him that Abramoff 
``was working with [then-House Whip] Tom DeLay''; ``was good friends 
with Tom DeLay''; and ``had good relations with Tom DeLay.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By January 2001, with the Tribe having already hired 
Abramoff, members of the Tribal Council discussed retaining 
Rosenthal as its Washington representative.\33\ Abramoff 
complained to his colleagues at Greenberg Traurig, ``I had a 
discussion with [the Tribe's legislative director] Christopher 
Petras today. [Competitor] Larry Rosenthal has been bad 
mouthing us non-stop and it is getting increasingly difficult 
for Chris to maintain our position. Larry is going to be hired 
and he offered me a chance for us to bid on getting them money 
for a school.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ronald Platt 
and Shawn Vasell, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027597) (January 22, 
2001).
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff continued: ``I told him we were not interested in 
this arrangement, that we have serious tribal clients who 
understand the value of our efforts and that if members of his 
council are insisting that they plight their trough [sic] with 
Larry, he should do so and I wish him luck.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, Abramoff predicted that the Tribe would be back: 
``Frankly, given the animus of our Hill and new Administration 
friends ... we need not get anywhere near this problem. After 
the Saginaws are told by our friends how dead they are, and 
after their appropriations are zeroed out, they'll be back.'' 
\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With that, the Tribe discontinued using Abramoff as its 
lobbyist. Likely having realized that the only way he could 
resume representing the Tribe (and getting the Tribe to hire 
Scanlon) was through a change in Tribal leadership, Abramoff 
came up with an idea.

     D. THE ``SLATE OF EIGHT''--ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S TROJAN HORSE

    On or about October 4, 2001, Abramoff had a meeting with 
Petras, during which they discussed the Tribe's upcoming 
election.\37\ Later that night, Abramoff brought Scanlon up-to-
speed: ``I had dinner tonight with Chris Petras of Sag Chip. He 
was salivating at the $4-5 million program I described to him 
(is that enough? Probably not).'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028079) (October 4, 
2001).
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff laid out his plan: ``They have their primary for 
tribal council on Tuesday, which should determine if they are 
going to take over (general elections in November). I told him 
that you are the greatest campaign expert since ... (actually, 
I told him that there was no one like you in history!). He is 
going to come in after the primary with the guy who will be 
chief if they win (a big fan of ours already) and we are going 
to help him win.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Using a phrase the two coined to describe their financial 
relationship, Abramoff concluded, ``If he wins, they take over 
in January, and we have millions. I told him that you are 
already in national demand and we need to secure you for them. 
He is very excited. GIMME FIVE lives.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon replied enthusiastically, ``THE PRICE HAS JUST GONE 
UP TO 10 MIL! Sounds good on the strategy--We should be wrapped 
up with the other camapigns [sic] soon, so I could run his 
general election to make sure we get or [sic] give me five!'' 
\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apparently resolved to help Abramoff and Scanlon oust the 
incumbent Tribal Council, Petras recommended to a group 
(comprised of, among others, Maynard Kahgegab and Robert Pego) 
that they meet with Scanlon about their election campaign.\42\ 
That group became known as the ``Slate of Eight.'' \43\ Otto 
believes that Petras came up with the ``Slate of Eight'' 
concept and remembers Petras telling him that this was how the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians ran its elections.\44\ In 
fact, Otto recalled, Petras said that Scanlon helped on that 
Tribe's elections.\45\ Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague believes 
that Petras was only there to work for Kahgegab and, 
originally, Otto (who was running for the position of Sub-
Chief).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \43\ See Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); see also 
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number) 
(October 26, 2001) (Draft Flier, ``Tribal Council Members Otto and 
Kahgegab Announce Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run [sic] in 
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Elections--Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform of 
Reform''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (November 15, 2001) (another Draft Flier, entitled ``Slate of 
8''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number) 
(April 7, 2002) (Draft Press Release, entitled ``Chief Maynard 
Kahgegab, Jr. and Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council Host Second Community 
Meeting''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (April 7, 2002) (Draft Talking Points for Chief Maynard 
Kahgegab, Jr.); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no 
Bates number) (August 26, 2002) (Draft Community Meeting Agenda); 
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number) 
(October 30, 2002) (Draft Press Release, entitled ``Zogby Poll says 
Michigan Voters Trust Tribes, Oppose More Gaming''); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (undated) (Draft 
Flier, from ``David Otto, Slate of 8 Member,'' entitled ``Slate of 
8''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number) 
(undated) (another Draft Press Release, ``Tribal Council Members Otto 
and Kahgegab Announce Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run [sic] 
in Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Elections--Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform 
of Reform''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (undated) (Draft Mailer from Chief Maynard Kahgegab to Mr. John 
Doe); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number) 
(undated) (Draft Mailer conveying ``brief update'' by Chief Kahgegab to 
Tribal Members).
    \44\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A few days after his meeting with Petras and a telephone 
call from Otto, Abramoff reached out to Scanlon: ``MIKE, CALL 
ME AT HOME ASAP. THIS IS ON SAGINAW CHIPPEWA. TIME FOR 
BUCKS!!!'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028054) (October 11, 
2001) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Approximately three weeks before the general election for 
the Tribal Council, sometime in July or August 2001, Scanlon 
met with Petras as well as Otto and some of the other 
candidates, in Michigan for a ``strategy meeting.'' \48\ 
Petras, who set up the meeting, told Otto that Scanlon could 
help show them how to get elected.\49\ The purpose of the 
meeting, which was held at a Bob Evans restaurant, was to help 
them craft a campaign for that race.\50\ During that meeting, 
the idea of the Slate of Eight was hatched--Petras made up the 
slate concept and Scanlon made up the name.\51\ Petras, Scanlon 
and Otto discussed the upcoming elections, election strategy, 
how to get their names out, and issue mailers.\52\ Both Scanlon 
and Petras gave advice at that meeting.\53\ Afterwards, Otto 
reported to the other members of the Slate of Eight who were 
not in attendance, on his meeting with Petras and Scanlon.\54\ 
At that follow-up meeting, they discussed how Scanlon could 
help them get elected.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). See also 
Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \49\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Otto did not recall whether there was an express quid pro 
quo between Scanlon and the Slate of Eight during the strategy 
meeting.\56\ It was certainly generally understood that Scanlon 
would help Otto and the other members of the Slate of Eight in 
the election.\57\ In addition, he conceded, there was a ``non-
verbal understanding that Scanlon would like a chance to work 
for the Tribe.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At least two batches of mailings were sent out on behalf of 
the Slate of Eight.\59\ Among the documents obtained by the 
Committee from Scanlon's company, Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(CCS), is an undated draft mailer, apparently drafted for the 
Slate of Eight. It notes that ``[t]he upcoming election may be 
the only chance for the disenfranchised, [sic] and beaten down 
members of this tribe to voice their disapproval with the way 
people on the council like XXXX [sic] Jackson have run our 
tribal government.'' \60\ Likewise, an October 26, 2001, press 
release, also apparently drafted by CCS, announced that the 
``Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform of Reform.'' \61\ According 
to that release, ``The Slate of 8 represents honesty, integrity 
and vision--something that the Committee for Responsible 
Government unfortunately completely lacks.'' \62\ It also 
stated falsely that ``[w]e organized the Slate of 8 ourselves 
and are asking the tribal members to vote for us so that we can 
put the scandal plagued [sic] politics of this tribe [sic] in 
the past.'' \63\ In laying the groundwork for the Tribe to 
ultimately hire Abramoff and Scanlon, the release also 
described, as an issue on the Slate of Eight's platform, 
``developing stronger ties in Washington D.C. [sic] and at the 
state and local level to advance tribal concerns.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``State of 8'') (undated).
    \61\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Tribal Council Members Otto and Kahgegab Announce 
Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run in Saginaw Chippewa Tribal 
Elections'') (October 26, 2001).
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In connection with the Slate of Eight campaign, then-
Scanlon associate, Brian Mann, served as a liaison between 
Petras and Scanlon.\65\ In his deposition, Mann recalled 
``being in contact with Chris Petras, creating fliers or 
letters that we would mail back to Chris on Maynard's behalf.'' 
\66\ There can be no doubt that Petras was leading this effort. 
Mann ``was employed ... [t]o catch up with Petras and help 
facilitate whatever it was that he wanted to be done.'' \67\ 
Apparently, Scanlon provided Mann with between three and five 
designs for mailers, which Mann faxed to Petras for his 
approval.\68\ Because Scanlon's company did not have an in-
house graphic design capability, those designs that had 
graphics were likely generated by an outside vendor.\69\ 
According to Mann, ``[A] couple of times [Petras] didn't like 
the wording for something. He wanted something darker or 
something bigger, just kind of, you know, trying to tweak 
whatever it was.'' \70\ There were about three to five such 
exchanges before Petras finally approved the designs.\71\ At 
some point, a box of mailers arrived at Kahgegab's house--
mailers for the election that the Slate of Eight never paid 
for.\72\ All Otto had to do was to put addressed stickers on 
the mailers.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only did CCS draft mailers and fliers, it put together 
a call list; devised a campaign strategy, calendars, and time-
lines; helped organize at least one event--a ``candidates 
night''; and apparently recorded a radio ad.\74\ Other than 
$200 that some members of the Slate of Eight paid for a 
``candidates night,'' CCS paid for all out-of-pocket 
expenses.\75\ While the value of those expenses is unclear, the 
Tribe has seen some estimates as high as $100,000.\76\ 
Responding to the Tribe for Scanlon, Scanlon's lawyer, Stephen 
Braga, explained that ``[t]his $100,000 number was a value 
reflected estimate that included the time value of individuals 
working on the campaign'' and that ``actual dollars would be 
less.'' \77\ He however agreed that, while ``there is no way to 
tell exactly how much was spent,'' CCS was never reimbursed for 
its costs.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ See Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, 
Capital Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004); 
Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006).
    \75\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \76\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe). Interview of David 
Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, 
D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \77\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006).
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the election at the Saginaw Chippewa neared, Abramoff 
asked Scanlon for a status update: ``When exactly is their 
election? Do you have a guy up there?'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012235) (October 30, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Providing Abramoff with a document entitled ``Slate of 
Eight Political Calendar,'' Scanlon replied: ``Election is next 
Tuesday--I have a guy on the ground, 2 more heading up for the 
final push on Friday, and 4 mail pieces including personalized 
letters from the candidates hitting between tomorrow and 
election day. Attached is our campaign calendar.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon was optimistic about success: ``If we don't win 
after all this--we never had a chance!'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seemingly pleased, Abramoff replied: ``Looks like you have 
it well in hand. I smell victory! I smell gimme five!!!'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``guy on the ground'' that Scanlon referred to above 
was his top assistant, Christopher Cathcart. Scanlon apparently 
sent Cathcart to Michigan to do some ``hand holding,'' 
specifically, helping the Tribe with any needs and requests and 
to provide additional guidance.\83\ Otto understood that CCS 
was ``handling the Slate of Eight'' like a major election.\84\ 
On election night, Cathcart joined Otto and the Slate of Eight 
at a local Bennigans restaurant.\85\ According to Otto, 
Cathcart met and drove around with him and Kahgegab that 
evening.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Id.
    \86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CCS associate Amy Biederman was assigned to write speeches 
for Slate of Eight member Maynard Kahgegab.\87\ Additionally, 
according to invoices from the Weber Company, an issues-
management and grassroots lobbying firm that Scanlon sub-
contracted, Joe Weber, from that firm was involved in the 
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal election and was actually there on 
October 25, 26, 30, and 31, 2001.\88\ However, exactly what 
services the Weber Company provided Scanlon's company in 
connection with the Slate of Eight's campaign, is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ See Interview of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 3, 2006); Interview of 
Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital Campaign Strategies, in 
Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004). See Capitol Campaign Strategies 
document production (no Bates number) (undated) (Draft Power Point 
Slides, ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, ``Chief's 
Report''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (Draft Speech, entitled ``7:00 p.m.--Chief's Report'') 
(undated).
    \88\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (November 8, 2001) (entitled ``Invoice from Weber Company, to 
Scanlon Gould Public Affairs for $3,278.65 of expenses'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A few days later, Abramoff reminded Scanlon: ``don't 
forget!!! Ballot security at Saginaw!!!!'' \89\ Abramoff was 
concerned, because he could not ``handle losing two elections 
in the space of 4 days!'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012251) (November 2, 
2001).
    \90\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (November 5, 2001) (GTG-
E000012287). What the other election was, is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 6, 2001, all but one member of the Slate of 
Eight prevailed.\91\ A draft mailer, apparently prepared by 
CCS, dated November 15, 2001, announced the victory: ``The 
election on November 6 was an historic event for the Saginaw 
Chippewa Tribe. It was the day the people of this tribe swept 
away the politics of the past, and started a new era of 
positive and responsible government.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of 
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \92\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Slate of 8'') (November 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the evening of the election, Scanlon emailed his 
employees, congratulating them for their participation in the 
campaign: ``Well team ... Last night was amazing--The slate of 
8 kicked ass, and I want to thank all of you for helping out--
and watching the bottom line.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Robin Axline, Christopher Cathcart, Aaron Stetter and Patrick Gould, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002297) (November 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He heaped more praise: ``We had less than three weeks to 
take 8 guys we never met before and get them [sic] elected. It 
was a great plan, and great execution by a great team. Just to 
recap, we elected 7 out of our slate of 8--and the last guy--
Ray Davis missed it by ONE vote. We did get another one of our 
allies elected in District 2, and we now control 9 out of the 
12 seats on the council.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alluding to his and Abramoff's original plan, Scanlon 
concluded, ``Maynard [Kahgegab] will be elected Chief at the 
organizational meeting on December 4th, and hopefully we will 
be doing some more work for the tribe in the near future. THIS 
MAKES US 2-0 in tribal elections this year!'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He concluded, ``Great work again--and by the way the last 
time I saw Chris he was doing Tequila shots with Dave Otto at 
the Bennigans in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan--If anyone hears from 
him--tell him to get back to the office--we have a referendum 
to win in Louisiana!'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having been forwarded this email string from Scanlon, 
Abramoff enthusiastically replied, ``I love it!'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the day of the election, Abramoff reported to his 
colleagues at Greenberg Traurig: ``I just got off the phone 
with Chris Petras, government affairs head for the Saginaw 
Chippewa. Today they had their election.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Fred Baggett, 
Todd Boulanger, Rodney Lane, Stephanie Leger, Ronald Platt, Kevin Ring, 
Tony Rudy, Alan Slomowitz, Shawn Vasell and Michael Williams, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000028114/GTG-E000028115) (November 6, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He openly stated, ``We had Scanlon up there running our 
slate.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He concluded, ``We won 7 of the 8 slate positions and now 
control the council! Our guys will be Chief and Sub-Chief. 
Chris will head the 1 month transition and we will be on board 
as soon as they are in. I figure the representation will be 
$100-$150k/month.'' \100\ During his interview with Committee 
staff, the head of Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying 
practice, who among others received that email, could not 
recall having read it.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Id.
    \101\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regarding the ``Slate of Eight,'' the evidence described 
above supports the following conclusion: there was at least a 
mutual understanding, if not an agreement, that the Slate of 
Eight would hire Scanlon in exchange for, or because of, the 
work that CCS did on its election to the Tribal Council--
possibly valued at as much as $100,000. This scenario has given 
rise to ethical concerns within the Tribe. In his interview 
with staff, Otto noted that Petras, who was not a member of the 
Tribe, was not part of its public relations department and, as 
an employee of the Tribe answerable to the Tribal Council, was 
not supposed to get involved in internal leadership 
disputes.\102\ The involvement of non-Indians in tribal 
elections is, as another Council Member said, ``unheard of.'' 
\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \103\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matter,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 53 (September 29, 2004) (prepared 
statement of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                E. THE TRIBE HIRES ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON

    About two days after the seven successful members of the 
Slate of Eight were sworn in, on December 6, 2001, the Saginaw 
Chippewa hired Greenberg Traurig as its lobbyist in Washington 
for a monthly retainer of $150,000.\104\ Rosenthal was out. For 
reasons not clear to the Committee, about a year later, the 
Tribal Council voted to increase that retainer to $180,000 per 
month.\105\ But, there was a delay in the Tribe's hiring 
Scanlon, who made a full presentation to the Tribal Council in 
late 2001. According to Abramoff, then-Sub-Chief Otto became 
concerned about how much the Tribe was spending on lobbying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Saginaw Chippewa document production (no Bates number) 
(Engagement Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chief 
Maynard Kahgegab, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Council) (December 6, 
2001).
    \105\ Saginaw Chippewa document production (no Bates number) 
(Engagement Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chief 
Maynard Kahgegab, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Council) (December 4, 
2002); Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of 
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).

        Just spoke with Petras. He spoke with Otto (can't 
        believe this guy is getting off the rails). Otto is 
        coming to DC on the 29th for two days with us (Petras 
        will come too, but wants to stay in the background). 
        Otto is bringing his father in law who is from [another 
        tribe]. Otto is concerned about them being so far out 
        on the line financially without anything to show first. 
        He said that Otto wants to see some approps come 
        through first. I told him--and he, Petras, agrees--that 
        waiting is ridiculous because it will be 9 months 
        before we know about approps, and in the meantime they 
        would have blown an incredible opportunity. Anyway, we 
        have to get Otto back on board when he is here. Can you 
        do the Wizards game with us on the night of the 29th? 
        \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024627) (January 14, 
2002).

    Scanlon expressed irritation about the Tribe's failure to 
hire him immediately: ``I can't believe that I spilled blood 
getting those guys elected, and I got stiffed. How incredibly 
ungrateful. Can they at the very least sign me to some kind of 
deal? I can't believe they laid a goose-egg.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, always optimistic about their partnership 
prospects, Abramoff offered encouragement: ``We'll get it!'' 
\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shortly after the new Tribal Council was installed, it was 
rumored that the ousted Council intended to attempt a take-
over: ``[A Member's] office just called Chris and told him that 
the group that got ousted is planning a take-over in the next 
couple of weeks and that the police may not get involved ... so 
they may need federal help. This is all rumor right now, but 
chris [sic] seemed concerned.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000024701) (January 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff planned to use this rumor as an opportunity to 
have the Tribe hire Scanlon: ``Tell Chris they have to get 
their political operations on the ground moving and fast. They 
need Scanlon in there to get them organized. We'll handle the 
federal side.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the run-up to the Tribe's hiring Scanlon, Sprague 
recalled in his interview with Committee staff, he specifically 
asked Abramoff about his relationship with Scanlon.\111\ In 
response, Sprague remembered, Abramoff only said he knew him 
and that Scanlon was a professional.\112\ Ultimately, the Tribe 
executed a contract with CCS in February 2002 for $4,000,000, 
primarily for the development of a political ``database'' and, 
according to Otto, another $3.9 million to use it.\113\ Over 
the next two years, the Tribe would pay CCS about $10,000,000. 
The Tribe's payments to CCS are set forth below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of 
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).

    2/19/02.............................................      $1,857,000
    4/1/02..............................................       1,200,000
    4/17/02.............................................       1,050,000
    6/27/02.............................................       1,900,000
    8/14/02.............................................         500,000
    6/19/03.............................................         500,000
    7/18/03.............................................         500,000
    8/12/03.............................................         500,000
    10/03...............................................       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................      10,007,000

    Throughout the relevant period, Abramoff and Scanlon 
represented that these payments were supposed to fund programs 
designed to protect the Tribe's share of Michigan's gaming 
market and protect its sovereignty from external threats.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with all the Tribes, CCS' grassroots and public 
relations strategy centered on the development and use of a 
political database. In the case of the Saginaw Chippewa, this 
strategy was called ``Operation Redwing.'' According to a draft 
of the proposal that was likely presented to the Tribe, 
entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for Making the Saginaw 
Chippewa Tribe the Most Dominant Political Entity in 
Michigan,'' the first step to developing a successful political 
strategy ``is to tap into your natural political resources and 
integrate them into a custom-built political database.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the 
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in 
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It elaborated on a ``Grassroots Database'':

        We will gather lists of your vendors, employees, tribal 
        members etc. (if you approve, customer lists), and we 
        will import those lists into your new database. Our 
        computer program will match the individuals or 
        businesses with addresses, phone numbers, political 
        registrations and e-mail addresses, and then sort them 
        by election districts. The districts run from U.S. 
        Senator down to school board and once completed, you 
        can tap into this database and mobilize your supporters 
        in ANY election, or on any issue of your choosing.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Id. (emphasis added).

    The proposal separately described a ``Qualitative 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(opposition) Research Database'':

        This custom built database acts as the information 
        center of Operation Redwing. Over the next six weeks, 
        our team will gather qualitative information on any 
        entity who can be classified as opposition and enter it 
        into this database. The research will include nearly 
        every piece of information on the opposition you can 
        imagine. Once gathered, it is then sorted by subject 
        matter and made retrievable by a phrase search. The 
        information can then be instantly disseminated to any 
        audience we choose such as our universe of supporters, 
        the press, third party [sic] interest groups or other 
        interested parties.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ Id.

    According to the proposal, at the end of the day, ``the 
tribe will have built a grassroots army of over 50,000 real 
voters that it can call on for offensive or defensive political 
efforts.'' \118\ The total cost of Operation Redwing, 
$4,207,000.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Id.
    \119\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CCS also proposed a ``Market Infringement and Political 
Analysis'' that identified ``several serious threats ... 
throughout the [S]tate of Michigan'' which could threaten the 
Tribe's primary business, the Soaring Eagle Casino and 
Resort.\120\ Those threats included the land-into-trust 
applications of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the 
Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians; the prospect that the Gun 
Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians may get a state compact; and 
various non-gaming expansion initiatives.\121\ According to the 
``Overview'' of a ``Market Share Infringement and Political 
Analysis,'' dated May 18, 2002, that CCS prepared for the 
Tribe, ``[T]he tribe could lose over $100 million annually if 
two of the four facilities become operational.'' \122\ And, 
``[i]f all 4 entities become operational the financial impact 
will be devastating, so much so that we can not even measure 
its impact.'' \123\ By contrast, in its ``Conclusion,'' the 
document states that ``placing a figure on such a scenario is 
extremely difficult to do, but we can say without a shadow of a 
doubt, that if all four of the facilities ... become 
operational, at the very least the tribe will loose [sic] $200 
million dollars annually.'' \124\ The bases of these apparently 
irreconcilable conclusions are unclear. The cost of this 
program, an additional $3,455,000.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Market Share Infringement and Political Analysis'') 
(May 18, 2002).
    \121\ Id.
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Id.
    \124\ Id.
    \125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his interview with staff, Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie 
Sprague disagreed with CCS' analysis. He said that ``[e]veryone 
knew there are three southern [t]ribes that will eventually 
open casinos'' and that ``[they] are in different stages of 
development.'' \126\ According to Sprague, when they open, they 
will only affect a small percentage of the Saginaw's market, 
between 10 and 17 percent.\127\ He noted that the Tribe 
ultimately executed four contracts with CCS, which related to 
(1) building the CCS database; (2) opposing ``racino'' \128\ 
proposals; (3) opposing pending land-into-trust applications 
filed by competing tribes; and (4) supporting a statewide 
smoking ban that would theoretically drive smokers into the 
Tribe's casino.\129\ However, Sprague recalled that because the 
Council received only vague updates from Petras about the 
progress of CCS' work, he and other critics of the lobbying 
contracts were limited in their ability to object.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \127\ Id.
    \128\ The term ``racino'' refers to a combined race track and 
casino. In some cases, gaming available in racinos is limited to slot 
machines. However, some locations include table games such as 
blackjack, poker, and roulette. Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief Bernie 
Sprague noted that there were no meaningful efforts by CCS to stop 
racinos in Michigan. See Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
    \129\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In furtherance of each ``campaign'' to oppose gaming 
competition, CCS pledged to ``execute the following tactics'': 
grassroots mobilization of environmental and anti-gaming 
activists; patch-through phone calls to governmental 
environmental protection agencies; local advertising 
highlighting any project deficiencies; direct mail; opposition 
research; mobilization of environmental and ``citizen groups''; 
federal lobbying efforts on the competitions' land-into-trust 
application deficiencies; Michigan state lobbying efforts; and 
polling on each facility.\131\ Analysis as to how most of the 
money that the Tribes paid Scanlon was diverted for unintended 
purposes is discussed below in Part 2, Chapter 3, ``Capitol 
Campaign Strategies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Market Share Infringement and Political Analysis'') 
(May 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   F. ABRAMOFF ON TRIBAL CLIENT MANAGEMENT--``KEEPING OUR PEOPLE IN 
                                POWER''

    Apparently, Abramoff was not content simply to have Tribal 
members supportive of his representation of the Tribe elected 
to the Tribal Council. As he told one of his senior associates, 
``[u]nderstanding tribal politics, and keeping our people in 
power, is the priority of client management.'' \132\ Evidence 
in the Committee's possession indicates that Abramoff attempted 
to interfere in internal tribal politics to assure that the 
Tribe would remain supportive. Abramoff did so primarily by 
manipulating Petras and Petras' apparent influence over then-
Chief Maynard Kahgegab and other members of the Slate of Eight. 
According to Abramoff, Petras was his ``one secure ally'' at 
the Tribe.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026398) (May 30, 2002).
    \133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026141) (February 21, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's machinations began almost immediately. In 
January 2002, when Petras requested that Abramoff's team set up 
meetings with Members of Congress for then Sub-Chief David 
Otto, one of Abramoff's colleagues inquired whether there was a 
problem with the representation. Abramoff explained, ``[Petras] 
wants an excuse to get Otto to town to make sure he is OK with 
us. Otto and Maynard are starting to be at contretemps.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000000327) (January 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of Abramoff associates asked, ``I thought Otto was one 
of our guys?'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff answered, ``He is, but there is an ego thing going 
on there. He is not mad at us, but he has been nervous about 
our getting such a big contract, figuring correctly that their 
enemies at the tribe would be upset. That's why deliverables 
are the key.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He explained, ``He and Maynard are at odds a bit. The 
original deal was that whoever got the most votes would be 
chief and the next guy would be subchief, as between the two of 
them. Maynard beat him out.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, Abramoff noted, ``Problem is that Maynard's 
style needs some work: too much `me' and `I' and not enough 
`we'. David just needs to hold our hands again so he is calm on 
the lobbying front.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the Tribe's casino operations serving as a premium 
revenue source for his secret partnership with Scanlon and even 
though he had co-opted the Tribe's trusted legislative 
director, Abramoff was keen on shoring up his supporters on the 
Tribal Council. He told Scanlon, ``Regarding Sagchip, we need 
to present a plan to resolidify these guys politically.'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024827) (February 6, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, he intended to travel to the Tribe to do precisely 
that: ``I am going there tomorrow by the way, on the way back 
from Nevada. Meeting with our slate on the council, chief, 
subchief, et al [sic], to make sure they start doing the local 
political work they need to do to stay in power.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025064) (February 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the Slate of Eight keenly interested in assuring its 
incumbency, CCS appears to have served as an extension of 
Abramoff's interest in ``keeping [his] people in power.'' A CCS 
document, entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan 
Public Relations Plan,'' dated April 5, 2002, identifies its 
objective as ``provid[ing] the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council 
with the tools and resources necessary to successfully and 
proactively promote their agenda and improve their image among 
tribal members, the media and legislators.'' \141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Public 
Relations Plan'') (April 5, 2002) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the document states, ``The goal is to make 
this Tribal Council the most powerful and effective 
Administration in the history of the Saginaw Chippewa Indians 
of Michigan and secure their reelection.'' \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How did CCS intend to do this? CCS' strategy was ``to arm 
the Tribal Council with an effective message and the resources 
needed to communicate that message in a clear, accurate and 
concise fashion ... Each action and activity is conceived to 
maximize the Tribal Council's visibility and bolster its 
political capital.'' \143\ In particular, CCS intended to 
``identify opportunities to promote the Tribal Council's agenda 
through targeted media and Saginaw Chippewa-sponsored events 
and activities.'' \144\ With ``CCS ... propos[ing], stag[ing] 
and help execut[ing] all intra-tribe communications as directed 
by the council,'' intra-tribe relations would ``focus on 
establishing dialogue between the Tribal Council and tribal 
members, ultimately building a trust that leads to voter 
capital.'' \145\ Rather cryptically, the plan proposed to have 
``CCS ... collaborate with the Tribal Council to develop a 
response system for the notification of an incident/emergency, 
as it relates politically.'' \146\ In conclusion, the public 
relations plan noted that the ``internal and external 
strategies outlined above will enable the Saginaw Chippewa 
Tribal Council to effectively communicate their agenda, 
resulting in a successful and highly regarded Administration.'' 
\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\ Id.
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Id.
    \146\ Id.
    \147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an update memorandum from CCS associate Christopher 
Cathcart to Otto and Petras, dated April 19, 2002, Cathcart 
described CCS' efforts to date:

        Our public relations team parachuted in to manage your 
        community meeting April 1. As you know, we produced and 
        delivered a ``save the date'' mailer that was mailed 
        the week prior to the meeting. Additionally, we were 
        able to produce a press release for your internal press 
        person to distribute. While in Mt. Pleasant, the CCS 
        team prepared Sub-Chief Otto's and your remarks to the 
        membership and also developed a comprehensive timeline 
        for the entire meeting.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Memorandum'') (April 19, 2002).

    As internal strife began emerging among the Slate of 
Eight--specifically between Chief Kahgegab and Sub-Chief Otto--
Abramoff and Scanlon focused on securing their allies on the 
Council: ``Maynard and David are totally going at it. David has 
turned on Chris and possibly us (or at least is stupid and is 
the one who has been giving out our memos to the council). This 
could be a good thing ultimately if we can get Maynard secured 
in power, because he is now focused on needing us.'' \149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001168) (May 17 and 19, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One tactic the Slate of Eight apparently employed to 
neutralize its opponents on the Tribal Council was to deny them 
access to important information and meetings. They did so, if 
not on the advice of, then with the encouragement of, Abramoff. 
For example, when Petras reported that ``another Council member 
or two could be joining'' a Tribal Council meeting, Abramoff 
became alarmed: ``This is a potential problem! Who might be 
joining? They have to be totally part of the family. We cannot 
risk that they are in the opposing camp. Please let me know 
what you have in mind as soon as possible. thanks. [sic]'' 
\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chris Petras, 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000024973) (February 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, when Abramoff attempted to convince the Saginaw 
Chippewa to participate in his program to have tribes 
underwrite his use of sky boxes at D.C.-area sporting venues, 
he and Petras discussed limiting information that would be seen 
by the full Tribal Council. Preparing to present that program 
to the Tribal Council, Petras advised Abramoff:

        When I brought up the issue previously, the response 
        was it was too soon to ask. However, I just talked to 
        the Chief and he said bring the materials over. I have 
        the materials but need to know if all can see the 
        documents or if there is another document that needs to 
        be typed outlining the program and payment costs? 
        Something that says basically here is the program, here 
        is what the Tribes use the program for, here is what it 
        will cost total and with quarterly payments. I need a 
        document that everyone who would be utilized throughout 
        the process can see. Thanks.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ Email between Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001142) (February 
19, 2002).

    Abramoff advised shutting out the opposition to the 
greatest extent possible: ``Can you hand out the invoice (but 
only to the slate [sic] of 8) and just read them the memo? The 
opposition should just hear this at the table orally and get 
nothing in writing. Will that work?'' \152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff even attempted to control the Tribe's external 
relations with other tribes. For example, when the Saginaw 
Chippewa's leadership prepared to meet with the leadership from 
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff attempted to 
manipulate the meetings between the chiefs:

        Chris told me this morning that Cheryl is setting up 
        the SagChips [sic] to visit the Choctaws, which is 
        great. it [sic] is important that they see how things 
        are done right. There is one thing I wanted to mention 
        though. I was told that Cheryl might be working to set 
        up a separate meeting for Chief Maynard with Chief 
        Martin. Based on the dynamic in the room during our 
        meeting last week, I think you could tell that there 
        are some jealousies among the group, particularly Sub-
        Chief Otto and the others feeling that Chief Maynard 
        might not be including them in stuff. Therefore, I 
        think we should be careful about setting up separate 
        meetings and, ideally, keep everyone together for 
        everything for now. Let me know if you agree on this. 
        Thanks Bryant.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to C. Bryant 
Rogers, Roth, Van Amberg, Rogers, Ortiz & Yepa (GTG-E000001146) 
(February 18, 2002).

    A draft of CCS' ``Communications Program'' for the Tribe, 
dated 2003, ``briefly recap[s] what CCS, in its public 
relations role, accomplished [for the Tribe] in 2002.'' \154\ 
According to this document, ``CCS planned, staged and produced 
Community Meetings held by the Council''; ``[w]rote speeches 
for the Chief and other Tribal Members as needed''; ``[p]repped 
the Chief and other Tribal Council members and fine-tuned 
speeches.'' \155\ Documents reflecting the work that CCS did 
for the Tribal Council is attached to the end of this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan 
Communications Program 2003'') (2003).
    \155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa held new 
elections.\156\ As a result of those elections, Maynard 
Kahgegab and the other members of the Slate of Eight allies 
lost their grip on the Tribal Council and a new chief and sub-
chief were elected.\157\ The newly elected Tribal Council 
decided not to retain Abramoff and Scanlon as their lobbyist 
and public relations specialist, respectively.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Newly elected Tribal Chief Audrey Falcon informed Scanlon 
of the Tribe's decision on January 23, 2004, citing CCS's 
failure to provide reports and work product regarding a state-
wide smoking ban initiative.\159\ On February 6, 2004, one of 
Scanlon's lawyers, Robert Tompkins of the Washington firm of 
Patton Boggs, demanded payment of $2,755,000 in connection with 
the agreement relating to the initiative.\160\ Just days after 
the election, Petras had also repeatedly tried to get the new 
Tribal Council to pay Scanlon.\161\ But, on March 5, 2004, 
shortly after the Committee announced its investigation, 
another of Scanlon's lawyers, Stephen Braga of Baker Botts, 
withdrew Scanlon's demand, indicating that ``[CCS] has no 
desire to try to force this contractual relationship forward 
with an unwilling party.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\ Letter from Chief Audrey Falcon, Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe, to Michael Scanlon, Capital Campaign Strategies (January 23, 
2004).
    \160\ Letter from Robert K. Tompkins, counsel to Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, Patton Boggs, to Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (February 6, 
2004).
    \161\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
    \162\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opposition to the new ruling bloc in the Tribal Council 
began circulating ``hit pieces'' around the Tribe, attacking 
newly elected Chief Audrey Falcon, Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague, 
and others.\163\ While who authored those pieces is unclear to 
the Committee, the Committee understands that, as a result of 
its own internal investigation, the Tribe has attributed them 
to Petras.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \164\ From its internal investigation, the Tribe has found that 
Petras wrote these pieces. Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an attempt to regain power, former Chief Maynard 
Kahgegab and former Sub-Chief Robert Pego sought to have the 
new council recalled.\165\ Information obtained by the 
Committee suggests that Abramoff and Petras were involved in 
the recall effort. Apparently, on several occasions, they 
approached Scanlon about helping with that effort.\166\ An 
email from Boulanger to other members of Abramoff's lobbying 
team, in February 2004, describes Abramoff's work with the 
ousted leadership against the duly elected members of the 
Tribe:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \166\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).

        As of Friday, Maynard had just under 200 signatures for 
        the recall petition (250 is required). They are going 
        to get 300 just to be sure. This was completed in less 
        than one week, which is highly unusual because the 
        Saginaw are a very slow moving tribe. Diana, who was 
        originally on Maynard's team and then switched to 
        Bernie has finally come back into the fold. Her family 
        was planning on signing the petition this weekend. 
        Also, two of Bernie's guys on the council are scared 
        and trying to get in Maynard's good graces ... they 
        don't know that they are also on the recall list. Once 
        the recall is completed, we are going to have to get a 
        letter to BIA asking that they send monitors, etc, to 
        the special election date ... if Robert Pego wins the 
        special election on the 11th for the vacant seat, we 
        may actually have a majority and can at a minimum get 
        Rosenthal fired. This is confidential, obviously.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Michael Smith, Kevin Ring and Michael Williams, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000028359) (February 9, 2004).

    With Petras serving as Abramoff's point man on the recall 
effort, Abramoff was prepared to help fund it.\168\ In a status 
report later that day, Boulanger reported: ``They are less than 
50 signatures short of the recall. Maynard has been pounding 
them with mailings ... which to be honest with you, aren't that 
bad.'' \169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ See Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
    \169\ Email from Todd Boulanger to Jack Abramoff, Michael Smith, 
Kevin Ring, Shawn Vasell and Michael Williams, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``They are running out of money for copying, 
stamps, etc. Petras asked if we could come up with $2500 to 
help them out.'' \170\ Kahgegab and Pego's efforts, apparently 
with assistance from Petras and Abramoff, to have the newly 
elected council recalled failed.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff was prepared to contribute, instructing associate 
Shana Tesler to get Petras money from one of his accounts, 
which Boulanger carefully specified should be ``cash.'' Two 
days later, Boulanger reported that Kahgegab would have 300 
signatures within the next few days.\172\ The foregoing 
describes Abramoff and Scanlon's elaborate, albeit 
unsuccessful, attempts to assure, by further interfering in 
internal tribal matters, that the Tribe would keep them on as 
its paid representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd 
Boulanger, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028364) (February 11, 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        G. CHRISTOPHER PETRAS' HEARING TESTIMONY IS NOT CREDIBLE

    On September 29, 2004, former Saginaw Chippewa legislative 
director Christopher Petras testified before the Committee. The 
Committee is concerned about the veracity of his testimony. It 
appears that, with his testimony, Petras intended to obscure 
his contemporaneous relationship with Abramoff and Scanlon and 
the assistance he gave them in maximizing their interests at 
the Tribe's considerable expense.

1. Petras' Relationship With Abramoff and Scanlon

    Serving as Abramoff and Scanlon's primary point of contact 
with the Tribe, Petras proved to be their key to access to the 
Saginaw Chippewa.\173\ Abramoff and Scanlon apparently obtained 
Petras' help by assisting in the election of a slate of 
candidates supportive of his promotion to legislative director 
(and the considerable increase in his salary). Apparently, they 
also did so by lavishing him with attention and favors during 
his visits to Washington, D.C., including sky box tickets for 
sporting events and concerts at area stadiums.\174\ On one such 
visit, Petras had his photograph taken with, separately, 
President George W. Bush and his chief political advisor Karl 
Rove.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ See Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview 
of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \174\ Id. (conveying concern about gratuities).
    \175\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearing before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 45 (September 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Those trips, during which Petras was driven around town in 
a private car and for which his meals and entertainment were 
expensed back to the Tribe, seem to have been frequent.\176\ In 
his interview with staff, tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague 
stated that Petras traveled to Washington about every two 
weeks.\177\ Sprague regarded the purpose of those trips as 
dubious.\178\ Former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger Short 
agreed that Petras was ``around a lot''--at least once a month, 
if not more.'' \179\ In her interview, Short described Petras' 
visits as ``high maintenance'' and noted that ``[the Greenberg 
Traurig's associates] were running out of people [for Petras] 
to meet with, because they had pretty much met with everybody 
at that point.'' \180\ After a while, the meetings were being 
set up as ``dog-and-pony shows,'' she said.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \177\ Id.
    \178\ Id.
    \179\ Interview of Stephen Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg 
Taurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
    \180\ Id.
    \181\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, Petras' trips were so frequent and so demanding on 
Abramoff's staff, he was regarded as something of a nuisance. 
This is reflected in, for example, a March 22, 2002, email 
between Abramoff senior associate Todd Boulanger. It begins 
with Petras informing Boulanger of his itinerary of an upcoming 
trip to Washington:

        Todd, I am scheduled to arrive in D.C. on April 9 and 
        returning on the 12th... I have asked Members of the 
        Council to join me and will await their response. 
        However, please schedule meetings, [i]ncluding lunch 
        and dinner meetings at Signature's [sic]. Jack had 
        mentioned a possible lunch or dinner with Mr. Norquist 
        on one of the days if he is available. If Signature's 
        [sic] is serving breakfast maybe you can schedule a 
        meeting then. Also, I will probably be returning April 
        15-18th.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078656) (March 22, 2002).

    Boulanger was not pleased, writing Abramoff, ``How am I 
going to schedule six days [of] meetings. This is fucking 
ridiculous. There is no way I can basically take 2 weeks to 
shuttle him around. This has to be dealt with.'' \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff offered some consolation, ``I will set up the 
Grover meeting. What a loser.'' \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, on July 2, 2002, during another visit to 
Washington, Petras suggested, ``Perhaps on the next visit, you 
and I can host an official for dinner at Signature's [sic].'' 
\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\ Email from Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, 
to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078774) (July 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff wrote Boulanger, ``Host an official for dinner at 
Signatures? What the hell is this?'' \186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \186\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078773-74) (July 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boulanger answered, ``U 100 percent need to tell him he 
can't come back until post August [sic]. Approps staff are 
getting mad at us.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From information obtained by the Committee, it appears that 
the foregoing was not atypical of Petras' trips to Washington.
    During the Committee's hearing, then-Vice-Chairman Inouye 
probed what gifts Petras may have received from Abramoff or 
Scanlon while he served as the Tribe's legislative director:

        Vice-Chairman Inouye: Did you receive any gift or 
        remuneration or compensation from these two men from 
        Washington?
        Mr. Petras: All I can recall receiving was a video 
        camera-digital camera, a leather travel document holder 
        and some type of slide projection desktop screen.
        Vice-Chairman Inouye: Did you feel that it was proper 
        or improper?
        Mr. Petras: It was at Christmas. [Laughter] \188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 41 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).

    Among the gratuities that Petras did not disclose was the 
$2500 he solicited in 2004 from Abramoff to support a recall 
campaign against the incumbent Tribal Council.\189\ Documents 
in the Committee's possession also indicate that, Maynard 
Kahgegab, whose campaign for Tribal Chief Petras (and CCS) 
helped with, also received gifts from Abramoff. On July 21, 
2003, Abramoff discussed with one of his assistants a 
``television gift'' for Chief Kahgegab: ``We bought him one for 
Christmas, right? Can you show me what we got him? [H]e 
complained tonight that it was too small. We might have to get 
him another one. [W]hat joy!'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shana 
Tesler, Greenberg Trauirg (GTG-E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
    \190\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Holly Bowers, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000000008) (July 21, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Problems With Petras' Testimony

    During its September 29, 2004, hearing, the Committee posed 
several questions to Petras about his involvement in tribal 
elections--both the campaign of the Slate of Eight for seats on 
the Tribal Council and subsequent efforts to keep the then-
incumbent members of the slate on the Tribal Council. In 
response, Petras relied on a chronic failure of recollection. 
In particular, he testified that he could not recall ``at any 
time having anything to do with [Tribal Council] elections.'' 
\191\ He also stated that he did ``not recall any discussion 
regarding bringing in Mr. Scanlon to run any type of 
campaign.'' \192\ In response to a specific question from the 
Committee about the strategy meeting with Scanlon and Otto at 
the Bob Evans restaurant, Petras testified that he could not 
recall ``discussing any strategy for a [S]late of [E]ight.'' 
\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 42 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).
    \192\ Id. at 40 (emphasis added).
    \193\ Id. at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, this Report has presented testimony and documents 
that indicate that Petras not only came up with the ``Slate of 
Eight'' concept but also was heavily involved in helping 
Scanlon implement a plan to help elect the Slate of Eight to 
the Tribal Council. Given the volume of that evidence, 
discussed above, the Committee finds Petras' failure of 
recollection on this point misleading.
    Despite his alleged failure to remember having had anything 
to do with Tribal elections, documents indicate that Petras 
actually persisted in trying to get CCS to help on the re-
election of incumbent members of the Tribal Council. For 
example, an October 1, 2003, memorandum from then-CCS associate 
Christopher Cathcart to the file, entitled ``MI Elections,'' 
reflects that Scanlon had ``repeated and contentious 
discussions with Petras' about his attempts to have CCS work on 
individual election efforts of Tribal Council members.\194\ To 
Cathcart, this ``looked fishy and smelled fishy.'' \195\ 
According to the memorandum, Cathcart ``repeatedly advised ... 
Chris Petras ... that we as a firm can do no work [on such 
efforts].'' \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08552) 
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 1, 2003).
    \195\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \196\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08552) 
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 1, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Days later, Petras apparently ``came to [CCS'] offices 
today asking again that we help in the council elections 
scheduled for next Tuesday, October 14th.'' \197\ According to 
a memorandum reflecting this discussion, Cathcart ``again 
expressed [his] opinion that since [CCS is] contracted with the 
tribe, [CCS] cannot be involved with the elections.'' \198\ In 
this document, Cathcart memorialized that ``[Petras] was very 
upset by this line of discussion ...'' \199\ On October 7, 
2003, in another note to the file, Cathcart memorialized that 
``[Scanlon] expressed that he would discuss the matter with 
Chris Petras and express to [him] that that [sic] was our 
position.'' \200\ Memorializing ``the behavior of Chris Petras, 
our sole contact at Saginaw Chippewa[,] to be inappropriate 
with regard to [CCS'] relationship with the tribe,'' Scanlon 
drafted his own note to the file that ``[Petras] has repeatedly 
pressed his and the chiefs [sic] political concerns into our 
business relationship with the tribe.'' \201\ He also 
memorialized that he and Cathcart ``have continually told 
[Petras] that we (CCS) can not [sic] use tribal funds to 
conduct campaign activity ...''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08547) 
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 6, 2003).
    \198\ Id.
    \199\ Id.
    \200\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08551) 
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to file, `Tribal Council Election in Michigan' '') (October 
7, 2003).
    \201\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08549) 
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to file, `Saginaw Chippewa/Chris Petras' '') (October 9, 
2003) (carbon-copying Cathcart).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As described above, the Committee has received information 
indicating that Petras was heavily involved in the 2004 recall 
effort. Apparently, at one point, Petras and Abramoff were on a 
speaker phone yelling at Scanlon because Scanlon would not help 
with that effort.\202\ The Committee has also received 
information indicating that Petras asked Scanlon to write a 
negative letter about a Tribal Member associated with the 
effort--perhaps Bernie Sprague.\203\ Petras apparently provided 
Scanlon with negative personal information about that 
member.\204\ About three weeks before Sprague was elected to 
the Tribal Council, an anonymous letter conveying disturbing 
allegations was mailed out to members of the Tribe.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \202\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying 
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
    \203\ Id.
    \204\ Id.
    \205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only did Petras claim to not recall what he did to 
support the re-election efforts of particular Tribal Council 
members, he allegedly could not recall anything about 
Abramoff's involvement in assisting in the recall of the other 
members of the Tribal Council, who were elected after the Slate 
of Eight left office.\206\ However, given the evidence 
described above that indicate that Petras knew a great deal 
about Abramoff's involvement here, the Committee finds Petras' 
chronic failure to recall matters about this issue, and other 
issues, disingenuous. Of additional interest to the Committee 
is Petras' inability to recall all of the gifts or remuneration 
he may have received from Abramoff or Scanlon, also discussed 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \206\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 40 (September 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On areas apparently unaffected by his chronic failure of 
recollection, Petras made statements that are inconsistent with 
the testimony of other, more credible, witnesses. Two areas 
that the Committee probed with Petras during the hearing were 
his role in the Tribe's hiring of Abramoff and his role in 
getting the Tribe to pay on Abramoff's requests for political 
and charitable contributions. During the hearing, Petras 
described his role in the Tribe's hiring of Abramoff as merely 
passing information on to the Tribal Council as to who it 
should hire as an outside counsel or lobbyist and that 
legislative assistant Kim Sawmick actually made the 
recommendation.\207\ Inasmuch as Petras covered federal 
legislative matters for the Tribe, the Tribal Council likely 
would have given substantial deference to Petras as to who the 
Tribe should hire as its federal lobbyist. Indeed, former 
Tribal Sub-Chief David Otto stated that Petras actually 
recommended Abramoff as his choice for the job.\208\ Likewise, 
Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague told staff that Petras 
``brought in Abramoff.'' \209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\ Id. at 42-44, 48.
    \208\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \209\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Petras likewise testified that ``[t]here were no efforts on 
my behalf to try to push either way any type of political 
contribution.'' \210\ This was offered in response to a 
question from the Committee as to whether Petras ``encourage[d] 
or assist[ed] Mr. Abramoff in encouraging the tribes to donate 
to [the] so-called charities that he promoted.'' \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).
    \211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, Otto's testimony rebuts Petras' recollection. In 
particular, Otto recalled Petras' telling him that the Council 
of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA'') was a 
group with which Interior Secretary Gale Norton was 
``involved.'' \212\ According to Otto, Petras also said that 
supporting a project the Secretary was involved with would 
``look good for the Tribe.'' \213\ Otto also recalled that he 
was told that doing so would ``help [the Tribe] with 
appropriations for their school, drug abuse center, senior 
center, and etc.'' \214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \213\ Id.
    \214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents indicating that Abramoff told Petras that the 
Secretary supported CREA help corroborate Otto's account. In an 
email, dated September 19, 2001, from Abramoff to Petras, 
Abramoff tried to persuade the Tribe to make a sizeable 
contribution to CREA.\215\ In connection with a CREA fund-
raiser at a private Washington, D.C. home, Abramoff falsely 
pitched CREA as ``hav[ing] been incredibly helpful on certain 
specific tribal issues' and misrepresented CREA as 
``[Secretary] Norton's main group outside the department.'' 
\216\ After having told Petras about the Secretary's connection 
to CREA, on January 31, 2002, Abramoff directed his assistant 
make the following change to a requested contribution list 
going to the Saginaw Chippewa: ``add in $50,000 for CREA and 
put a note in the candidate column as follows: Sec. Norton.'' 
\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000105233-34) (September 
19, 2001).
    \216\ Id.
    \217\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107697) (January 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From its due diligence, the Tribe estimates that ``[t]he 
Saginaw Chippewas were taken by Mr. Petras and Mr. Scanlon and 
Mr. Abramoff over a 2-year period of approximately $1 million 
in contributions ... Campaign contributions to people we never 
heard of, people we knew nothing about, organizations, 
different things of this nature.'' \218\ Given the foregoing, 
the Committee is concerned about the accuracy of Petras' 
testimony to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \218\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matter,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 29 (September 29, 2004) (prepared 
statement of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON PRIVATELY EXPRESS CONTEMPT FOR THE TRIBE

    While Abramoff and Scanlon worked closely with the Tribe 
for their own purposes, they expressed an unsettling contempt 
for their clients. Evidence of their contempt can be traced to 
the beginning of their representation of the Saginaw Chippewa. 
For example, on December 17, 2001, shortly after the Tribal 
Council elections, Abramoff and Scanlon awaited the new 
Council's vote on a project proposed by Scanlon's CCS: ``Just 
spoke with Chris. Did you get Maynard? Chris said they are 
voting on the project today!! Can you smell money?!?!?!'' \219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Mike Scanlon, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002363) (December 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the new Council failed to vote on the project, 
Abramoff was unreserved in his contempt: ``The f 'ing 
troglodytes didn't vote on you today. Dammit.'' \220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Mike Scanlon, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002365) (December 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon asked, ``What's a troglodyte?'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000002365) (December 17, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``What am I a dictionary? :) It's a 
lower form of existence basically.'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuing their exchange, Abramoff explained the Saginaw 
Chippewa's failure to vote on one of Scanlon's proposals: 
``They spent the whole time discussing the firings of late. I 
like these guys, and truly believe they are going to do the 
program, but they are plain stupid. They should have had you on 
board first and then done the firings. Morons.'' \223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002363) (December 18, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, on March 13, 2002, Mr. Abramoff simply referred 
to the Tribe, in the subject line of an email to Scanlon, as 
``those 
f 'ing SagChips.'' \224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026246) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In that e-mail, Abramoff expressed concern that the Tribe 
was not going to participate in his Sports Suites program, 
because the Tribe was already spending too much money and was 
not seeing results from Scanlon.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \225\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon retorted that the tribe ``are just friggin cheap--
and losers ...'' \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, in an e-mail bearing the subject line 
``SagChip idiots'', Abramoff wrote:

        Someone leaked out the Operation Red Wing memo to the 
        enemy up there. Petras told me this tonight. The PR 
        guy, Joe?, is the enemy and--I did not know this--is a 
        Sagchip, and is now going to run for council!! These 
        mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure. 
        \227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026311) (April 11, 2002).

    In discussing a trip to the Tribe in June 2002, Scanlon 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:

        Also, we need to figure something out on the trip to 
        sag--I can travel two weekd [sic] in [a] row and you 
        know that petras is always dramtic [sic]. It would 
        really be better for me--and us[,] I believe[,] to just 
        do the whole swing. I really think a trip out to those 
        fools solo is not worth it regardless, because we will 
        not come back with cash or a firn [sic] commitiment 
        [sic], but when you throw in the pain in the ass factor 
        and the petras bullshit factor, its [sic] a really bad 
        idea.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \228\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001175) (June 5, 2002).

    As the foregoing suggests, Christopher Petras, Abramoff and 
Scanlon's champion within the Tribe, did not escape their 
contempt. Apparently from the outset, Abramoff disparaged 
Petras as a ``dork.'' \229\ When Petras attempted to get 
concert tickets for a Michigan state representative running for 
Congress, Abramoff wrote to a colleague, ``Neither rain, nor 
snow [sic], nor the heat of day will keep him from his 
appointed idiocy.'' \230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \229\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane 
(GTG-E000024633) (May 24, 2001).
    \230\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027857) (February 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ironically, Abramoff and Scanlon ridiculed Petras privately 
for talking about people behind their backs. In an email with 
the subject line ``Just Talked to Petras,'' Scanlon wrote, ``No 
worries--Im [sic] sorry I felw [sic] off the handle--that guy 
drives me nuts sometimes--especially the way he back stabs and 
talks about everybody behind thier [sic] backs.'' \231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \231\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-000024691) (December 12, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``That's why he has a mullet.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \232\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Months later, Abramoff had a similar exchange with his 
senior lobbying associate Todd Boulanger: ``What are you doing? 
Petras is coming to town this week'' I'm gonna schedule ... 
Some Jack--Petras time everyday ...'' \233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027698) (March 16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``Have you noticed that he's wearing better 
ties and shirts ... [?] I've got him to spend some cash on it. 
He's into it. Ahahahahhahahhaahhaha. If he would [sic] only cut 
that hair.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Then he wouldn't look like an Indian, 
though.'' \235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When, at its September 29, 2004, hearing the Committee 
asked Petras for his reaction to various communications in 
which Abramoff and his associates disparaged him, his loyalty 
to Abramoff stood fast--he asked for their context.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 41-42 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             I. CONCLUSION

    Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts to sign on the Saginaw 
Chippewa as clients is particularly notable. As they had done 
with the Agua Caliente, Abramoff and Scanlon insinuated 
themselves in Tribal Council elections to maximize their chance 
of getting hired afterwards. In particular, they provided, 
among other things, strategic advice and logistic support to 
some of the candidates. Those who ran in the Saginaw Chippewa 
election called themselves the ``Slate of 8.'' While Scanlon 
came up with the name of this slate of candidates, the concept 
was apparently created by a non-Tribal member--Tribal 
legislative director, Christopher Petras.
    While his motivation for helping Abramoff and Scanlon oust 
the incumbent Tribal Council remains unclear, evidence 
indicates that, over the course of (originally) Abramoff's and 
(later) Scanlon's representation of the Saginaw Chippewa, 
Petras was given things of value. In fact, Petras traveled to 
Washington, D.C. so often and (with private cars, tickets to 
sporting events and concerts, meals at posh restaurants, and 
``meetings'' with prominent political personalities) his trips 
became so demanding on Abramoff's staff that one former 
Abramoff associate described what they did for and with Petras 
as ``dog and pony shows.''
    The weight of evidence obtained by the Committee indicates 
that (1) Petras' assistance was key to Abramoff and Scanlon's 
success in getting contracts with the Saginaw Chippewa and (2) 
those candidates who were elected to the council with Abramoff 
and Scanlon's assistance ultimately supported Abramoff and 
Scanlon's contract proposals because of, or in exchange for, 
the assistance that Abramoff and Scanlon provided them.
    From June 2002 through October 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa 
paid Scanlon about $3,500,000 for grassroots activities and 
political consulting. Of those proceeds, Scanlon secretly 
kicked back to Abramoff about $540,000--about 50% of his total 
profit from the Tribe during this period. Discussion and 
analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon successfully perpetrated 
their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on an entity-by-
entity basis, is contained infra in Part 2 of this Report.
                               CHAPTER IV

                 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

        Can you smell money?

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, June 14, 2002

        I think the key thing to remember with all these 
        clients is that they are annoying, but that the 
        annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind 
        of money and part with it so quickly.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, March 5, 2003

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    During her February 2004, interview of Jack Abramoff, The 
Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt queried him about 
allegations that he and Michael Scanlon may have interfered 
with Tribal elections to get lobbying contracts. Specifically, 
Schmidt asked, ``You know, isn't there some, you know concern 
about outside people getting involved in tribal elections and 
isn't that frowned upon by the regulators here in Washington?'' 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010608) (February 3, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff pushed back a little: ``I'm sorry I don't 
understand, tribal elections?'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt explained, ``Getting involved in tribal elections 
[--] outside firms[;] outside influences[;] bringing money or 
expertise or whatever[;] getting involved in tribal 
elections[;] getting people ousted[;] getting people elected[;] 
getting people re-elected using tribal funds for that 
purpose.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff asked, ``Well I don't know, I'm not sure I 
understand the question, do you mean with the Sac and Fox in 
Iowa, or our getting involved?'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schmidt pressed, ``No, I was actually thinking of the Agua 
Caliente[:] some people running for election getting dominance 
on the tribal council and then bringing you guys in and you 
guys bringing in Scanlon, in sort of unfolding. ...'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff obfuscated, ``With Agua Caliente, I, you can 
check, but I don't think the tribal council makeup has changed 
much over the years, I'm not certain.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding Abramoff's evasive answers to Schmidt's 
questions, Abramoff and Scanlon did, in fact, insinuate 
themselves into the elections at the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''). In 2002, one of their 
allies prevailed and paved the way for the lucrative contracts 
that the Tribe ultimately awarded to Abramoff and Scanlon.

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    The Agua Caliente's traditional homelands are in the Palm 
Springs, California area.\7\ In 1876, the Federal Government 
deeded into trust 32,000 acres of the Tribe's ancestral 
homeland as the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 51 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared 
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Traditionally, a Cahuilla village consisted of 
approximately 100 to 200 inhabitants with several villages 
combining together to compose a larger political and 
territorial unit called a tribelet or sib.\9\ The villages were 
permanent; however, groups would leave periodically to hunt, 
gather, or trade, setting up temporary camps for several weeks 
at a time.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Cultural History (visited Mar. 22, 2006)  (describing the cultural 
history of the Cahuilla).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Cahuillas belong to the Shoshonean division of the Uto-
Aztecan linguistic family, which ranges from the Aztecs of 
Mexico to the Hopi in Arizona.\11\ Cahuilla society was divided 
into exactly two descent groups or moieties, the Wildcat and 
the Coyote.\12\ The Cahuilla were adept at farming and grew 
crops such as melons, squash, beans, and corn.\13\ They 
irrigated their crops with water from nearby streams.\14\ They 
also gathered other food items such as acorns, seeds, wild 
fruit, agave, and yucca.\15\ In addition, they participated in 
extensive trade routes with neighboring tribes where food, 
shells, animals, and mineral products were traded.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Homepage (visited Mar. 22, 2006)  (providing a brief introduction to Cahuilla 
history).
    \14\ Cultural History (visited Mar. 22, 2006)  (describing the cultural 
history of the Cahuilla).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Agua Caliente adopted its constitution and by-laws in 
1955.\17\ The Agua Caliente Tribal Council consists of five 
members: chairman, vice chairman, secretary, and two 
members.\18\ The chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary serve 
2-year terms and members serve a 1-year term.\19\ Under the 
Tribe's constitution, action is taken by a majority vote of the 
Tribal Council.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 51 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared 
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1989, the Tribe formed the Agua Caliente Development 
Authority, a subsidiary of the Tribe, which handles decisions 
on economic development.\21\ The Tribe operates two casinos. 
One, opened in 1995, is located on the hot springs for which 
the Tribe was named.\22\ The other casino opened in 2001.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Political History (visited March 22, 2006)  (describing the political 
history of the Cahuilla).
    \22\ Miller & Schroeder Completes $70 Million Debt Financing for 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (visited March 22, 2006)  (discussing 
the financial history of the Cahuilla casinos).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            C. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON OFFER THE PROMISED LAND

    In early 2002, Abramoff was on his way to Palm Springs, 
California for a meeting with members of the Agua Caliente.\24\ 
Michael Chapman, an enrolled member of the Menominee Indian 
Tribe of Wisconsin, had arranged the introduction.\25\ Chapman 
had claimed to be ``very good friends'' with Candace Patencio 
(``C. Patencio'') and Virginia Siva, members and Tribal leaders 
\26\ of the Agua Caliente.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Smith, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059107) (January 7, 2002).
    \25\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000059081) (January 22, 2002); Email between Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Chapman (GTG-E000056764) 
(January 22, 2002).
    \26\ Although she was not on the Tribal Council at the time, C. 
Patencio had been involved in tribal politics and had served on the 
Tribal Council previously, from 1996-2001, losing her bid in 2001 for 
the vice chairman's seat by one vote. Interview of Candace Patencio, 
former council member, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by 
telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \27\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002); see also Email from Michael 
Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059086) (January 
22, 2002) (``I am dear friends with both and we have vacationed 
together in Utah and Hawaii--under the guise of Indian business.''). 
During his interview with Committee staff, Chapman said that while he 
considers Siva a friend, he only feels he is close friends with C. 
Patencio. Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff had become acquainted with Chapman through Michael 
Smith, then a lobbyist in Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C. 
governmental affairs practice.\28\ Smith and Chapman initially 
met by phone through a mutual friend, and later met face-to-
face in Chicago over Christmas vacation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Email from Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059106-07) (January 7, 2002).
    \29\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman proved a useful resource. Before Abramoff's meeting 
in Palm Springs, Chapman provided Abramoff with information 
about the Tribe, its key players, and internal dynamics. More 
specifically, he provided background on C. Patencio and Siva 
and their involvement in Tribal politics:

        [Virginia] has held her At-Large seat for several 
        years. She is contemplating running for Chairman, 
        pending a preliminary polling of key families. What is 
        remarkable about her is the At-Large seats are up for 
        election each year, so she has a consistent power base 
        in the tribe that is loyal to her.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On C. Patencio, Chapman provided the following information:

        Candace comes from the Petencio [sic] family which is 
        one of the largest families at Agua Caliente--both of 
        her parents have served on council in the past and her 
        father was once Tribal Chairman. She has served on 
        council for several years as an At-Large Councilor. 
        Last year she ran for Vice-Chairman of the tribe and 
        lost by one vote. This year she is seeking her old 
        seat. Candace has an MBA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.; see also Interview of Candace Patencio, former council 
member, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 
2006) (explaining she received a degree in Business Administration from 
University of San Diego and an MBA from University of Phoenix in San 
Diego, and confirming her one-vote loss for Vice Chairman in 2001).

    Chapman also identified the consequences of a successful 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
election for C. Patencio and Siva:

        They [C. Patencio and Siva] are also related to the 
        Tribe's Treasurer [Moraino Patencio]--so if they 
        prevail in their election pursuits in March--they will 
        have controlling interest on the Tribal Council.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002). In her interview, C. Patencio 
confirmed that she, Moraino Patencio, and Siva are related. Interview 
of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).

    Once in Palm Springs, Abramoff dined with C. Patencio, 
Siva, and Moraino Patencio (``M. Patencio'') at the Canyon 
Bistro restaurant.\33\ During her interview with Committee 
staff, C. Patencio admitted that she and Siva were dissatisfied 
with Pace-Capstone, the Tribe's lobbyists at the time.\34\ 
Indeed, C. Patencio said that if she assumed control of the 
Tribal Council at the time, she would have definitely ended 
that lobbying firm's contract.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006); see 
also Emails between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ilisa 
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056766) (January 22, 2002).
    \34\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet, she claimed that before her meeting with Abramoff, she 
did not know he was a lobbyist, and there was no purpose to the 
meeting.\36\ She simply met with him because Chapman had 
suggested she do so.\37\ According to C. Patencio, she only 
knew that Abramoff was a movie producer who had produced ``red 
something.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id. C. Patencio was likely referring to Abramoff's production 
of the movie ``Red Scorpion,'' an action film starring actor Dolph 
Lundgren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman recalled the genesis of the meeting much 
differently. Chapman told the Committee that he had recommended 
C. Patencio meet with Abramoff because she and Siva were 
dissatisfied with the Tribe's lobbyists at the time.\39\ 
Indeed, after speaking with C. Patencio about arranging the 
meeting, Chapman reported to Abramoff that they are ``eager to 
hear what you think.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
    \40\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000059086) (January 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of Chapman's statement to the Committee and his 
contemporaneous email to Abramoff, the Committee has 
considerable difficulty with C. Patencio's claim that she did 
not know that Abramoff was a lobbyist or the purpose of the 
meeting. Ms. Patencio holds a business administration degree 
and a Masters of Business Administration.\41\ Her family has 
been heavily involved in Tribal politics: both her father and 
mother served on the Tribal Council, and her father was once 
chairman.\42\ C. Patencio served on the Tribal Council for five 
years.\43\ The Committee has difficulty believing that a woman 
with C. Patencio's educational and political background would 
not have known the purpose of the meeting and Abramoff's 
profession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \42\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056764) (January, 22, 2002).
    \43\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Patencio told Committee staff that during their dinner, 
Abramoff boasted that he was part of the lobbying team that had 
secured self-regulation of Class III gaming under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians (``Choctaw'').\44\ That, according to C. Patencio, was 
why she became so interested in having the Tribe hire 
Abramoff.\45\ In addition to her dissatisfaction with Pace-
Capstone, C. Patencio was at odds with the Tribe's Chairman and 
Vice Chairman.\46\ Although she had just met Abramoff, C. 
Patencio shared this information with him.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Id. Provided certain conditions are met, the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (``IGRA'') allows for self-regulation by Indian tribes 
of Class II gaming (e.g., bingo and games similar to it, pull tabs, and 
non-house banked card games). IGRA does not allow for self-regulation 
of Class III gaming. In 1999, the Choctaw successfully secured self-
regulation for Class III gaming in an omnibus appropriations bill.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Patencio could recall little else about that 
meeting.\48\ C. Patencio did not recall Abramoff mentioning any 
other clients aside from Choctaw, or discussing Michael 
Scanlon.\49\ She also did not remember discussing the upcoming 
2002 Tribal elections with Abramoff at that dinner.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following month, in Washington, D.C., Abramoff met 
again with C. Patencio, M. Patencio, and Siva.\51\ The three 
Tribal members were attending meetings of the National Congress 
of American Indians and the National Indian Gaming 
Association.\52\ Before the trio arrived in Washington, D.C., 
Chapman advised Smith that ``a dinner and sporting event would 
go a long way with Virginia et al [sic] (especially dinner at 
your [Abramoff's] place).'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057210) (February 
18, 2002); See also Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056873) (February 16, 2002) (``Candace and 
Virginia are both going to be in Washington the week of February 24th--
initially for NCAI's Executive Council meeting and then NIGA 
business.'').
    \53\ Email from Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056872) (February 16, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman also revealed: ``I assisted them [C. Patencio and 
Siva] with their candidacy statements and will fly out the 
weekend before the election to see what we can shore-up. The 
actual election is March 19th.'' \54\ The very next day, 
Chapman wrote that ``[o]n the election front, Agua voters must 
register weeks in advance in order to participate in the 
election--so now is the time they need to shore up their 
support!'' \55\ Abramoff forwarded Chapman's email to Scanlon, 
noting ``[l]et's discuss this.'' \56\ It thus appears that 
Chapman, intentionally or unintentionally, gave Abramoff the 
idea to insinuate himself and Scanlon into the Agua Caliente 
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056872) (February 16, 2002).
    \55\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000056867) (February 17, 2002).
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff followed Chapman's advice, and on February 17, 
invited C. Patencio:

        Michael tells me that Virginia and you are going to be 
        in Washington, DC [sic] next week. I would love to get 
        together with you if possible. Coincidentally, that is 
        the week that we open Signatures, a high end fine 
        dining restaurant which I own. We have a special 
        reception there Wednesday night for Senator Tim 
        Hutchinson (I'd love to introduce you to him--and then 
        we could all have dinner).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057166) 
(February 17, 2002).

    Abramoff continued, ``Thursday night is the grand opening, 
and you are certainly invited to attend that one as well. There 
should be quite a few Members and Senators there. Anyway, I'll 
call you this week to see if you can make it and if we can get 
together.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Are you guys basketball fans? If so, the Wizards (Michael 
Jordan) are playing and I'd love to have you join us for that 
too,'' Abramoff added \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Patencio confirmed that, ``Yes, Virginia, Moraino and I 
will be in DC from 2/24-3/31. The full Tribal Council along 
with the proxies will be attending the NCAI & NIGA meetings.'' 
\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Email between Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057210) 
(February 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She continued, ``Spoke with Virginia [and] she said she 
would like to go to dinner but neither of us are basketball 
fans (As you can tell fine dining is something we enjoy).'' 
\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, Abramoff told her he would call her the next 
day to make plans.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Patencio recalled two meetings with Abramoff during her 
visit.\63\ Contemporaneous emails suggest there might have been 
three. Abramoff apparently first met with the trio on February 
26. That day, Chapman advised Abramoff, ``Just a short note to 
say that once again my Agua crew enjoyed the pleasure of your 
company! They're looking forward to seeing you tomorrow! I hope 
Virginia prevails--it could be a great relationship/client!'' 
\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \64\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000059253) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff assured Chapman, ``Mike Scanlon and I are going to 
do everything we can to help them.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Separately, Abramoff forwarded Chapman's email to Scanlon 
and suggested, ``You should call them for tomorrow and get 
together to discuss strategy.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon (GTG-E000059252) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff met again with C. Patencio and her companions on 
February 27. At that point, Abramoff apparently began to scheme 
on how he could use political contributions from the Agua 
Caliente to further his lobbying practice. Before his meeting 
with the Tribal members, Abramoff told his assistant Ilisa 
Gertner:

        Please let the Hutchinson guys know that they are 
        coming (Candace, Virginia Siva, and a third fellow--
        can't remember his name). tell [sic] them that they are 
        not currently going to be able to contribute, but that 
        they will in March be in a position where they control 
        their tribe and will be able to be helpful on a Choctaw 
        level.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ilisa Gertner, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057185) (February 27, 2002).

    While at Signatures, Abramoff, C. Patencio, M. Patencio and 
Siva discussed Abramoff possibly representing the Tribe.\68\ 
They also apparently discussed Scanlon helping out C. Patencio 
and Siva on their 2002 elections, because, after the meeting, 
Abramoff immediately reported to Scanlon: ``I saw them tonight. 
They really can't wait for you to lead them to the promised 
land! Tomorrow night, after the reception at Sigs, let's take 
them to dinner and lock up the deal.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006). See 
also Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Scanlon, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057184) (February 27, 2002).
    \69\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057184) (February 27, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later during her trip, C. Patencio met alone with Abramoff 
and Scanlon at another restaurant in Washington, D.C.\70\ There 
she learned that Scanlon was in public relations.\71\ She 
believed that Scanlon worked for Abramoff, that he was a member 
of ``Jack's team.'' \72\ C. Patencio believed that they 
discussed the 2002 Agua Caliente Tribal Council elections, 
although she said she did not ask Scanlon for help with her 
election.\73\ In fact, C. Patencio denied that Abramoff and 
Scanlon offered to help in her election; instead, she claimed, 
``things kinda fell in place.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Id.
    \73\ Id.
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     D. SCANLON WORKS ON C. PATENCIO AND SIVA'S ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

    Before the Agua Caliente Tribal Council elections, Scanlon 
asked Abramoff, ``Hey--How much do you want me to spend on the 
AC race--I gotta get a team out there ASAP--Like 3 people--Then 
rotate a new team in after that--So travel is goanna [sic] run 
about 20k and materials like 5-10k. Should we go for it?'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057254) (March 5, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff instructed Scanlon, ``Yes, go for it big time.'' 
\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, so Scanlon did. He sat down with his team and said, 
``We're going to California to work on the election.'' \77\ 
Scanlon and his team performed the same type of work as they 
had for the Slate of Eight during the 2001 elections at the 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.\78\ From March 6 through 10, 
2002, Scanlon's team drafted candidate letters and fliers, paid 
for the envelopes and postage, secured a site and catering for 
a community meeting, assisted in door-to-door campaigning, and 
prepared the candidates for the community meeting.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman and Council Election 
GOTV Timeline'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon's objective was ensuring that 
``friendly'' tribal members who would support contracts with 
them were elected and, conversely, potentially unsupportive 
members were defeated. Richard Milanovich, Chairman of the 
Tribe and Siva's opponent in the 2002 elections, was targeted 
by Abramoff as ``our enemy.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057241-51) (February 17, 
2002); see also Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to 
Mohunwit@[REDACTED] (GTG-E000057216-22) (February 28, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, Abramoff asked C. Patencio, ``how are we 
doing?'' \81\ When C. Patencio shared Siva's apprehension and 
reluctance about the campaign, he urged, ``Keep pushing her. 
We're near the finish line and can't slow down now. I know you 
know this more than anyone! Let me know if there is more we can 
do to help.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig and Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057252) 
(March 6, 2002).
    \82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the Agua Caliente Tribal Council election, Scanlon 
and C. Patencio spoke over the telephone about what she needed 
to do to win her election.\83\ C. Patencio confirmed that 
Scanlon either developed, or had a hand in developing, the 
themes of her election campaign.\84\ From the records uncovered 
by the Committee, those themes were ``honesty, effectiveness, 
and experience.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (entitled ``Candace 
Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has not obtained evidence establishing that 
Scanlon had similar conversations with Siva. Among the computer 
files from Scanlon's companies, however, the Committee 
discovered a talking points memorandum for Siva, containing 
``key message points'' and general pointers on answering 
questions from voters.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC 005407-
12) (entitled ``Virginia Siva Talking Points Community Meeting'') 
(March 10, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early March, Scanlon's team drafted three seminal 
documents governing their assistance in the Agua Caliente 
elections. The first document is entitled, ``Agua Caliente 
Tribal Chairman and Council Election GOTV Timeline.'' \87\ The 
document appears to be a checklist for Scanlon and his 
employees for the Agua Caliente 2002 election. According to the 
document, by March 6, 2002, Scanlon and his team were to have 
completed a number of tasks, including but not limited to, 
drafting talking points for Siva; drafting candidate letters 
and fliers; creating invitations for a community meeting; 
securing a location for candidates' meeting; and, contacting 
candidates.\88\ It also identified two days over which 
Scanlon's team would assist C. Patencio and Siva in door-to-
door campaigning.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman and Council Election 
GOTV Timeline'') (undated).
    \88\ Id.
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second document, entitled ``Candidates' Timeline,'' 
established deadlines by which Scanlon and his team would 
complete or help C. Patencio and Siva complete mailers, phone 
calls, door-to-door campaigning, and a community meeting.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Candidate's Timeline'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third document was entitled, ``Tribal Election 2002 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.'' \91\ Scanlon and his 
team envisioned a specific message for C. Patencio and Siva to 
convey to their fellow Tribal members: ``We will communicate 
that this election is about direct leadership by people who are 
in touch with the tribe. You are the new leaders, the leaders 
who will take the tribe into the future. Not the old leaders 
who are only looking out for number one.'' \92\ The campaign 
was purportedly designed to put the candidates ``in contact 
with every voter at least five times over the next 7 days.'' 
\93\ Scanlon and his team divided potential voters into three 
tiers, and supposedly tailored their candidates' messages to 
each tier.\94\ The campaign plan consisted of four general 
components: (1) mail; (2) door-to-door; (3) phones; and, (4) a 
candidates meeting.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Tribal Election 2002 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians'') (undated).
    \92\ Id.
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mail

    The strategy memorandum claimed to ``have developed three 
separate mail pieces'' to articulate the candidates' 
message.\96\ The first was ``a personalized letter from you, 
explaining why you are a superior candidate for your 
position.'' \97\ The second was ``a comparison piece that draws 
distinctions between you and your opponents.'' \98\ The third 
piece was a ``traditional Get Out The Vote piece (GOTV) that 
asks for their support and reminds them to mail in their 
ballot.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Id.
    \97\ Id.
    \98\ Id.
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the documents discovered by the Committee is a draft 
letter from C. Patencio regarding the 2002 election.\100\ The 
letter stressed the importance of the upcoming election, and 
twice emphasized the themes of honesty, effectiveness, and 
experience, the very themes that Scanlon had developed.\101\ 
The Committee found essentially the same text on letterhead 
reading ``Candace Patencio Candidate for Member of the Tribal 
Council.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated).
    \101\ Id.
    \102\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``draft letter from Candace Patencio'') (March 8, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, the Committee found another draft letter, for 
Siva, on her bid for Tribal Chairman.\103\ It focused on the 
theme of fresh leadership: ``Our tribe needs a leader who 
understands your concerns and is in tune with your needs ... It 
is time that our tribe has a leader who is dedicated to working 
for you.'' \104\ This draft letter, too, was apparently in 
final form on letterhead reading ``Virginia Siva Sincere 
Leadership Inspired Results.'' \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated).
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva Sincere Leadership Inspired Results) 
(March 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Scanlon's action plan called for three letters, 
the Committee only found evidence of two. C. Patencio believed 
that Scanlon and his team did no more than two mailers, since 
the Tribe's election ordinance limited election mailings to 
two.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Door-to-Door

    Scanlon's plan called for C. Patencio and Siva to go door-
to-door making personal contact with potential voters, which 
Scanlon believed would ``go miles making yourselves visible to 
the voters.'' \107\ Scanlon claimed, ``This is your chance to 
prove that you are the candidates who are truly working for the 
tribal members.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Tribal Election 2002 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians'') (undated).
    \108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To effect this part of the plan, Scanlon had one of his 
employees drive C. Patencio around in a car rented by Scanlon 
specifically for C. Patencio's personal visits with Tribal 
members. C. Patencio could not recall who that person was.\109\ 
Christopher Cathcart, Scanlon's right-hand man, told Committee 
staff he was the one who drove C. Patencio around for the door-
to-door meetings.\110\ In furtherance of the strategy, Scanlon 
also put together a walking map with voters and a document 
entitled ``Palm Springs and Cathedral City Walk List'' 
containing the names of tribal members and their addresses. C. 
Patencio, however, claimed the map was inaccurate and, 
therefore, unhelpful.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \110\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \111\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Telephone

    The Committee has seen no evidence that either C. Patencio 
or Siva made the type of telephone calls outlined in Scanlon's 
plan. C. Patencio did not recall making such telephone 
calls.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Candidates' Meeting

    On March 10, 2002, Scanlon hosted a candidate's night for 
C. Patencio and Siva at the Wyndham Palm Springs Hotel.\113\ 
Among the documents reviewed by the Committee were a catering 
menu and a credit card authorization form from the Wyndham Palm 
Springs Hotel.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Menu and Credit Card Authorization Form'') 
(undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the meeting, Scanlon's team prepared separate two-
sided color brochures for C. Patencio and Siva, which provided 
details of the ``Meet the Candidates' Meeting.\115\ For C. 
Patencio, the flyer once again stressed the campaign themes of 
``honesty, effectiveness, and experience'' that Scanlon had 
developed.\116\ Likewise, Siva's flyer emphasized ``Sincere 
Leadership'' and ``Inspired Results.'' \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Candace Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!) 
(undated); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva MEET VIRGINIA SIVA!!'') (undated).
    \116\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Candace Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!'') 
(undated).
    \117\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva MEET VIRGINIA SIVA!!'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon's team also drafted C. Patencio's and Siva's 
talking points for the March 10, 2002, community meeting.\118\ 
C. Patencio told Committee staff that fewer than 20 people 
attended the meeting, most of whom were her family 
members.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC 
005407-12) (March 10, 2002).
    \119\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The elections were held on March 18, 2002; while Patencio 
won her race, Siva did not.\120\ In response to an email from 
his colleague Mike Smith, Abramoff attributed Siva's loss to 
her failure to listen to Scanlon's advice and work hard 
enough.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ Email between Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059267) (March 19, 2002).
    \121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  E. C. PATENCIO AND M. PATENCIO PAVE THE WAY FOR ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON

    Despite Siva's loss, Abramoff pressed forward. On April 1, 
2002, Abramoff asked C. Patencio when he and Scanlon could 
visit the Tribal Council to pitch their services.\122\ 
Throughout his correspondence, Abramoff promised power, not 
just for the Tribe, but for her: ``I think what we have in mind 
is helping the tribe set up the kind of political strength we 
have done for others, but doing it very carefully so that you 
are the ultimate controller of the political power.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057264) 
(April 1-2, 2002).
    \123\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff continued: ``To do this, unfortunately, we'll have 
to get the approval of the current regime, I guess. I leave it 
to you to guide us on how to get in there. Again, Mike and I 
see the mission here as getting in, getting you guys organized 
so we can get the slot cap off and other things the tribe 
needs, and getting you into a position where the next time an 
election comes, we will win all the offices (and install you as 
Chairperson!!!).'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Patencio sought Abramoff's guidance on how to introduce 
him: ``I'm not sure if an introductory letter from you [sic] 
firm searching for work is the best way or if the Tribe seeks 
you out through Moraino and I. What are your thoughts??? If the 
opportunity occurs I will push to seek for a qualified firm 
(YOU). I will see if in today's meeting I can lay the 
foundation.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In guiding C. Patencio on how to best introduce him and 
Scanlon to the Tribal Council, Abramoff suggested invoking the 
names of his other clients: ``Tell them that you have heard 
from the Choctaws and Coushattas that their political folks are 
the best and that you think it is a prudent thing for the tribe 
to invite us in to have a discussion as to what they can do for 
the tribe.'' \126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057623) 
(April 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff did not want his pre-existing relationship with C. 
Patencio to be known and so counseled: ``if the others on the 
tribal council perceive that we are your guys (which we are!) 
it might make it difficult.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time of Abramoff's email to C. Patencio, the Tribe 
had a conflict-of-interest ordinance in place.\128\ When asked 
whether Abramoff's intentions to help her secure the Chairman's 
position once he and Scanlon were hired raised any red flags 
requiring her to disclose her relationship with Abramoff and 
Scanlon to the Tribal Council, C. Patencio responded ``no''--
she took Abramoff's words with a grain of salt'' and thought 
Abramoff was simply ``blowing smoke.'' \129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M. Patencio first brought up Abramoff at a meeting or study 
session.\130\ Meanwhile, he and C. Patencio purportedly laid 
the groundwork with the swing vote on the Tribal Council by 
attempting to have her meet with Abramoff.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
    \131\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Candace 
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057279) (May 
8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While part of Abramoff's plan involved promises of power, 
the other part apparently involved fear. On June 12, 2002, in 
an email entitled ``great call with Candace,'' Abramoff advised 
Scanlon: ``Told her that Barona was courting us and she is now 
moving as fast as possible. moolah!!!'' \132\ Two days later, 
Abramoff wrote an email to Scanlon with the subject line, ``can 
you smell money?'' \133\ In it, Abramoff reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057298) (June 12, 2002).
    \133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057295) (June 14, 2002).

        I just spoke with Candace. The tribe is calling us 
        Monday to schedule our coming out for a pitch on the 
        whole shooting match. They want Choctaw/Coushatta 
        power. They think that if they don't hire us Barona is 
        going to do so. They are scared about that one! call 
        [sic] me Saturday night or Sunday so we can plan our 
        pitch. We need to go out there with a full blown 
        plan.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Id.

    When Scanlon advised Abramoff that he wanted to depart 
early from Palm Springs, Abramoff replied: ``The whole thing 
here is being pitched as a rush since we are ``about to take on 
the Barona tribe--''.\135\ During her interview, C. Patencio 
confirmed that she was concerned that the Barona Tribe was 
allegedly seeking Abramoff's services, since she did not want 
that tribe to have the power.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059357) (June 19, 2002).
    \136\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before he and Scanlon met with the Agua Caliente, Abramoff 
apparently received advice and guidance on their presentation 
from Chapman and C. Patencio. Just two days before the meeting, 
Chapman wrote Abramoff, ``Glad to learn you're going out to 
Agua Caliente--I hope it proves to be fruitful! I am sure 
Candace will coach you.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000057379) (June 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman gave his own advice, ``[R]emember their Post Office 
land exchange ordeal ... In addition, they have a great land 
management agreement with BLM [Bureau of Land Management] over 
joint management of their canyons-so some mention of DOI 
contacts, beyond BIA, may be useful!'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff confirmed, ``Candace is being the usual wonderful 
help ...'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff made arrangements for himself and Scanlon to 
travel by private jet to Palm Springs for their meeting with 
the Tribal Council.\140\ After the June 26, meeting with the 
Tribal Council, Abramoff reported to his colleagues, ``I 
pitched them [the Agua Caliente] this morning on a $150K/month 
representation and they basically agreed (subject to formal 
approval of the same council--5 members--who just approved--
next week). This is going to be a biggie!'' \141\ Abramoff 
wrote separately to his colleague Michael Smith, who had 
introduced him to Chapman: ``Looks like we got 'em! They vote 
next week, but after 4 trips here, tons of work and all sorts 
of political activities, I think we're there.'' \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ilisa 
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059370) (June 17, 2002).
    \141\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to DCCon (GTG-
E000059329) (June 26, 2002).
    \142\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Smith, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059332) (June 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, on June 27, Abramoff instructed his assistant Allison 
Bozniak to send a retainer agreement to M. Patencio.\143\ The 
retainer agreement called for a flat fee of ``$150,000.00 per 
month plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.'' \144\ The 
agreement also provided that the ``firm undertakes to not 
represent any other tribal government located within the 
geographical borders of the State of California during the 
duration of our representation of the Tribe.'' \145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057922-23) (June 27, 2002).
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The deal was not as done as Abramoff believed, however. On 
July 2, Abramoff advised Scanlon, ``[T]hings are not as hunky 
dorey as we thought out there. I just got off the phone with 
Candace. I have to be out there to meet them on Sunday.'' \146\ 
When Scanlon asked whether they would get paid, Abramoff 
assured him, ``We're going to get paid. We have the votes. We 
can ram it through, but Moraino and Candace want to get the 
others on board. They have 3 votes, though.'' \147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059428) (July 2, 2002).
    \147\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057397) (July 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the meeting, Abramoff asked Scanlon to forward him a 
copy of Scanlon's proposal to the Tribe, so that he could ``be 
aware of where we are going on this, and push it[.]'' \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057339) (July 5, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the meeting, Scanlon prepared a document he called 
``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy.'' \149\ Scanlon laid 
out a comprehensive political strategy ``[t]o support and 
secure all federal objectives of the council'' and ``[t]o 
successfully negotiate an unlimited slot position compact for 
the tribe.'' \150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy'') (July 8, 
2002) (prepared by Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \150\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with the other Tribes, CCS's strategy supposedly 
centered heavily on the use of customized databases. According 
to Scanlon, ``The true key to any successful political effort 
is its organizational design. For the compact negotiation 
campaign we have developed a two-tiered system.'' \151\ Scanlon 
described the first tier as ``compil[ing], classify[ing] and 
organiz[ing] the tribe's existing natural resources into a 
national political network.'' \152\ Scanlon described the 
second part as ``identify[ing], classify[ing], and organiz[ing] 
allies of the tribe.'' \153\ According to Scanlon, ``[b]oth 
will be imported into your new custom built political 
databases.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Id.
    \153\ Id.
    \154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the document, Scanlon elaborated on the ``new custom 
built databases.'' The first, the ``Grassroots Database'', 
Scanlon described as follows:

        We gather lists of your vendors, employees, tribal 
        members[,] etc. and we import those lists into your new 
        database. Our computer program will match the 
        individuals or businesses with addresses, phone 
        numbers, political registration and e-mail addresses 
        (when available), and then sort them by FEDERAL 
        election districts nationwide. The district breakdown 
        in your database will from [sic] U.S. Senator down to 
        State Representative. Once completed, we will be able 
        to tap into this database and mobilize supporters in 
        ANY election of your choosing nationwide in a matter of 
        moments. At this point you will have a national 
        political network. \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ Id.

    Scanlon boasted that with this customized database, he 
could ``reach out and mobilize tens of thousands of voters 
almost instantaneously.'' \156\ Scanlon represented that 
``[t]his is an extremely powerful tool that is absolutely 
necessary if we are to be successful.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Id.
    \157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, Scanlon's proposal described an entirely separate 
``Qualitative Research Database'':

        This custom built database acts as the information 
        center of our efforts. Over the next three weeks, our 
        team will gather qualitative information on the allies 
        and opponents related to our campaign and we store this 
        information into this database. The research will 
        include nearly every piece of information on the 
        targets that is [sic] relevant to our campaign. In 
        addition we will be waging a simultaneous effort to 
        gather qualitative research on the key opponents of our 
        position. This research can be classified as 
        unfriendly, and is solely intended to give us the 
        ammunition to fight on an even playing field if the 
        battle turns nasty. Rest assured, if it does turn 
        nasty, we will be far better positioned than our 
        opponents. Once the research is gathered, it is then 
        sorted by subject matter and made retrievable by a 
        phrase search. This [sic] purpose of this is so that 
        information can then be instantly disseminated to any 
        audience we choose such as our universe of supporters, 
        the press, third party interest groups or other 
        interested parties.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\ Id.

    The total cost of Scanlon's proposal: $5.4 million, with 
another $2 million, should an ``advertising fight'' occur.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 7, Abramoff and Scanlon departed by private jet for 
Palms Springs for their meetings with the Agua Caliente Tribal 
Council, and a presentation to the Council and membership.\160\ 
Before Abramoff and Scanlon made their pitch at the membership 
meeting, Abramoff finally met Chapman in person.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059380) (July 5, 2002).
    \161\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Chapman (GTG-E000059404) (July 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon met with the Tribal Council on July 8, 
and the Tribal membership on July 9.\162\ Although Abramoff 
represented that Scanlon ``work[ed] very closely with our firm 
[Greenberg Traurig],'' at no point in the presentation did 
either disclose their financial relationship.\163\ Nor did they 
disclose the behind-the-scenes conversations they had been 
having with C. Patencio and M. Patencio, or the election 
assistance they had rendered to C. Patencio and Siva.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ See Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059380) (July 5, 2002).
    \163\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \164\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006). See 
also Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff built-up Scanlon, calling him ``one of the top 
political and grass roots public affairs people in the United 
States''.\165\ As he had before, Abramoff traded on the name of 
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'').\166\ 
Abramoff also boasted about the efforts he and Scanlon had 
undertaken for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana 
Coushatta'') and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana on their 
compact re-negotiations with the State of Louisiana.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled 
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'') 
(July 9, 2002) (excerpt only).
    \166\ Id.
    \167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Abramoff and Scanlon were representing the Ysleta 
del Sur Pueblo of El Paso (``Tigua''), in direct conflict with 
the interests of the Louisiana Coushatta, Abramoff nevertheless 
claimed that ``we certainly don't engage in the situation where 
we have two tribes that might have differing interests `cause 
unfortunately obviously tribes who are nearby to each other 
sometimes have the same interests or same market share ...'' 
\168\ Abramoff later continued: ``If we work together with you 
we would not work for any other Tribe in California. That would 
be our approach.'' \169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ Id.
    \169\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff spoke, too, about political contributions:

        Each of the tribes we work with we recommend that they 
        exercise their right to make political contributions. 
        However, we generally are very targeted and with the 
        contribution recommendations we make ... we do strongly 
        recommend and all of our tribes do give a lot of money 
        politically. It's very targeted and when it's all 
        basically added up we sort of like have a little ledger 
        so to speak informally, see the money they spent 
        politically and the money they spent contributions and 
        the money they spent lobbying wise compared to what 
        they get back so to speak, not only benefits that can't 
        be monetarized but also the actual appropriations. ... 
        So we will recommend to the tribe or any of our clients 
        that they contribute to certain specific Members that 
        may have to them nothing do with what they're doing, 
        but we know that that Member will be able to control or 
        influence a bill, that kind of thing.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ Id.

    Scanlon picked up on the presentation. Scanlon claimed that 
his ``firm is in a strategic alliance with Jack and Greenberg 
meaning we only provide services to the clients of Greenberg 
Traurig.'' \171\ Scanlon described his operations as the 
``ground army for what Jack does.'' \172\ More specifically, 
Scanlon said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\ Id. Of course, that was true only by default. According to 
Fred Baggett, the national chairman of Greenberg Traurig's public 
policy practice, Scanlon was free to work for other clients; indeed, 
Greenberg Traurig did not hire Scanlon precisely because he wanted to 
work on his own clients. Interview of Fred Baggett, chair, National 
Governmental Affairs Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington D.C. 
(September 29, 2005).
    \172\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled 
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'') 
(July 9, 2002) (excerpt only).

        A force, a grassroots army of people of employees, of 
        business owners, of people who live on your lands and 
        anybody who's made a buck off of you over the last ten 
        to fifteen years and has a vested interest in seeing 
        your future be better. Our job is to go out and find 
        those people, educate those people on the issues that 
        are important to the Tribe and objectives of Tribe as 
        identified. Most importantly, it is to mobilize those 
        people to ensure that the politicians get the message 
        that the people are behind the position of the 
        Tribe.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ Id.

    Scanlon characterized his work as ``technical,'' ``labor 
intensive'' and ``expensive''.\174\ The cornerstone of this 
program was a ``custom-built database,'' which Scanlon claimed 
he designed.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\ Id.
    \175\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Abramoff and Scanlon's presentation, the Tribal 
Council met to vote. C. Patencio admitted that she did not 
disclose her relationship with Abramoff or Scanlon, or the help 
they had given her on her election campaign, before the 
vote.\176\ She also admitted that she did not pay for any of 
the work that Scanlon and his team performed for her election 
bid.\177\ She said that Scanlon never asked to be paid for his 
services, and she never discussed how Scanlon would benefit 
from helping her election campaign.\178\ C. Patencio also 
claimed that people offer her free things all the time, and she 
did not find Abramoff and Scanlon's supposed generosity 
odd.\179\ According to C. Patencio, she simply believed 
Abramoff and Scanlon helped her because they liked her.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \177\ Id.
    \178\ Id.
    \179\ Id.
    \180\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has considerable difficulty reconciling C. 
Patencio's statements with the body of evidence before it. Even 
if, as C. Patencio claimed, she had not expressly agreed to 
help Abramoff and Scanlon secure contracts with the Tribe in 
exchange for their campaign assistance, a reasonable person 
with C. Patencio's business education and political experience 
would have realized that Abramoff and Scanlon were providing 
her assistance as gratitude or because of C. Patencio's 
intention to help them secure contracts with the Tribe.
    On July 2, 2002, the Tribal Council voted 3-0 to accept the 
contract with Greenberg Traurig. On July 11, 2002, Chairman 
Milanovich signed a retainer agreement with Greenberg 
Traurig.\181\ According to the contract, the Tribe retained 
Greenberg Traurig,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0276-78) (July 9, 
2002).

        [T]o assist the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
        (``the Tribe'') with all political activities related 
        to obtaining a satisfactory outcome to gaming compact 
        renegotiations, environmental matters and other policy 
        and political goals in California. In addition, at the 
        Tribe's discretion, the Firm shall assist the Tribe 
        with federal issues, including but not limited to 
        matters concerning federal appropriations, specific 
        needs of the tribe related to the U.S. Postal service 
        and tax matters, general Washington, D.C. and selected 
        national public relations activities, federal-Tribal 
        relations and promotion of sovereignty.'' \182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The cost: ``$150,000.00 per month plus reasonable out-
        of-pocket expenses.''\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\ Id.

    Similarly, on July 23, the Tribal Council voted 3-2 to 
accept Scanlon's contract. C. Patencio, M. Patencio, and 
Jeannette Prieto-Dodd voted for the contract; Chairman 
Milanovich and Vice Chairman Gonzales Lyons voted against it. 
Before the Tribal Council voted, however, Chairman Milanovich 
argued against hiring Scanlon. According to Scanlon, Chairman 
Milanovich was ``trying to sink it [Scanlon's contract]--he has 
a whole bunch of Suncruz articles he is handing out at the 
meeting.'' \184\ Meanwhile, C. Patencio called to report to 
Abramoff on what was happening.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059386) (July 16, 2002).
    \185\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 24, 2002, Scanlon apparently submitted a letter 
agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and the 
Tribe.\186\ According to the agreement, ``the primary goal of 
Scanlon Gould is to execute public affairs and political 
strategies to ensure successful re-negotiation of the Tribe's 
gaming compact.'' \187\ The letter agreement described the 
scope of the activities by reference to Scanlon Gould's July 8, 
2002 proposal.\188\ Unlike his written agreements with other 
Tribes, Scanlon specifically reserved Scanlon Gould's right to 
use external firms: ``Scanlon Gould will execute its duties by 
employing its internal political team (full time employees) and 
reserves the right to sub-contract with external firms when 
necessary.'' \189\ The Tribe agreed to pay Scanlon Gould 
$5,400,000 and agreed ``to budget an additional $2,000,000.00 
for advocacy efforts should the compact renewal campaign become 
intensive.'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \186\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287-89) (July 24, 
2002).
    \187\ Id.
    \188\ Id.
    \189\ Id.
    \190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      F. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SEEK ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE TRIBE

    Once Abramoff and Scanlon locked up their contracts with 
the Agua Caliente, Abramoff began to seek more funding for his 
pet projects, as well as those of others, ostensibly designed 
to increase his and the Tribe's standing in the eyes of 
Congressmen and Senators. In September 2002, Abramoff told his 
associate Duane Gibson that they needed ``to move on Agua 
contributions asap.'' \191\ Abramoff and his team used the 
Tribe's contributions to get ``credit for delivering checks to 
certain members.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Duane Gibson, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057541) (September 18, 2002).
    \192\ Email from Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, to Neil Volz, et 
al., Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057613) (October 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff also sought money from the Tribe to cover the 
costs of his Sports Suites program. A master lobbying plan that 
Abramoff presented to the Agua Caliente laid out his rationale 
for why the Tribe should participate.

        Sporting and Event Tickets--Goal: provide Members and 
        staff with courtesy tickets to sport games and other 
        events, which help to create the relationships needed 
        to advance issues important to the Tribe. Many of our 
        Tribal clients participate in ownership of Executive 
        Suites and Boxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and 
        Camden Yards (Baltimore), in order to get the tools for 
        relationship building to advance your issues. The Tribe 
        should evaluate pooling its resources with other tribes 
        so that it can utilize these effective assets as 
        well.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ Email from Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057000) (December 5, 2002) (attaching 
``DRAFT Agua Caliente Plan for the 108th Congress'') (last page only).

    The Tribal Council approved the Tribe's participation in 
the sports suites program in December 2002, \194\ and paid 
$300,000 into the program.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians, to Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057785) (January 
10, 2003).
    \195\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 29 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of 
Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to his agreement with the Tribe, Scanlon sought 
additional money under the Scanlon Gould contract. When it came 
time to solicit additional funds, Scanlon decided to leave 
little to chance. Scanlon and Abramoff manipulated the schedule 
so that Scanlon would make his presentation for more money in 
the absence of the two Tribal Council members who opposed the 
program. On December 10, Scanlon wrote:

        Well we got paid 5--and had in our contract that we may 
        need an additional 2--but that we would have to come 
        before the council to get it. So I did up a 
        presentation--and we are asking for 1.785 on Thursday--
        The reason we are doing git [sic] Thursday is that 
        Richard and Barbara are out of town. I could ask for 
        the whole 2--but I though [sic] that would look 
        strange--I could bump it up to 1.875? Whatta think? 
        \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056773) (December 10, 
2002).

    Abramoff responded, ``Absolutely!'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In less than two years, the Tribe paid Greenberg Traurig 
$3,079,816 in fees and expenses.\198\ Similarly, Scanlon 
collected $7,195,000 from the Agua Caliente during the relevant 
period and appears to have secretly split about 50% of his 
total profit from the Tribe with Abramoff.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \198\ These figures do not include political, charitable, and other 
contributions the Agua Caliente made at Abramoff's request.
    \199\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon 
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on 
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of the this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These substantial sums purchased no loyalty from Abramoff 
and Scanlon. When Scanlon complained about his dealings with C. 
Patencio, Abramoff counseled: ``I think the key thing to 
remember with all these clients is that they are annoying, but 
that the annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind 
of money and part with it so quickly.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057878) (March 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              G. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S WORK FOR THE TRIBE

    The Agua Caliente hired Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig ``to 
assist the tribe with all political and lobbying activities 
relating to a wide range of public policy issues.'' \201\ The 
Tribe hired Scanlon ``to help the tribe with respect to pending 
gaming compact issues in California.'' \202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 21 (September 29, 2004) (statement of 
Richard Milanovich, chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians).
    \202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From July 2002 to March 2004, Abramoff and his team 
represented the Agua Caliente in Washington, D.C. The Tribe has 
not complained to the Committee about the level or quality of 
the services that Abramoff and his team at Greenberg Traurig 
provided the Tribe.
    Scanlon hired a number of subcontractors to renegotiate the 
Tribe's compact with the State of California.\203\ Scanlon 
subcontracted lobbyists and attorneys.\204\ Per his agreement, 
he operated as a turnkey operation.\205\ Scanlon and his team 
provided regular updates to the Tribe on its efforts.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \204\ Interview of Chris Cathcart, associate, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \205\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287-89) (July 24, 
2002).
    \206\ See, e.g., Capitol Campaign Strategies document production 
(BB/AC04990-92) (January 29, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies 
document production (BB/AC04993) (February 6, 2003); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (March 12, 2003) (BB/AC04995); Capitol 
Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC04996-98) (March 17, 
2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05000); 
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05002-04) (March 
26, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05010) 
(April 2, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/
AC05012-15) (April 24, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document 
production (BB/AC05004-48) (May 14, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies 
document production (BB/AC05050-54); Capitol Campaign Strategies 
document production (BB/AC05068-69) (July 10, 2003); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (BB/AC05070) (July 22, 2003); Capitol 
Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05072-73) (July 24, 
2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05074-75) 
(August 4, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/
AC05076-77) (August 14, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document 
production (BB/AC05078-80) (August 26, 2003); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (BB/AC05081) (September 8, 2003); 
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05082) (October 
15, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05083) 
(November 17, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production 
(no Bates number-BB/AC05084) (November 24, 2003); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (BB/AC05085-86) (December 3, 2003); 
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05087-88) 
(December 4, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production 
(BB/AC05089) (December 16, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document 
production (BB/AC05090) (December 26, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the work that Scanlon Gould performed, was a letter-
writing campaign. Scanlon's team set up tables with laptop 
computers and blank letters at the Tribe's casino.\207\ As 
employees would come to the tables, Scanlon's employees would 
brief them and ask them to sign letters to the Governor.\208\ 
Scanlon also had opinionmaker letters written to the 
Governor.\209\ That work was subcontracted out to Lunde 
Burger.\210\ After examining Scanlon's work, the Tribe does not 
believe that Scanlon actually performed the work he had 
proposed when he pitched his contract to the Tribe.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \208\ Id.
    \209\ Id.
    \210\ Id.
    \211\ Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        H. 2003 TRIBAL ELECTIONS

    Even after the Agua Caliente hired Abramoff and Scanlon, 
the two continued to conspire about how to increase their 
influence over the Tribal Council. In October 2002, Scanlon 
wrote to Abramoff:

        I am working on setting them up right now for their 
        elections next year. We are looking at Candice [sic] 
        for Vice Chairman--which we are looking good on. We are 
        also looking good at getting Virginia Elected [sic] 
        under one scenario and Moreno is a lock.
        The most Likely [sic] scenario right now is Barbara 
        become [sic] chairman, with Candice [sic] as Vice 
        Chair, Moreno, Janette and Virginia on the council--
        which would give us 4 out of 5 all the time--and 
        possibly 5 out of 5 if we play it the right way.
        This will be very very good for us.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057616) (October 24, 2002).

    Later, C. Patencio emailed Abramoff asking for a time they 
could ``talk strategy for the up and coming election.'' \213\ 
Abramoff and Scanlon's goal was to ensure that C. Patencio 
would win in an effort to oust their only opposition within the 
Tribe, Chairman Milanovich and Vice Chairman Gonzales-
Lyons.\214\ When C. Patencio advised Abramoff that she and M. 
Patencio planned ``to set [the Agua Caliente Vice Chairman] 
up'', Abramoff offered his help: ``let me know what we can 
do.'' \215\ Separately, he told Scanlon ``We need to make sure 
Candace wins and bye bye Barbara and Richard.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057834) (January 
14, 2003).
    \214\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057847-49) (January 29, 
2003).
    \215\ Id.
    \216\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, Scanlon and Cathcart discussed how to impact C. 
Patencio's election: ``[w]ant to touch base re the aguas too, 
i[sic] told candace we would help with her letter of intent, 
and of course, i[sic] assume we'll be helping with the 
campaign.'' \217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\ Email from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (January 21, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 9, 2003, Chapman urged Abramoff and Scanlon to 
assist their allies on the Tribal Council: ``We definitely need 
to devise a strategy to help Candace--it is now or never! Since 
there are so few tribal members we should be able to do a 
breakdown of each potential vote to be cast.'' \218\ In 
response, Scanlon maintained that he had ``been all over this 
for weeks'' and already had ``a pretty good plan in place.'' 
\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \218\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000057842-43) (February 9, 2003).
    \219\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057842) (February 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the Committee finds that Scanlon devoted 
nowhere near the time and resources to C. Patencio's election 
bid in 2003 as he had in 2002. Scanlon Gould wrote C. 
Patencio's platform statement and may have made door signs or 
mail pieces for her.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 2003 elections, C. Patencio lost her race. Within 
months, the Committee would start its investigation, and the 
Tribe would learn the truth about Abramoff and Scanlon's 
assistance to C. Patencio and Siva in their elections. It would 
also learn about their secret partnership.

               I. CHAPMAN AND SIERRA DOMINION CONSULTING

    On November 12, 2002, Abramoff's associate Duane Gibson, 
who was the client manager for the Agua Caliente account, 
discovered charges on the account with which he was unfamiliar. 
Gibson inquired of Abramoff:

        [O]n the Agua bill, there are two items--$10K for 
        consulting from Michael Chapman and $5K for consulting 
        for Sierra Dominion Financial Resources. These were 
        part of the itemized expenses on the draft bill that I 
        am reviewing. I do not know what the arrangements are 
        for work by these people, and want to make sure that 
        they are authorized. These items constitute $15K of the 
        $25 K [sic] in expenses. Is this ok? \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Email between Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057623) (November 12, 2002).

    Abramoff replied, ``One is the finders [sic] fee for 
Chapman and the other is one I will tell you about. they [sic] 
come out of our retainer, and should not be listed to the 
client ever. Please make sure they are never on the bill which 
goes to them.'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Gibson alerted Abramoff to the possibility that 
Chapman's fees might have appeared on the previous bill, 
Abramoff panicked: ``This is a disaster!!!!!!'' \223\ Gibson 
subsequently allayed Abramoff's fears by assuring him Chapman's 
fees had only appeared on the draft bill.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ Id.
    \224\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just what was the nature of the payments to Chapman and 
Sierra Dominion, and why was Abramoff determined for them not 
to appear on the Agua Caliente's bill? The rest of this Chapter 
attempts to answer these questions.

1. Payments to Chapman

    Shortly after the 2002 Agua Caliente election, Chapman 
inquired: ``What are you thinking the terms of a consultancy 
might be? Curious, and want to know what the incentives might 
be in assisting you in landing new clients--especially, since I 
may be able to pitch your services later tonight!'' \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \225\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000057342) (July 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded:

        I think we can organize $10/month on a Agua Caliente 
        sized representation (the firm's profit on that kind of 
        representation is around 20$, which is $30k/month, and 
        I can probably get them to give up \1/3\ of that). On 
        the grassroots budget, it is a little trickier, because 
        the margin is very tight (Mike gets his fee from the 
        Greenberg side), and most of that is spend [sic] as 
        direct costs.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\ Id.

    After the Agua Caliente approved Greenberg Traurig's 
contract, Abramoff wrote to Scanlon: ``We should give this guy 
[Chapman] a small tip out of the gimme five money too. I want 
him to have mega incentive to scan the nation and hook us up 
with all his friends.'' \227\ Chapman told the Committee during 
his interview that Abramoff told him that ``he would take care 
of me'' once Abramoff secured Agua Caliente as a client.\228\ 
Chapman claimed that Abramoff did not make this offer, until 
after Abramoff and Scanlon had secured contracts with the 
Tribe.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057372) (July 9, 2002).
    \228\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
    \229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shortly thereafter, Chapman once again inquired into the 
``consulting'' arrangement: ``I am eager to learn what the 
final dynamics of a consultancy might be with Greenberg, while 
also hearing what might be a practical consideration for the 
political organizing contract.'' \230\ Abramoff immediately 
wrote to Scanlon: ``This guy delivered for us. he [sic] wants 
to know what he can get from the pot. I will give him $10k/
month from GT, but we should give him a tip from the grass 
roots. I think we should do $100k, but not from the first 
traunche. I told him that you budget this stuff very, very 
tightly, but might be able to eek out something. I don't want 
to waste money, but he clearly has a lot of contacts and could 
get us a ton of biz.'' \231\ That same day, Abramoff reverted 
to Chapman, and committed to giving him ``additional funds on 
the effort at Agua'' that would ``run the life of the 
representation of Agua.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000059446) (July 24, 2002).
    \231\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059446) (July 24, 2002).
    \232\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Chapman (GTG-E000059444) (July 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman confirmed to Committee staff that Abramoff had 
Greenberg Traurig pay him $10,000/month.\233\ Beginning in 
September 2002 and ending in March 2004, Chapman submitted 
invoices to Greenberg Traurig for payment. The invoices 
requested payment of a $10,000 retainer, which was purportedly 
``associated with work on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians' account.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
    \234\ See Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number) 
(September 2002 through March 2004) (Invoices from Michael Chapman to 
Jack Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Per Abramoff and Gibson's instructions, Greenberg Traurig 
paid Chapman a total of $171,482.48 \235\ over the course of 
the Agua Caliente retainer. The payments are detailed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG 005390-ACCT-AC) 
(undated) (Greenberg Traurig Vendor Payments Report for Michael 
Chapman; Fifteen Greenberg Traurig checks to Michael Chapman, dated 
September 13, 2002 to March 3, 2004; Invoices from Michael Chapman to 
Greenberg Traurig, dated September 3, 2002 through March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments from Greenberg Traurig to Michael Chapman

09/13/02................................................      $10,489.81
10/10/02................................................      $10,000.00
11/25/02................................................      $10,000.00
02/04/03................................................      $10,000.00
03/11/03................................................      $10,000.00
03/17/03................................................      $10,000.00
04/11/03................................................      $10,000.00
07/08/03................................................      $10,000.00
08/06/03................................................      $20,992.67
08/11/03................................................      $10,000.00
09/22/03................................................      $10,000.00
10/31/03................................................      $10,000.00
12/19/03................................................      $20,000.00
01/26/04................................................      $10,000.00
03/03/04................................................      $10,000.00
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     $171,482.48

    Except one request for expense reimbursement, \236\ the 
invoices from Chapman to Greenberg Traurig listed the purpose 
of the payment request as ``Retainer which is associated with 
work on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' account.'' 
\237\ According to Chapman, Abramoff told him how to 
characterize and phrase the invoices to Greenberg Traurig.\238\ 
On internal Greenberg Traurig accounting forms, Abramoff 
described the payment as a consulting fee.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\ Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number) 
(entitled ``Invoice from Michael Chapman to Greenberg Traurig'') 
(September 3, 2002 ).
    \237\ Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number) 
(entitled ``Invoices from Michael Chapman to Greenberg Traurig'') 
(September 3, 2002 through February 2004).
    \238\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006). 
See Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 12, 2002).
    \239\ See Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-005416-ACCT-
AC) (April 10, 2003) (Check Requests, signed by Jack Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During its interview of Duane Gibson, Committee staff 
inquired into the nature of the services Chapman provided. 
Gibson, who was the Agua Caliente client manager, said that 
Chapman provided consulting services on the Agua Caliente 
account.\240\ He said he had substantive conversations with 
Chapman about issues affecting the Tribe before Congress.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \240\ Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg 
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (March 17, 2006).
    \241\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During his interview with Committee staff, however, Chapman 
was unequivocal: the $10,000 was not a consulting fee and he 
did not provide substantive advice on issues facing the Agua 
Caliente or otherwise work on the Agua Caliente account.\242\ 
Chapman was clear that the money he received was a finder's fee 
or referral fee, for helping Abramoff and Scanlon secure the 
Agua Caliente account and to help them secure other tribal 
business.\243\ Chapman said he would also give Abramoff or 
Gibson a ``heads up'' whenever C. Patencio was getting 
frustrated because she could not reach them on the 
telephone.\244\ Chapman did say he spoke with Gibson about once 
every other week, and did exchange e-mails with him.\245\ 
Chapman said that Gibson was interested in expanding Greenberg 
Traurig's tribal business, and solicited Chapman for his 
suggestions for other, potential accounts.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
    \243\ Id.
    \244\ Id.
    \245\ Id.
    \246\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Around this time, Chapman said he told C. Patencio about 
his finder's fee from Abramoff.\247\ C. Patencio likewise told 
the Committee that after the Agua Caliente had hired Abramoff, 
Chapman told her that Abramoff had put him on a retainer to 
help Abramoff land other tribal accounts.\248\ C. Patencio, 
however, did not know the amount, or that Abramoff was paying 
Chapman from the Tribe's retainer.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \247\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
    \248\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
    \249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Chapman submitted invoices ostensibly for work 
related to the Agua Caliente account, it appears from internal 
Greenberg Traurig billing records that Abramoff did not bill 
the payments to Chapman as expenses to the Tribe. Greenberg 
Traurig instead paid Chapman out of the monthly retainer funds 
it received as fees from the Tribe.\250\ It thus appears the 
Tribe was probably not injured in any meaningful way by this, 
if at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034178) (September 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapman also received money from Scanlon's Capitol Campaign 
Strategies (``CCS''), but not right away. After Scanlon secured 
the Agua Caliente representation, months passed and Chapman did 
not receive any payment from Scanlon. He then sent the 
following email to Abramoff: ``I never received any inquiry at 
all from Scanlan [sic]--which I thought was a little strange, 
since he was `sitting pretty' because of my intervention! ... 
In fact, I was going to ask you to ask him for a campaign 
contribution, over and beyond the payment, since his firm seems 
to have benefitted the most from my Agua intervention!'' \251\ 
Chapman continued, ``I rely on your instincts and sense of 
necessity to guide my motivations!'' \252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \251\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000059566) (September 24, 2002) (emphasis added).
    \252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 8, 2002, Scanlon had CCS pay Chapman $100,000. 
Chapman, however, sought more. Just one day later, Chapman 
wrote Scanlon:

        When Jack first broached the terms of a finder's fee--
        we discussed this initial payment as the fee for the 
        first $4 million and then if [sic] was necessary for 
        you to go into the second phase and expend another $4 
        million that another comparable fee would be 
        forthcoming. Is this how you understand it? I know the 
        tribe has approved $8 million in their budget in 
        anticipation of a Phase II--let me know if we're on the 
        same page! \253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\ Email from Michael Chapman to Michael Scanlon, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057596) (October 9, 2002).

    The Committee finds no evidence establishing that Chapman 
received further payments from Scanlon or his companies.

2. Payments to Sierra Dominion

    Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, Inc. (``Sierra 
Dominion'') is a company located in Oakton, VA, and headed by 
Julie Doolittle.\254\ Over the course of the Agua Caliente 
retainer, Greenberg Traurig paid Sierra Dominion $66,690.42 as 
detailed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \254\ See, e.g. Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG005518-
ACCT-AC) (January 2, 2003). Julie Doolittle's husband is Congressman 
John T. Doolittle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments from Greenberg Traurig to Sierra Dominion

09/20/02................................................       $6,612.90
10/10/02................................................       $5,000.00
11/25/02................................................       $5,000.00
01/13/03................................................      $10,077.52
07/02/03................................................       $5,000.00
07/22/03................................................       $5,000.00
08/06/03................................................       $5,000.00
09/25/03................................................       $5,000.00
11/25/03................................................       $5,000.00
12/29/03................................................       $5,000.00
01/26/04................................................       $5,000.00
02/19/04................................................       $5,000.00
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $66,690.42

    While Sierra Dominion apparently provided no services to or 
for the benefit of Agua Caliente, almost all of the money paid 
to Sierra Dominion came out of the monthly retainer that the 
Agua Caliente paid to Greenberg Traurig.\255\ So the Tribe was 
probably not injured in any material way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \255\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034178) (September 12, 2002); Email 
from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig (GTG-E000057489) (September 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One payment of $5,000 to Sierra Dominion, however, was 
billed to the Agua Caliente as an expense in September 2002, 
and the Tribe, in fact, paid the expense in October 2002. This 
gives rise to concerns that Abramoff defrauded the Tribe, 
because the payments were not used for the benefit of the Agua 
Caliente; rather, Abramoff apparently hired Doolittle to work 
on an event, ``The Spy Game'' at the Spy Museum in Washington, 
D.C., which Abramoff wanted as a fundraiser for his personal 
charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF'').
    The event was originally scheduled for March 26, 2003.\256\ 
The event was supposed to honor Jim Kimsey, AOL Founding CEO 
and Chairman, with CAF's ``Lifetime Achievement Award.'' \257\ 
The CAF advertised that participants would ``win up to $50,000 
in prizes.'' \258\ Prizes included airline vouchers, portable 
DVD players, digital cameras, and tickets for Wizards 
[basketball], Caps [hockey], and Redskins [football] 
games.\259\ Abramoff also considered a trip to Scotland as a 
prize.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \256\ Email from Joe Reeder, Greenberg Traurig, to Rudy DeLeon 
(GTG-E000121933) (March 7, 2003).
    \257\ Id.
    \258\ Id.
    \259\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000121929) (March 7-9, 2003).
    \260\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000121929) (March 8, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Spy Museum event never happened. According to a CAF 
notice listing Doolittle as the Director of Community Relations 
for the CAF, the event was postponed due to the United States' 
commencement of military operations in Iraq.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\ See ``The Capital Athletic Foundation's ``The Spy Game'' 
Important Event Update'' (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no evidence that Doolittle knowingly participated 
in Abramoff's funding arrangement. To the contrary, the 
Committee possesses evidence that Abramoff attempted to conceal 
his funding source from Doolittle. In June 2003, Doolittle 
inquired about the status of her retainer.\262\ Abramoff's 
assistant Linsey Crisler responded, ``Accounting tells me that 
your check in [sic] processed, but we are waiting for the 
client to pay their bill before we can distribute any funds. As 
soon as we have their money wired to us, your check will be 
cleared for payment.'' \263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \262\ Email between Julie Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial 
Solutions, and Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069554) (June 
30, 2003).
    \263\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although true, Abramoff scolded Crisler, ``This is not OK 
with me. I want her paid asap. She [sic] should not be told 
that her payments are dependent on anything. Who told you 
that?'' \264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \264\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Linsey 
Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069554) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Crisler explained, ``I was told by Accounting that we 
couldn't pay any bills to outside consultants if there wasn't 
money in the retainer.'' \265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \265\ Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069550) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Thanks. just [sic] make sure she is not 
unpaid at any point or told that her payment is dependent on 
anything.'' \266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \266\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Linsey 
Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069550) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Doolittle told Crisler, that she ``was not aware that 
my retainer was dependent on the payment from a client,'' \267\ 
Abramoff assured her, ``It is absolutely not dependent.'' \268\ 
He then assured Doolittle, ``I will speak with Linsey to get 
this moving.'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \267\ Email from Julie Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial 
Solutions, to Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069555) (July 
6, 2003).
    \268\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Julie 
Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions (GTG-E000069555) (July 
6, 2003).
    \269\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Julie 
Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions (GTG-E000069551) (July 
7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             J. CONCLUSION

    Following The Washington Post article, in February 2004, 
Agua Caliente Chairman Milanovich met with Scanlon in 
Washington, D.C.\270\ At the meeting, Milanovich recalled, 
Scanlon described the article as an attack piece, and asked the 
Tribe to write a letter to The Post to help Scanlon and 
Abramoff.\271\ The Tribe declined to do so.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \270\ Interview of Richard Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
    \271\ Id.
    \272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequently, during a telephone conversation with Duane 
Gibson, Milanovich recalled Gibson also asking the Tribe to 
send a similar letter to The Post in support of Abramoff.\273\ 
Indeed, Milanovich told Committee staff, Gibson said he hoped 
the Tribe would not cooperate with this Committee's 
investigation.\274\ When asked, Gibson did not recall ever 
expressing a preference on whether the Tribe should cooperate 
with the Committee's investigation.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \273\ Id.
    \274\ Id.
    \275\ Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg 
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (March 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the beginning of April, the Tribe suspended its 
contracts with Greenberg Traurig and Scanlon Gould.\276\ 
Concerning attempts to manipulate the Tribal elections, the 
Tribe suspended certain individuals from any appointed role in 
Tribal government.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \276\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 52 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared 
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians).
    \277\ Id.
                               CHAPTER V

                     YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO (TIGUA)

        Abramoff: Fire up the jet baby, we're going to El 
        Paso!!
        Scanlon: I want all their MONEY!!!

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, February 
6, 2002

        I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their 
        political contributions. I'd love us to get our mitts 
        on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped out.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Ralph Reed, February 11, 2002

        A rattlesnake will warn you before it strikes. We had 
        no warning. They did everything behind our back.

    Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 
commenting on Abramoff and Scanlon, November 17, 2004

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    ``Is life great or what!!!'' exclaimed Jack Abramoff to his 
friend and business partner Michael Scanlon on February 19, 
2002.\1\ Few would have quibbled with Abramoff at the time. The 
two men enjoyed a secret partnership, their self-styled ``gimme 
five'' scheme. In less than one year, it had yielded $6 million 
in ill-gotten gains. Over the next couple years, it would 
generate almost $36 million more. In February 2002, the money 
flowed; life was indeed great for Jack Abramoff and Michael 
Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141) (February 19, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, life was not so good for the Ysleta del 
Sur Pueblo Indian Tribe of El Paso, Texas (``Tigua'').\2\ The 
Tribe was fighting for its financial life in the Texas courts 
and legislature, trying to keep open the doors to its Speaking 
Rock Casino. Indeed, Abramoff penned his ``Is life great or 
what'' email in reaction to a front-page El Paso Times article 
reporting that the Tigua had just terminated 450 casino 
employees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ From the pamphlet The Tiguas People of the Sun, obtained from 
the Tigua Indian Cultural Center: ``Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is the 
historical and legal name of the American Indian tribe commonly known 
in the El Paso, Texas area as the ``Tiguas' or ``Tigua Indians''. 
``Tigua'' or ``Tihua'', an even older spelling, is the Spanish phonetic 
spelling of the term ``Tiwa'' and is the name of the Indian language 
spoken by this tribe.''
    \3\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141) (February 19, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the beginning of 2002, little did the Tigua know that 
Abramoff and Scanlon had played a role in thwarting the Tribe's 
efforts to keep open its casino. Little could the Tribe know 
that it would soon become another victim of the duo's ``gimme 
five'' scheme.

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    The Tigua are the only Pueblo tribe still residing in 
Texas.\4\ Although there are several versions of their 
migration to Texas, most believe that the Tigua were once 
inhabitants of Pueblo Gran Quivera, south of modern-day 
Albuquerque, New Mexico.\5\ In 1680 the Pueblo Indians revolted 
against the Spanish and drove them out of New Mexico.\6\ Some 
Ysleta Pueblo Indians either by force or by choice left with 
the Spanish and joined the first migration of Tigua from Gran 
Quivera in El Paso.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006)  (providing a basic history of the 
Tigua).
    \5\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006)  (detailing 
the history of the Tigua); Thomas A. Green, Folk History and Cultural 
Reorganization: A Tigua Example, The Journal of American Folklore v. 
89, no. 353, pp. 310-18 (1976).
    \6\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006)  (providing a basic history of the 
Tigua).
    \7\ Id.; Clayhound Web (visited March 23, 2006)  (describing the history of the 
Tigua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tigua follow a typical Pueblo governing organization 
with a cacique or religious leader appointed by the tribal 
council, a governor, lieutenant governor, war captain, and 
tribal council working together to run the government.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006)  (detailing 
the history of the Tigua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1751 the King of Spain granted the Tigua thirty-six 
square miles of land upon which they built their Pueblo and a 
mission, which is now the oldest mission in Texas.\9\ Through 
extreme poverty and deceit by land hungry speculators, the 
Tigua lost all of this land.\10\ However, in 1967 the State of 
Texas finally recognized the Tigua as a tribe.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006)  (providing a basic history of the 
Tigua); Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006)  (detailing 
the history of the Tigua).
    \10\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006)  (detailing 
the history of the Tigua).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1968, the Federal Government recognized the Tigua as an 
Indian tribe but simultaneously transferred responsibility for 
the Tribe to the State of Texas.\12\ Texas administered the 
Tribe's affairs, which included holding the Tribe's 100-acre 
reservation in trust and providing economic development funds 
to the Tribe.\13\ In 1983, however, Texas became concerned that 
its trust relationship with the Tribe violated state 
constitutional law.\14\ Consequently, the United States and the 
Tribe began the process of granting the Tribe federal trust 
status.\15\ The culmination of those efforts came in the form 
of the 1987 Restoration Act, which established a trust 
relationship between the Federal Government and the Tribe.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Texas v. del Sur Pueblo, 220 F.Supp.2d 668, 673 (W.D. Tex. 
2001).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1993, the Tigua opened its Speaking Rock Casino near El 
Paso, Texas.\17\ This casino offered bingo games and Las Vegas-
style gaming activities, and was a significant source of 
revenue for the Tribe.\18\ In 1999, however, based on an 
interpretation of the Tribe's 1987 Restoration Act, the State 
of Texas brought a legal action challenging the Tribe's ability 
to operate the casino.\19\ The Restoration Act provides that 
``[a]ll gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of 
the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and 
on lands of the tribe.'' \20\ The State of Texas argued that 
this provision prohibited the Tiguas from operating any type of 
gaming that was not allowed under Texas law, and that the 
gaming activities offered at the casino were prohibited by 
Texas law. The Fifth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, 
affirmed a decision by the Texas district court agreeing with 
the State's argument thereby forcing the Tribe to close its 
casino in 2002.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 25 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1300g-6 (2001).
    \21\ Fifth Circuit Rules Against Tribe in State of Texas v. Ysleta 
Del Sur Pueblo (visited Mar. 23, 2006) http://www.indiangaming.org/
info/pr/press-releases-2002/texas-v-ysleta.shtml (describing the Tigua 
casino, Speaking Rock Casino); Texas v. del Sur Pueblo, 220 F.Supp.2d 
668 (W.D. Tex. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         C. ABRAMOFF, SCANLON, AND REED WORK AGAINST THE TIGUA

    The Committee has seen no evidence suggesting that Jack 
Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, or Ralph Reed had any influence over 
the State of Texas' decision to file suit against the Tigua in 
1999. In fact, it was not until 2001, after the suit was well 
under way, that Abramoff and Scanlon took an interest in the 
Tigua and its fight with Texas.
    Abramoff and Scanlon's mutual client the Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') long understood that 
legalized gaming in Texas would erode its casino's customer 
base and revenue.\22\ The majority of the Louisiana Coushatta 
casino's customers are from Texas, particularly the Houston 
area.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 113 (November 2, 2005) (prepared 
statement of David Sickey, Councilman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the State of Texas was pursuing its case to close the 
Tigua's Speaking Rock Casino,\24\ press reports indicated that 
another tribe, the Alabama-Coushatta, was considering opening 
its own casino in eastern Texas.\25\ Abramoff and Scanlon were 
insistent with the Louisiana Coushatta Tribal Council that 
Texas was on the verge of legalizing gaming.\26\ Abramoff and 
Scanlon said that if the Tigua succeeded in its efforts to keep 
open its casino, the State of Texas would have no choice but to 
allow the Alabama Coushatta to have a casino.\27\ The Tribe 
therefore authorized Abramoff and Scanlon to pursue anti-gaming 
efforts in Texas against the Tigua and the Alabama 
Coushatta.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Indians Bet on casino bills/Texas Legislature May Settle Legal 
Dispute Targeting Tribe's Casino Plans, Houston Chronicle, March 25, 
2001; Email from Wilson Padgett to DCChoctaw (SENCREA 10/04 000001) 
(March 26, 2001) (attaching James Kimberly's text).
    \25\ Email from Brian Mann, American International Center, to 
Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000000626) (November 
22, 2001) (attaching Gary Susswein, Two More Tribes Are Ready To Join 
Casino Battle, Austin American Statesman, November 22, 2001).
    \26\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 113 (November 2, 2005) (prepared 
statement of David Sickey, Councilman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana). 
Accord ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 19 (November 2, 2005) (statement of 
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
    \27\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To pursue a grassroots effort against the Tigua, Abramoff 
turned once again to his long-time friend and business 
associate Ralph Reed. On November 12, 2001, Abramoff wrote to 
Reed: ``Remember I mentioned the NIGC [National Indian Gaming 
Commission] today? We are going to get them on the Alabama 
Coushattas and I told our guy to get them on the Tiguas as 
well. Cornyn \29\ needs to get Indians to lead the way. Let us 
help with that.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Cornyn is U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who was then the 
Attorney General for the State of Texas.
    \30\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph 
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023259-61) (November 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reed replied, ``great work. Get me details so I can alert 
cornyn and let him know what we are doing to help him.'' \31\ 
Reed claimed he was already working with Ed Young, pastor of 
the Second Baptist Church of Houston, Texas, to mobilize the 
top pastors in Houston to provide cover for the State's anti-
gambling efforts.\32\ According to Reed, ``[W]e have over 50 
pastors mobilized, with a total membership in those churches of 
over 40,000--that includes second baptist, which has 12,000 
members.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023274) (November 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to sway public opinion, the Tigua had earlier 
embarked upon a public relations campaign. Earlier that day, 
the Tigua had run articles in newspapers in Austin, Houston, 
Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Worth, imploring people to contact 
then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn and ``beg him to save 
our families.'' \34\ The Tigua also ran a similar full-page ad 
in The Washington Post, in the form of a letter to the 
President.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E00023240-41) (November 13, 2001) 
(attaching Gary Scharrer, Tiguas seek support with state, DC ads, El 
Paso Times, November 13, 2001).
    \35\ Id. Later that day, Abramoff forwarded an email from Isidro 
Garza to Reed. See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to 
Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023257) (November 12, 2001). 
Abramoff apparently believed that the Kickapoo nation would help them 
on Tigua. Id. To date, the Committee has not learned what, if any, 
assistance the Kickapoo nation rendered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon reading about the Tigua's public relations campaign, 
Reed advised Abramoff, ``i [sic] strongly suggest we start 
doing patch-throughs to perry and cornyn. [W]e're getting 
killed on the phones.'' \36\ Apparently, Scanlon had already 
started.\37\ Reed again claimed he had already mobilized 50 
pastors to provide ``moral support'' to then-Texas Attorney 
General Cornyn.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Email between Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023240) (November 13-14, 2001).
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 15, 2001, Isidro Garza, Chairman of the 
Kickapoo Tribe informed Abramoff that then-Texas Attorney 
General Cornyn was ``fixing to get hammered in El Paso'' and 
asked ``are we prepared to have Ralph Reed move in?'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Email between Isidro Garza, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of 
Texas, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023504) (November 
15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Absolutely. Ralph and I spoke last 
night. Cornyn is supposed to call Ralph as soon as he can make 
it to a phone after El Paso. We should be in good shape.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id. Other than Abramoff's email, the Committee has seen no 
evidence that such a call occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By December 2001, Reed apparently was not achieving 
satisfactory results. With respect to the Alabama Coushatta's 
new casino, Abramoff wrote, ``We are going to lose this client 
[Louisiana Coushatta] if we can't get this thing closed. What 
can we do? What are they waiting for?'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph 
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023491-93) (December 5, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reed reported on everything he was doing to ensure the 
casino would be shut down, and added, ``Let's talk today about 
what else we might do. But if the client loses us in the 
meantime, they will not get anyone better to advance their 
cause.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 7, 2002, Reed reported on his discussions with 
the Attorney General's Office, adding ``[h]ope these 
developments help with client''.\43\ Reed also reminded 
Abramoff that the information he had earlier passed on turned 
out to be true, and confirmed that he had gotten pastors riled 
up the week before to call the Attorney General's office.\44\ 
Reed purportedly continued to supply Abramoff with information 
from the Attorney General's office, claiming he was having 
direct conversations with the Texas Attorney General 
himself.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010854) (January 7, 2002).
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076007) (January 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the trio worked to support the State's legal efforts, 
evidence also suggests that Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed worked 
behind the scenes in Texas to quash the Tigua's attempts at a 
legislative solution. In 2003, Abramoff boasted to a colleague:

        A bill is moving (HB809) in the Texas state house which 
        will enable the Indians in Texas to have totally 
        unregulated casinos. It passed out of the house 
        Criminal Jurisprudence Committee by a 6-2 vote.
        The current Republican Speaker Tom Craddick is a strong 
        supporter. Last year we stopped this bill after it 
        passed the house using the Lt. Governor (Bill ratcliff) 
        [sic] to prevent it from being scheduled in the state 
        senate.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shawn Vasell, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076245) (February 27, 2003).

    In fact, former Texas Lt. Governor Ratliff did refuse to 
schedule the legislation for a floor vote in the previous 
session, the state's legal efforts succeeded, and the Tigua 
officially closed its casino on February 12, 2002.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was a low point for the Tigua. According to Tribal 
representatives, the revenue generated by the Speaking Rock 
Casino had helped the Tribe lift its members out of poverty, 
had enabled the Tribe to provide education for its children and 
health care for its elders.\48\ It created hope where there was 
none. Into their desperation and despair entered Abramoff and 
Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             D. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SEEK THE TRIBE'S MONEY

    At the same time Abramoff and Scanlon were working to have 
the Tigua's casino in El Paso closed, they began actively 
soliciting the Tigua for money to re-open its casino. According 
to an internal memorandum from Norman J. Gordon to Tom Diamond, 
both of whom were outside counsel for the Tigua:

        I had a telephone conversation this afternoon with 
        Bryant Rogers, a lawyer in Santa Fe, who represents a 
        number of Indian Tribes. He advises me that he was 
        asked by Mr. Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist in Washington, 
        D.C. whether the Tiguas were attempting a solution to 
        the order that may be outside the courts. According to 
        Mr. Rogers, Mr. Abramoff is with a firm that is well 
        connected to the Bush Administration (Greenberg 
        Trauring [sic] Firm in Washington, D.C. which 
        represented the Bush Campaign in the Florida dispute-
        lobbying arm) and has been effective in the past in 
        efforts for other tribes. He is willing to come to El 
        Paso and meet with the Council at no cost to discuss 
        whether he can be of assistance. His phone number is 
        [REDACTION].\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February 
4, 2002) (Memorandum from Norman J. Gordon, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon 
& Jackson, to Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & Jackson).

    Meanwhile, Reed forwarded to Abramoff an email from one of 
Reed's Texas operatives reporting that the operative ``[j]ust 
spoke with a source close to the Attorney General who tells me 
they anticipate either February 8 (this Friday) or February 
11th--next Monday--will be the date Judge Eisele shuts down the 
Tigua casino. His order would dispatch federal marshals to the 
facility to close it.'' \50\ In forwarding Reed's email to 
Scanlon, Abramoff was clear about his lack of care and concern 
for the Tigua's plight: ``Whining idiot. Close the f'ing thing 
already!!'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006970-JA) (February 5, 2002).
    \51\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E006970-JA) (February 5, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite his disdain, the very next day, Abramoff was 
quickly on the telephone with Tigua public relations 
representative Marc Schwartz seeking the Tigua's business.\52\ 
During their first telephone conversation, Abramoff lamented 
over the Tigua's plight, and offered to visit the Tribe in El 
Paso to discuss a solution to the Tigua's problem.\53\ 
According to Schwartz, Abramoff ``expressed his indignation 
over what had occurred with the tribe and specifically referred 
to the need to right the terrible injustice that had been 
brought upon the tribe.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \53\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \54\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right 
credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of 
Congressman Tom DeLay.\55\ He also discussed his friendship 
with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College 
Republicans.\56\ When Schwartz observed that Reed was an 
ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied 
``as far as the cash goes.'' \57\ Abramoff also mentioned his 
representation of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw'') and his ability to get appropriations for 
them.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff ``offered the service of both himself and his firm 
at no charge.'' \59\ He later expressed a hope that the Tribe 
would hire him, if he succeeded in achieving a Federal 
legislative fix.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After his call with Schwartz, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Fire 
up the jet baby, we're going to El Paso!!'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0075991) (February 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon replied, ``I want all their MONEY!!!'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later that day, Reed sent Abramoff the Saturday copy of an 
El Paso Times-News article reporting that the Tigua had filed 
for a stay of the closing of its casino while the Tribe's 
appeal was pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
with the note ``here's the latest move, just as we predicted.'' 
\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006969-JA) (February 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 7, 2002, Schwartz reported to Tigua Governor 
Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and the Tribal 
Council that he ``spoke with Mr. Abramoff this morning and he 
would like to make a short presentation to the Council next 
week. He could be in El Paso for a meeting on Tuesday.'' \64\ 
Schwartz scheduled the meeting with Abramoff and the Tigua 
leadership for Tuesday, February 12, 2002, at the Tribal 
Council offices for Abramoff to make ``a short presentation on 
his capabilities.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February 
7, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and 
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \65\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February 
8, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo); see also Marc Schwartz document production (no 
Bates number) (February 10, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, 
Partners Group Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor 
Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before meeting with Abramoff, the Tigua undertook some due 
diligence, reviewing stories about Abramoff in The New York 
Times and The Wall Street Journal.\66\ The articles described 
Abramoff as an ``uber lobbyist.'' \67\ The Tigua also reviewed 
information about the law firm Greenberg Traurig, which the 
Tribe determined was one of the top law firms, and concluded 
that Abramoff's ``credentials appeared to be extremely 
legitimate.'' \68\ At a Tribal Council meeting, the Tribe 
considered Abramoff's credentials: he was a topnotch lobbyist; 
he represented the Choctaw, widely known and respected in 
Indian country; and, his firm had represented President Bush in 
the 2000 presidential election dispute.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \67\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \68\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \69\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, Abramoff and Scanlon continued to monitor the 
Tigua's fight. On Saturday, February 9, 2002, the El Paso 
Times-News reported that, following the Fifth Circuit Court's 
denial of the Tigua's application for a stay pending appeal, 
the Tigua intended to file an emergency request to the United 
States Supreme Court.\70\ Concerned by the Tigua's latest 
actions, Scanlon wrote to Abramoff: ``Uh oh?'' and Abramoff 
responded, ``We have to strategize on this one.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000000353) (February 9, 
2002).
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A day or so before Abramoff's meeting with the Tribe, 
Abramoff called Schwartz to inform the Tribe that he was 
bringing Michael Scanlon, whom he called an associate.\72\ 
Abramoff said that Scanlon was Congressman DeLay's former 
spokesman.\73\ Abramoff called Scanlon one of his best friends; 
said they worked together all the time; and, claimed that 
Scanlon was one of the pre-eminent political strategists in the 
nation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 239 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \73\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During their conversation, Abramoff never called Scanlon 
his business partner.\75\ According to Schwartz, Abramoff was 
always very careful to make it clear to the Tigua that ``you're 
hiring Scanlon independently. I use him because he's the best. 
He has his own company.'' \76\ Abramoff never disclosed that he 
and Scanlon were partners; never said he would receive money 
from Scanlon that the Tigua paid; and, never mentioned any 
referral fee from Scanlon.\77\ To the contrary, when Schwartz 
asked whether Scanlon Gould was connected to Abramoff, Abramoff 
replied ``no.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Id.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The day he was supposed to meet with the Tigua leadership, 
Abramoff's disdain for the Tribe again surfaced. Reed had 
reported that the Tigua was prepared to close its casino.\79\ 
Reed highlighted for Abramoff ``major victory ... but note they 
plan a legislative battle now that they have lost in the 
courts.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Email between Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006967-JA) (February 11-12, 2002).
    \80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``I wish those moronic Tiguas were 
smarter in their political contributions. I'd love us to get 
our mitts on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped 
out.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon met with the Tigua Tribal Council on 
February 12, 2002.\82\ Ironically, it was the same day that the 
Tigua's casino was going to close.\83\ The meeting occurred at 
the Tribal Administration Building, and lasted forty-five (45) 
minutes.\84\ Attendees at the meeting included the Tribe's 
then-Governor Albert Alvidrez, Schwartz, and Tribal attorney 
Tom Diamond.\85\ As Lt. Governor Hisa later learned, at that 
meeting, Abramoff made a proposal for a lobbying effort led by 
himself and Scanlon's firm to gain a federal legislative fix to 
the Tigua's problem.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \83\ Id. at 239.
    \84\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas 
(October 28, 2004).
    \85\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 231 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tribe had no idea that Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed had 
just worked to ensure the closure of its casino.\87\ According 
to Hisa, Alvidrez said that Abramoff disclosed his friendship 
with Reed, but Abramoff said that Reed was ``crazy, like other 
folks in the Christian Coalition.'' \88\ According to Tom 
Diamond, counsel to the Tigua, Abramoff also claimed that as 
Reed was leading the anti-gambling efforts among Christian 
conservatives, Reed was supplying Abramoff with information 
about the effort and, therefore, Abramoff knew their 
strategy.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228, 239 (November 17, 2004) (statement 
of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \88\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \89\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas 
(October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff also disclosed his representation of the Louisiana 
Coushatta, but said the Louisiana Coushatta did not have any 
problem with the Tigua.\90\ Abramoff bragged about getting the 
Choctaw millions of dollars in appropriations.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Committee's hearing, Schwartz testified that 
Abramoff introduced Scanlon as ``the preeminent expert in 
grassroots politics and that with his experience with 
Representative Tom DeLay had developed a reputation as `the go-
to guy for the most difficult campaigns'.'' \92\ According to 
Schwartz, Abramoff further described Scanlon as a ``bulldog'', 
``tenacious'', ``people were afraid of him'', he was ``DeLay's 
attack dog,'' and was one of the reasons that Congressman DeLay 
was so successful.\93\ According to Lt. Governor Hisa, Scanlon 
claimed he would try to convince Representative DeLay to work 
for the Tigua's benefit and try to use Representative DeLay's 
credibility to convince other representatives to support the 
Tigua.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \93\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \94\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 242 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff said that Scanlon did the groundwork on his 
projects.\95\ When Schwartz asked whether Abramoff used Scanlon 
exclusively, Abramoff said that he liked to use Scanlon for the 
tough fights: ``He always gets results'', recalled 
Schwartz.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At that first meeting, Scanlon said he worked in public 
affairs and direct response.\97\ Scanlon explained grassroots 
campaigns, and how he could get thousands of telephone calls to 
flood a senator's office, or even the President's office.\98\ 
Scanlon claimed he was ``DeLay's guy'' and had an ongoing 
relationship with Congressman DeLay.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Id.
    \98\ Id.
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon proposed a nationwide political 
campaign for the Tigua.\100\ The duo brought a laptop with an 
example of the database they were proposing to construct for 
the Tigua.\101\ Abramoff told the Tribe that his plan was to 
have a friendly lawmaker sneak some fairly innocuous language 
into a federal bill permitting the Tigua to re-open the 
Speaking Rock Casino.\102\ But the Tribe would have to make 
contributions to grease the process: ``You have to have some 
friends,'' Schwartz recalled Abramoff saying.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Id.
    \101\ Id.
    \102\ Id.; Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta 
del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \103\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schwartz further recalled Abramoff saying ``my part is 
easy; the hard part is keeping this from being undone. Once the 
law is printed, someone's going to know it and that's where 
Mike comes in.'' \104\ Abramoff described Scanlon's role as a 
submarine: once the bill passed, opponents would try to strip 
it or repeal it.\105\ Abramoff said that Scanlon's operation 
would then surface, blanketing members' offices with letters 
and phone calls, to ``bring them in line.'' \106\ Scanlon would 
implement this ``submarine strategy'' through the database he 
was supposedly going to construct for the Tribe.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Id.; Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas 
(October 28, 2004) (recalling Abramoff said that Scanlon would ``bring 
them [opponents] in line'').
    \106\ Id.; Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \107\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas 
(October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff also said that he and Greenberg Traurig would 
represent the Tribe pro bono until the casino was up and 
running, but then wanted to represent the Tigua for $150,000 
per month.\108\ Abramoff said he had done this arrangement 
before: he would work pro bono, but Scanlon had to be 
paid.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Speaking about the grassroots efforts, Scanlon said there 
was a necessity of money.\110\ Scanlon was going to write a 
proposal for the Tigua.\111\ Schwartz recalled Abramoff saying 
``you won't pay me, you'll pay him a lot'', indicating 
Scanlon.\112\ According to Schwartz, Abramoff said two or three 
times ``I'm the only guy who's gonna work for you and get 
results first and you pay second.'' \113\ Abramoff said his 
efforts ``couldn't exist without Scanlon.'' \114\ At the 
meeting, Abramoff and Scanlon suggested a ballpark figure of 
$5,000,000 for the plan, in addition to $1,000,000 in political 
contributions.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Id.
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ Id.
    \115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During that same meeting, Scanlon represented that his part 
in the campaign ``would be expensive, essential and 
exclusive.'' \116\ The Tribe had no understanding that Scanlon 
would pay Abramoff out of the funds paid to him by the 
Tribe.\117\ The Tribe never paid Abramoff any money.\118\ In 
discussing the project, Abramoff conveyed a sense of 
urgency.\119\ At the meeting, Abramoff again insisted the 
proposal was critical, that it needed to be done, the Tribe 
needed this defense, and Scanlon had done this before.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \117\ Id. at 242 (testimony of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \118\ Id.
    \119\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \120\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At that meeting, neither Abramoff nor Scanlon disclosed 
that they were partners; that Abramoff had any type of 
financial interest in Scanlon's operations; or, that Scanlon 
would pay Abramoff any part of what the Tribe paid 
Scanlon.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Abramoff met with the Tigua leadership, Schwartz sent 
an email to Abramoff: ``Certainly enjoyed your visit and 
efforts to help our client. I look forward to receiving your 
proposal and we will do everything possible to make it come to 
fruition.'' \122\ Forwarding Schwartz's email to Scanlon, 
Abramoff commented, ``This guy NEEDS us to save his ass!!'' 
\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ Email from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006968-JA) (February 13, 2002).
    \123\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E006968-JA) (February 13, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Abramoff and Scanlon's trip to El Paso, Abramoff 
pushed the Tigua to decide on Scanlon.\124\ Abramoff said that 
``bills were moving, timing is critical, he needed Scanlon 
ASAP.'' \125\ Abramoff insisted that if a bill moved quickly, 
he needed Scanlon in place working on the database along with 
some other elements of the strategy.\126\ At this point, 
Abramoff did not specify which lawmakers would help, or where 
the contributions would go.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \125\ Id.
    \126\ Id.
    \127\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon was responsible for drafting the Tigua strategy. On 
February 16, 2002, Scanlon reported to Abramoff that he was 
``still working--I'll have it done befoer [sic] noon tomorrow 
so you can get it deon [sic] to schartz [sic].'' \128\ The next 
day, Abramoff responded: ``Dawg, we're going to miss the 
meeting on Tuesday at this rate. Let's not blow this one 
because we don't get them a proposal. Get me something asap!'' 
\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010895) (February 16-17, 
2002).
    \129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon receiving the proposal, Abramoff sent Schwartz an 
email on February 18, 2002, reiterating that his and Greenberg 
Traurig's services were free:

        As we discussed, until we are able to achieve the 
        Federal legislative fix, we at Greenberg Traurig will 
        not be engaged by the tribe for services officially. 
        All our work will be done on a pro bono basis. Once the 
        legislation is signed by the President, we would 
        anticipate the tribe engaging us to represent it at the 
        Federal level and assist with efforts to obtain a class 
        III compact. Our normal rate in our tribal government 
        practice is between $125,000 and $175,000 per 
        month.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-000076141) 
(February 18, 2002).

    Abramoff attached to his email to Schwartz a proposal 
entitled ``Operation Open Doors''. According to the document, 
the ``singular objective of our strategy is to open the doors 
of the Speaking Rock Casino within the next 4 months.'' \131\ 
The document continued,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\ Id.

        Our objective is clear, and in the following pages we 
        are going to tell you exactly how we intend to reach 
        our objective. Operation Open Doors is a massive 
        undertaking fueled by a nation-wide political 
        operation. This political operation will result in a 
        Majority of both federal chambers either becoming close 
        friends of the tribe or fearing the tribe in a very 
        short period of time.
        The network we our [sic] are building for you will give 
        you the political clout needed to end around the 
        obstacles you face in your own back yard. Simply put, 
        you need 218 friends in the U.S. House and 51 Senators 
        on your side very quickly, and we will do that through 
        both love and fear.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Id.

    The document represented that ``they'' had ``waged similar 
strategies in the past that have been successful and we will 
wage many more in the years to come.'' \133\ Although the 
document cautioned that the strategy was not ``full proof'', it 
also emphasized that ``under no circumstances do we believe it 
could be classified as high risk either.'' \134\ According to 
the document: ``As we presented in our initial meeting, we 
firmly believe that if you execute this strategy in its 
entirety, your doors will be open and gaming will return in the 
immediate future.'' \135\ Scanlon requested a total amount of 
$5.4 million to execute his strategy.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Id.
    \134\ Id.
    \135\ Id.
    \136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 19, 2002, the El Paso Times reported that 450 
people received their final termination notice and 60-day 
severance packages one week after Tigua Tribal officials 
complied with a federal court order to shut down their Speaking 
Rock Casino.\137\ Scanlon forwarded the story to Abramoff with 
the preface ``This is on the front page of todays [sic] while 
they will be voting on our plan!'' \138\ Abramoff could hardly 
contain his excitement: ``Is life great or what!!!'' \139\ Mere 
minutes later, Abramoff sent another email to Scanlon: ``1 hour 
45 minutes and counting my friend.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Email from Brian Mann, American International Center, to 
Michael Scanlon, et. al., Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141) 
(February 19, 2002).
    \138\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001141) (February 19, 
2002).
    \139\ Id.
    \140\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001140) (February 19, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before voting on Operation Open Doors, the Tribe asked 
Abramoff and Scanlon to return. Abramoff therefore met with 
Tigua leadership again in El Paso on February 22, 2002.\141\ 
Abramoff was alone; Scanlon supposedly had health problems and 
was unable to attend.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 232 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \142\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At that second meeting, Abramoff made a proposal on the 
legislative strategy, including Operation Open Doors and the 
database to be developed by Scanlon Gould.\143\ Later that day, 
through Schwartz, the Tribal Council requested that the cost of 
Operation Open Doors be reduced to $4.2 million.\144\ Abramoff 
accepted the Tribe's counter-offer on Scanlon Gould's 
behalf.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 232 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 5, 2002, the Tribe executed a contract with 
Scanlon Gould for the implementation of Operation Open 
Doors.\146\ In less than a month, the Tribe paid Scanlon 
$4,200,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Contract between Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Scanlon Gould 
Public Affairs (March 5, 2002) (no Bates number).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments by Tigua to Scanlon Gould

03/05/02................................................      $2,100,000
03/06/02................................................        $817,000
03/26/02................................................      $1,283,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $4,200,000
    Having collected about $4,200,000 from the Tigua during the 
relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about 
$1,850,000--about 50% of his total profit from the Tribe.\147\ 
The Tribe never knew that Scanlon would pay Abramoff with the 
Tribe's money, \148\ and had no way of knowing of the scam the 
duo was running.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon 
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on 
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of this Report.
    \148\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 242 (November 17, 2004) (testimony of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \149\ Id. at 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      E. SECRECY AND CONTRIBUTIONS

    Secrecy was a key element of Abramoff and Scanlon's 
program. According to Schwartz, Abramoff claimed, ``Nobody can 
know I'm working on this deal. Stealth is the key.'' \150\ 
Abramoff repeatedly emphasized that his involvement in the 
effort needed to be kept secret.\151\ Neither Abramoff nor any 
other lobbyist on his team registered with the Clerk of the 
House or the Secretary of the Senate as lobbyists for the 
Tigua. Abramoff claimed that part of the reason for 
representing the Tigua pro bono was to avoid filing the 
required lobbying disclosure forms.\152\ According to Schwartz, 
Abramoff explained that the lawmakers who would advance the 
legislative measure required secrecy.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \153\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Schwartz sent a number of Tigua-related articles to a 
list of people--including Abramoff--Abramoff forwarded the 
articles to Scanlon with the note: ``That fucking idiot put my 
name on an email list! What a fucking moron. He may have blown 
our cover!! Dammit. We are moving forward anyway and taking 
their fucking money.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000053576) (February 25, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another key component of the program, so Abramoff claimed, 
were the political contributions that Abramoff directed the 
Tigua to make.\155\ Abramoff gave the Tribe a list of 
contributions at the moment he made his second 
presentation.\156\ According to Schwartz, ``Those checks were 
required by Mr. Abramoff, directed that the Tribe do those 
immediately.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \156\ Id. at 237.
    \157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During four or five conversations that Schwartz had with 
Abramoff between March 1-5, 2002, Abramoff said that political 
contributions were critical to the Tribe's language going 
through.\158\ Abramoff told Schwartz that the Tribe needed to 
make the contributions to have lawmakers carry the Tribe's 
water.\159\ Schwartz recalled Abramoff plainly saying that 
unless the Tribe made contributions, ``it will not work'' and 
``they will not vote for us.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, by telephone (November 14, 2004).
    \159\ Id.
    \160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What Abramoff did not tell the Tribe was that he was going 
to use its contributions to achieve legislative results for 
other clients. On February 24, 2002, Abramoff's associate Todd 
Boulanger wrote about the ``Tigua Contribution Budget 
Proposal'':

        I'm compiling this information now. How soon will be 
        [sic] get this money ... [sic] since we are going to 
        use this to leverage our friends for this year's 
        approps requests, prior to March 20th is best, since 
        March 22nd is the general deadline. We're looking 
        strong on the school for the Sagchips. $4.5 million in 
        da-bank. call [sic] me at the office if you get this 
        soon ...\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076355) (February 24, 2002).

    The Tribe contributed approximately $300,000 at Abramoff's 
direction.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 236 (November 17, 2004) (testimony of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   F. ABRAMOFF AND HIS COLLEAGUES SET THE PLAN IN MOTION IN THE HOUSE

    On March 18, 2002, Tony Rudy, an Abramoff colleague and 
former Deputy Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom DeLay, told 
Abramoff, ``We need to meet with ney [sic]. I think you should 
be in on it.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089648) (March 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``I agree. when [sic] can we see him? 
We need to show him the list of those to whom they [the Tribe] 
gave. Was he on it? if [sic] not, find out the name of his PAC 
and his personal committee with addresses and we'll get checks 
right now.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two days later, Abramoff exclaimed to Scanlon, ``Just met 
with Ney!!! We're f'ing gold!!!! He's going to do Tigua.'' 
\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000076443) (March 20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the hearing before the Committee, Schwartz testified 
that Abramoff reported in March 2002 that he and his staff had 
spoken to Representative Bob Ney, who allegedly agreed to carry 
the Tigua provision by placing it in the Election Reform 
Bill.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants). The actual name 
of the bill was the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressman Ney had a different recollection of events. 
According to Congressman Ney, Abramoff told him that Senator 
Dodd wanted to insert a provision into the Election Reform Bill 
that would benefit a gaming tribe in Connecticut.\167\ 
Congressman Ney said there was never any mention of any Tribe 
in El Paso, Texas and no reference to any Tigua Indian 
tribe.\168\ As of the date of his interview with Committee 
staff, Congressman Ney said he was not at all familiar with the 
Tigua.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States 
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
    \168\ Id.
    \169\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To effect his legislative strategy, Abramoff enlisted other 
lobbyists at Greenberg Traurig, including Neil Volz, Jon van 
Horne, and Shawn Vasell.\170\ In particular, Volz was the 
former chief of staff to Congressman Ney and staff director for 
the House Committee on Administration, which Congressman Ney 
chaired at the time.\171\ Volz went to work for Team Abramoff 
at Greenberg Traurig on February 19, 2002.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \171\ Email from Mayra Zilio, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000089431) (February 8, 2002).
    \172\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to himself (GTG-
E000089433) (February 6, 2002). He was therefore subject to the one-
year lobbying ban prohibiting him from lobbying both Congressman Ney 
and his office, as well as the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Schwartz, Volz was supposedly working on the 
Tigua issue on the House side.\173\ Abramoff told Schwartz that 
Volz, as Congressman Ney's former chief of staff, was important 
to the process.\174\ Schwartz remembered Abramoff saying that 
``Volz was Ney's guy and was working it for Ney.'' \175\ Volz 
was on the Hill to get information and to influence the 
Conference Committee.\176\ According to Abramoff, Volz was 
talking to Congressman Ney about the Tigua.\177\ Abramoff said 
that Volz had convinced Congressman Ney that supporting the 
effort was the right thing to do.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \174\ Id.
    \175\ Id.
    \176\ Id.
    \177\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, by telephone (November 14, 2004).
    \178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schwartz met Volz twice while working on the Tigua 
issue.\179\ He also spoke to him in conference calls with 
Abramoff.\180\ According to Schwartz, Volz told him that 
Congressman Ney got involved in the Tigua project because of 
Volz.\181\ Volz was supposedly talking with Congressman Ney or 
his staff daily, Schwartz told Committee staff in his 
interview.\182\ Volz told Schwartz that he was working with 
Congressman Ney's Chief of Staff and knew him by name.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \180\ Id.
    \181\ Id.
    \182\ Id.
    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressman Ney contradicted Volz's representations to 
Schwartz. During his interview with Committee staff, 
Congressman Ney said that, aside from Abramoff, no one--
including Volz--approached him about the provision that 
Abramoff had brought to his attention.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, House of 
Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, on or about March 26, 2002, Abramoff called 
Schwartz and said that Congressman Ney had set up a new 
political action committee (``PAC'') called American 
Liberty.\185\ Abramoff said it was imperative that the Tribe 
send checks that day.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
    \186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Schwartz had another conversation about the 
contributions.\187\ Volz was present during this conversation, 
Schwartz recalled.\188\ During the conversation, Volz chimed in 
that the checks needed to be delivered quickly.\189\ According 
to Schwartz, Abramoff said that the political contributions 
were necessary, often saying ``this has to be done'', ``this is 
not optional'', and went as far as to say that ``in order to 
make this thing work, he [Ney] needs the money in his PAC so he 
can make contributions to members of his Committee to make it 
glide through.'' \190\ ``This is not what I think you should 
do; this is what Bob needs to be done'', Schwartz remembered 
Abramoff saying.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ Id.
    \188\ Id.
    \189\ Id.
    \190\ Id.
    \191\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Schwartz's conference call with Abramoff and Volz, 
Abramoff's assistant Allison Bozniak sent Schwartz an email 
with information for donations to American Liberty PAC and Bob 
Ney for Congress.\192\ On March 27, 2002, the Tribe made the 
following contributions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\ Email from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (no Bates number) (March 26, 
2002).

        $2,000 to Bob Ney for Congress
        $5,000 to American Liberty PAC Hard Money Account
        $25,000 to American Liberty PAC Soft Money Account 
        \193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ Tigua document production (no Bates number) (check from Tigua 
to ``Bob Ney For Congress'') (March 27, 2002); Tigua document 
production (no Bates number) (check from Tigua to ``American Liberty 
PAC Hard Money Account'') (March 27, 2002); Tigua document production 
(no Bates number) (check from Tigua to ``American Liberty PAC Soft 
Money Account'') (March 27, 2002).

    On April 12, 2002, Abramoff again informed Schwartz that 
the Tigua language would be included in the Election Reform 
Bill.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      G. SCANLON PURPORTEDLY SETS THE PLAN IN MOTION IN THE SENATE

    While Abramoff was lobbying the House, Scanlon was 
apparently responsible for supervising the lobbying of the 
Senate. To that end, he was supposedly hiring two Democratic 
operatives: Harold Ickes and Lottie Shackelford. On March 30, 
2002, Abramoff instructed Scanlon, ``Ickes has to move now. 
They might go to conference as soon as they get back. let [sic] 
me know when he is ready. Ney is ready to approach Dodd, but is 
waiting to hear back from us first.'' \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000089650) (March 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``Will do onthis [sic]. Ill [sic] 
give udatelater [sic].'' \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089670) (April 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There apparently was some problem on Scanlon's end, but he 
assured Abramoff, ``OK--Im [sic] back in the driver seat--We 
got Dodds [sic] Finacne [sic] comitte [sic] chairman on board 
and we have the vice Char [sic] of the DNC--the one who 
actually sponsored the resolution now on the team.'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089681) (April 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 18, 2002 Abramoff reported to Volz that ``Dodd is 
ready.'' \198\ He explained, ``We need to get to Ney to give 
him the green light to raise it with Dodd whenever he wants.'' 
\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \198\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil 
Volz, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089698) (April 18, 2002).
    \199\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volz responded, ``Ney is in Florida this weekend, I talked 
with him yesterday and will talk with [then-House 
Administration Committee staff director] Paul [Vinovich] on 
Sunday to get teed up to get ready to implement.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day, Rudy urged Abramoff, ``We better get folks to 
talk to dodd [sic].'' \201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089701) (April 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff assured Rudy, ``We're all set. he [sic] is ready 
and Ney knows to chat with him now.'' \202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy also asked, ``Is vinovich on board the tiquas [sic]?'' 
\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil Volz (GTG-E000089703-04) (April 
19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Including Volz in the exchange, Abramoff replied, ``I think 
so. Ney told Neil he was going to tell him, right Neil?'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volz reported that ``Ney told vinovich last night and I 
will talk through with Paul on the golf course Sunday.'' \205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It appears, however, that Scanlon had not paved the way in 
the Senate, as he had said. The Committee has seen no evidence 
suggesting, much less establishing, that Scanlon had hired 
Ickes. In fact, in a January 9, 2003 memorandum from Scanlon to 
Schwartz on the political campaign Scanlon supposedly waged on 
the Tigua's behalf, nowhere does Scanlon mention Ickes.\206\ 
According to Scanlon,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \206\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/TI 
000824-25) (January 9, 2003).

        We began to target Senator Dodd using a system of 
        repeated contact from influential members of his 
        political family. At the cornerstone of the project was 
        the vice chairperson of the DNC and a member of his 
        finance committee, Lottie Shackelford. Her support and 
        access was critical for our ongoing efforts to 
        influence the Senator. We directed her to make personal 
        contact with the Senator throughout the campaign 
        starting in April and lasting through the passage of 
        the legislation in October.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\ See id.

    Even Scanlon's summary was not true. Brian Lunde, whom 
Scanlon used ``as a silent sub[contractor] in letter-writing, 
legislative-monitoring, and other projects for his Tribal 
clients,'' told Committee staff that Scanlon approached him in 
2002 about the Tigua.\208\ Scanlon told Lunde that he was going 
to have an amendment inserted into the House version of 
Election Reform, and wanted to know whether the provision had 
any chance in the Senate.\209\ Lunde told Scanlon that the 
Democratic National Committee (``DNC'') had issued a resolution 
supporting the Tigua's sovereignty.\210\ Lunde identified 
Senator Dodd as the key Senator on this issue; the question was 
if the provision was in the House version, would Senator Dodd 
support it.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by 
telephone (November 16, 2004).
    \209\ Id.
    \210\ Id.
    \211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon asked Lunde who knew Senator Dodd and could get the 
DNC's position to him.\212\ Lunde identified Lottie 
Shackelford.\213\ Since Scanlon did not know Shackelford, he 
asked Lunde to have her advise Dodd's office on the DNC's 
position.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ Id.
    \213\ Id.
    \214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lunde apparently called Shackelford about this in the fall 
of 2002.\215\ In their interviews with Committee staff, 
Shackelford and Lunde similarly recalled Shackelford's role. 
Shackelford was supposed to do two things: (1) make sure 
Senator Dodd's office was aware of the DNC's resolution on the 
Tigua; and, (2) monitor the Election Reform Bill in the 
Senate.\216\ Lunde never discussed with Scanlon having 
Shackelford lobby Senator Dodd's office for inclusion of the 
Tigua provision in the Senate version of Election Reform.\217\ 
Lunde, therefore, never asked Shackelford to lobby Senator Dodd 
or his office for inclusion of the Tigua language in the 
Senate's version of Election Reform bill.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political 
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004). Lunde could not 
recall when he first reached out to Shackelford. Interview of Brian 
Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by telephone (November 16, 2004).
    \216\ Id.; Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political 
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
    \217\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by 
telephone (November 16, 2004).
    \218\ Id.; Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political 
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After speaking with Lunde, Shackelford called Sheryl Cohen, 
Senator Dodd's Chief of Staff, to make her aware of the DNC 
resolution.\219\ Shackelford recalled telling Cohen that ``we'' 
are hearing that an amendment may be attached to the House 
election Reform Bill to restore the Tribe's sovereignty and 
told her the DNC supported the Tribe's sovereignty rights.\220\ 
There was no discussion of the Tribe's casino or the language 
that would allow the Tribe to re-open its casino.\221\ 
Shackelford told Committee staff she never spoke to Senator 
Dodd directly about the Tigua.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\ Id.
    \220\ Id.
    \221\ Id.
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cohen did not recall specifics of her conversations with 
Shackelford about the Tigua.\223\ Nevertheless, Cohen was clear 
she would have deemed any rider about the Tigua a ``non-
starter'', because it was not relevant to the bill.\224\ 
Consistent with Cohen's recollection, Shackelford told 
Committee staff that Cohen told her that Senator Dodd did not 
want Election Reform bogged down by non-germane 
provisions.\225\ Indeed, when the bill went to conference, 
Lunde recalled telling Scanlon that Dodd's chief of staff told 
Shackelford that no new provisions were going to make it into 
the legislation.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ Interview of Sheryl Cohen, chief of staff, Senator 
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
    \224\ Id.
    \225\ Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political 
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
    \226\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by 
telephone (November 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       H. THINGS BEGIN TO UNRAVEL

    On June 5, 2002, Schwartz provided the Tigua Governor, Lt. 
Governor, and Tribal Council with an update on Abramoff and 
Scanlon's efforts in Washington, D.C., saying, ``the conference 
committee staffs [were] meeting everyday to negotiate the 
issues in the bill.'' \227\ Schwartz further advised, ``Our 
portion is still agreed to and as you can see from the 
[Abramoff's] e-mail, there is no problem with our part being 
kept on the bill.'' \228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (June 5, 
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \228\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, Abramoff instructed Volz to give him regular 
updates on Election Reform.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \229\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil 
Volz, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089758) (June 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volz reported, ``I talked to Paul yesterday and keep 
hearing the same thing'', and assured Abramoff ``I am keeping 
in daily contact with Paul and Chet in Ney's office on this.'' 
\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following month, however, Volz reported to Abramoff and 
Rudy, ``Election Reform negotiations have slowed. Ney, Paul, 
and Chet all think it is possible to finish negotiations before 
August, but now not likely until later.'' \231\ Furthermore, 
according to Volz, ``With that being said, Ney and Paul have 
said things are moving and would like to get all our specifics 
in line, so I am working to get a meeting with Tony and Paul 
and Bob this week to exchange specifics--since Paul was not in 
original meeting.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \231\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig, and Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089523) 
(July 10, 2002).
    \232\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day, Volz reported to Abramoff and Rudy:

        I just talked with Ney, [sic] He is all set to meet you 
        Tony at 2:00 at 1309 Longworth HOB today. He said he 
        would meet with you first and then bring Paul 
        [Vinovich] in for the meeting. ... The question is, 
        should Tony bring in the Tigua and the Alabama 
        Coushatta language or just the specific Tigua language. 
        ... Please do not forward this, but you need to know I 
        get the sense Bob is still a little jumpy on letting 
        Paul in on the entire situation here, but knows he is 
        the guy to place this language in the bill ...\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy, 
Greenberg Traurig, copied to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000206101) (July 11, 2002).

    Abramoff continued his reports to the Tribe, as reflected 
in contemporaneous memoranda prepared by Schwartz. In mid-July, 
Schwartz reported that the conference report on the election 
reform legislation had been reported and was ``eligible for 
consideration'': ``The two Chairmen (Congressman Ney and 
Senator Dodd) have requested floor time [for the bill] from 
their respective bodies for this week.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 18, 
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late July, Congressman Ney apparently approached Senator 
Dodd about the Tigua provision. Scanlon's failure to get a 
commitment from Senator Dodd then became evident. On July 25, 
2002, Abramoff sent Scanlon an urgent email:

        I just spoke with Ney who met today with Dodd on the 
        bill and raised our provision. Dodd looked at him like 
        a ``deer in headlights'' and said he has never made 
        such a commitment and that, with the problems of new 
        casinos in Connecticut, it is a problem!!! Mike, please 
        call me immediately to tell me how we wired this, or 
        were supposed to wire it. Ney feels we left him out to 
        dry. Please call me!!! \235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000076719) (July 25, 2001).

    Neither Scanlon nor Abramoff ever advised the Tigua about 
the problems they were having in the Senate. To the contrary, 
Abramoff and Scanlon both said that it was moving along 
well.\236\ Indeed, the day after Abramoff's urgent e-mail to 
Scanlon, Abramoff reported that ``Senate Democrats and House 
Republicans are at odds over one issue that cropped up. The 
issue is whether the Justice Department (Democrats favor) or 
individual state's Election Departments (Republicans favor) 
will have jurisdiction over precinct approval, ballot design, 
etc.'' \237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (February 22, 2005).
    \237\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 26, 
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schwartz reported that ``it doesn't appear that the 
conference report will make it to the floor before recess.'' 
\238\ Consequently, Abramoff sought a meeting between the Tigua 
and Congressman Ney.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \238\ Id.
    \239\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   I. ABRAMOFF ASKS THE TIGUA TO FINANCE A GOLFING JUNKET TO SCOTLAND

    Although Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts on the Tigua's 
behalf were failing, it apparently did not stop Abramoff from 
soliciting funds from Tigua for a golfing junket to Scotland.
    On May 15, 2002, Abramoff advised his close friend Ralph 
Reed that ``[t]he package on the ground is $4K per person. that 
[sic] covers rooms, tee times and ground transportation. One 
idea is that we could use one of my foundations for the trip--
Capital Athletic Foundation--and get and make contributions so 
this is easier. OK?'' \240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \240\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph 
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000019854) (May 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reed responded, ``OK but we need to discuss. It is an 
election year.'' \241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \241\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About a week later, Rudy informed Abramoff that ``Ney may 
want to do Scotland.'' \242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\ Email from Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089721) (May 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Almost two weeks later, as details of the trip were coming 
together, Abramoff told Rudy, ``We need to lock. Try to nail 2 
stars to go with us: ney [sic] for sure!'' \243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \243\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089736-37) (June 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Rudy confirmed that he was trying, Abramoff asked him 
to ``stay on this feverishly.'' \244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \244\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff asked the Tigua to finance the trip. In an email 
to Schwartz entitled ``our friend'', Abramoff wrote:

        asked if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf 
        trip for him and some staff (his committee chief of 
        staff) and members for August. The trip will be quite 
        expensive (we did this for another member--you know 
        who) 2 years ago. I anticipate that the total cost--if 
        he brings 3-4 members and wives--would be around $100K 
        or more. I can probably get another one of my tribes to 
        cover some of it. let [sic] me know if you guys could 
        do $50K and I'll get them to do the other $50K, though 
        I'll have to get him to bring someone who has relevance 
        to their matters--our friend does not as you can 
        imagine. They would probably do the trip through the 
        Capital Athletic Foundation as an educational mission. 
        I have to start planning this now to make sure they can 
        get tee times. Can you let me know if this would be OK, 
        and possibly start to process it as a donation to 
        Capital Athletic Foundation? Thanks.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \245\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076582) (June 7, 2001).

    Schwartz testified before the Committee that he spoke with 
Abramoff about his request. During a telephone conversation 
before Abramoff sent the email, Abramoff told Schwartz that 
``our friend'' referred to Congressman Bob Ney.\246\ Based on 
that same conversation, Schwartz understood that Representative 
Tom DeLay was the ``you know who'' who attended a trip two 
years before to Scotland.\247\ Abramoff never mentioned that 
CAF was a private charity or that he was involved in CAF.\248\ 
Abramoff described CAF as a group that arranged educational 
trips, junkets, and further described CAF as ``a group that 
paid for golf outings.'' \249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \246\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 240 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \247\ Id.
    \248\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a July 10, 2002 memorandum to Hisa, Schwartz wrote about 
Abramoff's request:

        The Chairman of the committee handling our issue, and 
        several of his Congressional colleagues have had an 
        opportunity presented to travel to Scotland for a fact-
        finding mission during the August recess. You will 
        recall that he and his colleagues have committed 
        themselves to a solution to the dilemma faced by the 
        Tigua Tribe and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe.
        Toward this end, I have determined that the cost of the 
        delegation, their wives, and senior staff will be 
        $100,000. Neither the Tiguas nor the Alabama-Coushattas 
        has been solicited to underwrite this educational trip 
        abroad, but I would strongly recommend that both Tribes 
        consider a donation towards this effort.
        The chairman is the one person who has taken on our 
        issue and has single-handedly carried the effort to 
        this point. I believe it would be a very powerful vote 
        of confidence if this contribution were made. There is 
        an educational foundation that will actually be sending 
        the delegation abroad and if you and the Alabama-
        Coushatta Tribe were to divide this cost, it would send 
        a very strong message to a very powerful member of the 
        Congressional leadership team.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 10, 
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).

    Schwartz successfully convinced the Alabama-Coushatta to 
donate to the trip. Thanking the Alabama-Coushatta for their 
donation, Schwartz wrote: ``Thanks to you and your Council for 
agreeing to assist in the effort. Your $50,000 check should be 
made payable to the Capital Athletic Foundation.'' \251\ 
Because language favorably affecting the Alabama-Coushatta was 
supposed to be included along with the Tigua's provision, the 
Alabama Coushatta donated $50,000 to the Capital Athletic 
Foundation, a private foundation established and operated by 
Jack Abramoff.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \251\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 18, 
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Chairman Kevin Battise, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas).
    \252\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Return of Private 
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The check was not forthcoming, however. Abramoff asked 
Schwartz about the status of the CAF money on August 2 and 
again on September 12.\253\ That Abramoff knew that his and 
Scanlon's efforts on Election Reform were essentially dead in 
the water did not stop Abramoff from soliciting and accepting 
the money for the golf trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076845) (August 2, 2002); 
Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc Schwartz, Partners 
Group Consultants (GTG-E000076899) (September 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an interview with Committee staff, Congressman Ney said 
he never requested Abramoff to ask the Tigua to finance his 
trip to Scotland.\254\ Of the trip, Congressman Ney said the 
CAF sponsored it, and that Abramoff did not tell him CAF was 
his private foundation.\255\ Congressman Ney said the purpose 
of the trip was to raise money for underprivileged kids in 
Scotland and Washington, D.C.\256\ The itinerary consisted of 
golfing, meeting two parliamentarians, and watching the Marine 
Band.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \254\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States 
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
    \255\ Id.
    \256\ Id.
    \257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                J. THE TRIBE MEETS WITH CONGRESSMAN NEY

    At the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing, Schwartz 
testified, ``As the election reform measure languished 
throughout the summer, Abramoff and Scanlon continued to report 
on substantial progress and a virtual guarantee of success. 
During that time, I requested a meeting between tribal 
representatives and Congressman Ney.'' \258\ Abramoff set up 
the meeting for early August 2002.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \258\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \259\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Schwartz, Abramoff claimed that ``Congressman 
Ney did not want his trip to Scotland brought up, as he would 
show his appreciation for the Tribe later.'' \260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 14, 2002, representatives of the Tigua and 
Alabama-Coushatta met with Congressman Ney in Washington, 
D.C.\261\ Both Schwartz and Hisa recalled that the meeting 
lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours.\262\ In testimony 
before the Committee, Schwartz described Congressman Ney as 
``extremely animated about Mr. Abramoff and his ability as a 
representative lobbyist in the city.'' \263\ According to 
Schwartz, Congressman Ney spoke about his district, the Tigua's 
plight, the political ramifications for Republicans of the 
Tigua casino closing, and the federal legislative process, 
especially the process by which committee reports are 
done.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (August 
2, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Chairman Kevin Battise, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas).
    \262\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 240-41 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants); Id. at 231 
(statement of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \263\ Id. at 241 (statement of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners 
Group Consultants).
    \264\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schwartz also told the Committee that Congressman Ney gave 
them assurances that he was working to help the Tigua.\265\ 
Thereafter, Schwartz recalled Congressman Ney giving Lt. 
Governor Hisa and another tribal council member a tour of his 
hearing room.\266\ According to Lt. Governor Hisa, at that 
meeting (which was attended by not only Hisa but also Schwartz, 
Tribal Council Member Raul Gutierrez, Abramoff and Congressman 
Ney) Congressman Ney said that ``everyone who needs to be 
involved, is on board.'' \267\ Congressman Ney said that he and 
Senator Dodd were committed to getting the language in the bill 
and that he did not foresee any problem with the Tigua-related 
provision, Hisa recalled.\268\ Hisa also remembered that, about 
Abramoff, Congressman Ney said that he was a ``good friend''; 
``you're working with the right guy''; and ``this is the man to 
work with for changes in Washington.'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \265\ Id.
    \266\ Id.
    \267\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004). Schwartz recalled that 
Congressman Ney's chief of staff was also present but stayed for ten 
minutes. Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \268\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \269\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Schwartz, Congressman Ney's chief of staff 
gave Abramoff a huge bear hug.\270\ Schwartz recalled that 
Congressman Ney went out of his way to say he would take care 
of the Tigua's problems and kept calling the Tigua 
``deserving.'' \271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \270\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During his interview with Committee staff, Congressman Ney 
said he was not familiar with the Tigua.\272\ He could not 
recall ever meeting with any member of the Tigua.\273\ When 
asked about a possible two-hour meeting, Congressman Ney said 
he ``wouldn't even meet with the President for two hours.'' 
\274\ After the interview, counsel to Congressman Ney, who was 
present during the interview, indicated that, according to an 
internal email describing Congressman Ney's calendar for the 
relevant period, a meeting was scheduled in Congressman Ney's 
office with the ``Taqua,'' from 11:00-11:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States 
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
    \273\ Id.
    \274\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         K. ELECTION REFORM PASSES WITHOUT THE TIGUA PROVISION

    From August through October, Abramoff and Scanlon continued 
to report that the Senate would not be a problem, because 
Senator Dodd had allegedly agreed to include the Tigua language 
through his side.\275\ According to Senator Dodd and his staff, 
although Congressman Ney's staff and Lottie Shackleford 
approached Senator Dodd's office about including a provision 
that Senator Dodd termed ``recognition,'' Senator Dodd never 
agreed to include the Tigua provision in the Election Reform 
bill.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \275\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \276\ Id. at 252 (prepared statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, 
U.S. Senator from Connecticut).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A little over one month later, Schwartz reported to the 
Tribal Council on another conversation that he had with 
Abramoff.\277\ Schwartz was under the impression that ``our 
language is in the report. We were asked by Chairman Ney to 
step up the support for the measure and, as I reported on 
Tuesday, Scanlon/Gould has achieved that.'' \278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \277\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) 
(September 19, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group 
Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and 
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \278\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Weeks later, however, the Tigua's efforts were dead in the 
water. The Tigua language was not included in the final 
Election Reform legislation or accompanying report. Abramoff 
told Schwartz that ``Congressman Ney had reported Senator Dodd 
had gone back on his word and stripped the measure from the 
committee report.'' \279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \279\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 230 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, there was never any language helping the Tigua in 
any draft that came across the desk of Senator Dodd's 
staff.\280\ Congressman Ney confirmed that no such language was 
ever inserted.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \280\ Interview of Sheryl Cohen, chief of staff, Senator 
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
    \281\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States 
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shawn Maher, who worked for Senator Dodd during the 
relevant period, recalled that in the waning hours of the 
conference on election reform, Congressman Ney's staff 
approached him about getting the Tigua fix into the report 
accompanying the bill.\282\ Maher said Paul Vinovich, former 
Staff Director to the House Committee on Administration, raised 
the issue, describing it as ``a fix'' to help a Southwestern 
tribe's gaming.\283\ Maher recalled telling Vinovich that 
``that was not where his boss was.'' \284\ According to Maher, 
Vinovich did not press the issue further.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \282\ Interview of Shawn Maher, legislative director, Senator 
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
    \283\ Id.
    \284\ Id.
    \285\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the waning moments of election reform, Schwartz wrote to 
Abramoff: ``Jack: Ney's phone call tomorrow? Did we have a 
miracle and get back on? What's next?'' \286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \286\ Email between Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (October 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded: ``We did not get back on. We are 
strategizing on the Hill with Ney's guys and other friends 
(recipients of contributions from the tribe included) at 1 PM 
today. Call is on for tomorrow, but I don't have the precise 
time yet. I'll get it to you shortly.'' \287\ Later that day, 
Abramoff wrote ``Bob Ney will be available at 11 am East Coast 
time tomorrow, Tuesday. We will use our conference call 
facility.'' \288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \287\ Id.
    \288\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schwartz told Committee staff that on October 8, the Tribe 
had a conference call with Congressman Ney that lasted 20-30 
minutes.\289\ During that teleconference, Congressman Ney 
blamed Senator Dodd for the demise of the Tigua's 
provision.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \289\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \290\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 8, the Tigua Tribal Council had a conference 
call with Congressman Ney, Jack Abramoff, Tom Diamond and Marc 
Schwartz.\291\ During that telephone conference, Schwartz 
testified, Congressman Ney expressed ``disbelief that Senator 
Dodd had gone back on his word'' and ``further reported that he 
would continue to work on the issue and believed that the tribe 
was entitled to their gaming operation.'' \292\ During the 
call, according to Schwartz, Congressman Ney apologized for the 
Tigua provision not making it in the bill.\293\ Schwartz also 
recalled that Congressman Ney complained about Senator Dodd and 
expressed outrage over his alleged last-minute withdrawal of 
support.\294\ Congressman Ney said he would not give up and he 
would work to get the Tigua language on other measures in 2003, 
Schwartz recollected.\295\ And, according to Schwartz, he also 
thanked the Tribe for its support and contributions.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \291\ Id. See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 230 (November 17, 2004) 
(Statement of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \292\ Id.
    \293\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \294\ Id.
    \295\ Id.
    \296\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      L. THE ELDER LEGACY PROJECT

    After the failed effort on Election Reform, Abramoff 
continued hounding the Tigua for more money. He proposed that 
the Tribe take out life insurance policies on its elders, with 
the proceeds to be paid to the Eshkol Academy, the all boys 
Jewish school that Abramoff had established. Abramoff intended 
the program, which he called the Elder Legacy Program, to 
generate lobbying funds to pay for Abramoff's continued 
representation of the Tribe and provide funding for 
Eshkol.\297\ When Duane Gibson, an Abramoff associate at 
Greenberg Traurig working on the Project, reminded Abramoff 
that he could not use the insurance proceeds to lobby, 
Abramoff's solution was to have the school use other funds to 
pay the lobbying fees.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \297\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (no Bates number) (March 26, 
2003).
    \298\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gibson told the Committee that the Elder Legacy Program was 
trying to leverage funds for Indian tribes, but mostly 
charities, by acquiring life insurance policies for the tribe 
or charity.\299\ The original pool of insureds were Indian 
tribes, Alaskan Natives, and black church elders.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \299\ Interview of Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, 
D.C. (March 17, 2006).
    \300\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff told Gibson that Ralph Reed was going to be the 
entree for the black churches, because Reed ``knows the 
Southern Black Christian community.'' \301\ Apparently, 
Abramoff pitched the idea to Reed, who thought it was 
viable.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\ Id.
    \302\ Id.; see also Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, 
and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000018092-93) (July 22, 2003) 
(wherein Reed writes ``yes, it looks interesting. I assume you'll set 
up a meeting in DC as a next step, or whatever we should do next, let 
me know.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Gibson, Abramoff said that the Tigua were 
``indebted to him because I [Abramoff] saved their asses and 
they want to do this for me.'' \303\ Gibson believed ``the 
whole Tigua thing was a perversion of the original purpose.'' 
\304\ Although he was scheduled to meet with Schwartz in El 
Paso about the program, the meeting never took place.\305\ The 
reason: after initially, internally approving the idea, the 
Tribal Council decided not to move forward on it.\306\ Lt. 
Governor Hisa met with the Tribal elders, who rejected it.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \303\ Interview of Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, 
D.C. (March 17, 2006).
    \304\ Id.
    \305\ Id.
    \306\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
    \307\ Id. at 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     M. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION

    When The Washington Post articles about Abramoff and 
Scanlon were published in February 2004, Abramoff tried to 
downplay them: ``The piece was the usual hit bullshit, but 
what's new. Funny part (for me, not Mike) was that 60% of the 
over 300 emails I got thought it was a puff piece. Thank G-D 
for ADD!'' \308\ In a telephone call, Abramoff assured Schwartz 
``that there was nothing to the articles, that it was certainly 
more of a witch hunt that a reporter had done.'' \309\ Of the 
Committee's proposed hearings, Abramoff said they ``were 
nothing more than political payback.'' \310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \308\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000075963) (February 23, 
2004).
    \309\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 236 (November 17, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \310\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the second article ran in The Washington Post about 
the relationship between Abramoff and Scanlon, Abramoff called 
Schwartz to say that the Tribe did not have to cooperate in the 
Committee's investigation.\311\ In the event that Committee 
counsel or investigators called the Tribe, Abramoff wanted the 
Tribe to speak with his lawyers first.\312\ Abramoff said that 
the Tribe had tribal sovereignty and that the Tribe did not 
need to cooperate with the Committee.\313\ Abramoff said that 
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians were not cooperating 
with the investigation, and suggested that the Tigua not 
cooperate as well.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \311\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 247 (November 17, 2004); see also 
Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in 
Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \312\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 247 (November 17, 2004).
    \313\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \314\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             N. CONCLUSION

    The $4.2 million that the Tribe regrettably paid Scanlon 
could have lasted the Tribe for another year.\315\ At a 
minimum, some of that money could have been used to hire 
lobbyists who could have represented the Tribe better in the 
legislative process.\316\ The Tribe would have dedicated much 
of the money to education and health care.\317\ As a result of 
the $4.2 million payout to Scanlon, and the casino's closure, 
key programs, namely an insurance program for the Tribal 
members, had to be cut back or eliminated.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \315\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur 
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \316\ Id.
    \317\ Id.
    \318\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing, when 
asked how he felt upon learning that the Tribe had paid for a 
golf outing for the man who had worked to shut down the Tigua 
casino, Lt. Governor Hisa replied, ``A rattlesnake will warn 
you before it strikes. We had no warning. They did everything 
behind our back.'' \319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \319\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 244 (November 17, 2004).
                               CHAPTER VI

                     PUEBLO OF SANDIA OF NEW MEXICO

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    The experience of the Pueblo of Sandia with Jack Abramoff 
and his partner Michael Scanlon is a microcosm of the larger 
scandal that has been exposed by the Committee during its 
investigation of lobbying activities associated with six Indian 
Tribes. The characters and the elements of deception are much 
the same. However, the financial loss to the Pueblo of Sandia 
and the subsequent financial gain to Abramoff and Scanlon were, 
relatively speaking, on a scale considerably smaller than what 
the other Tribes experienced. This fact was not lost on 
Abramoff and Scanlon early in their relationship with the 
Pueblo of Sandia, as evidenced by the following email exchange 
on March 7, 2002, that was titled ``Sandia'':

        Scanlon: ``[$]2.75 [million] is chump change!!! What 
        [t]he hell were we thinking?''
        Abramoff: ``No kidding. [then-Abramoff associate Kevin] 
        Ring brought us down! Next time one of these guys 
        brings us something we are not going to listen to their 
        fucking whining.''
        Scanlon: ``Hey--its still a W--[sic] and I will take 
        the W [sic] any way we can--now a [$]4.5 [million] W 
        [sic] would be nicer--but wait till Thursday when 
        [Coushatta] comes to town!'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000003033) (March 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

    In February 2002, the Pueblo of Sandia, a Tribe located on 
the northern boundary of Albuquerque, was facing perhaps the 
most significant legal challenge of its 700-year existence in 
New Mexico.\2\ In the late 1980s, with development beginning to 
encroach on the sacred Sandia Mountain, the Tribe appealed to 
the Department of the Interior to correct a survey conducted in 
1859.\3\ The correction would designate the main ridge of the 
Sandia Mountain as the Pueblo's eastern boundary.\4\ Years of 
litigation ensued that involved the Pueblo of Sandia, 
government agencies, and area residents, culminating in a 
settlement agreement on April 4, 2000 that, by its terms, 
required Congressional ratification by November 15, 2002.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) ; Interview of Stuwart 
Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \3\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) .
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.; Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-E000002775-76) 
(undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The settlement agreement was of monumental importance to 
the Tribe.\6\ Having the Sandia Mountain as its boundary 
signified more than a property settlement.\7\ The Mountain's 
significance is described on the Tribe's web site:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) .
    \7\ Id.

        For centuries, the people of Sandia Pueblo have lived 
        in the shadow of the mountain. The mountain has served 
        as our church and our spiritual sustenance for hundreds 
        of years. The mountain is the highest priority of the 
        people of Sandia Pueblo, a sacred responsibility of 
        every generation. This is not a question of ownership 
        for the Pueblo, it is a question of preservation and 
        protection of the mountain, and the ability to practice 
        religious and culture traditions unrestricted by 
        government edict.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Why is the Mountain So Important to the People of Sandia? 
(visited May 11, 2006) .

    According to the former Governor of the Tribe, Stuart 
Paisano, the Pueblo of Sandia have 481 enrolled members.\9\ 
They have a traditional government structure in which their 
religious leaders play an important role in selecting the 
Tribe's governor and other leadership positions.\10\ The Tribe 
has 23,000 acres and their native language is Tigua.\11\ Their 
economy has transitioned in the last thirty years from mining 
and federal assistance to Class III gaming.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    C. THE SEARCH FOR A NEW LOBBYIST

    The Pueblo of Sandia had considerable experience with legal 
counsel through their years of litigation and retained a local 
law firm that was trusted by the Tribe.\13\ They were also not 
unsophisticated in the ways of the lobbying world and had, over 
time, retained several firms in Washington, D.C. to help them 
on various matters.\14\ However, securing Congressional 
approval of a major lands settlement thrust them into a 
different political sphere, particularly at a time when the 
federal political landscape had changed considerably. There was 
a new Republican administration and a new set of political 
appointees at the Department of the Interior. The Pueblo of 
Sandia were uncertain about whether the New Mexico Delegation 
would support ratification of the settlement.\15\ The stakes 
were high and the clock was ticking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \15\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was against this backdrop of urgency that David Mielke, 
a longtime and trusted counsel to the Pueblo of Sandia, 
suggested that the Tribe consider hiring a lobbyist with 
Republican connections.
    Late in 2001, Governor Paisano, Lieutenant Governor Alex 
Lujan, and Tribal council member Frank Chaves and Lawrence 
Avila were tasked with vetting several firms for the job.\16\ 
Ultimately, the search team interviewed several top Washington 
lobbyists that Mielke identified for the Tribe, including the 
firm of Quinn Gillespie & Associates and former Senator Bob 
Dole.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the Washington lobbyists who was of particular 
interest to the Tribe was Kevin Ring.\18\ Several of Mielke's 
partners were familiar and impressed with Ring's work for other 
Tribes.\19\ In February 2002, arrangements were made for the 
Tribal leaders to meet with Ring who was accompanied by his 
boss, Jack Abramoff. Michael Scanlon was an unexpected 
participant at the meeting.\20\ In pitching his services, 
Abramoff stressed his Republican connections, going back to his 
days working on grassroots activities for President Reagan.\21\ 
Scanlon was described as DeLay's former communications director 
and someone who helped with elections in competitive 
Congressional districts.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.; Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \21\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon's price tag for the task was $2,875,000, most of 
which, he said, would be the cost of a database to conduct the 
grassroots effort.\23\ In an interview with Committee staff, 
Mielke recalled that while this amount seemed high, Abramoff 
said that almost the entire price was costs and that the 
profits were actually less than 10% of the total proposed 
price.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mielke also recalled that, during these sessions, Scanlon 
pitched the database as ``a key component'' of the program.\25\ 
Mielke said that Scanlon specifically characterized ``the 
software [as] the army, which would mean 10,000 soldiers who 
could be counted on.'' \26\ Paisano remembered Scanlon 
describing the database as ``customized'' and necessary ``to 
effectively do public relations [for the proposed project].'' 
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff was intent on having the Tribe sign Scanlon as 
part of the arrangement, according to both Mielke and Governor 
Paisano, Abramoff insisted that Scanlon was a sine qua non of 
the federal lobbying efforts Abramoff intended to undertake on 
the Tribe's behalf. He characterized Scanlon as ``part of the 
package'' and an indispensable part of his proposal, if he was 
to achieve success.\28\ Abramoff also offered to halve 
Greenberg Traurig's $125,000 per month retainer if the Tribe 
hired Scanlon. And, finally, he proposed, on Scanlon's behalf, 
a ``slight'' reduction from how much Scanlon originally wanted 
to charge the Tribe, plus a success fee. But, Abramoff 
cautioned, he could not go lower because Scanlon's ``10% profit 
margin is locked [into that reduced figure].'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \29\ Id.; Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006). The 
evidence set forth in Part 2, Chapter 1, entitled ``Capitol Campaign 
Strategies,'' of this Report reflects Abramoff's admission in the plea 
agreement in his criminal case that Scanlon's profit margin on his 
contracts with the Tribes was closer to 80%. See Plea Agreement, 
Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 22, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. 
D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001); see also Email between Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies (GTG-E000003054) (March 20-21, 2002) (``I told [Ring] that 
he would split the profit (what I told him was 10%) with you 50-50.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Governor Paisano recalled in his interview with Committee 
staff that Abramoff impressed the Tribal leaders with his 
aggressive approach, specifically recalling Abramoff 
``talk[ing] about breaking bones and busting kneecaps.'' \30\ 
Paisano said he was left with the impression that Scanlon 
worked for Greenberg Traurig.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Pueblo of Sandia and their counsel chafed at the cost 
of the Scanlon proposal, but they wanted Abramoff and, 
particularly, Ring on their side.\32\ According to Mielke, the 
Tribe's view was that adequate representation was the most 
important issue for the Tribe and that cost should not be an 
issue.\33\ The Tribe considered which prospective lobbyist gave 
it the greatest assurances: ``That was a question: `can you 
guarantee this?' '' \34\ ``Abramoff and Scanlon had the most 
bravado and said that while they couldn't guarantee that, 
they've never lost,'' Mielke observed.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, after several rounds of interviews, Tribal leaders were 
nearly unanimous in thier decision to hire Greenberg Traurig, 
with only Governor Paisano and Council Member Frank Chaves 
expressing some concerns.\36\ Ultimately, the Tribe selected 
Abramoff and Ring at Greenberg Traurig, and entered into a 
separate contract with Scanlon to conduct the grassroots 
effort.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \37\ Id.; Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Pueblo of 
Sandia document production (SP-S 00046-48) (March 14, 2002) (letter of 
agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and Pueblo of Sandia of 
New Mexico for $2,750,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        D. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

    On March 19, 2002, Governor Paisano signed a letter of 
agreement with Scanlon in which the Tribe committed to pay 
$2,750,000 for public affairs services.\38\ The total payment 
was due ten days later.\39\ As described more thoroughly in 
Part 2, Chapter 1, of this Report, these funds were wired to an 
account controlled by Capitol Campaign Strategies, one of 
Scanlon's companies, from which countless withdrawals were 
subsequently made to Abramoff (or entities owned or controlled 
by him). It is notable that, given that part of Scanlon's 
proposal was to conduct several letter writing campaigns, the 
letter of agreement, which he drafted, included numerous 
typographical errors and misspellings.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Pueblo of Sandia document production (SP-S 00046-48) (March 
14, 2002) (letter of agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and 
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico for $2,750,000).
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ring's activities focused on the federal legislative 
effort. On March 20-21, within a few days of the contract being 
signed, Scanlon and Abramoff had occasion to reflect on their 
arrangement with him:

        Scanlon: [Ring] asked if we got the wire yet in an 
        email. I have no problem telling him yes--what do we 
        owe him again? 10% of profit?
        Abramoff: No, 5% of gross. I told him that he would 
        split the profit (which I told him was 10%) with you 
        50-50.
        Scanlon: So we owe him 135k?
        Abramoff: Damn I guess so. [sic] Shit, that sucks.
        Scanlon: I forgot to tie that amoun tin [sic] to the 
        sandia [sic] figures--so our numbers are going to come 
        down a little bit.
        Abramoff: Finders [sic] fee I guess. ...\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000003054) (March 20-21, 
2002).

    Ring's ``finder's fee'' was apparently in violation of an 
outside income policy at his firm Greenberg Traurig.\42\ In 
testimony before the Committee on November 2, 2005, Fred 
Baggett, Managing Shareholder and Chairman of the National 
Government Affairs Practice at Greenberg Traurig, said that the 
firm's internal investigation ``has found, and as we have 
informed Federal authorities and I believe this committee, we 
found a number of other instances where members of Mr. 
Abramoff's team had received compensation outside of the 
firm.'' \43\ One of those Baggett named was Kevin Ring.\44\ Of 
course, the most egregious offender of the policy was Abramoff 
who had plotted with Scanlon to split the Pueblo of Sandia 
profit as part of their ``gimme five'' scheme. It should also 
be noted that Kevin Ring, who the Tribe trusted and respected, 
did not disclose his financial arrangement with Scanlon to the 
Tribe until 2004, months after the publication of the 
Washington Post article that initially exposed the Abramoff and 
Scanlon lobbying scandal.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 23 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred 
Baggett, Chair, National Governmental Affairs Practice, Greenberg 
Traurig).
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After spending at least a month hiring their lobbying and 
grassroots team, the Tribe was eager to start seeing some 
results. They quickly realized that there was a disconnect 
between the bravado of the pitch they had received and the 
quality of Scanlon's work of what was done. As Mielke explained 
to Committee staff:

        Their pitch is that things are sliding quickly. Hire us 
        soon or we are not going to do it. ... The Tribe acted 
        quickly, [and] wired the money to Scanlon. A couple of 
        weeks lapsed and Scanlon sends out three people to New 
        Mexico. They sent me draft letters that were poorly 
        written. It was Chris Cathcart, [CCS associate,] a 
        fairly young woman who turned out to be Scanlon's 
        sister, and another woman. ... These people weren't 
        high dollar, high quality folks. I took the Governor to 
        dinner to express concerns. It didn't take long to 
        question the value of Scanlon. Once these letters 
        started coming in, they were obviously form letters 
        with small variations. One letter went to the 
        Albuquerque Journal. Someone from the paper called me 
        and asked what were we [sic] doing. Word circulated. 
        There was no variation in who they would send the 
        letters to, including typos in letters. The Tribe was 
        happy with Ring[;] he would get back to them[,] seemed 
        on top of things. Abramoff and Scanlon dropped off as 
        soon as the deal was signed. Even the polls I saw 
        weren't works of art.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            E. THE DATABASE

    As with other Tribal clients, Scanlon's sales pitch 
centered on the customized database, which he said would be the 
heart of the grassroots effort. Mielke, in his interview with 
Committee staff, recalled the following:

        ... [a] big part of the fee was the software and time 
        and personnel that they would spend in compiling this 
        database ... they said it was going to cost between $2 
        and $3 million for the whole effort and that the 
        database would be a big part. This was just Scanlon. 
        ... Scanlon had a staff of 16 people, talking about 
        10,000 FedEx packages. This was going to be a sprint, 
        [sic] this money was going to go out immediately for 
        vendors and software.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Id.

    In fact, in the contract between Scanlon and the Tribe, 
$1,857,000 is specifically identified for ``Building of 
National Political Organization.'' \48\ The scope of work 
``include[d] acquisition and design of hardware and software, 
data matching, grassroots development, online applications and 
political modifications.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Pueblo of Sandia document production (SP-S 00046) (March 14, 
2002) (letter of agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and 
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico).
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, according to Mielke and Paisano, the database was 
significantly less than what had been promised.\50\ It appeared 
to be a simplistic regurgitation of the data that the Tribe had 
provided to Scanlon.\51\ Paisano described the database as 
``pathetic'' and Mielke said it was the ``same info that the 
Tribe gave them; no magic in it.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \51\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \52\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As more fully discussed in Part 2, Chapter 1, of this 
Report, it appears that Scanlon copied (in violation of 
licensing agreements to which he was a party) elements of a 
database created by Democracy Data Communications (``DDC''). 
Scanlon had originally subcontracted DDC to build political 
databases for other Tribes. The actual cost of a database 
developed for the Tribe by another vendor, which was apparently 
designed to mimic DDC's far more functional database, was 
nowhere near the $1,875,000 that the Tribe was charged by 
Scanlon.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Understanding the urgency of the situation and 
acknowledging the fact that Scanlon's grassroots campaign was a 
failure and an embarrassment--``amateurish'' in Mielke's 
words--Mielke and the Tribe began their own grassroots effort, 
independent of Scanlon's.\54\ The Tribe also hired a local 
public relations firm to assist in their efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mielke and Paisano continued to express concern and 
criticism of Scanlon's work product.\55\ As an indication of 
how out of touch he appeared to be, Scanlon actually 
entertained the idea of asking the Tribe for more money, as 
evidenced in the following June 25, 2002, email exchange with 
Kevin Ring and Jack Abramoff:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).

        Scanlon: Hey--I have a few thoughts--1) The land 
        exchange concept was a huge tactical blunder that is 
        going to haunt the tribe for years to come. 2) We need 
        another 3 mil to win this thing now. 3) They should 
        Take [sic] Bingaman and be happy. Wow [,] we are in a 
        pickle now.
        Ring: Are you on drugs?
        Scanlon: Really good ones!
        Abramoff: Tell him to recommend some for us to take!
        Ring: I know. All kidding aside, if he even thinks of 
        asking for more money, they are going to hunt him down 
        and kill him. And then come after us.
        Abramoff: Ha ha ha
        Scanlon: I'm gonna go for it--Im [sic] gonna schedule a 
        conference cal [sic] and ask for 2 more mil!
        Abramoff: I love it!!!!! \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, Kevin Ring, 
Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(GTG-E000003258-59) (June 25, 2002).

    Several months later, when the Tribe was renegotiating its 
contract with Greenberg Traurig, the lighthearted mood was 
noticeably absent, as evidenced by the following March 4, 2003 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
email exchange between Ring and Abramoff:

        Ring: ... Once again for Sandia, the issue was Scanlon. 
        They said we did a great lobbying job, but since we 
        insisted that they hire him, we bore responsibility for 
        his lack of performance ...
        Abramoff: Kevin, this excuse about Scanlon from them is 
        bullshit. I don't care how much they hate him, they 
        paid for a result and they got it. whether [sic] he did 
        what they wanted or not, they got their fucking 
        mountain. And for them to be telling you they won't 
        rehire us because of him is also fucking bullshit. I 
        know that not getting them will be a big hit on you and 
        I am sorry about that, and I support whatever you want 
        to do on this, but I think they're already gone and 
        they are using that Scanlon excuse because they are 
        cheap mother fuckers who don't want to pay our fees. I 
        say fuck them and let's go get you a different tribe 
        which appreciates hard work.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Kevin 
Ring, Greenberg Traurig, (GTG-E000003763) (March 4, 2003).

    As it turned out, the Pueblo of Sandia extended their 
contract, at a reduced rate, with Greenberg Traurig until the 
revelations of the Washington Post were published in 2004.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia 
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   F. A HAPPY ENDING, IN SPITE OF ...

    The Committee finds that deception was a consistent theme 
in the Pueblo of Sandia's relationship with Abramoff and 
Scanlon: the exorbitant fee for a ``pathetic'' database; the 
secret financial arrangement between Abramoff and Scanlon; the 
undisclosed ``finder's fee'' to Kevin Ring; and the 
overwhelming incompetency of the grassroots effort.
    The Tribe's experience with Scanlon gave new meaning to the 
phrase ``take the money and run.'' Mielke and Governor Paisano 
agreed that the Tribe received little of the intended benefit 
of the millions that the Tribe paid Scanlon.\59\ They also felt 
that the Tribe was aggrieved by Abramoff and Scanlon's failure 
to disclose their financial arrangement.\60\ And, they were 
frustrated by the poor quality of Scanlon's grassroots 
activities and felt that Scanlon's status reports were 
inadequate.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \60\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \61\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the concerns of local citizens were addressed and 
neutralized by the Tribe and its counsel, the uncertainty about 
how some members of the New Mexico Delegation felt about the 
settlement began to fade. The settlement legislation was 
considered favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 
In the end, the combination of support from the New Mexico 
Delegation and a homegrown grassroots effort was the key to 
Congressional approval. Success was achieved, but for reasons 
wholly unrelated to the extraordinarily expensive pretensions 
of Abramoff and Scanlon.
              PART TWO--``GIMME FIVE''--ANALYSIS BY ENTITY

                              INTRODUCTION

        [W]e really need mo money. but [sic] you and I must 
        meet and work out a strategy to get things moving. We 
        are missing the boat. There are a ton of potential 
        opportunities out there. there [sic] are 27 tribes 
        which make over $100M a year ... can you have your guys 
        do the research and find out which tribes these may be? 
        We need to get moving on them ...

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, December 7, 
2002

        Scanlon: Hey--good day all around--we wrapped up the 
        Sag Chip crap--We hit Coush--I think for 3 mil--and we 
        are working [on] Acaliente [sic] presentation--should 
        be tight.
        Abramoff: Thanks so much! You are a great partner. What 
        I love about our partnership is that, when one of us is 
        down, the other is there. We're gonna make $ for years 
        together!
        Scanlon: Amen! You got it boss--we have many years 
        ahead!

    Email between Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff, June 20, 
2002

    The Committee held its first hearing on allegations of 
misconduct made by several Indian Tribes against Jack Abramoff 
and Michael Scanlon on September 29, 2004. At that hearing, the 
Committee preliminarily concluded that Scanlon collected about 
$66 million from six tribes over a three-year period, and 
secretly paid about one-third of that amount to Abramoff.\1\ 
Since then, the Committee has held a series of hearings and 
released scores of documents that describe how Abramoff and 
Scanlon executed their scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 5-9 (September 29, 2004) (opening 
Statement of Ranking Majority Member John McCain).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the course of its hearings, the Committee laid out how 
Abramoff and Scanlon agreed that Abramoff would work to ensure 
that these Tribes would hire a grassroots/public relations 
specialist to support Abramoff's lobbying activities. In 
furtherance of their scheme, Abramoff pushed for Scanlon as 
that specialist.
    Having violated these Tribes' trust by not disclosing the 
resulting conflict of interest, Abramoff secretly collected 
from Scanlon about 50 percent of Scanlon's net proceeds--from 
contracts that Scanlon or Abramoff promoted to the Tribes.
    The prices that Scanlon charged for his services (well in 
excess of his costs) were set deliberately high so as to allow 
him to pay Abramoff about 50 percent of his net proceeds from 
those Tribes--with much of the money paid by the Tribes not 
going for purposes the Tribes intended.
    Admitting to the foregoing, on November 11, 2005, and 
January 3, 2006, respectively, Scanlon and Abramoff pled guilty 
in federal court to, among other things, defrauding some of 
their Tribal clients.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Michael P.S. 
Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea Agreement, 
Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 
3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On a small scale, Abramoff and Scanlon apparently set their 
scheme in motion in April 2001, when they urged the Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') to pay $200,000 
for a grassroots program regarding its gaming compact.\3\ On or 
about April 26, 2001, the Tribe paid a Scanlon-controlled 
entity called Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS'') $200,000, 
as requested.\4\ But, soon thereafter, CCS paid Abramoff 
$75,000--itemized in the company's accounting ledger on April 
30, 2001, as a ``referral expense.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Coushatta political program'' 
(COUSH-MiscFin-0000371) (April 12, 2001) (``I still do not have the 
budget for the complete effort, but Mike believes we cannot wait any 
longer for the ground effort, so I need to get this to you for 
approval. ... Please let me know if I can give Mike the go ahead.''); 
Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Re: Political Program funding'' 
(COUSH-MiscFin-0000368) (April 18, 2001) (``The total for the program 
is $539,000. In order to get started the tribe will need to pay $200k 
up front to cover the organizational program. ... If thre [sic] is any 
way to get the initial money out today it would be great!'').
    \4\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \5\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon's secret fee-splitting arrangement is 
likewise reflected in a May 2, 2001, email, where they agreed 
to split proceeds from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw'') that were intended to be passed through a 
Scanlon-controlled entity called the American International 
Center (``AIC'') to former Christian Coalition executive 
director Ralph Reed for grassroots activities. According to 
Abramoff, ``I am going to try to get us $175K. $100 to Ralph; 
$25K to contributions ($5K immediately to Conservative Caucus); 
rest gimme five.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0001321307) (May 2, 2001). 
Abramoff and Scanlon, both of whom were apparently avid golfers, even 
came up with a name for their new business arrangement: ``Gimme [or 
give me] five.'' The Committee speculates that ``gimme five'' is a 
double entendre for the golf term ``gimme,'' which refers to a putt 
that is certain to be made on the next shot, which will most likely be 
conceded by an opponent. Where Abramoff valued his interest in CCS, at 
``$5M revenue/year,'' see Email between Jack Abramoff and Rodney Lane, 
``FW: Personal financial statement'' (GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002), 
the term also appears to reflect Abramoff and Scanlon's original 
agreement to acquire at least $5 million each per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The scheme would soon soar to new heights. On June 18, 
2001, Scanlon suggested to Abramoff, ``A few weeks ago you 
mentioned something to me--I took the concept and have put 
together a plan that will make serious money. We also talked 
briefly about it in the beginning of the year but I think we 
can really move it now.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011945) (June 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon continued: ``I have been making contacts with some 
larger Public Affairs companies in town for a few months. I 
have two solid relationships that will seriously consider 
acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies. The problem is that 
there is not much in CCS right now.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``However,'' he observed, ``if we build up Capitol Campaign 
Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large firm by the 
end of next year at 3x the firm revenue. Bottom line: If you 
help me get CCS a client base of $3 million a year, I will get 
the clients served, and the firm acquired at $9 million. We can 
then split the [sic] up the profits. What do you think?'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's response was brief: ``Sounds like a plan, but 
let's discuss when we are together.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff apparently agreed. Just a few days later, 
referring to a ``project [that Abramoff] need[ed] to run 
trhough [sic] [a Scanlon company],'' Abramoff wrote Scanlon, 
``Apparently it's a huge project. ... It'll give us $500K to 
start to pass through CCS and as much as $4 million over the 
year. This should really help us get the sales price up.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011951) (June 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus began Abramoff and Scanlon's now-infamous financial 
relationship--a relationship that would enable the two to 
wrongfully extract tens of millions of dollars from tribes 
around the country over the next two years.
    By August 2001, what started as a seemingly innocuous 
partnership soon degenerated into an all-out frenzy for money--
money at any cost. In response to Scanlon's informing him that 
``[the Choctaw] really liked [a particular] plan ... [and] 
asked if I could do a quick poll for them on the [REDACTED] 
overall political issues they face,'' Abramoff reminded 
Scanlon, ``Don't forget the gimme five aspects!'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``RE: Nell'' (Bates number 
1109861) (August 16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 2, 2001, Scanlon was ecstatic about how they 
were doing so far: ``I'm having a great time running the give 
me fives!'' \13\ There was good reason for Scanlon's elation. 
Later that month, he reportedly bought, likely with the Tribes' 
money, two houses in Washington, D.C. for $1.2 million.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``RE: [REDACTED]'' (1118666) 
(September 2, 2001).
    \14\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to 
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall 
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With his share of those proceeds, Abramoff apparently 
intended to float his private Jewish boys' school. On September 
10, 2001, he asked Scanlon, ``Can you let me know how much more 
(than the current +/- 660K) we would each score should 
Coushatta come through for this phase, and Choctaw continue to 
make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at for the 
school's sake.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113995) (September 10, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, Scanlon reported that Abramoff would get ``a 
total of 2.1 [million].'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff heaped praise on his partner, ``How can I say this 
strongly enough: YOU IZ DA MAN.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10, 
2001) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not content with the $2.1 million, Scanlon exhorted, 
``[L]et's grow that 2.1 to 5!! We need the true give me five!'' 
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff conveyed enthusiasm about their arrangement on 
October 16, 2001: ``I love life!! We need to get you down there 
to get [the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians] moving on the 
political phase. How about if we both try to go soon.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``RE: [REDACTED]'' (Bates numbers 
1131487-88) (October 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon agreed, ``Any time--any time--any time!!! We 
usually come back from these trips rich men!'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From late 2001 through 2003, ``running [their] give me 
fives'' was Abramoff and Scanlon's top priority. In a January 
16, 2002, email from Abramoff to Scanlon, entitled 
``sagchips,'' Abramoff wrote, ``Don't forget to get to [Saginaw 
Chippewa Sub-Chief David] Otto and set up a meeting asap. We 
need that moolah. We have to hit $50M this year (our cut!).'' 
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024563) (January 16, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result of their ``gimme five'' scheme, Abramoff and 
Scanlon collected about $66 million from six tribes from 2001 
through 2003. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe paid 
Scanlon as follows: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw''), $14,745,650; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
(``Louisiana Coushatta''), $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw Chippewa''), $10,007,000; 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''), 
$7,200,000; the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), 
$4,200,000; and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of 
Sandia''), $2,750,000.
    Also by the Committee's accounting, Abramoff or entities 
owned or controlled by Abramoff, including Kaygold and the 
Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), received payments 
totaling about $24,524,421 from Scanlon or entities owned or 
controlled by Scanlon, including Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(``CCS'') (which also did business as Scanlon Gould Public 
Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs), the American International 
Center (``AIC''), and Atlantic Research and Analysis 
(``ARA'').\22\ That seems to constitute about half of Scanlon's 
total profit from the Tribes. The following lays out the basis 
for the Committee's finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ In Abramoff's plea agreement, the total figure is $23,109,695, 
which includes not only indirect payments by Tribes to Abramoff or 
Abramoff-controlled entities through entities controlled by Scanlon but 
also direct payments by several companies, including Foxcom Wireless, 
S.P.I. Spirits, and Tyco International, to entities controlled by 
Abramoff, including Grassroots Interactive. See Plea Agreement, Factual 
Basis for Plea at para 1-31, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., 
January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001). In Scanlon's plea agreement, the figure 
is $19,698,644, which captures about 50% of the net profit Scanlon 
received from at least four tribes that had already hired Abramoff ``to 
provide professional services to develop programs to limit market 
competition or to assist in opening casinos that were vital to the 
profitability of [the] clients.'' See Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for 
Plea at para. 8, U.S. v. Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 
2005) (CR 05-411). In other words, it appears to exclude payments made 
by the Agua Caliente, which had not hired Abramoff before hiring 
Scanlon.

                 ``GIMME FIVE'' PROCEEDS TO ABRAMOFF AND ABRAMOFF-CONTROLLED ENTITIES 2001-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                               Payee                Amount               Payor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/30/01..................................  Abramoff...................      $75,000  CCS
5/20/01..................................  CAF........................      182,000  CCS
6/10/01..................................  Abramoff...................       50,000  CCS
10/4/01..................................  Abramoff...................      100,000  CCS
10/25/01.................................  Abramoff...................      428,000  CCS
11/7/01..................................  CAF........................    1,000,000  Coushatta through Greenberg
                                                                                      Traurig
12/19/01.................................  Abramoff...................      300,000  CCS
12/31/01.................................  Abramoff...................    1,718,125  CCS
1/1/02...................................  CAF........................      500,000  Choctaw
2/22//02.................................  Kaygold....................    2,779,925  CCS
3/21/02..................................  Abramoff...................    4,080,997  CCS
4/8/02...................................  Kaygold....................    2,138,025  CCS
5/30/02..................................  Abramoff...................       16,397  CCS
6/12/02..................................  Kaygold....................      150,000  CCS
7/12/02..................................  Kaygold....................      800,000  CCS
7/12/02..................................  Kaygold....................       20,000  CCS
7/12/02..................................  Kaygold....................       44,000  CCS
8/6/02...................................  CAF........................      500,000  Choctaw
9/16/02..................................  Kaygold....................    2,266,250  CCS
10/17/02.................................  CAF & Nurnberger...........      500,000  Choctaw through NCPPR
11/11/02.................................  Kaygold....................    1,078,649  CCS
12/03/02.................................  Kaygold....................       87,907  CCS
12/31/02.................................  Kaygold....................    1,000,146  CCS
12/31/02.................................  Kaygold....................       53,000  CCS
2/19/03..................................  Kaygold....................    1,965,000  CCS
4/13/03..................................  Kaygold....................      991,000  AIC
5/7/03...................................  CAF........................      950,000  Atlantic Research &
                                                                                      Analysis
10/27/03.................................  Kaygold....................      750,000  CCS
                                                                       -------------
    Total                                                               $24,524,421  ...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the sections that follow, this Report will discuss how 
Abramoff and Scanlon ran their ``gimme five'' scheme on six of 
their tribal clients: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw''), the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana 
Coushatta''), the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan 
(``Saginaw Chippewa''), the Agua Caliente Tribe of the Cauhilla 
Indians (``Agua Caliente''), the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas 
(``Tigua'') and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of 
Sandia'') (collectively, ``the Tribes'' and individually, ``the 
Tribe''). Although this Report will mention other vehicles 
owned or controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon, this Section will 
focus on how they did so by using primarily three: Capitol 
Campaign Strategies (``CCS''), the American International 
Center (``AIC''), and the Capital Athletic Foundation 
(``CAF'').

                               CHAPTER I


                      CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES

        [W]e should not reveal [valuing my share in Capitol 
        Campaign Strategies (``CCS'') at $5 million per year] 
        to anyone but [my tax advisor], though, since no one 
        knows the CCS stuff.

    Email from Jack Abramoff to business associate Rodney Lane, 
March 15, 2002

        Abramoff: Thanks so much! You are a great partner. What 
        I love about our partnership is that, when one of us is 
        down, the other is there. [w]e're gonna make $ for 
        years together!''
        Scanlon: Amen! You got it boss--we have many years 
        ahead!

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, June 20, 
2002

        Schmidt: Do you have an ownership stake in Capitol 
        Campaign Strategies or Scanlon Gould or any of Mike 
        Scanlon's ventures?
        Abramoff: No. No, I don't.

    Exchange between Jack Abramoff and Washington Post reporter 
Susan Schmidt, on February 4, 2004, as transcribed in a 
Greenberg Traurig email

                             A. BACKGROUND

    Of all the entities that Michael Scanlon owned or 
controlled, the one that he and Jack Abramoff used most 
extensively in carrying out their ``gimme five'' scheme was 
Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS''), which also did business 
as Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs.\23\ 
CCS was first started up ``to help Scanlon collect [consulting] 
fees.'' \24\ During the first quarter of 2001, CCS' only client 
appears to have been SunCruz Casinos, a Florida-based casino 
cruise-ship company that Abramoff and a former business 
partner, Adam Kidan, have admitted to defrauding.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ The Committee finds and, in court filings Scanlon has 
admitted, that Scanlon Gould Public Affairs was largely used to receive 
funds in the performance of business activities of CCS. See Plea 
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. Michael P.S. 
Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR 05-411). Therefore, this 
Report will refer to CCS, Scanlon Gould Public Affairs, and Scanlon 
Public Affairs interchangeably as ``CCS'' or ``Scanlon.''
    \24\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \25\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para.1, U.S. v. Jack 
A. Abramoff (S.D. Fla. January 4, 2006) (CR 05-60204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From 2001 through 2003, CCS secretly paid Abramoff, and 
entities owned or controlled by Abramoff, including an entity 
called Kaygold, about $20,083,421. In total, those payments, 
set forth below, constitute about half of Scanlon's net profit 
from the Tribes.

            SECRET PAYMENTS BY CCS TO ABRAMOFF FROM 2001-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/30/01............................  Abramoff..............      $75,000
5/20/01............................  CAF...................      182,000
6/10/01............................  Abramoff..............       50,000
10/4/01............................  Abramoff..............      100,000
10/25/01...........................  Abramoff..............      428,000
12/19/01...........................  Abramoff..............      300,000
12/31/01...........................  Abramoff..............    1,718,125
2/22/02............................  Kaygold...............    2,779,925
3/21/02............................  Abramoff..............    4,080,997
4/8/02.............................  Kaygold...............    2,138,025
5/30/02............................  Abramoff..............       16,397
6/12/02............................  Kaygold...............      150,000
7/12/02............................  Kaygold...............      800,000
7/12/02............................  Kaygold...............       20,000
7/12/02............................  Kaygold...............       44,000
9/16/02............................  Kaygold...............    2,266,250
11/11/02...........................  Kaygold...............    1,078,649
12/03/02...........................  Kaygold...............       87,907
12/31/02...........................  Kaygold...............    1,000,146
12/31/02...........................  Kaygold...............       53,000
2/19/03............................  Kaygold...............    1,965,000
10/27/03...........................  Kaygold...............      750,000
                                                            ------------
    Total..........................  ......................   20,083,421
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the sections that follow, this Chapter will describe how 
Abramoff and Scanlon used CCS to further their ``gimme five'' 
scheme. In particular, it will describe how most of the money 
that the Tribes paid Scanlon was used for purposes unintended 
by the Tribes and how, in most cases, the Tribes received 
little of the intended benefit for the vast sums that they paid 
CCS.

      B. ABRAMOFF CONCEALS HIS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SCANLON

    For Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme to 
succeed, secrecy was key. In furtherance of that ``gimme five'' 
scheme, Abramoff and Scanlon agreed that Scanlon's payments to 
Abramoff would not be disclosed to Abramoff and Scanlon's 
Tribal clients.\26\ They understood that disclosing their 
arrangement to those clients would likely jeopardize the 
contracts for services, CCS' profit margin, or both.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 9, U.S. v. 
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee staff asked Saginaw Chippewa tribal Sub-Chief 
Bernie Sprague what, if anything, the Tribe knew about Abramoff 
and Scanlon's financial arrangement. In response, Sprague 
recalled that, as the Tribe was considering in December 2003 
whether to retain Abramoff, he specifically asked Abramoff 
about his relationship with Scanlon.\28\ Sprague remembered 
that Abramoff only answered that he knew him and his 
relationship with Scanlon was professional.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe of Michigan, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in testimony before the Committee, Tigua tribal 
representative Marc Schwartz recalled that a couple of days or 
so before Abramoff and Scanlon's presentation to that Tribe, he 
specifically asked Abramoff whether Scanlon was connected to 
Abramoff.\30\ Schwartz recalled that Abramoff answered ``no.'' 
\31\ In fact, telling Schwartz that Scanlon had ``his own'' 
company, Abramoff referred to Scanlon as merely ``an 
associate.'' \32\ Schwartz also recalled asking Abramoff 
whether he used Scanlon exclusively.\33\ Without bringing up 
his financial arrangement with Scanlon, Abramoff answered non-
responsively: he liked to use Scanlon for the tough fights 
because ``[h]e always [got] results.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 239 (September 29, 2004) (statement of 
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
    \33\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, when Abramoff and Scanlon gave their 
presentation at the Agua Caliente Tribal Council, Abramoff only 
represented that Scanlon ``work[ed] very closely with our firm 
[Greenberg Traurig].'' And, when Abramoff originally 
recommended Scanlon to the Choctaw, he introduced Scanlon as an 
independent consultant.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it is unclear whether Abramoff or Scanlon similarly 
misled the remaining Tribes, the Committee finds the following: 
no Tribe that ultimately hired Abramoff and Scanlon during the 
relevant period knew about their financial relationship.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ See Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe of Michigan, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004); 
Interview of Chairman Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahullia Indians, in Washington, D.C. (September 16, 2004); Interview 
of Lieutenant Governor Carlos Hisa, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, 
Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, 
Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004); 
Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 
in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005); Interview of Chief Phillip 
Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 
17, 2005); Interview of William Worfel, former tribal council-member, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005); 
Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia of New 
Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his deposition with Committee staff, the head of the 
Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying practice Fred Baggett 
testified that, until Abramoff's meeting with the firm's 
partners about the seminal The Washington Post article in 
February 2004, Abramoff never disclosed that he was receiving 
payments from Scanlon out of money that the Tribes were paying 
Scanlon.\37\ In fact, during a meeting about a tribal 
newsletter in 2003, Abramoff denied that he had any financial 
relationship with Scanlon and tried to explain the article away 
as politically driven by competitors of the firm.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \38\ Id. But see James Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt, The Fast Rise 
and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff, Washington Post, December 29, 2005 
(reporting that Greenberg Traurig discovered Abramoff's outside sources 
of income earlier when it examined his tax records in connection with 
the SunCruz bankruptcy matter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Abramoff first discussed hiring Scanlon with Baggett, 
Abramoff merely described Scanlon as ``the best as far as 
public relations and grassroots ... that he had ever dealt 
with'' who provided ``value added'' in helping the his clients 
with ``Washington media and public relations efforts as well.'' 
\39\ In that context, Abramoff indicated, Scanlon had been 
``extremely helpful to [him] and his clients.'' \40\ Baggett 
also remembered that Abramoff indicated ``[h]ow valuable 
[Scanlon] was, that he was essential to being able to provide 
services to his clients.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id. Despite these plaudits, Greenberg Traurig decided not to 
hire Scanlon full-time because he ``wanted to pursue other outside 
engagements on his own, and we ... weren't going to have somebody who 
could do that.'' Id. Ultimately, the firm brought in Scanlon as a 
consultant. Id. That engagement, for which Scanlon was paid $10,000 per 
month from Abramoff's overhead, lasted for only about a year. Id. Other 
than having decided that ``we didn't have use for him,'' Baggett does 
not know why the firm stopped paying Scanlon. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In what appears to be an effort to ensure that his Tribal 
clients did not know about his financial arrangement with 
Scanlon, Abramoff demanded secrecy of his business associates 
and advisors. For example, in a March 15, 2002, email, Abramoff 
directed Rodney Lane, apparently a partner in his restaurant 
ventures, to value his share in his partnership with Scanlon at 
$5 million per year, ``valued as $30M (multiple of 6 
[years]).'' \42\ In so doing, he also directed that ``we should 
not reveal this to anyone but [my tax advisor], though, since 
no one knows the CCS stuff.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane 
(GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002).
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, in a February 19 and 20, 2003, email, in which 
Abramoff's tax advisor, Gail Halpern, suggested to Abramoff how 
he could minimize Scanlon's withholding money from CCS' 
payments to Abramoff. Halpern recommended, ``[m]aybe you should 
work thinks [sic] so that the folks you are cutting these 
business deals with pay Mike [Scanlon's] LLC called CCS $x 
dollars, and pay your LLC called KayGold $y dollars. then [sic] 
DC doesn't get a chunk of your take.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012116) (February 19, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She elaborated, ``[g]etting your own check from the client 
would resolve that over the long run would save big bucks.'' 
\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``It's just not going to happen.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012115) (February 20, 2003). Whether Halpern 
came to know or should have known that Abramoff was Scanlon's partner 
and, with that knowledge, furthered their scheme to bilk their tribal 
clients is a question beyond the scope of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     C. ABRAMOFF INDUCES THE TRIBES INTO HIRING AND PAYING SCANLON

    Having concealed his financial arrangement with Scanlon 
from his Tribal clients, Abramoff urged them to hire a 
grassroots political consultant.\47\ Then, Abramoff convinced 
them into hiring Scanlon as that consultant. According to 
Scanlon's highly compensated right-hand man, Christopher 
Cathcart, Scanlon said that ``the larger fee [that CCS paid 
Abramoff] keeps ... Abramoff remembering CCS when he meets 
clients around the country.'' \48\ Likewise, in support of the 
proposition that ``the truth is worse'' than the facts set 
forth in the February 2004 Post article, former Abramoff 
associate Kevin Ring disclosed to a colleague that Abramoff 
``talk[ed] tribes into hiring Scanlon.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. 
Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001). See Interview of 
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004); Interview of Chairman Richard 
Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians, in Washington, D.C. 
(September 16, 2004); Interview of Lieutenant Governor Carlos Hisa, 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview of Marc 
Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C. 
(November 10, 2004); Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi 
Band of Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005); 
Interview of Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 
in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005); Interview of William Worfel, former 
Vice-President, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. 
(September 13, 2005); Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, 
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \48\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
    \49\ Email from Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig, to Matt DeMazza 
(GTG-E000257509) (February 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 5, 2001, Abramoff told Scanlon how he ran this 
part of the scheme on the legislative director of the Saginaw 
Chippewa:

        I had dinner tonight with Chris Petras of Sag Chip. He 
        was salivating at the $4-5 million program I described 
        to him (is that enough? Probably not). They have their 
        primary for tribal council on Tuesday, which should 
        determine if they are going to take over (general 
        elections in November). I told him that you are the 
        greatest campaign expert since ... (actually, I told 
        him that there was no one like you in history!). He is 
        going to come in after the primary with the guy who 
        will be chief if they win (a big fan of ours already) 
        and we are going to help him win. If he wins, they take 
        over in January, and we have millions. I told him that 
        you are already in national demand and we need to 
        secure you for them. He is very excited. GIMME FIVE 
        lives.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028079) (October 5, 
2001). (emphasis in original).

    Scanlon responded, ``THE PRICE HAS JUST GONE UP TO 10MIL!! 
Sounds good on the strategy--We should be wrapped up with the 
other camapaigns [sic] soon, so I could run his general 
election to make sure we get or [sic] give me five!!'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff concurred, ``Great.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents suggest that Abramoff and Scanlon ran this part 
of the scheme on the Saginaw Chippewa well into 2003. On 
February 28, 2003, Scanlon complained to Abramoff that ``[o]ur 
shop is not under contract with [the Saginaw Chippewa] for PR--
we have done it for them as part of programs in the past--but 
we aren't doing any work for them--and we will not until they 
hire us as their PR firm of Record.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011983) (February 28, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He noted, ``To tell you the truth--we would rather not work 
for them any more--but if we get the retainer gig--that wil 
[sic] do. NO CASH--NO INK BABY!'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``I am not sure this is the right 
strategy here ... I think we might be able to get some more big 
sums from these guys.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He explained, ``[T]he trick right now should be to get 
their shit work done as quickly and painlessly as we can and 
set up a plan right now for future efforts. That way we know 
there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In that context, Abramoff informed Scanlon that he ``told 
[Saginaw Chippewa legislative director Chris Petras] that this 
was the only way to get you involved because you have just too 
many other clients putting $10M deals in front of you. he [sic] 
said they would do this.'' \57\ The Committee has seen no 
evidence that any other clients were putting $10 million deals 
before Scanlon previously or at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about July 9, 2002, Abramoff promoted Scanlon to the 
Agua Caliente, describing Scanlon as ``[formerly] with the U.S. 
Congress, a communications director for the leadership of the 
House of Representatives and subsequently has gone on to become 
one of the top political and grassroots public affairs people 
in the United States.'' For his part, Scanlon said at the 
meeting, ``My firm is in strategic alliance with Jack and 
Greenberg [Traurig,] meaning we only provide services to the 
clients of Greenberg Traurig. No other law or lobbying firms in 
Washington, DC. We work exclusively for his clients and provide 
our services to Jack exclusively.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) 
(``Verbatim Transcript--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 
2002'') (July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Former Louisiana Coushatta councilman William Worfel 
recalled in his interview with staff that Abramoff continuously 
pressed his Tribe to pay Scanlon the millions he charged, 
quickly and completely. In particular, Worfel remembered that, 
according to Abramoff, the need to pay Scanlon was ``always a 
crisis, ASAP'': ``[I]t was just 100 miles per hour, boom, boom, 
boom, boom. Oh, yes. But, I ain't never seen this.'' \59\ 
Worfel elaborated, ``[Scanlon would always say,] `We got to 
have it, man.' `We're getting hammered.' `We need it.' `We've 
got to turn the phone banks on.' `We've got to get the blitz 
going.' It was always a crisis.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-President, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's approach with the Tigua was equally aggressive. 
A tribal representative observed that Abramoff pushed Scanlon 
``hotly.'' \61\ With that Tribe, Abramoff said that he and 
Greenberg Traurig would provide representation on a pro bono 
basis--at least until the Tribe's casino was up and 
running.\62\ But, he insisted that the Tribe hire Scanlon as 
their political consultant.\63\ In that context, he described 
Scanlon as ``tenacious'' and a ``bulldog.'' \64\ He also noted 
that Scanlon was ``DeLay's attack dog ... one of the reasons 
that Delay was so successful'' and that ``people [were] afraid 
of him.'' \65\ Abramoff promoted Scanlon as the person who did 
the groundwork on his projects and that, on tough fights 
especially, ``[h]e always gets results.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas 
(October 28, 2004).
    \62\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \63\ Id. Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v. 
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001); Plea 
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at 2, U.S. v. Michael P.S. Scanlon 
(Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR 05-411).
    \64\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having told the Tigua how he planned anonymously to slip 
language into a legislative vehicle that would allow the Tigua 
to reopen its casino, Abramoff stressed ``once the law is 
printed, someone's going to know it and that's where Mike 
[Scanlon] comes in.'' \67\ In particular, Abramoff laid out a 
strategic concept whereby Scanlon would serve as ``a 
submarine''--rising from under the radar and blanketing the 
telephones of offices of Members of Congress that have 
discovered the remedial language that Abramoff had sneaked into 
his legislative vehicle.\68\ Abramoff noted, ``you better have 
the best, because they will come after you.'' \69\ And, 
referring to Scanlon and his political database, Abramoff 
insisted, ``If you are going to do this, you need this guy.'' 
\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas, in El Paso, 
Texas (October 28, 2004).
    \69\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's interest in having the Pueblo of Sandia hire 
Scanlon was particularly keen. Both then-Tribal Governor 
Stuwart Paisano and Tribal lawyer David Mielke recalled that, 
during a meeting with Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig in February 
2002, Abramoff characterized Scanlon as indispensable to his 
federal lobbying practice and a sine qua non for success on the 
Tribe's project.\71\ In laying out to the tribal 
representatives his plan to ``break bones'' and ``bust 
kneecaps,'' Abramoff told them that he would only represent the 
Tribe if it hired Scanlon.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \72\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So intent was Abramoff in having the Pueblo of Sandia hire 
Scanlon that he negotiated with the Tribe on Scanlon's behalf 
and, in fact, offered several inducements to have the Tribe 
hire Scanlon. According to Paisano and Mielke, in the face of 
an unusually high contract price to hire Scanlon, Abramoff 
offered to further reduce Greenberg Traurig's monthly retainer 
in exchange for or in contemplation of the Tribe's hiring 
Scanlon.\73\ Mielke also recalled that Abramoff offered to 
reduce Scanlon's asking price to $2,750,000, but said that he 
could not go further because the lower amount had ``Scanlon's 
10% profit margin locked in.'' \74\ Likewise, when the Choctaw 
were experiencing cash flow problems and budget shortfalls, 
Abramoff offered to defer payments to Greenberg Traurig to 
ensure that the Tribe could pay Scanlon in full.\75\ Also, when 
the Choctaw were late in paying Scanlon, more often than not 
Abramoff inquired about the status of the payments to 
Scanlon.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Id.; Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \74\ Id. As described above, Scanlon deliberately set his prices to 
accommodate his secret payments to Abramoff. That required Scanlon to 
maintain a profit margin closer to 80 percent. See Transcript of Plea 
Agreement at 22, U.S. v. Jack Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) 
(CR-06-001).
    \75\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another way that Abramoff appears to have had some of the 
Tribes hire Scanlon for further projects was through alarming 
them, perhaps falsely, about threats to their sovereignty or 
gaming interests. For example, on or about February 11, 2002, 
Abramoff approved a ``draft [Conservative Action Team's] letter 
to the president [sic] and [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton 
saying `no more Indian gaming expansion' ... [sic] [and] light 
a fire under [Deputy Interior Secretary Steven] Griles's ass.'' 
\77\ Abramoff observed that ``[t]his will help us get [then-
Louisiana Coushatta Tribal Council member] William [Worfel] 
scared about Blue Lake [in California], hopefully increasing 
our budget.'' \78\ During this period, the Louisiana Coushatta 
were interested in doing business there.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025046) (February 14, 2002).
    \78\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000025046) (February 14, 
2002).
    \79\ See Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, on October 10, 2002, Scanlon conveyed to 
Abramoff: ``Lawmakers may consider a package of bills that 
would allow horse tracks to better compete with the casinos 
that have cut into their business the past several years. 
Tracks could be allowed to have video lottery terminals, card 
rooms, satellite betting sites and possibly other gambling to 
renew interest in attending horse races.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001244) (October 10, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``Here we go! This could kill Saginaw! 
[Saginaw Chippewa legislative director] Chris [Petras] thinks 
this is not going anywhere. Can you call him and scare him?'' 
\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, on December 2, 2002, Abramoff discussed the 
prospect of racinos in Michigan with Petras.\82\ In that email, 
on which he apparently blind-copied Scanlon, Abramoff noted the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000010716) (December 2, 
2002). A ``racino'' is a racetrack that also offers casino gaming.

        Chris, I am getting worried about this. Last night we 
        opened Stacks and there were some WH guys there (who 
        are also Michigan guys--worked for Spence). They told 
        me that there is a hearing coming up on this 
        immediately, and that they have heard that this is 
        going to happen!!! The enemy is moving fast and we are 
        not on the field. where [sic] is Scanlon on this? What 
        is he doing? Have you guys pushed the button? We need 
        to get him firing missiles. How do we move it faster? 
        Please get the council focused on this as soon as you 
        can. Every day [sic] we lose now is going to hurt.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Id.

    A few minutes later, Scanlon chimed in, ``I love you.'' 
\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010716) (December 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, Abramoff replied, ``I'll follow up with him in a 
day.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Captiol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010716) (December 2, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once Abramoff succeeded in having the Tribes hire Scanlon, 
having kept his financial arrangement with Scanlon secret from 
the Tribes, Scanlon (for the benefit of Abramoff and himself) 
charged the Tribes a massive premium for his services. In 
total, the Tribes paid Scanlon about $66 million from 2001 
through 2003. But, what really happened to the Tribes' money? 
The following section attempts to shed light on this question.

      D. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY THAT THE TRIBES PAID SCANLON?

1. Snapshots of CCS' Representation of the Tribes

    In connection with its first hearing on these matters, the 
Committee established that about \1/3\ of Scanlon's net 
proceeds went to Scanlon; about another \1/3\ went to Abramoff; 
and the remaining \1/3\ went to the underlying grassroots 
efforts Scanlon promised the Tribes. However, only an in-depth 
explication of this issue can allow one to apprehend the true 
extent and brazen nature of Abramoff and Scanlon's deception of 
the Tribes.
    While a forensic analysis of what happened to the Tribes' 
money lies well beyond the scope of the Committee's 
investigation, the overwhelming weight of evidence that the 
Committee has obtained, as described below, indicates that, in 
most cases, the Tribes did not receive the intended benefit of 
the millions of dollars that they paid Scanlon. What follows 
are descriptions of certain representative transactions that 
the Committee was able to reconstruct that best support that 
proposition.
            a. Transaction #1 (Miscellaneous)--Huge Profit Margins
    In their plea agreements, Abramoff and Scanlon admitted to 
charging the Tribes grossly inflated prices for CCS' services--
prices that incorporated the undisclosed fees that Scanlon paid 
Abramoff.\86\ As noted throughout, those fees constituted about 
50% of CCS' net profit.\87\ Examples of how this worked, 
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea 
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff at para. 8-
9 (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
    \87\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea 
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff at para. 8-
9 (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the documents that the Committee discovered is what 
appears to be the draft of a letter or other communication from 
Scanlon to Nell Rogers, the planner of the Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''). Although the Committee has been 
unable to determine whether this record, probably drafted late 
in 2001, was actually transmitted, the representations 
contained within it are compelling. In that document, Scanlon 
said, ``I think the following is the best way to prioritize our 
efforts [this year] and make them budget friendly ...''
    He explained, ``[A] good chunk ... for [Project A] wont 
[sic] be needed until the general election is in full swing 
later in the year. That said: the overall figures are 4,850,000 
for [Project A], and 1,750,000 for [Project B], for a total of 
6.6.'' But, he added, ``We will need the 1.75 for [Project B] 
and 1.85 for [Project A] ASAP.'' Scanlon concluded: ``On 
[Project A] we will need another 1m in about 45 days or so--and 
the balance we can defer till October 2nd to meet your FY 
issues ... Does this help?''
    A second document, also recently discovered by the 
Committee, describes Scanlon's expected margins on those, and 
other, projects.\88\ According to that document, entitled ``02 
CCS Project Break Down,'' on the $4,850,000 Scanlon sought on 
``Project A,'' he projected actual costs to come in at about 
$850,000--for a projected net profit for him and Abramoff of 
$4,000,000.\89\ Likewise, on the $1,750,000 Scanlon sought on 
``Project B,'' he projected costs at only $100,000--for a 
projected net profit for him and Abramoff of $1,650,000.\90\ 
The other projects, undertaken for Choctaw and other Tribes, 
are broken out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``02 CCS Project Break Downs'') (undated).
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Id.

                       02 CCS PROJECT BREAK DOWNS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Projected
             Project                 Total     expenditures      Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Downs.....................   $3,300,000      $300,000   $3,000,000
Jena Band.......................    1,505,000       100,000    1,405,000
[PROJECT A].....................    4,850,000       850,000    4,000,000
[PROJECT B].....................    1,750,000       100,000    1,650,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Totals......................   11,405,000     1,350,000   10,055,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggregating the costs and profits for all the projects 
listed above, the foregoing describes an expected net profit of 
about 88 percent.\91\ Other breakdowns, attached in the 
appendix of this Report, suggest that CCS' actual net return 
consistently hovered at about 70-80 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of CCS' representation of the Tigua, the 
margins were equally lucrative. According to a document 
entitled ``2002 GMF Breakdowns,'' Scanlon projected that the 
``total campaign cost'' of the Tigua's project, for which he 
and his secret partner Abramoff received $4.2 million, would be 
only $400,000.\92\ This document also suggests that Scanlon 
originally projected his ``partner dollar share'' here to be 
$2,400,000.\93\ In his plea agreement, Abramoff ultimately 
admitted to collecting from Scanlon $1,850,000, about 50 
percent of CCS' actual net profit on this project.\94\ 
Likewise, according to a document referring to ``Saginaw Wave 
Two,'' Scanlon apparently intended to set aside only $50,000 
for the program--a program for which he apparently obtained 
$500,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa.\95\ With CCS' netting 
$450,000 on that project, Abramoff's cut was $225,000.\96\ 
Finally, according to another document, entitled ``02 CCS 
Project Break Downs'' Scanlon projected that his pre-tax share 
of the $10,055,000 net from all the projects listed there, 
would equal $5,027,000.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``2002 GMF Breakdowns'') (undated).
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 20, U.S. v. 
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
    \95\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Wave Two'') (undated)
    \96\ Id.
    \97\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``02 CCS Project Break Downs'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What happened above is typical of scores of other 
transactions that the Committee has reviewed, where Scanlon or 
Abramoff dramatically overcharged the Tribes for grassroots 
activities; paid themselves a percentage of what the Tribes 
paid at a grossly inflated rate wholly unrelated to the actual 
cost of services provided; and used the remaining fraction to 
reimburse scores of vendors that could help them maintain vis-
a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of competence. It is 
almost inconceivable that Scanlon believed that the most 
ambitious of his programs, like the Louisiana Political Program 
(with which Scanlon claimed that he could ``control both houses 
and the governor's mansion''), could be accomplished 
successfully for the amount he apparently intended to allocate 
for their completion.
            b. Transaction #2 (August 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta and 
                    Agua Caliente pay CCS a total of $5,000,000
    An example of such a program relates to the payment of 
almost $5,000,000 by the Louisiana Coushatta and, for an 
unrelated matter, the Agua Caliente to CCS in August 2002. 
Weeks before, on July 26, 2002, Scanlon asked then-Louisiana 
Coushatta councilman William Worfel for authorization to 
execute a program that he said would ``eliminate the Jena 
threat ... to ensure that the Jena go away for good, and ... 
permanently eliminate them as a threat to the tribe.'' \98\ He 
described what he would do with this additional money as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 007285) 
(July 26, 2002).

        We would like to continue the effort against the Jena 
        tribe and launch a new effort against the governor as 
        payback. On the Jena front we would like to go to each 
        possible town where they could conceivably land a 
        casino and destroy that option politically. Simply 
        put--we want them out of the state and out of the 
        gaming business all together [sic]. We would like to go 
        from town to town and systematically wipe out all 
        possible locations. Our recommendation is to finish 
        them off now ... We believe that this campaign will run 
        about 8 weeks, and we would like to start immediately 
        while the iron is hot. We will need a budget of roughly 
        $2,100,000 to execute this properly.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Id.

    On or about August 1, 2002, the Louisiana Coushatta paid 
CCS $2,100,000, as Scanlon requested.\100\ And, on or about 
August 27, 2002, the Agua Caliente paid CCS $2,720,000 (and 
another $935,000 on or about September 17, 2002), for a 
similarly ambitious project apparently related to the Tribe's 
compact renegotiations with the State of California.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, CCS' ledger reflects no expenditures commensurate 
with Scanlon's ambitious representations. During an eight-week 
period, which began and closed with a balance at just under 
$1,000,000, the ledger reflects payments totaling about $40,700 
to the Weber Company and almost $290,000 to Lunde & Berger for 
``professional campaign services'' for several tribes; payments 
totaling about $14,700 to Matthew Stetter for work on an 
``environmental impact statement'' and a total of about $1,270 
to Anton Design for ``professional campaign services''--both of 
which are probably attributable to the Saginaw Chippewa; 
payments of $14,000 and about $1,500 to Democracy Data and 
Communications for ``databases'' and ``telematch services,'' 
respectively; a payment of $7,803 to Baum Communications for 
``Cali ID''; and a payment of $2,890 to Harold Grosh for work 
by ``subcontractors'' apparently attributable to the Louisiana 
Coushatta.\102\ All of those expenditures, which capture vendor 
expenses that are either $25,000 or more or traceable to a 
grassroots campaigns conducted for any tribe, amounted to a 
mere $370,000.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Id.
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this period, the ledger also reflects a few 
incidental payments that probably provided little value to the 
Louisiana Coushatta or the Agua Caliente, for example, a 
payment of $250,000 to the Republican Governors Association; a 
payment of $100,000 to an individual named Michael Chapman, 
likely for referring the Agua Caliente to Abramoff and Scanlon; 
a $60,000 donation to the ``Scanlon Foundation for Kids'' for 
``backpacks''; and a number of payments apparently made to 
contractors for work on some of Scanlon's properties.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other than the foregoing, the ledger reflects no vendor 
expenses that are either $25,000 or more or traceable to 
grassroots campaigns conducted for any Tribe. However, with a 
total of $4,820,000 having been paid by the Louisiana Coushatta 
and the Agua Caliente near the beginning of this period, the 
ledger does show Scanlon's paying Abramoff a ``referral 
expense'' of $2,266,250 on or about September 16, 2002, and 
Scanlon's paying himself $2,200,000 on or about October 10, 
2002.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Newly discovered evidence suggests what Scanlon intended to 
do with these Tribes' money from the start. According to a 
recently discovered financial record, Scanlon apparently 
intended to set aside no more than $350,000 for the Jena-
related program--a program for which he sought and obtained 
$2,100,000 from the Louisiana Coushatta.\106\ According to that 
same document, Scanlon projected a net $1,732,000 on that 
project and estimated Abramoff's cut at $866,250.\107\ 
Similarly, according to another document referring to ``AC Wave 
One,'' Scanlon apparently intended to set aside only $400,000 
for that program--a program for which he sought and received 
$2,700,000 from the Agua Caliente Tribe.\108\ With CCS' 
projecting to net $2,235,000 on that project, he estimated 
Abramoff's cut here at $1,117,500.\109\ It is unlikely that 
Scanlon believed that he could ``finish [the Jena] off now'' 
for only $350,000. The foregoing reflects that the Louisiana 
Coushatta received little of the intended benefit for the 
$2,100,000 it paid CCS, and that the $2,700,000 that Scanlon 
charged the Agua Caliente for ``AC Wave One'' was wholly 
unrelated to his actual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (undated) (entitled ``JA Nets-Coush Jena Aug'').
    \107\ Id.
    \108\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (undated) (entitled ``AC Wave One''). Scanlon also set aside 
another $38,000 as a ``plane expense.'' See Id.
    \109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            c. Transaction #3 (October 2001-January 2002)--Louisiana 
                    Coushatta pays CCS $2,170,000
    By August 27, 2001, Scanlon had successfully helped the 
Louisiana Coushatta with its compact renegotiations with the 
State of Louisiana. In furtherance of his new partnership with 
Abramoff, which the two kept secret from the Louisiana 
Coushatta, Scanlon was now prepared to proceed with a much 
broader scope of work. In that context, Scanlon put forward a 
``comprehensive political program,'' which he described as 
``much larger than the one we developed for the compact fight[, 
but] includes many of the same tactics and follows the same 
development process.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Coushatta 
Political Program'' (August 27, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an August 27, 2001, memorandum to Kathryn Van Hoof, 
outside counsel for the Louisiana Coushatta, which Scanlon 
carbon-copied to his new partner Abramoff, Scanlon described 
this program as designed to ``make sure that under no 
circumstances would the tribe find itself behind the political 
eight ball ever again'' and ``make [the Tribe] a politician's 
best friend--or worse [sic] political nightmare.'' \111\ 
Scanlon continued, ``[This strategy is] built to put you in a 
position to impose your political will on virtually any issue 
or candidate, and not just in SW Louisiana, but statewide, and 
across stateliness [sic] as well.'' \112\ Scanlon offered, ``In 
my opinion if you execute this program, you will be in position 
to achieve all of your political objectives.'' \113\ 
Accordingly, Scanlon laid out his Louisiana and Texas 
``political program.'' \114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ See generally id.; Capitol Campaign Strategies document 
production (BB/LC 017923) (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What the Tribe did not know at the time was that much of 
the money that Scanlon proposed that it pay for this political 
program would go directly to Abramoff. On the day after Scanlon 
apparently sent the foregoing memo to Van Hoof, Abramoff wrote 
his tax advisor about where he intended his share of the 
Louisiana Coushatta's money to go: ``A company called Capital 
Campaign Services [sic] has several hundred thousand which they 
are going to put into the restaurant for me (they owe me money, 
though there is no written arrangement--they have already 
transferred the money to [Livsar Enterprises, which owned one 
of Abramoff's restaurants] so the trust issue is not a 
problem).'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011965) (August 28, 2001). Intent on funneling 
his share of the Louisiana Coushatta's money to his restaurant without 
it being taxed as personal income, Abramoff asked Halpern, ``I was 
wondering if we could structure this transaction the following way: 
Livsar invoices CCS for services in the amount they are transferring. 
The services can be of any nature ... CCS is a political, lobbying, 
campaign company, certainly one which uses fine dining etc. Livsar 
would take that money as income and spend it in the course of business, 
on the restaurant. If at the end of the year Livsar has expended that 
money, is there a tax event?'' Id. See also Email from Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011965) 
(August 28, 2001) (Abramoff describing Livsar Enterprises).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 10, 2001, having been assured that money from 
the Tribe was on the way, Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Can you let 
me know how much more (than the current +/- 660K) we would each 
score should Coushatta come through for this phase, and Choctaw 
continue to make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at 
for the school's sake.'' \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113995) (September 10, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon replied, ``Coushatta is an absolute cake walk. Your 
cut on the project as proposed is at least 800k.'' \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All in all, Scanlon reported that Abramoff would get at 
that time ``1.5. mil on top of the 660. For a toal [sic] of 
2.1.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff heaped praise on his partner, ``How can I say this 
strongly enough: YOU IZ DA MAN.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10, 
2001) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not content with the $2.1 million and using the phrase the 
two had coined to describe their secret partnership, Scanlon 
exhorted, ``Let's grow that 2.1 to 5!!! We need the true give 
me five!'' \120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 6, 2001, Scanlon picked up that email stream to 
revisit the issue with Abramoff: ``800k was your cut of the 
combined [Louisiana] and [Texas] projects. But they did not go 
for the [Louisiana] project so your cut shrunk to 400K from 
texas [sic] alone.'' \121\ However, Scanlon assured Abramoff: 
``But we came in way under budget bumping your total on the 
texas [sic] project up to 600k.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E0000113927) (October 5, 2001).
    \122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``If they go for the [Louisiana] project, 
tack another 400 onto your end ... Long story short, you made 
an additional 200k on the texas [sic] project.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``We have to get that [Louisiana] 
project moving. Let's discuss how to make that happen.'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, on or about October 23, 2001, the Tribal 
Council apparently approved a modified version of the political 
program that Scanlon proposed to fight a couple of Louisiana 
gaming expansion initiatives. Cumulatively, it was called the 
``Battleground Program.'' \125\ In a memorandum outlining the 
program's costs, Scanlon wrote, ``[W]e have already begun our 
operations on all fronts. As we expressed to the council two 
battles, plus implementing the already proposed program would 
be costly.'' \126\ The total cost, $3,170,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\ See Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, 
``Louisiana Political Budget Outline'' (BB/LC 017923) (October 23, 
2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
    \126\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to CCS' accounting ledger, on October 31, 2001, 
the Louisiana Coushatta ultimately paid CCS $2,170,000 in one 
lump sum.\127\ But, how did CCS spend this money? CCS' own 
records indicate that a small part was paid to outside vendors 
for actual work.\128\ For example, on or about November 8, 
2001, CCS paid Capitol Media, a company owned or controlled by 
Ralph Reed, $100,000 for work on the Texas component of the 
program.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies). In an apparent scheme to 
fraudulently induce the Tribe to ``donate'' to Abramoff's private 
charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), Scanlon directed 
the Tribe to send the remaining $1,000,000 for the Program to Greenberg 
Traurig; and, at Abramoff's direction, the firm sent this $1,000,000 to 
the CAF, on November 13, 2001. For a full explication of this 
transaction, refer infra to Part 2, Chapter 3, ``Capital Athletic 
Foundation,'' Section D, ``Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Tribal 
Funds for CAF Seed Money in 2001.''
    \128\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \129\ Id. Weeks before, on October 8, 2001, Reed had agreed to help 
Scanlon and Abramoff ``block the Alabama Coushatta tribe [sic] from 
securing a gaming facility by proactively pushing a political or 
legislative vehicle making approval of Indian gaming in Texas next to 
impossible'', for $100,000. Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000023050-51) (October 5, 2001). On October 5, 2001, Scanlon explained 
to Abramoff, ``We have drafts of the language, But [sic] we are still 
batting around the final documents. What we need now is for the Gov 
[sic], Lt Gov [sic] and AG to issue the vehicle and publicly support 
it. Here are our ideas, and if Ralph can slam it home it would be 
great.'' Id. After Abramoff referred Reed to Scanlon to ``get it 
moving,'' Abramoff reached out to Scanlon, apparently elated at the 
prospect of minimizing costs, ``Call Ralph and get him moving. He'll do 
it for the $100K. we'z in the money!!!'' Email from Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(GTG-E000023050) (October 8, 2001). Later that month, Scanlon wrote 
Abramoff, ``Once [the Tribe] pay[s] we let Ralph loose, and bring Texas 
home.'' Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P (GTG-E000012181) (October 15, 
2001). Abramoff responded, ``U da[ ] man!'' Email from Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies 
(GTG-E000012181) (October 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Scanlon was paying vendors only a modest fraction of 
what the Tribe paid CCS, it seems that he put much of the 
balance to personal use. On November 2, 2001, he took $1.4 
million as a shareholder draw.\130\ That month, Scanlon 
reportedly bought a $1.6 million beach house in Rehoboth Beach, 
which he completely renovated.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \131\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to 
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall 
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later entries in the CCS ledger reflect very significant 
draws going to Scanlon's wedding, which never occurred. 
Ultimately, after additional payments came in from the Choctaw, 
Scanlon paid Abramoff about $2,000,000. These payments are set 
forth below: \132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables 
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and 
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the 
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received 
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were 
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor 
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or 
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and 
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

              CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Date            Description          To/from            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/30/2001......  Balance...........  .................       $83,249.00
10/31/2001......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........       700,000.00
10/31/2001......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     2,170,000.00
10/31/2001......  Balance...........  .................     2,953,249.04
11/2/2001.......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (25,000.00)
                   Campaign;
                   Alabama; 1278.
11/2/2001.......  Professional        Red Sea..........      (11,236.02)
                   Campaign; 1279.
11/2/2001.......  Professional        Basswood Research      (11,270.00)
                   Campaign; 1280.
11/2/2001.......  Shareholder Draw;   Michael Scanlon..   (1,400,000.00)
                   1289.
11/8/2001.......  Professional        Capitol Media....     (100,000.00)
                   Campaign;
                   Coushatta TX
                   Program; 1301.
11/8/2001.......  Professional        Capitol Media....     (350,000.00)
                   Campaign; 1304.
11/9/2001.......  Shareholder Draw/   Michael Scanlon..      (50,000.00)
                   Wedding.
11/15/2001......  Consulting Fees...  Choctaw..........     2,350,000.00
11/15/2001......  Shareholder Draw/   Michael Scanlon..   (1,563,740.39)
                   Wedding.
11/26/2001......  Shareholder Draw/   Michael Scanlon..      (75,000.00)
                   Bama Race.
11/26/2001......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (13,000.00)
                   Campaign/Texas.
11/26/2001......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...     (130,000.00)
                   Campaign/Alabama.
11/27/2001......  Money Market......  .................   (2,923,485.08)
11/27/2001......  Shareholder Draw/   Michael Scanlon..       (5,000.00)
                   Wedding.
11/27/2001......  Shareholder Draw;   Michael Scanlon..      (60,000.00)
                   Michael Wedding.
11/27/2001......  Balance...........  .................       174,560.77
11/30/2001......  Balance...........  .................        68,995.57
12/12/2001......  Shareholder Draw;   Legg Mason Wood..      (50,000.00)
                   Preferred Account.
12/19/2001......  Referral Expense;   Jack Abramoff....     (300,000.00)
                   1396.
12/31/2001......  Referral Expense;   Jack Abramoff....   (1,718,125.00)
                   1398.
12/31/2001......  Professional        Capitol Media....     (250,000.00)
                   Campaign.
12/31/2001......  Balance...........  .................   (2,392,137.00)
1/2/2002........  Deposit...........  Money Market.....     2,754,942.00
1/2/2002........  Balance...........  .................       362,804.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a November 6, 2001, email, Scanlon provides Abramoff 
with ``a breakdown (Political Nets) of where you are currently 
-and [sic] [a] distribution [s]chedule for 2001 that shows what 
you made or directed to other parties--Not bad!!!!!!'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012278) (November 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With only a fraction of what the Tribe paid CCS going to 
the intended effort, it appears that the Louisiana Coushatta 
received little of the intended benefit for the money it paid 
CCS during this period. Unfortunately, this would not be the 
only time the Tribe would be short-changed by Abramoff and 
Scanlon.
            d. Transaction #4 (January-April 2002)--Several Tribes Pay 
                    CCS Over $22,000,000
    As described in the Chapter of this Report addressing 
Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of the Tigua, late in 
2001, the State of Texas filed suit seeking to shut down the 
casino of the Alabama Coushatta Tribe. Operating near Houston, 
in Livingston, Texas, that casino ostensibly presented 
competition to the Louisiana Coushatta's facility, across the 
state line. As reflected above, Scanlon used only a fraction of 
the Louisiana Coushatta's payments to CCS late in the year to 
fund Ralph Reed's anti-gaming grassroots activities in Texas, 
which Reed ran through his firm Capitol Media. However, with 
the casino's closure imminent, Scanlon was quick to take 
credit. On January 6, 2002, he wrote Louisiana Coushatta Tribal 
Councilman William Worfel, carbon-copying Abramoff, ``Victory 
is ours. As a result of our political pressure, the Texas 
Attorney General filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday to 
shut down the Alabama Coushatta's `entertainment center' in 
Livingston.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
015391) (January 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 27, 2002, Scanlon wrote Worfel again, ``It looks 
as though the Jena [Jena Band of Choctaw Indians] are 
attempting again to put a facility in Mississippi at the same 
time they are continuing their efforts in Louisiana.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
015410) (January 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``On that note--I would like to speak with 
you tomorrow about our conversation on Friday regarding Patrick 
Martin and the Jena [Band of Choctaw Indians]. I think it's 
imperative that we make a large statement with our efforts 
given what has unfolded.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, he asked for ``a larger budget to deal with 
the Jena and make our muscle felt ... a significant increase 
(an additional 1.2 mil to make our point).'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the next day, Abramoff forwarded an article to Scanlon, 
which had been provided to him by Reed, about the Tigua's 
casino in Texas, and wrote, ``Get this to William [Worfel]. 
War.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000075999) (January 28, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to CCS' accounting records, this began a 
particularly active payment period, during which the Louisiana 
Coushatta in particular made a series of very substantial 
payments to CCS' operating account. In January 2002, which 
began this period, the starting balance in this account was 
about $500,000. By April 2002, after considerable payment 
activity, the balance went back down to about $500,000. In the 
interim, the Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS $11,510,000. 
Additionally, substantial payments were made by several other 
tribes: Saginaw Chippewa, $3,069,831; Choctaw, $1,605,000; 
Tigua Tribe of El Paso, $2,122,680; and the Sandia Pueblo, 
$2,750,000. So, during this period, all of these Tribes paid 
CCS a total of $21,057,561.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ According to CCS's accounting ledger, an unspecified 
client(s) paid CCS $3,102,750 during this period. Diehl & Company 
document production (D00411-512) (undated) (General Ledger, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies). This figure is not included in this tally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What did Scanlon do with these Tribes' money during this 
period? According to information obtained by the Committee, 
Scanlon paid only $826,452.79 to vendors for expenses greater 
than or equal to $25,000 or discernable as funding for work 
done for any Tribe and about $155,000 to Abramoff lobbying 
associates Jon van Horne and Kevin Ring.\140\ By contrast, 
Scanlon withdrew $15,078,108.94 as ``shareholder draws'' and 
paid Abramoff, or his corporate alter ego Kaygold, 
$8,998,947.60 as ``referral expenses.'' \141\ The relevant 
portion of CCS' ledger, which reflects this activity, is set 
out below.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \141\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \142\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables 
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and 
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the 
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received 
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were 
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor 
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or 
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and 
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

              CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Date            Description          To/from            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/2/2002........  Balance...........  .................      $362,804.86
1/7/2002........  Balance...........  .................       505,356.94
1/18/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     1,505,000.00
1/18/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     1,500,000.00
1/18/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     1,000,000.00
1/24/2002.......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (25,000.00)
                   Campaign; LA;
                   1452.
1/30/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  .................   (1,000,000.00)
1/30/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  .................     (950,000.00)
2/1/2002........  Balance...........  .................     3,207,343.96
2/7/2002........  Legal/              Jon Van Horne....      (20,000.00)
                   Professional;
                   Legal Work; 1476.
2/12/2002.......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (30,000.00)
                   Campaign; LA-
                   Jena; 1489.
2/14/2002.......  Professional        Alexander             (120,000.00)
                   Campaign.           Strategies.
2/19/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Saginaw Chippewa.     1,869,831.00
2/19/2002.......  Professional        Capitol Media....      (51,679.00)
                   Campaign; 1492.
2/20/2002.......  Professional        Glover Associates      (34,291.16)
                   Campaign; Final
                   Payment; 1494.
2/21/2002.......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (75,000.00)
                   Campaign; LA;
                   1495.
2/22/2002.......  Transfer..........  Money Market.....   (2,000,000.00)
2/22/2002.......  Referral Expense;   Kaygold..........   (2,779,925.60)
                   1496.
2/22/2002.......  Balance...........  .................     1,075,164.69
2/25/2002.......  Professional        Capitol Media....      (60,000.00)
                   Campaign; Radio
                   Buy; LA; 1498.
2/25/2002.......  Professional        Capitol Media....     (100,000.00)
                   Campaign; LA
                   Project; 1499.
2/28/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Choctaw..........     1,605,000.00
2/28/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  .................      (50,000.00)
3/1/2002........  Balance...........  .................     4,343,157.00
3/1/2002........  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (50,000.00)
                   Campaign; MS
                   Bonus; 1526.
3/4/2002........  Consulting Fees;    .................     1,002,750.00
                   Deposit.
3/5/2002........  Deposit...........  Money Market.....     2,000,000.00
3/5/2002........  Consulting Fees;    .................     2,100,000.00
                   Deposit.
3/5/2002........  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..   (4,753,108.94)
3/14/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  .................     (150,000.00)
3/15/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     3,405,000.00
3/15/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Sandia Pueblo....     1,875,000.00
3/21/2002.......  Referral Expense;   Jack Abramoff....   (4,080,997.00)
                   1557.
3/21/2002.......  Referral Expense;   Kevin Ring.......      (67,500.00)
                   1558.
3/22/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..   (1,000,000.00)
3/25/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..     (300,000.00)
3/25/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..      (25,000.00)
3/27/2002.......  Professional        Red Sea..........      (33,600.00)
                   Campaign; Media.
3/28/2002.......  Professional        Red Sea..........     (116,680.00)
                   Campaign; Media.
4/1/2002........  Consulting Fees...  Saginaw Chippewa.     1,200,000.00
4/1/2002........  Balance...........  .................     5,730,488.93
4/2/2002........  Shareholder Draw;   Michael Scanlon..   (4,350,000.00)
                   1573.
4/2/2002........  Shareholder Draw;   Michael Scanlon..     (500,000.00)
                   1574.
4/4/2002........  Consulting Fees...  Tigua............     1,293,180.00
4/4/2002........  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     2,100,000.00
4/8/2002........  Referral Expense;   Kaygold..........   (2,138,025.00)
                   1580.
4/10/2002.......  Consulting Fees...  Sandia Pueblo....       875,000.00
4/10/2002.......  Professional        Frabrizio and          (10,000.00)
                   Campaign; NM Poll   McLaughlin.
                   2; 1586.
4/11/2002.......  Professional        Weber Company....      (41,634.96)
                   Campaign; Prof
                   Services; 1593.
4/11/2002.......  Professional        Basswood Research      (28,567.67)
                   Campaign; LA
                   Survey; 1597.
4/15/2002.......  Professional        Lunde & Berger...      (50,000.00)
                   Campaign; Tigua;
                   1615.
4/15/2002.......  Referral Expense;   Kevin Ring.......      (67,500.00)
                   1616.
4/16/2002.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..   (2,000,000.00)
4/16/2002.......  Balance...........  .................       471,009.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Near the beginning of the period captured by this snapshot, 
after the State of Texas filed suit to shut down the Alabama 
Coushatta's casino, Scanlon observed, ``Yeah baby! The timing 
couldn't be better!'' \143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010889) (January 6, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, Abramoff responded, ``Wez [sic] gonna be 
rich!'' \144\ And, about a week-and-a-half later, the Louisiana 
Coushatta, on whose behalf Abramoff and Scanlon opposed the 
Alabama Coushatta, paid CCS more than $4,000,000.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A few weeks later, on March 8, 2002, CCS received an 
additional $1,869,831 from the Saginaw Chippewa and $1,605,000 
from the Choctaw.\146\ Writing Scanlon, Abramoff celebrated, 
``We're gonna be rich. What am I saying?! We ARE rich!!!'' 
\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Id.
    \147\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011535) (March 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What did Scanlon do with his share? In March 2002, Scanlon 
reportedly paid $4.7 million in cash for a house for himself 
and then-fiancee, Emily Miller.\148\ This beachfront mansion 
reportedly had a weight room, sauna and a three-bedroom guest 
house.\149\ Scanlon mounted lights on the deck so he could hold 
parties on the beach at night, his surfing friends have 
reportedly said.\150\ He also bought vacation homes on the 
Caribbean island of St. Barts, including one villa he 
reportedly rented out for $50,000 a week.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to 
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall 
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
    \149\ Id.
    \150\ Id.
    \151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But that was not enough. In reacting to a proposal by 
Scanlon to fight attempts by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 
to open a casino in Louisiana, on March 12, 2002, Abramoff 
admonished his partner, ``It's great, but don't give the option 
of shaving costs. Of course they should do them all at once, 
and there are no savings!!! Otherwise, we'll sacrifice $2M that 
they would otherwise gladly pay. OK?'' \152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011588) (March 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Referring to the Louisiana Coushatta, on April 8, 2002, 
Abramoff observed, ``They are ripe for more pickings. We have 
to figure out how.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252622-23) (April 8, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an email, dated March 13, 2002, entitled ``those f--ing 
SagChips,'' Abramoff and Scanlon discussed the Saginaw 
Chippewa's participation of an Abramoff venture to have them 
help underwrite the cost of maintaining sky boxes at premium 
sporting venues in the DC area: ``[then-Saginaw Chippewa Sub-
Chief] Dave Otto just told me that they are not going to do the 
sports suites. He said they are under fire and are worried that 
they are spending too much money. I really am worried that they 
are not seeing results from us up there, so they are starting 
to rethink doing stuff with us. can [sic] you PLEASE get 
someone up there asap?'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026246) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon responded, ``Jack--the fact that they are not doing 
sports suites has nothing to do with them not seeing [sic] 
results on my end--they are just friggin cheap--and losers--I 
very seriously doubt we will ever see another penny from them--
and there was no chance that they were ever going to do the 
sports suites. We really have to watch these guys.'' \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied:

        Let's chat about these guys. I agree about the sports 
        suites, but we need to energize this. we [sic] spent 
        the time and won the [Tribal Council] election, and now 
        have a great contract with them. they [sic] are not 
        happy with the service they are getting. We need to 
        step up and save this (a lot less work to turn this 
        into a winner than to find another rich tribe and bring 
        them to this point). they are apparently unhappy that 
        you are not there. I am seeing [Saginaw Chippewa 
        legislative director] Chris Petras tomorrow and will 
        get a temperature and we'll find a way to fix it. we 
        [sic] need a beautiful girl to send up there to do our 
        work. I am really not kidding. This deal is a big part 
        of our financial life and we cannot let it slip 
        away.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Id.

    On June 18, 2002, Scanlon described an agreement to 
Abramoff with the ``Saginaw's lawyers'' whereby the tribe will 
``pay 1.9 up front then 500k and 500k ... We should have the 
cash by the end of the week.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011737) (June 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, Abramoff instructed Scanlon to direct his CCS 
income to his purported charity, the Capital Athletic 
Foundation (``CAF''), ``Great. can [sic] you get to [REDACTED] 
and get that $ for CAF? I really need it. also, [sic] might 
need you to direct one of the $500K's coming to CAF. can [sic] 
you do that?'' \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the next day, Scanlon updated Abramoff, ``Hey--good day 
all around--we wrapped up the Sag Chip crap--We hit Coush--I 
think for 3 mil--and we are working gon [sic] Acaliente [sic] 
presentation--should be tight.'' \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057329) (June 20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff answered, ``Thanks so much! You are a great 
partner. What I love about our partnership is that, when one of 
us is down, the other is there. We're gonna make $ for years 
together!'' \160\ Scanlon replied, ``Amen! You got it boss--we 
have many years ahead!'' \161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\ Id.
    \161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about July 9, 2002, the two discussed the payment of 
$1,900,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa, Scanlon assuring 
Abramoff, ``800 for you[,] 800 for me[,] 250 for the effort the 
other 50 went to the plane and misc expenses. We both have an 
additional 500 coming when they pay the next phasesm [sic].'' 
\162\ Indeed, on July 12, 2002, after that payment arrived, CCS 
made three payments to Kaygold, of $800,000; $20,000; and 
$44,000.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011746) (July 9, 2002).
    \163\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            e. Transaction #5 (October 16, 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta 
                    Pays $950,000 and the Agua Caliente Pays $1,745,000 
                    to CCS
    In its brazenness, what apparently happened with a payment 
of $950,000 by the Louisiana Coushatta, and $1,745,000 by the 
Agua Caliente, to CCS is notable. On October 9, 2002, carbon-
copying Abramoff, Scanlon wrote Worfel, ``[R]ecently the [Jena] 
have received an enormous amount of funding to back there [sic] 
political/on the ground [sic] operations and in addition [sic] 
have beefed up their lobbying team in D.C. as well.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
007288) (October 9, 2002) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon continued, ``Given these facts I strongly believe 
that we need more budget authority to achieve our objectives. I 
would like an addition [sic] $950,000.00 to beef up our field 
team for the petition drives, add more staff to our opposition 
research team, and to increase the level of letters and call 
[sic] we generate to Secretary Norton over the next few 
weeks.'' \165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon underscored, ``In all of our time working together 
we have never come back to you with a request for additional 
budgeting, so please know that we would not being [sic] making 
this request unless it were absolutely necessary.'' \166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon concluded, ``We believe that we will have the 
campaign wrapped up within three weeks, and these additional 
funds will contribute greatly to our success.'' \167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What happened subsequently is best reflected in CCS' 
general ledger. According to this document, on or about October 
15, 2002, the starting balance in CCS' operating account was 
about $2,000,000.\168\ About a day later, the Louisiana 
Coushatta paid CCS $950,000, as Scanlon requested.\169\ And, at 
about that same time, the Agua Caliente made another payment of 
$1,745,000.\170\ The original $2,000,000 balance was restored 
in that account on or about October 25, 2002.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
    \169\ See id.
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, in the interim, what happened to the Tribes' money? 
Accounting records show that very little of the Tribe's money 
was used for purposes intended by the Tribe. Between October 
15th and October 25th, 2002, CCS' general ledger fails to 
reflect any payments for ``beef[ing] up [a] field team for ... 
petition drives'' or the ``add[ition of] more staff to [an] 
opposition research team.'' Quite the contrary, during this 
period, the general ledger indicates, CCS made only one payment 
to any vendor for work traceable to any Tribe--$50,000 to 
Ayers, McHenry & Associates, Inc. for ``professional campaign 
services.'' \172\ It also reflects a payment of $250,000 to the 
Republican Governors Association and several payments on credit 
card bills and charter airfare.\173\ Otherwise, the only 
notable activity that is reflected on the ledger during this 
period are three ``shareholder draws'' taken by Scanlon, 
totaling $2,200,000.\174\ After Scanlon made those withdrawals, 
he allowed the account to be drawn down until early-December 
2002--at which point the Choctaw made several payments.\175\ In 
other words, apparently Scanlon never replenished the account 
with the Louisiana Coushatta's and the Agua Caliente's money, 
after he took it out in the first instance. The foregoing 
allows the Committee to find that those Tribes never received 
the intended benefit for the money that they paid CCS on or 
about October 15, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ Id.
    \173\ Id.
    \174\ Id.
    \175\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is unclear whether Scanlon told Abramoff about these 
payments when they first arrived. On December 17, 2002, 
Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``can you get me the check for the 
money which came from the Agua asap? I'm actually in a bad cash 
position.'' \176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000056775) (December 17, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon answered, ``No money in yet--still waiting on the 
wire--ill [sic] send it over as sson [sic] as it comes in--Its 
cool--all approved and everything--just not been executed 
yet.'' \177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Other than the AC, what [sic] next on 
the money train?'' \178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon answered, ``The next big money we have coming our 
way is Coushatta, and that will be in early January--the exact 
amounts I'm still hammering out.'' \179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recently discovered financial record suggests what 
Scanlon did with the money that he absconded from the Tribes in 
2002. This document, which apparently sets forth Scanlon's net 
worth for the year ending 2002, reflects that for his own 
benefit Scanlon put most of the money he received from the 
Tribes into real estate and investment accounts.\180\ According 
to this document, entitled ``Scanlon NW 02,'' those investments 
were valued at about $5,460,000, and $7,520,000 in expected 
retainers, returns on investments, and net returns on 
outstanding projects ``on board.'' \181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (undated) (entitled ``Scanlon NW 02'').
    \181\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            f. Transaction #6 (January-March 2003)--Louisiana Coushatta 
                    Pays CCS $5,000,000
    The Louisiana Coushatta's payment to CCS of $5,000,000 on 
or about February 12, 2003, also reflects Abramoff and 
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. In an email, dated January 21, 
2003, and entitled ``Coushatta,'' Abramoff wrote Scanlon, 
``Give me a call asap. I have some thoughts in this which I 
need to share. It means more $$$$ for us!'' \182\ Exactly what 
Abramoff had in mind here is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252878) (January 21, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 17, 2003, Abramoff reached out to Scanlon 
``when are we getting Coushatta $?'' \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252882) (February 17, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon responded, ``Was supposed to be in Friday--but did 
not come through ...'' \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``Let me know as soon as it gets in, you 
fucking beach bum! :) [sic]'' \185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the next day, Scanlon reported, ``Coush Cash is in. Ill 
[sic] process ASAP.'' \186\ The Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS 
$5,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \186\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027864) (February 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon thereafter, on February 19, 2003, Scanlon paid 
Abramoff's alter ego Kaygold $1,965,000 as a ``referral 
expense.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff described what he intended to do with this money: 
``I am actually at rock bottom and have a payroll to meet on 
Thursday for the restaurant. Can you get this to me today or 
tomorrow?'' \188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000027864) (February 18, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After he did not immediately get his share of the Louisiana 
Coushatta payment, Abramoff implored Scanlon: ``Mike!!! I need 
the money TODAY! I AM BOUNCING CHECKS!!!'' \189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012123) (February 19, 
2003) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff later apologized, ``Sorry I got nuts, but it's a 
little crazy for me right now. I am not kidding that I was 
literally on the verge of collapse. I hate all the shit I'm 
into. I need to be on the Carribean with you!'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 20, 2003, Abramoff explained to his tax 
advisor, ``I think I understand what he did. We received $5M 
into CCS ... He divided the $5M into three piles: $1M for 
actual expense, and $2M for each of us.'' \191\ The payment to 
Abramoff, made to his entity Kaygold, and a series of 
substantial ``shareholder draws'' taken out by Scanlon, are 
reflected in the portion of CCS' ledger set forth below.\192\ 
It appears that those draws funded purely personal expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Bernhard (GTG-E000012115) (February 20, 2003).
    \192\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables 
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and 
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the 
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received 
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were 
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor 
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or 
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and 
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

              CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Date            Description          To/from            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/31/2003.......  Balance...........  .................      $934,962.28
2/3/2003........  Professional        Red Sea..........      (40,154.96)
                   Campaign; CA
                   Mailer; 2176.
2/3/2003........  Shareholder Draw;   Phillip Brun.....      (44,500.00)
                   SCM; 2177.
2/12/2003.......  Consulting Fees...  Coushatta........     5,000,000.00
2/12/2003.......  Shareholder Draw..  Aviation Group...      (44,400.00)
2/19/2003.......  Professional        DDC..............      (14,000.00)
                   Campaign;
                   Databases; 2201.
2/19/2003.......  Professional        Basswood Research      (15,425.00)
                   Campaign; CA;
                   2203.
2/19/2003.......  Referral Expense..  Kaygold, LLC.....   (1,965,000.00)
2/26/2003.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..   (1,000,000.00)
2/26/2003.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..     (965,000.00)
2/28/2003.......  Balance...........  .................     1,701,290.87
3/3/2003........  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..      (20,000.00)
3/7/2003........  Travel: Airfare...  .................      (89,537.18)
3/7/2003........  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..      (20,000.00)
3/7/2003........  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..      (20,000.00)
3/10/2003.......  Shareholder Draw;   Beach Pigs, LLC..     (100,000.00)
                   2235.
3/11/2003.......  Shareholder Draw;   .................        20,000.00
                   Deposit.
3/11/2003.......  Shareholder Draw;   .................        20,000.00
                   Deposit.
3/12/2003.......  Shareholder Draw..  .................      (10,000.00)
3/18/2003.......  Shareholder Draw..  Michael Scanlon..     (100,000.00)
3/31/2003.......  Balance...........  .................     1,100,413.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To add insult to injury, according to at least one 
contemporaneous email, some of the money that the Agua Caliente 
and the Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS was actually used for 
conducting public relations activities for other Tribes, on 
matters wholly unrelated to either. Complaining that CCS was 
not under contract with the Saginaw Chippewa for public 
relations, on February 28, 2003, Scanlon admitted, ``For the 
past 4 months we have spent out of pocket to cover their PR--or 
used agua [sic] or Coushatta money to cover the cost of every 
little thing that comes down their pike, [sic] We sent them a 
letter saying we will do no more PR work until we establish a 
retainer arrangement in late December.'' \193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011983) (February 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon's requests for payments by, for 
example, the Louisiana Coushatta to CCS (as reflected above) 
appear to have related more to the exigencies of their personal 
business interests than to that Tribe's grassroots needs. This 
is evidenced in, for example, an email from Abramoff to his tax 
advisor, dated March 28, 2003, in which he wrote, ``I have $1M 
coming in (I hope directly to CAF or Eshkol) probably next 
week, and $1M due within the next 2 weeks to Kaygold. Both from 
CCS. How long will this money last both for the school and the 
restaurants?'' \194\ Given the foregoing, it appears that the 
Louisiana Coushatta received little of the intended benefit for 
the money it paid CCS during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Bernhard (GTG-000012166) (March 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The ``Database''

    The fact that most of the Tribes received little of the 
intended benefit for the millions they paid CCS is perhaps best 
illustrated by the political databases that Scanlon promised 
them. As described below, the Tribes received something far 
less than the customized, state-of-the-art databases that 
Abramoff and Scanlon told them Scanlon would design, build, and 
use for them as part of their grassroots campaigns.
            a. The Pitch
    In pitching Scanlon's program to the Agua Caliente Tribal 
Council, Abramoff described what Scanlon allegedly did for the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''):

        So we decided ... to implement a system that Mike 
        [Scanlon] developed[,] which we successfully 
        implemented a couple of other times and it's actually 
        what we're here in part to talk [to] you about today. 
        To organize the tribe so that even though the Choctaws 
        were politically powerful in the sense of their local 
        area[,] we decided to implement a program to make them 
        the most powerful political machine in the State of 
        Mississippi[,] so that if a threat did come up ... they 
        would be in a position to respond to it.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled 
``Verbatim Excerpt-Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'') 
(July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued:

        And in fact that threat did come up. And what we did 
        was organize their assets, their political assets. They 
        had a bunch of vendors and a bunch of customers, they 
        had eight thousand members of the tribe ... and we 
        organized them all. We developed a, a, Mike did, a 
        certain matrix, a certain way to do it so that we could 
        have instant access to people who were directly 
        impacted by the business of the tribe.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ Id.

    In an October 2001, memorandum to the Louisiana Coushatta's 
outside counsel Kathryn Van Hoof, Scanlon described the 
database this way: ``[W]e are taking what you built for the 
compact fight and extend[ing] its reach even further. Our 
ultimate political objective is to control both houses of the 
state legislature and the governor's mansion.'' \197\ 
Originally, Abramoff had assured the Tribe that the database 
that it first paid CCS for in connection with its compact 
renegotiations with the State of Louisiana ``can be used for 
any political effort deemed appropriate by the tribal decision 
makers.'' \198\ But, now, Scanlon maintained that ``[i]n order 
[for the Tribe to achieve its political goals], we need to 
modify your political database into a statewide format.'' \199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
017923) (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
    \198\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscFin-0000371) (April 12, 
2001).
    \199\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Louisiana 
Political Budget Outline'' (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying 
Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his interview with Committee staff, then-Louisiana 
Coushatta Vice-Chairman William Worfel recalled having 
discussed this database with Scanlon and Cathcart during a 
meeting at Scanlon's office in Washington, D.C., well after the 
date of that memorandum.\200\ During that meeting in 2003, 
Scanlon and Cathcart showed Worfel a list of vendors and their 
contact information, which the Tribe had provided to 
Scanlon.\201\ According to Worfel, Scanlon and Cathcart said 
that the database also contained information about other 
companies with which these vendors did business; those 
companies' political connections, in particular, ``whether they 
were Republican or Democrat''; and information about the 
vendors' ``friends'' in various state legislatures.\202\ Worfel 
also recalled that the two said that, with respect to the 
vendors' employees, the databases contained contact, voter 
registration, and political affiliation information.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 14, 2005).
    \201\ Id.
    \202\ Id.
    \203\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel also testified that Scanlon and Cathcart said that 
the database included data regarding past State races: each 
candidate's name, district, party affiliation, results of 
previous races, and the length of service in the State 
legislature.\204\ Yet, the only information that they showed 
him was the election results in the district.\205\ Worfel also 
remembers that Scanlon and Cathcart told him that they could 
pull up opposition research data, but didn't do so.\206\ Having 
presented their database to Worfel, Scanlon said he could beat 
any candidate with ``anybody.'' \207\ Worfel testified that 
both Scanlon and Cathcart told him that, with this database, 
``you can control the destiny of the Coushatta Tribe and 
politics in Louisiana.'' \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\ Id.
    \205\ Id.
    \206\ Id.
    \207\ Id.
    \208\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon's proposed use of elaborate databases was also 
prominent in political programs that he proposed to the Saginaw 
Chippewa, called ``Operation Redwing.'' According to drafts of 
this proposal that he likely presented to the Tribe, ``Our 
first step [to developing a successful political strategy] is 
to tap into your natural political resources and integrate them 
into a custom-built political database.'' \209\ The proposal 
went on to describe a ``grassroots database'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the 
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in 
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).

        [CCS] will gather lists of your vendors, employees, 
        tribal members etc. (if you approve, customer lists), 
        and we will import those lists into your new database. 
        Our computer program will match the individuals or 
        businesses with addresses, phone numbers, political 
        registrations and e-mail addresses, and then sort them 
        by election districts. The districts run from U.S. 
        Senator down to school board and once completed, you 
        can tap into this database and mobilize your supporters 
        in ANY election, or on any issue of your choosing.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\ Id. (emphasis in original).

    Regarding a ``Qualitative [that is, opposition] Research 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Database,'' the proposal stated the following:

        This custom built database acts as the information 
        center of Operation Red Wing. [sic] Over the next six 
        weeks, our team will gather qualitative information on 
        any entity who can be classified as opposition and 
        enter it into this database. The research will include 
        nearly every piece of information on the opposition as 
        you can imagine. Once gathered, it is then sorted by 
        subject matter and made retrievable by a phrase search. 
        The information can then be instantly disseminated to 
        any audience we choose such as our universe of 
        supporters, the press, third party [sic] interest 
        groups or other interested parties.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \211\ Id.

    According to the ``Operation Redwing'' proposal, ``the 
[Saginaw Chippewa] tribe will have built a grassroots army of 
over 50,000 real voters that it can call on for offensive or 
defensive political efforts.'' \212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The language regarding the database set forth in a Scanlon 
proposal called ``Operation Open Doors,'' which he and Scanlon 
presented to the Tigua, is almost identical to what was 
proposed in ``Operation Redwing'' for the Saginaw 
Chippewa.\213\ Scanlon's asking price for ``Operation Redwing'' 
was $4,207,000 \214\ and for ``Operation Open Doors,'' 
$5,400,000.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\ A full description of relevant events relating to the Tigua 
is contained supra in Part 1, Chapter 5, ``Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.''
    \214\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the 
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in 
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).
    \215\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc 
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076138-150) (February 18, 
2002) (attaching ``Operation Open Doors'' proposal); Capitol Campaign 
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (undated) (entitled 
``Tigua Action Plan--Cost Breakout--Talking Points'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The foregoing accords with the recollection of former 
Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief David Otto, who told staff that 
Scanlon pitched that Tribe on his database about a week after 
the election of the Slate of Eight.\216\ Otto recalled that 
Abramoff was also in attendance.\217\ During his interview with 
staff, Otto recalled that Scanlon similarly insisted that the 
Tribe needed his database to assert influence on the state 
level, conduct writing campaigns, and to oppose 
competitors.\218\ Otto also remembered Scanlon's saying that 
the database was ``customized'' and that the software would 
specifically be built for the Tribe.\219\ Additionally, Otto 
stated that Scanlon cited the need to do mass mailings to write 
to members of Congress to prevent gaming competition in the 
area.\220\ According to Otto, Scanlon represented that his 
company created and maintained the database.\221\ On or about 
January 4, 2002, the Tribal Council voted to hire Scanlon to 
create the database for about $1.85 million.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \216\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004). As described supra 
in Part 1, Chapter 3, ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,'' Section D, 
``Slate of Eight--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan Horse,'' the Slate of 
Eight was a slate of candidates whose campaigns for the Saginaw 
Chippewa Tribal Council Scanlon and Abramoff supported, in 
contemplation of, or in exchange for, future business with the Tribe.
    \217\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \218\ Id.
    \219\ Id.
    \220\ Id.
    \221\ Id.
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Otto recalled working with Cathcart at CCS, to build up the 
database with lists of the Tribe's employees and members.\223\ 
This was part of an ``organizational phase,'' for which all of 
the subject Tribes paid CCS millions. When Scanlon finally 
showed the program to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council, he 
said it would start a massive campaign.\224\ All of the people 
on the lists provided by the Tribe would be contacted and told 
to write specific lawmakers, telling them they opposed 
legislation hostile to the Tribe's interests.\225\ Otto recalls 
Scanlon saying that this database would generate massive phone 
call and letter campaigns.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ Id.
    \224\ Id.
    \225\ Id.
    \226\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At a subsequent meeting, Otto was shown the database.\227\ 
Otto recalled that Cathcart did some talking, as did another 
CCS associate, David Flaherty.\228\ He remembered that another 
CCS associate named Amy Biederman was also in attendance but 
did not speak much during the meeting.\229\ When Otto saw the 
database, which was presented on a laptop, he thought ``we 
spent millions of dollars for something a college kid could 
do.'' \230\ He did not think it was worth millions of 
dollars.\231\ Otto assumed that the Tribe had immediate access 
to the database.\232\ But, he later learned the Tribe needed to 
pay more money to CCS.\233\ In fact, Otto believes that the 
Tribe ultimately spent about $4.1 million to build the database 
and another $3.5 million or so to use it.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Id.
    \228\ Id.
    \229\ Id.
    \230\ Id.
    \231\ Id.
    \232\ Id.
    \233\ Id.
    \234\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, when Abramoff and Scanlon first met with the 
Tigua, Scanlon explained grassroots campaigns and, in 
particular, how he could get thousands of telephone calls to 
flood ``a senator's office, or even the President's office.'' 
\235\ Against that backdrop, he and Abramoff proposed a 
nationwide political campaign for the Tribe.\236\ To 
demonstrate what they had in mind, they brought a laptop with a 
database similar to what they were proposing to build for the 
Tigua.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \236\ Id.
    \237\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff noted, ``my part is easy; the hard part is keeping 
this from being undone.'' \238\ He then explained how once the 
law (with the Tigua-related provision) is printed, ``someone's 
going to know it and that's where Mike comes in.'' \239\ In 
that context, Abramoff described Scanlon's role as a 
``submarine'': once the bill passed, Scanlon's ``submarine'' 
would emerge and ``fire missiles'' at opponents, who try to 
repeal the Tigua provision.\240\ With Abramoff having 
characterized Scanlon as ``expensive but worth it,'' \241\ 
Scanlon explained that he would implement this ``submarine 
strategy'' through the database that he was supposedly going to 
build for the tribe.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \238\ Id.
    \239\ Id.
    \240\ Id.
    \241\ Id.
    \242\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & 
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas, in El Paso, 
Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, 
Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon apparently designated his ``right-hand man,'' 
Christopher Cathcart, to serve as his point of contract with 
the Tribe.\243\ Working with Cathcart on the Tribe's behalf was 
Tribal spokesperson Marc Schwartz.\244\ Schwartz believed that 
he may have had as many as 20 to 25 conversations with 
Cathcart.\245\ In his interview with Committee staff, Schwartz 
recalled Cathcart had described the database as ``very 
customized.'' \246\ He also recalled that Cathcart had said 
that Scanlon had ``six people working day and night to get the 
system up and running'' and a ``stable'' of graphic 
artists.\247\ Schwartz also remembered asking Cathcart how many 
people were working for Scanlon's company.\248\ In response, 
Schwartz recalled, Cathcart said ``dozens'' and described 
Scanlon's company to Schwartz as ``absolute studs.'' \249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \243\ See Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
    \244\ Id.
    \245\ Id.
    \246\ Id.
    \247\ Id.
    \248\ Id.
    \249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From Cathcart's presentation, which probably occurred 
sometime in Spring 2002, Schwartz came away thinking that 
Scanlon's organization was huge and that his company had done a 
number of these types of behind-the-scenes projects 
before.\250\ According to Schwartz, Cathcart never mentioned 
that Scanlon had, or planned to use, outside vendors.\251\ 
Given Abramoff's ``absolute, categorical'' insistence on 
secrecy with the Tigua, Schwartz would have been very concerned 
about Scanlon's using outside vendors on the database 
project.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\ Id.
    \251\ Id.
    \252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In hindsight, Schwartz believes that Cathcart lied about 
the following: (1) the database was not customized; (2) Scanlon 
did not have ``dozens'' of employees working on the database; 
and (3) Scanlon did not have a ``stable'' of graphic 
artists.\253\ Schwartz also believes that various 
representations that Cathcart made about the database's 
functionality were false.\254\ After having seen the database 
subsequently, Schwartz considered it ``extremely 
unremarkable.'' \255\ In his view, there was ``no way'' that 
the database required ``six people working day-and-night'' or 
that ``the database was worth millions.'' \256\ But, the Tribe 
had already paid CCS $4,200,000.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\ Id.
    \254\ Id.
    \255\ Id.
    \256\ Id.
    \257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2002, the Pueblo of Sandia met with Cathcart at 
CCS' Washington office to view its database and was equally 
unimpressed: not only by the database's functionality but also 
the fact that it appeared to capture only the employee and 
vendor lists that the Tribe provided CCS.\258\ The database was 
not, in the view of the tribal representatives who reviewed it 
at the time, worth anything close to the almost $2 million that 
the Tribe had paid for it.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \258\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \259\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oral representations made by Scanlon that he apparently 
made to Tribal representatives, in particular, Schwartz, Otto 
and Worfel, about having ``built'' the database is reflected in 
a document entitled ``The Coushatta Political Program,'' dated 
June 26, 2001.\260\ In a section entitled, ``What We Have 
Built,'' Scanlon stated, ``We have constructed a state-of-the-
art political database containing roughly 20,000 individuals 
who will take action on behalf of the Tribe.'' \261\ It is also 
reflected in the minutes of an Agua Caliente Tribal Council 
meeting during which Scanlon and Abramoff pitched the 
database.\262\ There, Scanlon further stated, ``Then my job is 
to have there [sic] voices ... heard[.] How do we do that[?] 
Several different ways[.] [O]ne [is to] start with [a] custom[-
]built database which I designed myself[.] [W]hat this database 
does[--]it is a political database and takes raw data such as 
employees--takes raw data and we insert that data into our 
system soon to become your system if we work together ...'' 
\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\ Louisiana Coushatta document production (no Bates number) 
(June 26, 2001) (entitled, ``The Coushatta Political Program,'' by 
Michael Scanlon).
    \261\ Id.
    \262\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled 
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'') 
(July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).
    \263\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon also described the grassroots database as ``custom 
built'' in a draft of the ``Agua Caliente Global Political 
Strategy,'' dated July 8, 2002.\264\ In fact, in that document, 
Scanlon told the Tribe that ``[CCS] will immediately begin 
acquiring the computer hardware, software and design the 
computer that houses your database.'' \265\ To ``organize'' and 
implement this strategy, Scanlon sought from the Agua Caliente 
$5,400,000 and an additional set-aside of $2,000,000.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \264\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy'') 
(undated).
    \265\ Id.
    \266\ Id. See Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon Gould Public 
Affairs, to the Honorable Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians (July 9, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. The Facts
    In truth, Scanlon's company neither built nor designed 
these databases.\267\ In fact, Scanlon merely licensed a 
database actually created by a vendor named Democracy Data & 
Communications (``DDC'').\268\ In instances where CCS charged 
Tribes for DDC's databases, DDC developed them to help CCS 
conduct grassroots campaigns on the Tribes' behalf.\269\ In 
these cases, CCS supplied DDC with information, such as 
membership rosters and vendor information, that CCS obtained 
from its Tribal clients.\270\ Then, using its own proprietary 
software and network design, DDC helped CCS use that 
information for grassroots purposes--to create mass emails, 
letters, faxes, etc.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \267\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \268\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \269\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \270\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \271\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In other words, DDC, rather than CCS, built, updated and 
maintained those databases, for which CCS charged its tribal 
clients millions of dollars.\272\ Typically, Scanlon charged 
each of the Tribes at least $1,000,000 just for putting the 
database together; this was called the ``organizational 
phase.'' \273\ But, in truth, all the work that DDC did on each 
of the databases it developed, cost Scanlon a fraction of that 
amount. For example, all the work that DDC did for the 
Louisiana Coushatta's database (from May 2001 through December 
2003) cost CCS only $104,000.\274\ Notably, in his interview 
with Committee staff on the Tigua, Scanlon's right-hand man, 
Christopher Cathcart, admitted that the Tribe ``got nowhere 
near [the] $1.8 million [it paid] for the organizational 
phase.'' \275\ He also conceded that the Tigua's database was 
not customized.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \273\ See, e.g., Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287) (July 
24, 2002) (Letter from Michael P. Scanlon, Scanlon Gould Public 
Affairs, to Chairman Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of Cauhilla 
Indians, July 24, 2002) (describing organizational phase as 
``[i]nclud[ing] acquisition and design of hardware and software on 
behalf of the Tribe, data matching, grassroots development, online 
applications and political modifications''). For this, Scanlon charged 
the Agua Caliente $1,875,000. Id. See also Email from Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig, to Marc Schwartz, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas 
(GTG-E000076138-150) (February 18, 2002) (attaching ``Operation Open 
Doors'' and describing organizational phase similarly). For this, 
Scanlon charged the Tigua $1,875,000. Id.
    \274\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \275\ Interview with Christopher Cathcart, former associate, 
Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (November 4, 2004).
    \276\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DDC President B.R. McConnon testified that, when compared 
with DDC's other clients paying similar prices and using 
similar services, there was actually ``a very low level of 
activity'' on the CCS account that were maintained for CCS' 
tribal clients.\277\ Generally, McConnon observed, customers 
who have such a low level of usage tend to shut off the 
account.\278\ McConnon recalled that CCS used DDC's services so 
sparingly, ``it got to be a running joke in the office.'' \279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \277\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \278\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \279\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In cases not involving DDC databases, it appears that CCS 
took DDC's proprietary network design; provided that design to 
another vendor, Visual Impact Productions (``VIP''); and 
directed VIP to develop databases designed to mimic DDC's 
product. And, in those cases, it appears that CCS charged those 
Tribes millions of dollars for the development, maintenance, 
and use of those databases.
    One of those databases was used by CCS for the Pueblo of 
Sandia. Apparently, a version of this database was also used by 
CCS for the Louisiana Coushatta after December 2003. When shown 
these databases during his deposition, McConnon testified that 
CCS violated the terms of its licensing agreement when it took 
the design of the database that his company originally created 
for the Louisiana Coushatta and used it to develop another 
system that was meant to look like his company's database.\280\ 
McConnon is correct: an email between VIP employee Charles 
Trout and CCS' Cathcart, dated August 27, 2003, reflects that 
Trout ``reviewed the Democracy Direct software'' and analyzed 
the ``Democracy Direct application.'' \281\ Having done so, 
Trout told Cathcart, ``[F]or ease of use I have attempted to 
mimic the interface of the desktop app with the online app. For 
the most part, they will be the same so the user will be able 
to use both without re-learning the interface.'' \282\ Trout 
noted, ``I remember that your goal was to buy a laptop and have 
us install the application on it before delivery to the 
client.'' \283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \280\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \281\ Email between Charles Trout, Visual Impact Productions, and 
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``democracy direct 
feates [sic]/functionality'' (no Bates number) (August 27, 2003).
    \282\ Id.
    \283\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having examined VIP's database, McConnon opined that it was 
far less capable than his company's.\284\ In particular, 
McConnon noted that the quality of the data contained in the 
VIP system seemed inferior to DDC's; its searching capability 
was far less extensive than DDC's; its presentation of 
information was very limited; it seemed not to contain as much 
information as DDC's, which is important to implement a more 
targeted, efficient grassroots program; and the quality of the 
keypunching seemed very inferior.\285\ McConnon agreed that 
someone at CCS apparently showed the other vendor the ``access 
page'' of his company's database.\286\ McConnon confirmed that 
this would be a violation of the licensing agreement that 
Scanlon executed with DDC.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \285\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \286\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \287\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For a version of this database, the Pueblo of Sandia paid 
Scanlon $1,857,000.\288\ That amount corresponds to elements of 
a proposal drafted by Scanlon for the Tribe relating to 
``acquisition and design of hardware and software, data 
matching, grassroots development, online applications and 
political modifications.'' \289\ However, in actuality, Scanlon 
never provided those services. In the ordinary course of 
business, those services would have been provided--at a far 
lesser cost--by one of Scanlon's vendors. In this case, 
McConnon opined that this database, apparently produced by VIP, 
was worth nothing near $1,857,000; it was probably worth, at 
the very most, about $20,000.\290\ Whether the database came 
from DDC or VIP, it appears that the representation that CCS 
``constructed'' a database was false.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \288\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of 
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview 
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in 
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
    \289\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (March 14, 2002) (Draft Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon 
Gould, to Governor Stuwart Paisano, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico).
    \290\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
    \291\ Some may assert that the reference to a ``database'' referred 
to in, for example, the ``The Coushatta Political Program'' document 
described above, refers to lists derived from communications programs 
that CCS implemented for the Louisiana Coushatta. Nonetheless, if so, 
the document's reference to that database as ``state-of-the-art'' would 
be false. And, if it refers to the database provided by DDC (or VIP), 
the statement would be false, where as of that particular document's 
date, DDC had not yet provided CCS with a political database. Interview 
of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of B.R. McConnon, 
president, Democracy Data & Communications, in Washington, D.C. 
(September 28, 2005). As of the date of the document, on the Louisiana 
Coushatta account, DDC only warehoused data, that is, provide a very 
basic list-management program. Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, 
Democracy Data & Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); 
Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, 
in Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The draft document goes further: ``We have compiled a 
state-of-the-art qualitative research database, which can 
identify allies and adversaries by `quote.' '' \292\ However, 
the Committee has seen no evidence that DDC, or any other 
vendor for that matter, ever provided CCS with such a database. 
Nor has the Committee seen any evidence that CCS developed such 
a database internally. Therefore, that statement too appears to 
be false.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \292\ Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon Gould, to Governor 
Stuwart Paisano, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (March 14, 2002) 
(draft).
    \293\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & 
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of 
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots Organizations

    Among the things that CCS promised to do for its Tribal 
Clients was to mobilize, in particular, Christian conservatives 
and environmental activists to oppose the expansion of gaming 
in areas that would infringe on their market share. Several 
documents describe exactly what Scanlon had in mind. In a 
document entitled ``Louisiana Political Budget Outline,'' dated 
October 23, 2001, Scanlon told a representative of the 
Louisiana Coushatta, ``We plan to use three forms of 
communications to mobilize and win these battles. Phones, mail 
and Christian radio.'' \294\ He continued, ``Our mission is to 
get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to 
speak out AGAINST something.'' \295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
017923) (October 23, 2001).
    \295\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Scanlon, ``To that end, your money is best 
spent finding them and communicating with them on using the 
modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put we 
want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make 
sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past 
them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian 
right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone 
trees.'' \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \296\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to other documents in the Committee's possession, 
Scanlon likewise promised the Saginaw Chippewa that it would 
repel threats to its market share by ``execut[ing] the 
following tactics'': grassroots mobilization of environmental 
activities; mobilization of anti-gaming activists; patch-
through phone calls to state and federal environmental 
protection agencies; direct mail; as well as mobilization of 
environmental and ``citizen groups.'' \297\ As described above, 
only a fraction of what the Tribes paid CCS went to the 
grassroots efforts promised by CCS. So, the question arises 
what did CCS in fact do to mobilize grassroots supporters?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \297\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this regard, it appears that Scanlon and his partner 
Abramoff originally relied on the efforts of Ralph Reed and 
other vendors to conduct these grassroots activities.\298\ 
However, at some point, it appears that Scanlon and Abramoff 
chose not to rely on Reed's efforts or pushed him out entirely, 
ostensibly to maximize their ``gimme five'' income. In fact, in 
a few cases, Scanlon used fictitious organizations to 
manipulate grassroots support among Christian conservatives and 
environmentally-minded voters. Accordingly, for a fraction of 
the cost associated with bona fide grassroots activities, 
Scanlon was able to convey to his clients the appearance that 
he was coalition-building or mobilizing support, when he was 
actually not doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \298\ A full discussion of these activities, and the degree to 
which Abramoff relied on them in support of their Tribal clients, is 
set forth above in Part 1, Chapter 1, ``Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians,'' and below in Part 2, Chapter 2, ``American International 
Center.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Aaron Stetter, a former associate at CCS, on 
several occasions Scanlon used fictitious grassroots 
organizations for the Saginaw Chippewa, in particular.\299\ 
During his deposition, Stetter remarked that the names of such 
organizations such as ``Concerned Citizens Against Gaming 
Expansion (``CCAGE''),'' ``Global Christian Outreach Network 
(``GCON''),'' and ``Michigan Environmental Group'' were ``just 
a title'' and to his knowledge not bona fide 
organizations.\300\ During her interview with staff, Abramoff 
and Scanlon's liaison with the Choctaw, Nell Rogers, stated 
that she believed that CCAGE and GCON were actual grassroots 
organizations working on the Tribe's projects.\301\ That was 
not the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \299\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
    \300\ Id.
    \301\ See Interview with Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stetter told Committee staff that he was required to create 
phone scripts that CCS would use for patch-through phone 
calls.\302\ When he prepared these scripts he ``would leave the 
line blank and then [the name of the organization] would either 
be added by [Cathcart or Scanlon] during the drafting process'' 
or he would receive an email ``saying, plug this word in.'' 
\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \302\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
    \303\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The pretensions that Scanlon used in mobilizing opposition 
to gaming initiatives that threatened his clients' market share 
is reflected in talking points that purport to describe the 
CCAGE.\304\ This document falsely describes the CCAGE as ``a 
watchdog for illegal gaming efforts in the United States.'' 
\305\ Furthermore, according to the document, ``[a]t the 
grassroots level, CCAGE draws attention to such efforts while 
educating the public on the dangers of gambling to families and 
communities.'' \306\ The document deceptively explains that the 
CCAGE targeted Louisiana because ``[Louisiana] is an affordable 
media market--our dollars stretch further and we felt we have a 
better shot at being effective, really making a difference.'' 
\307\ In fact, the document misleadingly states, ``We ... are 
not representing their competitors like Harrahs or Isle of 
Capri''; ``[we get] [n]o money from Harrahs, Isle of Capri or 
any other casinos''; and ``CCAGE is by no means bogus.'' \308\ 
Needless to say, these talking points do not mention that the 
CCAGE operated for the benefit of a gaming tribe. It is unclear 
what these talking points were used for. However, inasmuch as 
Scanlon may have used them to mobilize unwitting activists and 
voters as part of his grassroots strategy for the Louisiana 
Coushatta, they give rise to concern.
    Stetter also acknowledged that pursuant to instructions 
from Scanlon and/or Cathcart he set up several cell phones with 
area codes in states in which CCS was operating for its tribal 
clients.\309\ He then handed the phones over to Amy Biederman, 
another CCS associate.\310\ She kept a box of phones in her 
office with the name of each organization taped to the back of 
the respective phone, and depending on which phone rang, she 
answered with ``Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion,'' 
or with the name of one of the other fictitious 
organizations.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \304\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``CCAGE talking points'') (undated).
    \305\ Id.
    \306\ Id.
    \307\ Id.
    \308\ Id.
    \309\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
    \310\ See id.
    \311\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to using these bogus organizations for phone 
banking, Scanlon issued fliers under their names. Stetter 
recalled that early in his career with CCS he was directed by 
Scanlon to deliver a flier entitled ``GCON, Issue Focus 2002'' 
to ``each Member of the [Mississippi State] House and ... 
Senate.'' \312\ Stetter recalled that he stuffed these fliers 
in, among other places, the mailboxes of each state 
senator.\313\ One such flier listed the address at a Post 
Office in Flowwood, Mississippi. Stetter admitted that this too 
was bogus: ``[my] first order of business on this trip was to, 
one, set up a post office box somewhere in Mississippi ... and 
to activate a cell phone'' to delude the fliers' recipients 
that these were bona fide grassroots organizations.\314\ In 
fact, Stetter noted that he chose Flowwood simply because it 
was close to the airport where he arrived.\315\ Scanlon 
insisted that P.O. Boxes be set up in the states where CCS was 
operating.\316\ That flier listed Amy Biederman as the national 
director for the GCON. In his deposition, Stetter confirmed 
that Biederman was in fact not the national director for the 
GCON but merely another associate at CCS.\317\ Scanlon's right-
hand man, Christopher Cathcart, maintained in a Committee staff 
interview that this effort was merely intended to find out what 
opinion leaders thought of gaming.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \312\ Id.
    \313\ Id.
    \314\ Id.
    \315\ Id.
    \316\ See Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \317\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
    \318\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his interview with Committee staff, the head of 
Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying practice observed that 
using fictitious grassroots entities ``for cover'' is not 
uncommon.\319\ Specifically, he reflected, ``When the trial 
lawyers want to pass their constitutional amendment to, to 
ratchet down the doctors, they create a Coalition for Fairness 
in Medical Practice, and there's nothing--you can go into a 
state, in Topeka, Florida, and I can give you all the 527s and 
CCEs and the not-for-profits, and most of them we can tell you 
who funded which one of them ... because you know where the 
money is coming from.'' \320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \319\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \320\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``You know, the effort to save the greyhounds 
in Florida is an anti, is actually primarily funded by Disney 
and Universal to keep casinos out ...'' \321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \321\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While using bogus groups in furtherance of grassroots 
strategies may be common, Scanlon and Abramoff's use of them is 
distinguishable in that they were employed as part of Abramoff 
and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. In an interview with 
Committee staff, former CCS associate Brian Mann said that he 
thought that, for example, the letter-writing and signature-
gathering campaigns, many of which he helped lead or otherwise 
conduct in the name of such bogus organizations, were 
``fraudulent.'' \322\ He described them as ``flashes in the pan 
[that were designed] to appease [CCS'] clients.'' \323\ He 
regarded them as exercises that ``created face time'' and 
``scuttlebutt'' by ``send[ing] a few people out there to show 
them that we exist.'' \324\ With CCS associates collecting 
signatures ``on K-Mart or Walmart parking lots,'' Mann felt 
that those activities ``didn't amount to very much.'' \325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \322\ Interview of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 3, 2006).
    \323\ Id.
    \324\ Id.
    \325\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The preceding sections of this Chapter set forth Abramoff 
and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme, as it related to CCS, and 
describe how Abramoff and Scanlon furthered that scheme by 
promoting Scanlon's grassroots business--only after concealing 
their financial relationship from the Tribes. This Chapter has 
also set forth the basis of the Committee's conclusion that 
those Tribes received little of the intended benefit for the 
$66 million that they paid CCS from 2001 through 2003.

                             E. CONCLUSION

    As a general proposition, Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme 
five'' scheme involved getting each of the Tribes to hire 
Scanlon as their grassroots specialist; dramatically 
overcharging them for grassroots and related activities; 
setting aside for themselves a percentage of what the Tribes 
paid at a grossly inflated rate--a rate wholly unrelated to the 
actual cost of services provided; and using the remaining 
fraction to reimburse scores of vendors that could help them 
maintain vis-a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of 
competence.
    In all cases, secrecy was key. Only by keeping their 
financial arrangement secret could they execute the strategies 
that they devised to secure the Tribes as clients. In some 
cases, they did so by insinuating themselves in tribal council 
elections and assisting with the campaigns of candidates who 
were calculated to support their proposals. In other cases, 
Abramoff and Scanlon were even more aggressive. In one example, 
they helped shut down the casino of one particularly 
underprivileged Tribe, only to pitch their services 
afterwards--for a multimillion dollar premium--to help that 
same Tribe, made desperate by their efforts, reopen it.
    Typically, the most expensive element of Scanlon's 
proposals to the Tribes related to an elaborate political 
database. But, in all cases, it appears that the degree to 
which Scanlon marked-up his actual costs was unconscionable. 
For example, while Scanlon told the Louisiana Coushatta that 
their ``political'' database would cost $1,345,000, he ended up 
paying the vendor that actually developed, operated and 
maintained that database about $104,560. The dramatic mark-ups 
were intended to accommodate Scanlon's secret 50/50 split with 
Abramoff.
    In total, six tribes paid CCS at least $66 million over the 
three-year period. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe 
paid CCS as follows: the Choctaw, $14,745,650; the Louisiana 
Coushatta, $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa, $10,007,000; the 
Agua Caliente, $7,200,000; the Tigua, $4,200,000; and the 
Pueblo of Sandia, $2,750,000. Of that $66 million, Abramoff 
secretly collected from Scanlon, through (among other entities) 
an entity called Kaygold, about $24 million. This constituted 
about one-half of Scanlon's total profit from the Tribes.
    As described above in detail, most of the money that the 
Tribes paid Scanlon appears to have been used by Scanlon and 
Abramoff for purely personal purposes--purposes unintended by 
the Tribes. Generally, Abramoff seems to have used his share of 
the proceeds he received from Scanlon to float his restaurant 
ventures and, through the CAF, operate his Jewish boys' school 
in Maryland. Likewise, Scanlon seems to have used his share to 
purchase real estate and other investments. Given the 
foregoing, the Committee finds that most of the Tribes received 
little of the intended benefit for the significant sums they 
paid to Scanlon.
                               CHAPTER II

                     AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER

        Ben, I need to set up a web site for the American 
        International Center, which should have all sorts of 
        goodies to make it look real ... Can you create 
        something?

    Email from Jack Abramoff to Benjamin Mackler, Mack Design, 
January 19, 2002

        Chairman McCain: [Scanlon] approached you in some way?
        Mr. Grosh: A phone call.
        Chairman McCain: And said?
        Mr. Grosh: Do you want to be head of an international 
        corporation. [Laughter] It is a hard one to turn down. 
        [Laughter]

Committee Chairman McCain and former Rehoboth Beach lifeguard 
David Grosh, Committee Hearing, June 22, 2005

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    In the course of its hearings over the last two years, the 
Committee preliminarily found that the American International 
Center (``AIC''), a supposed think tank based in Rehoboth 
Beach, Delaware, and headed by two of Scanlon's beach buddies, 
was not what it purported to be. In actuality, AIC was one of 
several entities owned or controlled by Michael Scanlon or Jack 
Abramoff that they used as part of their ``gimme five'' 
scheme--their secret scheme to wrongfully divert millions of 
dollars in fees paid by their Tribal clients for purely 
personal use. However, from 2001 through 2003, AIC was itself 
Abramoff's ninth biggest lobbying client, reportedly paying him 
and his employer about $1.7 million in lobbying fees.\1\ In 
2002 alone, AIC reportedly paid Greenberg Traurig $840,000, 
making it the Firm's fifth largest client that year.\2\ Until 
the Committee's hearings, the nature and business of AIC 
remained elusive: one industry observer described it at the 
time as ``a client with interests that are hard to decipher.'' 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Brody Mullins, Abramoff Shops Himself on K Street, Roll Call, 
March 23, 2004.
    \2\ Shawn Zeller, Lobbying & Law--K Street Cooled Off in 2002, 
National Journal, April 19, 2003.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In court filings associated with their federal criminal 
pleas, Abramoff and Scanlon admitted that they used AIC (and 
other Scanlon-controlled entities) to receive funds for work 
done by another Scanlon entity, called Capitol Campaign 
Strategies (``CCS'').\4\ Moreover, recently appearing before 
the Committee, a representative of Greenberg Traurig described 
AIC more plainly as ``a sham'' and merely ``a front for Mr. 
Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon to collect money.'' \5\ Given the 
information the Committee has obtained during its 
investigation, the Committee shares that conclusion. Below, the 
Committee explains why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. 
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea 
Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 4, U.S. v. Jack A. 
Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
    \5\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 22 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred 
Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs Practice, Greenberg 
Traurig).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After providing background on how AIC was started and how 
it was used as a conduit to further the Tribes' grassroots 
strategies, this Chapter will describe how Abramoff and Scanlon 
used AIC to further their ``gimme five'' scheme, secretly 
splitting fees paid by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
(``Louisiana Coushatta'') and, to a lesser extent, the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'').

               B. A DAY AT THE BEACH--HOW AIC WAS STARTED

    AIC was apparently started in early 2001.\6\ In an 
interview with Committee staff, Christopher Cathcart, who 
ultimately served as Scanlon's most senior and highest-paid 
assistant, described AIC as ``a joint project'' between Scanlon 
and Abramoff.\7\ Otherwise, Cathcart claims, he did not know 
what role Abramoff had in AIC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Early in 2001, Scanlon called his long-time friend and 
fellow lifeguard David Grosh and asked him whether he wanted to 
serve as a director of an ``international corporation.'' \9\ 
Grosh, who knew quite well that his background was unsuited for 
such a position, thought that this was a joke but finally 
agreed: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \10\ Id.

        Chairman McCain: [Scanlon] approached you in some way?
        Mr. Grosh: A phone call.
        Chairman McCain: And said?
        Mr. Grosh: Do you want to be head of an international 
        corporation. [Laughter] It is a hard one to turn down. 
        [Laughter].\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 35 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of David 
Grosh, former director, American International Center).

    Scanlon then offered Grosh $500 per month to serve as a 
director of AIC.\12\ At some point, Grosh asked Scanlon why he 
selected him.\13\ According to Grosh, Scanlon answered, 
``because you are a political unknown.'' \14\ When Grosh asked 
Scanlon what AIC would do, Grosh recalled, Scanlon said that it 
``would have research done by subcontractors in support of a 
particular political objective and would deliver the research 
to different groups and people.'' \15\ Notably, Grosh also 
recalled Scanlon mentioning that he had experience ``running 
campaigns'' in countries in Asia and Central America.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grosh served as a director of AIC from February through 
September 2001.\17\ In his interview with Committee staff, he 
readily conceded that his professional and educational 
background were completely unrelated to the purported mission 
of AIC of ``enhancing the methods of empowerment for 
territories, commonwealths and sovereign nations in the 
possession of and within the United States.'' \18\ He also 
conceded that his background did not qualify him to serve on 
the board of ``an international think tank.'' \19\ Throughout 
the time that Grosh served as a director of AIC, he thought 
that ``this was some silly game that Scanlon was playing.'' 
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \18\ Id.; American International Center (no longer available) 
 (setting forth AIC mission 
statement).
    \19\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between February and July 2001, ``AIC had no office; AIC's 
business address was the beach house that [Grosh] and [yoga 
instructor Brian Mann] rented'' in Rehoboth Beach.\21\ In 
response to a question posed during a Committee hearing about 
what AIC did, Grosh responded that during the four or five 
months when he was ``involved'' with AIC, ``we only rented the 
first floor of a house and installed some computers''.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id. At least one other entity owned or controlled by Scanlon, 
called the Scanlon Foundation for Kids, was later run out of this 
office. Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005). According 
to Mann, Scanlon intended the Foundation, which had no employees or 
physical assets but may have received outside contributions, for only 
two things: (1) buy books and school supplies for unprivileged children 
from a particular school and (2) buy, in conjunction with the YMCA, 
Christmas presents for a local ``economically deprived'' community. Id.
    \22\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 35 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of David 
Grosh, former director, American International Center). At some point, 
Scanlon had a telephone installed that he instructed Grosh never to 
answer. See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Late in 2001 or early in 2002, Scanlon started talking to 
Mann about possibly working for him.\23\ Mann was Grosh's 
house-mate at the time.\24\ In his deposition, Mann recalls 
that Scanlon was looking for office space, so Mann set him up 
with his landlord regarding empty space below where he 
lived.\25\ After Mann started working for Scanlon, he came to 
learn that Scanlon did public relations work for Indian 
casinos.\26\ In particular, Scanlon claimed he conducted 
projects intended to help those Tribes with their market 
share.\27\ In furtherance of these projects, Mann began to 
research, and distribute to other Scanlon employees, articles 
regarding Scanlon's Tribal clients.\28\ In fact, according to 
Mann, ``researching articles is all [he] was doing for AIC or 
CCS.'' \29\ He was also given the authority to sign checks on 
behalf of AIC.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview 
of David Grosh, former director, American International Center, in 
Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \24\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview 
of David Grosh, former director, American International Center, in 
Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \25\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grosh recalled that Scanlon enticed Mann and him to work 
for AIC by promising, among other things, that AIC would pay 
for both to go surfing at the island of St. Barts.\31\ Grosh 
never took that trip.\32\ But, Scanlon paid for Mann to fly to 
St. Barts about four times.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grosh and Mann, who served as AIC's only directors, 
recalled that AIC had fewer than five meetings of its board--
all of which occurred in 2001.\34\ Grosh recalled that Scanlon 
characterized those meetings as ``a paperwork formality''.\35\ 
Grosh did not recall what, if any, business was discussed at 
those meetings: ``There was nothing to discuss ... As far as I 
knew, AIC had no business to discuss.'' \36\ Referring to AIC's 
being held out as an international think tank, Grosh quipped, 
``If AIC was a think tank, I sure don't know what we were 
thinking about.'' \37\ Mann could only recall discussing 
Scanlon's acquiring, and his own cleaning, office space for 
AIC, and Grosh's departure from the organization.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005); See also 
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International 
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
    \35\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Records obtained by the Committee indicate that AIC held 
only two board meetings--on September 30 and October 30, 
2001.\39\ Apparently, the ``business'' they discussed included 
Grosh's ``relinquish[ing] his position'' with AIC and 
installing Mann as the ``Director of day to day [sic] 
operations of AIC'', for which he was to receive $1500 a 
month.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/CCS 
023748-49) (September 30, 2001); Capitol Campaign Strategies document 
production (BB/AIC 000634) (October 30, 2001).
    \40\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/CCS 
023748) (September 30, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By September 2001, Grosh concluded that ``something was not 
quite right'': Scanlon had bought two houses in Rehoboth--both 
of which costs millions of dollars.\41\ Grosh recalls, 
``Scanlon was always throwing around money; no one makes that 
much money over such a short period of time.'' \42\ Grosh was 
also uncomfortable with the aspect of Scanlon's business that 
related to Indian gaming.\43\ Therefore, Grosh decided to 
leave.\44\ For his ``services,'' Grosh was compensated in total 
$2,500 to $3,000.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Grosh left AIC, Mann was, as far as he knew, its only 
employee.\46\ In fact, according to Mann, no one other than 
Grosh and himself was ever paid by AIC as an employee.\47\ 
Moreover, the only time Mann recalled Grosh ``ever doing 
anything was helping me literally put a desk together.'' \48\ 
Otherwise, he had ``no idea'' what Grosh did.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mann, who Scanlon also publicly held out as a director of 
AIC, was (and remains) unsure about exactly what AIC did.\50\ 
Mann testified that ``[a]ll [he] knew was that [he] was 
providing newspaper clips,'' as instructed.\51\ Mann readily 
conceded that his professional and educational background, like 
Grosh's, were completely unrelated to the purported mission of 
AIC.\52\ Mann was at AIC until late 2002--at which time he 
started working for CCS and, subsequently, for other Scanlon-
controlled entities including Scanlon Venture Capital (``SVC'') 
and Scanlon Capital Management (``SCM'').\53\ Convinced that 
Scanlon was ``a fraud,'' Mann stopped working for SCM in 
October 2005.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Christopher Cathcart, who served as Scanlon's top assistant 
and was therefore in a position to opine about AIC with 
authority, said he considered AIC an alter ego of Scanlon.\55\ 
Mann agreed that, although he was getting paid by AIC, he was 
in fact working for Scanlon.\56\ In his mind, the two were the 
same.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \56\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        C. MAKING IT LOOK REAL--ABRAMOFF HAS AIC POST A WEBSITE

    Despite Cathcart's professed understanding of the nature of 
AIC, he and Abramoff worked together to, among other things, 
develop its website, apparently to make AIC look like a 
legitimate, established organization. Early in 2002, Scanlon 
asked Cathcart and Amy Biederman, another CCS associate, to 
help develop a website for AIC.\58\ While Cathcart and 
Biederman worked on the website's content, Abramoff had an 
outside contractor program and design it.\59\ Indeed, it 
appears that Abramoff may have come up with the idea for the 
website--reaching out to a contractor named Benjamin Mackler of 
MackDesign Studios about the prospect of developing it, on 
January 19, 2002:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \59\ Id.

        Ben, I need to set up a web site for the American 
        International Center, which should have all sorts of 
        goodies to make it look real. It should have links to 
        various other think tanks, including ISIS in Malaysia, 
        the statehood movement in Puerto Rico, Heritage, 
        Americans for Tax Reform, National Center for Public 
        Policy Research, Cato Institute, Toward Tradition. Can 
        you create something? What would the budget be? We'd 
        need a section about ``who we are'', ``contact us'', 
        our leadership, etc.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ben 
Mackler, Mack Design (no Bates number) (January 19, 2002) (emphasis 
added).

    In response to a proposal from Mackler to develop a website 
for $2,750, Abramoff asked, ``[C]an you get things moving? Can 
you see what kind of domain name you can get: AIC.org, or 
AmericanInternationalCenter.org?'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mackler returned with a request to register a domain name 
for AIC and questions about the website's design. In response, 
Abramoff answered, ``Yes to all.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequently, he instructed Mackler to call Scanlon, who in 
turn told Mackler to contact Cathcart. Mackler turned again to 
Abramoff, saying that Scanlon chose a more expensive option for 
the website.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff replied, ``The 3500 option is fine with me. let's 
[sic] do it.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cathcart testified that ultimately he and Biederman spent 
only about an hour working on the website.\65\ Cathcart 
recalled that Scanlon provided him with some information that 
he used for the website, including that it was ``an 
international company'' with ``international clients''--namely 
Malaysia and Puerto Rico \66\. Cathcart believed that he may 
have been given some written material for the website.\67\ If 
so, he believed that it would have included the articles of 
incorporation, the bylaws, and other organizational 
documents.\68\ Cathcart likewise recalled not drafting a 
mission statement, which he said would have been provided to 
him.\69\ Otherwise, according to Cathcart, he and Biederman 
``didn't have much to go on.'' \70\ Cathcart noted that they 
gave Scanlon the text that they developed for final 
approval.\71\ On or about January 21, 2002, Abramoff apparently 
reached out to Cathcart about the website, with Cathcart 
responding, ``10-4. Should have most of the content tomorrow.'' 
\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Email between Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) 
(January 31-February 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On a request from either Scanlon or Abramoff, on February 
4, 2002, Cathcart forwarded a final copy of the text to 
Abramoff for comments and edits. Abramoff congratulated 
Cathcart, ``Thanks, Chris. I have seen it. great [sic] work. 
Did Mike [Scanlon] give you the list of items the firm wants 
regarding AIC?'' \73\ On February 13, 2002, Abramoff followed-
up with Cathcart to make sure that Mackler got paid.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (February 4, 
2002).
    \74\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (February 13, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its final form, the website set forth AIC's mission 
statement. It described AIC as ``a Delaware-based corporation 
with the global minded purpose of enhancing the methods of 
empowerment for territories, commonwealths, and sovereign 
nations in possession of and within the United States.'' \75\ 
In each of their depositions and interviews with Committee 
staff, Grosh, Mann and Cathcart said they had no idea what this 
meant.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ American International Center (no longer available) .
    \76\ See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005); 
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International 
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Christopher 
Cathcart, former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington, 
D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The website also touted AIC as (1) ``a premiere 
international think tank''; (2) ``determined to influence 
global paradigms in an increasingly complex world.''; (3) a 
``public policy foundation''; (4) founded ``under the high 
powered directorship of David A. Grosh and Brian J. Mann''; (5) 
``[w]hile only recently incorporated ... striving to advance 
the cause of greater international empowerment for many 
years''; (6) ``using 21st century technology and decades of 
experience to make the world a smaller place''; (7) ``bringing 
great minds together from all over the globe''; (8) ``seek[ing] 
to expand the parameters of international discourse in an 
effort to leverage the combined power of world intellect:''; 
and (9) comprised of an ``expert team.'' \77\ To the extent 
that Grosh, Mann and Cathcart could speak to the truth of each 
of those representations, each agreed that they were false.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ American International Center (no longer available) .
    \78\ See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American 
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005); 
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International 
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Christopher 
Cathcart, former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington, 
D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During his interview with Committee staff, Cathcart, who 
described his role at CCS through this period as a ``go-fer'' 
and doing ``research and stuff,'' \79\ admitted to being 
embarrassed about writing AIC's web page but noted that 
Biederman ``developed the puffery.'' \80\ Cathcart never 
thought a client would see AIC's website, although he never 
explained how the website would otherwise be used.\81\ 
According to Cathcart, ``[e]veryone who worked with AIC knew it 
was the same thing as Mike [Scanlon].'' \82\ In his interview 
with Committee staff, Cathcart claimed that he did not even 
know why Scanlon wanted a website.\83\ Cathcart claimed that he 
thought Scanlon wanted a website ``like he wanted the Range 
Rover.'' \84\ As described below, those Tribes that Abramoff 
and Scanlon directed to pay to and through AIC, did so to their 
detriment. Therefore, any role that Cathcart may have had in 
helping to facilitate payments by the Tribe to AIC, or to any 
other ``gimme five'' entity for that matter, may be an area 
ripe for further inquiry.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (November 5, 2004). Supposed 
AIC director Brian Mann and former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger 
Short maintained in their deposition and interview, respectively, that 
Cathcart was by no means a ``go-fer.'' Deposition of Brian Mann, former 
director, American International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 
2005); Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg 
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005). In fact, separately, 
both described Cathcart as Scanlon's ``right-hand man.'' Deposition of 
Brian Mann, former director, American International Center, in 
Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, 
former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 
2005) (limiting ``right hand man'' observation to CCS' work for 
Louisiana Coushatta). Mann also described Cathcart as ``the manager of 
the D.C. office'' and CCS' ``director of operations.'' Deposition of 
Brian Mann, former director, American International Center, in 
Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005). Tigua representative Marc Schwartz, 
who directly interacted with Cathcart on the Tribe's behalf, described 
Cathcart as Scanlon's ``gotta-make-what-Scanlon-sold, work'' guy. 
Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in 
Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004). Mann insisted that Cathcart 
``hired and fired'' and ``managed whatever client situations we had at 
the time--managed the D.C. office.'' Deposition of Brian Mann, former 
director, American International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 
2005). Moreover, Mann remembered Cathcart ``being the manager, being in 
charge of the office when Scanlon wasn't there, or even when Scanlon 
was there, I guess, directing the different folks to do what they 
needed to do.'' Id. Mann also recalled that Cathcart did ``a lot of 
client management, like he interacted with the Tribes directly, either 
through whatever contact people the Tribes had or the chiefs or whoever 
... that person may have been.'' Id. From his first-hand experience, 
Mann also ``assum[ed] [Cathcart had] a hand with Scanlon in coming up 
with [grassroots campaign] strategies and execution of those 
strategies.'' Id. Cathcart also provided Mann instruction and guidance 
on what he should be researching. Id. Mann agreed that ``when Scanlon 
wasn't around, [Cathcart] was The Man.'' Id. Mann's account is 
corroborated by, among other things, Cathcart's robust role in 
assisting the Slate of Eight's successful campaign for the Tribal 
Council of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, discussed in Part 1, 
Chapter 3, Section of this Report, entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of 
Michigan: `Slate of Eight'--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan Horse.'' 
Dramatic growth in Cathcart's responsibilities under Scanlon is 
reflected in the considerable increase in his compensation: in April 
2001, when Cathcart apparently started working with Scanlon, he drew a 
salary of $44,540 plus an additional $35,000 in bonus. Letter from 
Charles Leeper, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, to Pablo E. Carrillo, 
Chief Investigative Counsel, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
(November 12, 2004). But, by December 2003, when Cathcart left CCS, he 
received a salary of $105,000, plus a bonus approximating $390,000. Id. 
During his employment with Scanlon, Cathcart received a total of about 
$740,000 in compensation. See id.
    \80\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Other examples of such activities include Cathcart's providing 
the database ``access page'' that Democracy Data & Communications 
(``DDC'') designed for Capitol Campaign Strategies, to another vendor. 
As described above, that vendor apparently used that information, which 
was proprietary to DDC, to develop a far less functional database 
designed to mimic DDC's considerably more capable product. Scanlon 
``sold'' the less functional version to at least one of the Tribes for 
millions. Also, on May 1, 2003, as Abramoff and Scanlon's financial 
relationship was apparently waning, they schemed to deceive the 
Louisiana Coushatta into paying them a total of $2,000,000. In 
furtherance of that scheme, which they executed successfully, Scanlon 
had the Tribe pay an entity he controlled called Atlantic Research and 
Analysis (``ARA''). This transaction is discussed more fully in Part 2, 
Chapter 3, Section F, entitled ``Capital Athletic Foundation: In 2003 
Abramoff Funnels Tribal Money Through Conduits to CAF.'' Whether 
Cathcart knew, or should have known, that some of his activities were 
helping Abramoff and Scanlon further their ``gimme five'' scheme on the 
Tribes remains unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On at least one occasion, Abramoff's employer, Greenberg 
Traurig, apparently tried to get information about AIC. 
Sometime in 2002, the director of the firm's national lobbying 
practice, Fred Baggett, first heard about AIC.\86\ According to 
Baggett, Greenberg Traurig was ``to jointly represent [it] with 
a gentleman named Khaled Saffuri'' on ``Malaysian-related 
interests and issues.'' \87\ At that time, Baggett was unaware 
of who owned the company; Abramoff represented to him that AIC 
was ``an established Washington area-based think tank like ... 
the Heritage Center or any other number of think tanks.'' \88\ 
Abramoff also told Baggett that AIC ``had a number of interests 
and were involved in a broad range of issues. One of the issues 
that they were involved in and for which we were retained to 
assist them with were enhancing business, economic development 
opportunities in Malaysia, and that they were receiving funds 
from Malaysian business interests to further their and advance 
their, their efforts with the U.S. Government, and that's what, 
we were hired by AIC to assist them in that.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Id. (reflecting that Abramoff informed Baggett about AIC).
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At some point, Greenberg Traurig ``asked Jack to explain 
[the] AIC and the nature of the relationship'' to ``ensure that 
we [did] not have a problem [with the Foreign Agents 
Registrations Act (FARA)].'' \90\ In that context, it appears 
that Scanlon withheld important information regarding AIC from 
the firm. In fact, in a response to queries from Greenberg 
Traurig to AIC, on February 7, 2002, Scanlon directed Cathcart 
to ``[i]nsertr [sic] somewhere'': ``While Mr. Abnramoof [sic] 
and His [sic] team have been an unbeleivebal [sic] assest [sic] 
tou [sic] our organization, we feel that if as a vendor of ours 
if we are presented with such an unexplicalbe [sic] line of 
questioning again, we will unfortuantley [sic] review and vote 
on your continuing representation at our next board meeting.'' 
\91\ The letter that was apparently sent back to Greenberg 
Traurig was drafted under the signature of one of AIC's 
supposed directors, Brian J. Mann. Noticeably absent from the 
letter was any indication that Scanlon in fact owned or 
controlled the company; that the firm's Tribal clients were 
making payments directly to AIC; or that Abramoff would receive 
a share of those proceeds that the Tribes paid to AIC. This 
Report explicates each of those issues below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) 
(February 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   D. HOW ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON USED CONDUITS TO REPRESENT THE TRIBES

    Just as Abramoff and Scanlon used CCS and the Capital 
Athletic Foundation (``CAF'') to wrongfully extract ``gimme 
five'' proceeds from the Tribes so, too, did they use AIC. The 
Choctaw and, more significantly, the Louisiana Coushatta were 
injured by Abramoff and Scanlon's use of AIC as a ``gimme 
five'' vehicle. Understanding how Abramoff and Scanlon were 
able to do so requires understanding, among other things, how 
historically Abramoff and Scanlon had those Tribes use conduits 
to implement their grassroots strategies.
    As described more fully in those sections of this Report 
addressing the Choctaw and the Louisiana Coushatta, from 1998 
through 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon had each Tribe use conduits 
to implement their grassroots campaigns. Over time, those 
Tribes became accustomed to (1) paying substantial fees for 
their grassroots activities and (2) paying those fees to or 
through conduits.
    As those sections indicate, the vendor that Abramoff and 
Scanlon used, and relied on, the most to implement those 
campaigns was former Christian Coalition Executive Director and 
political strategist Ralph Reed.\92\ While working with 
Abramoff from 1999 through 2001, Reed conducted a variety of 
grassroots activities in support of the interests of Abramoff 
gaming clients, including, telemarketing (patch-through, tape-
recorded messages and call-to-action phone calls), targeted 
mail, legislative counsel and local management, as well as 
rallies and petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ A detailed description of Abramoff's business relationship 
with Reed vis-a-vis the Tribes and, in particular, how Abramoff relied 
on Reed to conduct grassroots activities on behalf of his Tribal gaming 
clients, is set forth in Part 1, Chapter 1, Section D, of this Report, 
entitled ``Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: Substantial Fees and 
Conduit Organizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A May 10, 1999, email between Abramoff and one of his 
assistants indicates that Preston Gates sent payments to Reed 
totaling $1,303,903, apparently from Abramoff's clients.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to [REDACTED] (GTG-E000018933) (May 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, by 2001, Abramoff or Scanlon had the Tribes using 
conduits which they owned or controlled, most notably AIC. As 
the following reflects, from 2001 through 2003, Abramoff or 
Scanlon directed both the Choctaw and the Louisiana Coushatta 
to pay AIC a total of $6,308,854.

          Payments From Louisiana Coushatta and Choctaw to AIC


Choctaw Payments to AIC

1.  2/27/01.............................................        $200,000
2.  4/9/01..............................................         150,000
3.  5/2/01..............................................         175,000
4.  5/11/01.............................................         960,654
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
                                                               1,485,654
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
1.  2/22/02.............................................       1,000,000
2.  12/11/02............................................         170,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
                                                               1,170,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................       2,655,654
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

Louisiana Coushatta Payments to AIC

1.  3/16/01.............................................         400,000
2.  3/21/01.............................................         258,000
3.  3/30/01.............................................         298,000
4.  4/27/01.............................................         397,200
5.  4/9/03..............................................       2,300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................       3,653,200
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Grand Total of Payments from Louisiana Coushatta 
          and Choctaw to AIC............................       6,308,854
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

    The following \94\ suggests that in 2001 and early 2002 
much of that money ultimately went to entities owned or 
controlled by Reed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ The Louisiana Coushatta made this payment through Southern 
Underwriters, an apparently moribund insurance firm owned or controlled 
by former Louisiana Coushatta casino CEO Aubrey Temple. A discussion of 
this transaction is contained infra in Part 1, Chapter 2, entitled 
``Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Payments by Scanlon-Controlled Entities to Reed-Controlled Entities


              Payments from AIC to Reed-Controlled Entities
 
3/16/01...........................  Century Strategies..         $45,000
3/16/01...........................  Century Strategies..         350,000
3/16/01...........................  Century Strategies..          50,000
3/16/01...........................  Century Strategies..         100,000
3/22/01...........................  Century Strategies..         200,000
4/03/01...........................  Century Strategies..         198,000
4/20/01...........................  Century Strategies..         100,000
4/30/01...........................  Century Strategies..         398,000
5/02/01...........................  Century Strategies..         100,000
5/10/01...........................  Century Strategies..         750,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total.........................  ....................      $2,291,000
                                                         ===============
                                                         ===============
              Payments from CCS to Reed-Controlled Entities
 
6/29/01...........................  Century Strategies..         100,000
7/01/01...........................  Capitol Media.......         618,000
7/16/01...........................  Century Strategies..          46,350
8/1/01............................  Century Strategies..          47,000
11/08/01..........................  Capitol Media.......         100,000
11/09/01..........................  Capitol Media.......         350,000
12/31/01..........................  Century Strategies..         250,000
2/19/02...........................  Capitol Media.......          51,679
2/25/02...........................  Capitol Media.......          60,000
2/25/02...........................  Capitol Media.......         100,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total.........................  ....................      $1,723,029
                                                         ===============
   Grand Total of all Payments by Scanlon-Controlled Entities to Reed-
                           Controlled Entities
 
    Grand Total...................  ....................      $4,014,029
                                                         ===============

    As the foregoing indicates, from March through May 2001, 
AIC paid one of Reed's companies, called Century Strategies, 
$2,291,000. And, from June 2001 to February 2002, another 
Scanlon-controlled entity, CCS paid Century Strategies and 
another company owned by Reed called Capitol Media $1,723,029, 
for a total of $4,014,029.
    But, as early as November 2001, things had begun to change. 
With a history of successful grassroots projects behind them 
and Abramoff or Scanlon having had the Tribes pay to or through 
entities that they owned or controlled, they apparently began 
to squeeze Reed out and started to keep most of the money paid 
by the Tribes for themselves.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ See, e.g., Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (Bates number 
001139446) (November 25, 2001). This email indicates that Scanlon at 
least proposed to conduct many of the grassroots activities that Reed 
first provided for Abramoff's Tribal lobbying clients. In describing 
what he intended to do for the Choctaw on a particular grassroots 
project, Scanlon told Abramoff: ``[H]ere are the broad strokes of what 
I am going to do. I am putting our own field operation in [REDACTED] to 
cover all three sites. I am turinimg [sic] on phones hitting reps and 
dems [sic], I am launching a negative ad campaign against [REDACTED] 
and [REDACTED], and others. This will be big, and now that the slots 
are in, its gonna take some time to be effective.'' On December 10, 
2001, Abramoff expressed concern about the budget requests Reed wanted 
him to submit to his Tribal clients: ``Ralph, they are going to faint 
when they see these numbers. They will want to know why we have not 
built up any residual strength for the tons of money we have already 
spent. Give me some ammo on that and I'll do my best.'' Email from Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-
E000019059) (December 10, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By December 18, 2001, Abramoff appeared resolved to pushing 
Reed out, writing to Scanlon, ``Next year, we need to give 
[Reed] a pittance and we need to keep most of this ourselves.'' 
\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000023792) (December 18, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 4, 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon expressed concerns 
about work that Reed did for one of their Tribal clients. About 
that project, Scanlon asked, ``Did Ralph spend all them [sic] 
money he was given to fight this--or does he have some left?'' 
\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00001817) (January 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``That's a silly question! He ``spent'' 
it all the moment it arrived in his account. He would NEVER 
admit he has money left over. Would we?'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon replied, ``No--but Id [sic] like to know what the 
hell he spent it on--he didn't even know the dam [sic] thing 
was there--and didn't do shit to shit [sic] to shut it down!'' 
\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff decreed, ``I agree. He is a bad version of us! no 
[sic] more money for him.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Days later, on January 8, 2002, while reviewing their 
``gimme five'' income for January 2002, Abramoff had an idea as 
to how he and Scanlon could dramatically reduce their overhead. 
His suggestion intended to completely cut out Reed: ``[W]e are 
spending over $10M with other people! We have to buy mail 
house, phone house, etc. so we get part of that one too!!'' 
\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 305641) (January 8, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon agreed, ``[Y]our [sic] right--we have to move fast 
to lock in phones and--mail. I think we can cut 5mil [sic] 
right off the top of our outgoing expenses that way just to 
start.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff concurred, ``Let's do it fast so we can stop 
throwing away money.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By early 2002, Abramoff's business arrangement with Reed 
vis-a-vis his Tribal clients seemed to have run its course. 
Regarding a $50,000 payment to Reed for work supporting the 
Choctaw, on February 7, 2002, Abramoff admonished Scanlon to 
``go ahead and pay him so I can get him off my back.'' \104\ 
Documents in the Committee's possession reflect that the last 
payment Abramoff made to Reed, through any entity owned or 
controlled by Scanlon, regarding any of Abramoff's Tribal 
clients, was on or about February 25, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000018505) (February 7, 
2002). On July 23, 2002, Reed provided Abramoff with information that 
suggested the need to launch a grassroots campaign to squelch support 
for a casino in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. Seeing a business opportunity 
for himself and Scanlon, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Forget Ralph, but 
this poll is very interesting. Can you get to [Louisiana Coushatta 
Tribal Council member] William [Worfel] and get us some $ so we can 
fight this?'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000020112) (July 23, 2002). 
Similarly, on July 24, 2002, with a Texas federal judge having shut 
down the Alabama-Coushatta's casino in Livingston, Reed provided 
Abramoff with information about the possibility that the Alabama-
Coushatta might launch a legislative initiative to have its casino 
reopened. Seeing a potential business opportunity, Abramoff immediately 
forwarded the information to Scanlon: ``Forget about Ralph, but you 
should call [Louisiana Coushatta Chairman] Lovelin [Poncho] and [Tribal 
Council member] William [Worfel] ... and claim victory on this one, but 
warn that the [Alabama-Coushatta] are not going away ... we need more 
$$$$.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000020107) (July 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the original paradigm, most of the money these Tribes 
paid (at Abramoff or Scanlon's request) to or through conduits 
seemed to have gone to grassroots activities conducted or 
coordinated by Reed--with a percentage taken by Reed as a 
``management fee'' or similar charge.\105\ But after February 
2002, without the Tribes' knowledge or consent, most of the 
money that they paid to or through those entities went into 
Abramoff's and Scanlon's pockets--with only a fraction going to 
the underlying grassroots effort. Having been accustomed to 
paying high fees for grassroots work in the past, the Tribes 
were not suspicious.\106\ How Abramoff and Scanlon succeeded in 
using AIC in furtherance of their ``gimme five'' scheme is 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ Documents, however, indicate that at least with respect to 
one project, Reed received more than simply the management fee he 
itemized on his invoices: apparently, he and an individual named Neal 
Rhoades shared additional commissions derived from profits that were 
built into costs charged by vendors (associated with Reed) to Preston 
Gates, which were likely expensed to the Tribes. Ralph Reed document 
production (no Bates number) (undated) (``Preston Gates--[REDACTED] 
Gambling Project Reconciliation as of June 13, 1999''). Those vendors 
apparently included, among others, National Media and Millennium 
Marketing. Id.
    \106\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   E. AIC AS A ``GIMME FIVE'' ENTITY

    As early as May 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon were extracting 
``gimme five'' income from payments made by the Choctaw through 
AIC. Abramoff informed Scanlon then, ``[REDACTED] is active 
again. I am going to try to get us $175K. $100K to Ralph; $25K 
to contributions ($5K immediately to Conservative Caucus); rest 
gimme five.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0001321307) (May 2, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, the Tribe that would be most injured as a result of 
its payments to AIC would be the Louisiana Coushatta. With his 
businesses and private charity apparently facing financial 
difficulty, on March 30, 2003, Abramoff told his tax advisor 
Gail Halpern that he expected some money to come in: ``I have 
$1M coming in (I hope directly to CAF or Eshkol) probably next 
week, and $1M due within the next 2 weeks to Kaygold. Both from 
CCS. How long will this money last both for the school and the 
restaurants?'' \108\ Needless to say, all this would be Tribal 
money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard, P.C. (GTG-000012166) (March 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, Abramoff decided not to use CCS; they elected 
to use AIC. And, to induce the Louisiana Coushatta into paying 
AIC, Scanlon wrote then-Tribal Councilman William Worfel in a 
Strategy Memorandum, on or about April 18, 2003, ``We sent you 
and [sic] Invoice [sic] from the AIC which is merely an entity 
I direct which was used to conduct public relations activities 
for various clients. As we discussed, the AIC will pay for 
operations conducted by CCS (myself and my team) and Jack or 
others vendors and staff.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 
007325) (April 18, 2003). The request in this memorandum (4/18) appears 
to have resulted in the Louisiana Coushatta's payment of $2,300,000 to 
AIC (on or about 4/9). So, the date of this document relative to the 
date of the resulting payments suggests that the date on the memorandum 
is probably a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, on or about April 9, 2003, the Louisiana Coushatta paid 
AIC $2,300,000. But, the Tribe was never told that payments 
made by the Tribe to AIC would go to Scanlon and Abramoff.\110\ 
Quite the contrary, from Abramoff, Louisiana Coushatta Tribal 
representatives understood that AIC was an entity that 
supported anti-gaming efforts, which the Tribe could 
support.\111\ The Tribe was misled: on April 13, 2003, AIC paid 
Abramoff $991,000, through his alter ego, Kaygold.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Interview with Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 2005).
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated) 
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an April 18, 2003, strategy memorandum, Scanlon also 
told Worfel, ``[o]n the financial side, the lion's share of 
your effort this year is for database build up, and voter 
targeting, and staff time. We currently have seven staff 
members working on this project including myself. Most of the 
staff will be exclusively working on your program for the rest 
of the year. Jack is also involved heavily on a daily/weekly 
basis.'' Scanlon's suggestion to Worfel about where the 
``lion's share'' of the Tribe's money would go was also 
misleading: on April 22, 2003, Scanlon routed the $1,300,000 
left over from the Tribe's $2,300,000 payment to AIC, to 
CCS.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Id.

             AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Date           Description         To/From            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/1/2003........  Balance.........  ................         $14,900.13
4/9/2003........  Wire Transfer...  Coushatta.......       2,300,000.00
4/13/2003.......  Check 1103......  Kaygold.........        (991,000.00)
4/18/2003.......  Check 1113......  Scanlon.........         (15,000.00)
4/22/2003.......  Wire Transfer...  CCS.............      (1,300,000.00)
4/29/2003.......  Closing Balance.  ................           1,083.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From there, between May 1, 2003, and May 5, 2003, Scanlon 
executed a series of shareholder draws for apparently purely 
personal expenses that completely extinguished the Tribe's 
payment to AIC. Those transactions are explicated below.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ These entries are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and 
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the 
Committee. Of all vendor transactions reflected in the ledger, only 
vendor transactions greater than or equal to $25,000 or traceable to 
any Tribe are included.

              CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Date           Description         To/From            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/1/2003........  Balance.........  ................      $1,062,845.58
4/14/2003.......  Taxes Payable...  DC..............        (214,018.00)
4/21/2003.......  Shareholder Draw  Scanlon.........        (100,000.00)
4/22/2003.......  Wire Transfer...  Coushatta/AIC...       1,300,000.00
4/22/2003.......  Prof. Campaign;   Basswood                 (15,600.00)
                   LA.               Research.
5/1/2003........  Balance.........  ................       1,844,678.59
5/1/2003........  Shareholder       Tony Beto, Inc..         (21,594.00)
                   Draw;.
                  25 Tidewater;
                   2310.
5/1/2003........  Shareholder       Dockety Design..         (88,724.00)
                   Draw; 2311.
5/2/2003........  Shareholder       Lin Sang                (150,000.00)
                   Draw; 2312.       Logistics.
5/5/2003........  Shareholder Draw  Michael Scanlon.        (150,000.00)
5/5/2003........  Shareholder Draw  Michael Scanlon.        (991,000.00)
5/5/2003........  Balance.........  ................         427,174.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the foregoing indicates, there were five such 
``shareholder draws'': May 1, 2003, to Tony Beto, Inc. for 
$21,594; May 1, 2003, to Dockety Design for $88,724; May 2, 
2003, to Lin Sang Logistics for $150,000; and two payments, 
dated May 5, 2003, to Michael Scanlon for $150,000 and 
$991,000.
    The Committee has been able to locate a Tony Beto in Lewes, 
Delaware. Apparently an architect, Beto has been described as 
having knowledge and experience with zoning procedures, 
particularly in Sussex County, Delaware, where Scanlon made 
some major real estate purchases.\115\ Likewise, the Committee 
found a company called Dockety Design Construction, a single-
family housing contractor located in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. 
Apparently, it specializes in home remodeling and new home 
building.\116\ Finally, the Committee located a company called 
Linsang Logistics LLC in Silver Spring, MD. Apparently Linsang 
creates technology-based companies ``that expand global access 
to information'' and charters its private jet.\117\ Given that 
the foregoing charges are likely unrelated to any work done for 
the Louisiana Coushatta, they are likely purely personal in 
nature. With the original $2,300,000 that the Louisiana 
Coushatta paid AIC just about entirely extinguished, the 
Committee has seen no evidence that the Tribe received the 
intended benefit for this very large payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ See Brian Reynolds-Hughes, Proposed $35M amphitheater coming 
to Sussex?, Cape Gazette, December 31, 2002, http://www.beachpaper.com/
storiesmorgue/arts/2003arts/amphitheater121302.html; Chris Barrish, 
Abramhoff cohort spent millions on Sussex homes, The News Journal, May 
14, 2006, .
    \116\ Planetblueprints.com `Custom Homes For a More Beautiful 
Planet' (visited February 14, 2006) ; Rehoboth Beach business directory (visited Feb. 14, 
2006) .
    \117\ Offsetting Expenses with Aircraft Management, Executive Flyer 
Magazine, Spring 2003, .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to media reports, Scanlon and Abramoff may have 
used AIC for other illicit purposes, including circumventing 
requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
(``FARA''), particularly with respect to the Embassy of 
Malaysia.\118\ However, those activities are unrelated to the 
Tribes' allegations of misconduct. Accordingly, while the 
Committee has information corroborative of some of those media 
reports, \119\ the Committee has arrived at no definitive 
conclusions regarding those activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Peter H. Stone, K Street Stumble, National Journal, March 27, 
2004, at 958-63.
    \119\ During her interview with Committee staff, former Abramoff 
associate Stephanie Leger Short testified, ``[T]he public line was that 
the [AIC] was a think tank; the real line was that that's how Jack did 
work for Malaysia and Eritrea.'' Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, 
former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 
2005). Looking back, Leger opined that Abramoff did work for Malaysia 
and Eritrea through AIC to avoid registering under FARA. Id. According 
to documents and financial records in the Committee's possession, the 
Embassy of Malaysia made four payments of $300,000 each to AIC, on June 
29, 2001, October 5, 2001, January 3, 2002, and March 13, 2002. Almost 
immediately afterwards, AIC made payments to an individual named Khaled 
Saffuri in the amount of $90,000, $45,000, and $45,000 on October 8, 
2001, January 3, 2002, and March 20, 2002 respectively, apparently for 
``salary/consulting'' purposes regarding Malaysia. Soon thereafter, 
each one of those payments was followed by an additional disbursement 
of $100,000, $210,000, $245,000, and $255,000 to Greenberg Traurig on 
July 5, 2001, October 8, 2001, February 22, 2002, and February 26, 
2002, respectively.
    Saffuri appears to have been a lobbyist at an Abramoff owned or 
controlled entity called the Lexington Group. At one time, Saffuri was 
reportedly the Assistant Executive Director of the American Muslim 
Council (``AMC''), where he apparently served as a lobbyist. See 
Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG007370-JA-P) (March 27, 
2001). The AMC was apparently founded in 1990 by Abdurahman Mohamed 
Alamoudi, an open supporter of Palestinian terror organization Hamas. 
Id. A few years ago, Alamoudi was implicated in a plot to assassinate 
the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. See Department of Justice (visited 
October 15, 2004)  (describing Abdurahman Alamoudi's sentencing in a 
Terrorism Financing Case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             F. CONCLUSION

    Among the more interesting of Abramoff and Scanlon's 
``gimme five'' entities, that is, entities owned or controlled 
by Abramoff or Scanlon that they used in their kickback scheme, 
is the putative international think tank, AIC. With two of 
Scanlon's beach buddies sitting on its board, AIC's purpose was 
actually to collect fees associated with activities conducted 
by others and, in some cases, divert those fees to entities 
owned or controlled by Scanlon or Abramoff. In other words, AIC 
was a sham. From 2001 through 2003, the Choctaw and the 
Louisiana Coushatta collectively paid AIC about $6,308,854. 
While much of this money went to vendors who actually conducted 
grassroots activities for the Tribes, such as Ralph Reed, as 
the Tribes had intended, millions were not used for that 
purpose.
                              CHAPTER III

                      CAPITAL ATHLETIC FOUNDATION

        Abramoff: The package on the ground is $4K per person. 
        that [sic] covers rooms, tee times and ground 
        transportation. One idea is that we could use one of my 
        foundations for the trip--Capital Athletic Foundation--
        and get and make contributions so this is easier. OK?
        Reed: OK but we need to discuss. It is an election 
        year.

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed concerning 
golfing junket to Scotland, May 15, 2002

        Rudy: Jack wants this.
        Boulanger: What is it? I've never heard of it.
        Rudy: It is something our friends are raising money 
        for.
        Boulanger: I'm sensing shadiness. I'll stop asking.

    Email between Todd Boulanger and Tony Rudy concerning 
suggested Tribal contributions to CAF, June 20, 2002

        Bozniak: He [CAF funds recipient Shmuel Ben Svi] did 
        suggest that he could write some kind of letter with 
        his Sniper Workshop Logo and letter head. It is an 
        ``educational'' entity of sorts.
        Abramoff: no [sic] I don't want a sniper letterhead.

    Email between Jack Abramoff and Allison Bozniak, September 
19, 2002

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    At its hearings over the past two years, the Committee 
disclosed and discussed evidence that Jack Abramoff might have 
used Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), his private 
charitable foundation, in ways grossly inconsistent with its 
tax exempt status and mission. Based on multiple interviews and 
records, the Committee conclusively finds that (1) CAF was 
simply another vehicle in Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' 
scheme; (2) Indian tribes paid CAF, directly and indirectly, 
knowingly and unknowingly, approximately $3,657,000; and, (3) 
Abramoff treated CAF as his own personal slush fund, apparently 
using it to evade taxes, finance lobbying activities such as a 
golfing trip to Scotland, purchase paramilitary equipment, and 
for other purposes inconsistent with CAF's tax exempt status 
and stated mission.
    In fact, in court filings associated with Abramoff's guilty 
plea in January 2006, Abramoff pled guilty to, among other 
things, misusing CAF ``to receive income and make expenditures 
for his own personal benefit'' and ``to conceal this income 
from the Internal Revenue Service and others.'' \1\ In his plea 
agreement, Abramoff further admitted that he ``knew that these 
activities constituted a misuse of these tax exempt entities.'' 
\2\ For example, Abramoff confessed that he solicited money 
from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw 
Chippewa'') and a distilled beverages company, SPI Spirits, 
``to partially pay for a golfing trip to Scotland for himself, 
public officials, members of his staff and others.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 37, U.S. 
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id. at para. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Chapter will examine the nature and structure of CAF. 
For all years in which CAF received, directly or indirectly, 
Tribal funds, this Chapter will examine the circumstances 
surrounding the payments, and then review how Abramoff spent 
CAF's funds.

                      B. GENERAL BACKGROUND ON CAF

    Abramoff registered CAF with the Internal Revenue Service 
as a 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation.\4\ At all relevant 
times, Abramoff and his wife were the only managing members of 
CAF.\5\ CAF reported on its 2001 and 2002 federal tax forms 
that four (4) Native American Tribes donated a total of 
$2,075,000: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Return of 
Private Foundations Form 990PF; and Internal Revenue Service (visited 
May 25, 2004)  (excerpt of exempt organization 
search). Interestingly, on March 2, 2000, CAF changed its name to 
National Institute of Torah, but, on August 17, 2000, changed its name 
back to CAF.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Other Abramoff and/or Greenberg Traurig clients apparently 
donated during those years. In 2001, Foxcom Wireless allegedly donated 
$50,000. In 2002, SPI Spirits (Cyprus) allegedly donated $25,000.

    REPORTED PAYMENTS BY TRIBES TO CAPITAL ATHLETIC FOUNDATION (CAF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.....................  Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.      $1,000,000
2002.....................  Mississippi Band of Choctaw        $1,000,000
                            Indians.
                           Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe         $25,000
                           Alabama Coushatta                     $50,000
                            Entertainment Center.
                                                         ---------------
    Total................    ...........................      $2,075,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the general public, CAF described itself as a youth 
charity in Washington, D.C.\7\ According to its website, no 
longer extant, CAF purportedly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004) .

        promotes the ideals of sportsmanship by recognizing 
        individuals and organizations across the economic 
        spectrum that exemplify the highest values of 
        honorable, civil and ethical behavior in their 
        endeavors. The Foundation awards grants to support 
        needy and deserving programs and activities that 
        develop sportsmanship, and designates appropriate 
        individuals as national Ambassadors of Sportsmanship. 
        The Foundation also awards grants that specifically 
        support sportsmanship programs and activities which 
        serve disadvantaged youth.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id. (emphasis added).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The website continued:

        [t]he mission of the Capital Athletic Foundation is to 
        foster character development by promoting the American 
        ideals of sportsmanship in all endeavors. These ideals 
        include integrity, honor, brotherhood, morality, 
        leadership and good citizenship. Sportsmanship is 
        ethical behavior both on and off the playing field; 
        both in athletics and in business; both as a youth and 
        as an adult.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id. (emphasis added).

    Abramoff similarly described CAF to his colleagues. Fred 
Baggett, a managing shareholder of Greenberg Traurig and 
chairman of its national governmental affairs practice, 
recalled that the ``CAF Foundation was something that Jack 
referred to a number of occasions that he and his wife were 
very much involved in to support inner-city children in sports 
ventures and sports opportunities.'' \10\ Although Abramoff 
disclosed that he and his wife were CAF's founders, he gave the 
impression to Baggett that it ``had grown into a credible, 
respectable charitable foundation.'' \11\ What Abramoff did not 
disclose, however, was how he was actually funding and 
operating CAF.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005); 
see also Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, 
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
    \11\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005). 
Stephanie Leger, a former Greenberg Traurig employee, told the 
Committee that it was well known around the office that CAF was 
Abramoff's personal charity. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former 
associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
    \12\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005); 
Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg 
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. ABRAMOFF ATTEMPTS TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CAF, AND FAILS

    In 2000, it appears that Abramoff initially sought to 
capitalize CAF with a $5,000,000 federal earmark.\13\ In 
attempting to enlist the aid of then-U.S. Representative Connie 
Morella, Abramoff told one Jim Kaplan \14\ that ``the DeLay 
guys want to put this grant through for the Capital Education 
and Athletic Foundation [CEAF],\15\ which will be a grantor 
organization to help build the Yeshiva in Kemp Mill.'' \16\ 
Abramoff apparently believed the earmark could be included in 
the Labor-HHS Appropriations Conference Report or the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Conference Report.\17\ Abramoff confessed that 
Congressman DeLay might not know about it, but that ``Tony 
[Rudy] [Delay's then-Deputy Chief of Staff] and the staff are 
working it through for them.'' \18\ Abramoff even sent an email 
to a representative of Congresswoman Morella and claimed that 
the CEAF ``is a worthy cause, and not a client.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087920-21) (October 23, 2000).
    \14\ The Committee has not determined who James Kaplan was, and 
what his relationship was with Congresswoman Morella and Jack Abramoff.
    \15\ Apparently, the name Abramoff originally contemplated for the 
charity was the Capital Education and Athletic Foundation.
    \16\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087920) (October 23, 2000).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087924) (October 23, 2000). The 
Committee has seen no evidence that Congressman DeLay knew or 
authorized what Abramoff and Rudy were attempting.
    \19\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to [email protected] (GTG-E000087929) (October 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After speaking with a Morella representative, Abramoff 
advised Tony Rudy: ``Tony, I spoke with her guy today and they 
are going to try to get us a letter. Please let me know what we 
do next.'' \20\ However, after reviewing CAF's bank, 
accounting, and tax records, the Committee concludes that CAF 
never received a federal grant of any amount. Furthermore, the 
Committee has seen no evidence establishing that Representative 
Morella supported Abramoff in any way on this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas 
Meeds, to Tony Rudy, Office of Congressman Tom DeLay (GTG-E000087925) 
(October 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unable to obtain his earmark, Abramoff would turn to other 
means to finance CAF.

D. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON MISAPPROPRIATE TRIBAL FUNDS FOR CAF SEED MONEY 
                                IN 2001

1. Abramoff and Scanlon Divert Louisiana Coushatta Money to CAF

    In 2001, the single largest contributor by far listed on 
CAF's federal tax return was the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
(``Louisiana Coushatta'') for $1,000,000.\21\ The Committee 
finds, however, that the Tribe never intended to make a 
charitable contribution to CAF. Rather, Abramoff and Scanlon 
deceived the Louisiana Coushatta into making that payment as 
part of their ``gimme five'' scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private 
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon set the scam in motion with an October 23, 2001, 
memorandum to Louisiana Coushatta counsel Kathryn Van Hoof, in 
which he proposed three political programs, which he 
collectively dubbed the ``Battleground Program.'' \22\ The 
program was purportedly designed to stop potential competitors, 
such as ``Delta Downs and Pinnacle'' from infringing on the 
Louisiana Coushatta casino's market share \23\ According to 
Scanlon, the Tribe's money would be used for everything from 
polling to opposition research to phone banking and Get Out The 
Vote efforts.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 017923-
26) (October 23, 2001).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon claimed the money was necessary to manipulate 
Christian conservatives. In Scanlon's words: ``Simply put we 
want to bring out the wackos to vote against something. ... The 
wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, 
Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees.'' \25\ 
In fact, Scanlon advised using nearly half the proposed budget 
to influence and mobilize ``Christian conservatives and 
minority religious outlets.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id. (emphasis in original).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Scanlon had other designs for the money. One 
day after Scanlon's memorandum to Van Hoof, Abramoff told 
Scanlon: ``I want to see if we can pump up our LDA [reporting 
requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act] for the second 
half to make sure we don't fall out of the top ten [lobbying 
firms]. I can achieve this if I can run some of the money for 
the Coushattas through the firm and then get it to CCS.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012245) (October 24, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concerned, Scanlon asked: ``Are u [sic] sure Baggett will 
let you rip it back out?'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``If not, it'll be a cold day in hell 
that they get this check from my grubby hands!'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To convince the Tribe to pay $1,000,000 into Greenberg 
Traurig, Scanlon explained to Van Hoof, ``We broke this into 
two invoices--one to be paid to Greenberg Traurig for 1m, and 
one paid to Capitol Campaign Strategies--[Greenberg Traurig's] 
public affairs entity for the balance. We usually just invoice 
you through Capitol Campaign Strategies so the Lawyers at the 
firm rest easy while we are out burning the country side.'' 
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (GTG-E000011383) 
(October 25, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He continued, ``In this instance however we plan to do some 
things through the law firm umbrella due to their highly 
sensitive nature and confidentiality reasons. I hate hiding 
behind lawyers--but we are going to do some crazy stuff on this 
one--so I guess its ok:) :) [sic]'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In furtherance of the ``gimme five'' scheme, Scanlon 
apparently fabricated and submitted to the Louisiana Coushatta 
an invoice in Greenberg Traurig's name. The invoice identified 
the purpose of the payment as ``Public Affairs Services.'' \32\ 
Contrary to Scanlon's representations, Capitol Campaign 
Strategies (``CCS'') was not Greenberg Traurig's public affairs 
entity.\33\ Nor was Scanlon authorized to prepare or send an 
invoice on Greenberg Traurig's behalf.\34\ At the November 2, 
2005 hearing before the Committee, Baggett testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-E000011384) 
(undated).
    \33\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \34\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 37 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred 
Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs Practice, Greenberg 
Traurig).

        The Chairman: Was Mr. Scanlon authorized to send an 
        invoice on Greenberg Traurig's behalf?
        Mr. Baggett: No, sir; he was not.
         ...
        Mr. Baggett: --the invoice exhibit 99 purporting to be 
        from Greenberg Traurig, ``Greenberg'' is misspelled.
        The Chairman: Okay. That is an important point. Thank 
        you for bringing it up, Mr. Baggett. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Baggett: I doubt we would be issuing an invoice 
        with our name misspelled.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.

    Despite the lack of authorization, the Committee finds that 
Scanlon sent, or caused to be sent, the fabricated invoice to 
the Louisiana Coushatta for payment.
    Based on Scanlon's representations, the Tribe understood 
the $1,000,000 payment to Greenberg Traurig would be used for 
the Tribe's political activities, and certainly never intended 
for it to be a charitable contribution:

        The Chairman: Ms. Van Hoof, was it your understanding 
        that the $1 million was going to be used for political 
        activities benefitting the tribe?
        Ms. Van Hoof: Yes.
        The Chairman: Did the tribe authorize anyone to use 
        that $1 million as a charitable contribution to the 
        Capital Athletic Foundation?
        Ms. Van Hoof: No.
        The Chairman: Did the tribe ever intend to make a $1 
        million contribution to Jack Abramoff's personal 
        charity?
        Ms. Van Hoof: No.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 37 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of 
Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).

    William Worfel, former Vice Chairman of the Tribe, 
similarly told the Committee that the Tribal Council had never 
authorized that $1,000,000 to be used as a charitable 
contribution--to CAF or any other entity.\37\ Indeed, neither 
Van Hoof nor Worfel had any contemporaneous knowledge of 
CAF.\38\ At no point did Scanlon or Abramoff tell the Louisiana 
Coushatta that its money would be used for anything other than 
the Tribe's political activities.\39\ In fact, until the 
Committee's investigation, the Louisiana Coushatta did not even 
know it was listed as a $1,000,000 donor to CAF.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \38\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe 
of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 23, 2005); Interview of 
William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \39\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe 
of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 23, 2005); Interview of 
William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in 
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on Scanlon's misrepresentations, on October 30, 2001, 
the Louisiana Coushatta executed a check for $1,000,000 to 
Greenberg Traurig.\41\ On November 2, 2001, Greenberg Traurig 
received the $1,000,000 check, which it deposited into its 
trust account.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG023510-ACCT) 
(October 30, 2001).
    \42\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next phase of the scheme required Abramoff to deceive 
his former employer, Greenberg Traurig. To extract the money 
from Greenberg Traurig's trust account, Abramoff told the firm 
that the Louisiana Coushatta knew about the payment to CAF and 
had authorized it.\43\ On November 5, 2001, Abramoff sent an 
email to Baggett entitled ``Coushatta million dollar check,'' 
and noted, ``It is burning a hole in my pocket. Please let's 
chat about this today to get it worked out.'' \44\ Sometime 
around that email, Abramoff called Baggett in Tallahassee, ``to 
talk about a contribution that a tribe, the Coushatta, that a 
tribe wanted to make to Capital Athletic Foundation, that they 
had given us a check for a million dollars and wanted to put it 
in a trust account so we could give it to Capital Athletic 
Foundation.'' \45\ Per Abramoff's direction, Greenberg Traurig 
paid the Louisiana Coushatta's $1,000,000 to CAF.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Fred Baggett, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000252969) (November 5, 2001).
    \45\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee finds that the Louisiana Coushatta's 
$1,000,000 never went to the Tribe's political activities. It 
instead padded the coffers of CAF for Abramoff's discretionary 
use. Notably, Abramoff did include the $1,000,000 on the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act filing for the Louisiana Coushatta in 
2001.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee harbors no doubt that the $1,000,000 was a 
payment obtained as part of the duo's ``gimme five'' scheme. In 
a November 7, 2001, email entitled ``Give me five,'' Scanlon 
listed Abramoff's take from their scheme:

        The overall numbers in the amounts I owe you are 
        exactly $1 million smaller that [sic] what we projected 
        last month because your section of the Louisiana 
        Battleground program was paid directly to [Greenberg 
        Traurig]--so I took the whole thing of [sic] the chart. 
        I did leave it on the distribution chart so you can see 
        what the ``value'' of your share to date--approximately 
        5.4 mill. [sic] has gone to your [sic] or third party 
        entities at your direction.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012276) (November 7, 2001).

2. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2001

    Despite receiving $1,248,741 in purported contributions, 
CAF distributed very little in the form of grants to other 
entities in 2001--only $50,510.\49\ From the relevant bank 
records, it appears that Abramoff segregated most of the Tribal 
money into its own account and reserved it for use in the 
following year. From another account, into which others such as 
Foxcom Wireless had paid, CAF made a number of expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private 
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The largest outlay for CAF in 2001 appears to be for 
operating and administrative expenses:

     $102,510 for ``home school program which combines 
academic and athletic programs for the students.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Id. There appears to be a discrepancy in the tax return. 
Statement 5 to the return cites $115,930 as the expenses spent on home 
school program expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     $50,510 for log and web design and newspaper 
advertising for the benefit of the Eshkol Academy.\51\ The 
Eshkol Academy was an all boys Jewish orthodox prep school that 
Abramoff founded in 2001, but closed in 2003.\52\ Abramoff's 
relationship with Eshkol was intimate: he was the president and 
his wife was the vice president, secretary, and treasurer.\53\ 
Media reports also claim that some of Abramoff's children 
attended Eshkol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ See Peter Stone, Tribes Gave To Abramoff Foundation, National 
Journal, March 12, 2004, at 1866; Michael S. Gerber and Albert Eisele, 
Republican power broker Jack Abramoff on lobbying in the Bush II era, 
The Hill, March 26, 2003; see also Email from Gail Halpern, May & 
Barnhard, to Susan Baker (MB-002124) (September 27, 2002).
    \53\ See Eshkol, Inc., 2001 Form 990. Eshkol's tax return is signed 
by Sam Hook as executive director for the school. Hook is a former 
contract employee at Greenberg Traurig, the husband of Shana Tesler, 
and owner and president of two other Abramoff-controlled entities, 
Grassroots Interactive, LLC and Federal Program Services, LLC. 
According to Tesler, Abramoff hired Hook to serve as interim executive 
director of Eshkol Academy in November 2002. She stated that Hook was 
paid $20,000 for serving as the interim director, and the payments may 
have come from the Capital Athletic Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     $3,411.32 for ``Eshkol and Lexington Group work.'' 
CAF's ledger identifies the purpose of the payment as brochures 
and business cards. The Lexington Group was a for-profit 
venture that Abramoff undertook with a lobbyist named Khaled 
Saffuri and has no apparent role in CAF or its purported 
charitable mission.
     Almost $99,000 on consulting fees, \54\ which, on 
information and belief, related to Abramoff's efforts to 
establish Eshkol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-002063-65) (December 
31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     $26,060 for a school van. The records do not 
indicate whether the van was actually used for personal or 
charitable purposes.
     $10,000 payment to Sports Suites as a deposit.\55\ 
The Sports Suites was a limited liability company that Abramoff 
owned and operated and through which he leased various club 
boxes at several sporting venues around the region, including 
FedEx Field, MCI Center, and Camden Yards. Abramoff used the 
boxes extensively in his lobbying practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Id.

    Curiously, listed on CAF's 2001 tax form is an $18,057 
expenditure for a thermal imager.\56\ CAF's tax and accounting 
records do not indicate what possible relation a thermal imager 
would have to the charitable mission of CAF, or to whom it was 
given. Abramoff's emails, however, illuminate the purpose and 
beneficiary of Abramoff's largesse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private 
Foundations 990PF; see also May & Barnhard document production (MB-
002063-65) (December 31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For two days in 2001, Abramoff exchanged emails with a 
person the Committee has determined is Shmuel Ben Zvi.\57\ Ben 
Zvi and Abramoff were classmates at Beverly Hills in 
California.\58\ Apparently, Ben-Zvi later moved to the Israeli 
West Bank. The Committee does not know how Ben Zvi and Abramoff 
re-established ties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel 
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000089141-44) (October 18-19, 
2001).
    \58\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel Ben 
Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000080536-37) (July 15-16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, in 2001, Abramoff and Ben Zvi tried to find a 
source for a thermal imager.\59\ Abramoff and Ben Zvi 
apparently intended the thermal imager for paramilitary 
application, because Ben Zvi told Abramoff that ``[t]he 
paratroop officer in charge of the area, that you see in the 
photo with me that I sent you is very happy that we'll have the 
thermal imager.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel 
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000089141-44) (October 18-19, 
2001).
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Zvi added, ``[I]f it looks like it will take a long 
time to get the Russian model, then we can actually use our 
army address to buy the U.S. made thermal imager and have a 
colonel or higher sign for it. ...'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day, trying to find a way to obtain the imager, 
Ben Zvi suggested that he could fax a letter ``stating that I 
am purchasing this equipment for the IDF [Israeli Defense 
Force], and at the same time get a signed letter from the 
commander of Paratroop bragade [sic]. ...'' \62\ Although CAF's 
tax return indicates that Abramoff apparently purchased the 
thermal imager, the Committee has no further details about the 
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. IN 2002, ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SCAM OTHER TRIBES INTO PAYING INTO CAF

    In 2002, reported contributions to CAF climbed to 
$2,569,934. CAF listed a number of substantial contributors for 
that year:

         Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe--$25,000
         Alabama-Coushatta Entertainment Center--
        $50,000
         National Center for Public Policy Research--
        $450,000
         Jack Abramoff--$991,749
         Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians-$1,000,000 
        \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Return of Private 
Foundations, Form 990PF.

    The Committee finds that most of those alleged 
contributions--even those not in the name of an Indian Tribe--
are the fruits of Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme.

1. Abramoff Deceives the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Into Partially 
        Funding a Golfing Trip to Scotland--June Through November 2002

    In 2002, CAF claimed $234,319 in expenses for travel, 
conferences, and meetings on its tax return.\64\ Yet, according 
to that same tax filing, Abramoff and his wife, the only two 
co-managing members, devoted ``minimal'' time each week to 
their positions.\65\ CAF's tax, accounting, and bank records, 
suggest that $166,634.26 of that $234,319 were costs incurred 
for a golfing trip to Scotland.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-002063-65) (December 
31, 2001); May & Barnhard document production (MB-001940-41) (January-
December 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 15, 2002, Abramoff and his old friend and 
business associate Ralph Reed began planning the trip. In an 
email entitled ``Scotland,'' Abramoff wrote to Reed:

        The package on the ground is $4K per person. that [sic] 
        covers rooms, tee times and ground transportation. One 
        idea is that we could use one of my foundations for the 
        trip--Capital Athletic Foundation--and get and make 
        contributions so this is easier.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph 
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000019854) (May 15, 2002).

    Reed replied, ``OK but we need to discuss. It is an 
election year.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon thereafter, Abramoff began seeking financing for the 
golfing trip. Abramoff asked his colleague Tony Rudy, 
Congressman DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, ``Hi Tony. 
Did you get the message from the guys that Tom wants us to 
raise some bucks from Capital Athletic Foundation? I have six 
clients in for $25K. I recommend we hit everyone who cares 
about Tom's requests.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026455) (June 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff then asked Rudy to ``email [Christopher] Petras on 
the Sag chip request (it'll look better coming from you as a 
former DeLay COS). We'z gonna make a bundle here.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy subsequently requested Petras' email address.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Email from Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026450) (June 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later that month, Abramoff again asked Rudy, ``Please hit 
them both [Stoli and Sag Chip] to get checks for the Capital 
Athletic Foundation asap. we [sic] need to get this cash in 
hand. I am pushing Tigua and Choctaw. We are still short of 
full cost coverage (which is around $115K).'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Tony Rudy, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076673) (June 17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy responded, ``Please give me [the] address.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff and Rudy soon began seeking money for the Scotland 
golfing trip in earnest.\74\ In an email entitled ``Capitol 
Athletic Foundation,'' Rudy asked Todd Boulanger, another 
Abramoff associate and the manager of the Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa'') lobbying account at 
Greenberg Traurig, ``Can you ask [C]hris [Petras] whether they 
can make a contribution. We asked for 25k.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ See Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Tony 
Rudy, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000254778-79) (June 20, 2002).
    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apparently unfamiliar with CAF, Boulanger inquired: ``What 
is this? I can put this on your Coushatta request list that I'm 
putting together during the July 4th recess ... or I can split 
it up \1/2\ to Coushatta and \1/2\ to Choctaw so it doesn't 
dilute your other requests. Sag may kick in ... 25K is steep 
for them. I bet they'd do $5k, however. We'll get it.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy cryptically responded, ``Jack wants this.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boulanger inquired further, ``What is it? I've never heard 
of it.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy was again vague: ``It is something our friends are 
raising money for.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boulanger finally desisted: ``I'm sensing shadiness. I'll 
stop asking.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy confirmed Boulanger's suspicions, ``Your senses are 
good. If you have to say Leadership is asking, please do. I 
already have.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon thereafter, Abramoff began hounding the Tribe for the 
payment.\82\ Examples include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026791) (September 
30, 2002); Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000057439) (August 12, 
2002).

           On July 31, 2002, Abramoff reminded Petras 
        ``about getting the Capital Athletic Foundation to me 
        asap per the delay request.'' \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026653) (July 31, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On August 12, 2002 he asked Petras to ``get 
        me that $25K to Capital Athletic Foundation for the 
        DeLay thing.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000057439) (August 12, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On August 23, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras 
        ``any progress on the Capital Athletic Foundation?'' 
        \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026714) (August 23, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On September 4, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras: 
        ``any progress.'' \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026766) (September 
4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On September 12, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras 
        about CAF, ``Please keep me informed on this one.'' 
        \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026784) (September 
12, 2002).

    Throughout the process, Abramoff continued misrepresenting 
CAF as an independent entity. In a September 18, 2002 email 
entitled ``where are we on the Capital Athletic Foundation,'' 
Abramoff advised Petras, ``I saw the CAF guys this morning and 
we are getting into a bit of an embarrassing situation.'' \88\ 
Again, on September 30, 2002, Abramoff told Petras that ``I am 
getting serious pressure on the Capital Athletic Foundation. 
Please let me know if this is going to happen, and if not, I 
need to try and find a replacement. I am really out of time on 
this and am getting called daily.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026805) (September 
18, 2002).
    \89\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026791) (September 
30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In procuring the money from the Tribe, Abramoff apparently 
misrepresented the nature of CAF and how it would use the 
funds. According to internal Saginaw Chippewa documents, 
Abramoff represented that CAF ``creates programs that teach 
leadership skills to disadvantaged youth in the DC area in an 
effort to keep them off the streets and enhance their 
educational opportunities.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan document production 
(no Bates number) (entitled ``Minutes of the Tribal Council Special 
Session'') (August 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, on November 13, 2002, the Saginaw Chippewa wrote a 
check to CAF in the amount of $25,000.\91\ On November 14, 
2002, Abramoff received the Saginaw Chippewa check for CAF.\92\ 
Abramoff had the check deposited on November 18, 2002.\93\ 
Abramoff apparently concealed from the Saginaw Chippewa that 
CAF was his personal charity. After the Saginaw Chippewa 
donated $25,000 to CAF, Abramoff instructed Maury Litwack, a 
legislative assistant at Greenberg Traurig, to draft a thank 
you letter to the Tribe, and to sign it as the Program 
Director.\94\ The Committee has not been able to verify whether 
the letter was actually sent and received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ Capital Athletic Foundation document production (SEN-CAF 
000681) (November 13, 2002).
    \92\ Email between Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of 
Michigan, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig; Holly Bowers, Greenberg 
Traurig; and Jennifer Boice, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027002) 
(November 14, 2002).
    \93\ Capital Athletic Foundation document production (SEN-CAF 
000681) (November 13, 2002).
    \94\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Maury 
Litwack, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001280-81) (November 19-20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff used the $25,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa and 
another $50,000 from the Alabama Coushatta, to partially 
finance a widely publicized golfing trip to Scotland. Regarding 
these donations, both Abramoff and Rudy pled guilty to 
defrauding the Saginaw Chippewa. According to Abramoff's plea 
agreement:

        From June 2002 to November 2002, Abramoff and a former 
        lobbying colleague, who was also a former congressional 
        staffer (``Staffer A'') successfully solicited the 
        Michigan Tribe for a $25,000 payment to CAF. Instead of 
        using the funds for CAF, Abramoff used this money for 
        his personal and professional benefit to partially pay 
        for a golfing trip to Scotland for himself, public 
        officials, members of his staff, and others.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 7, U.S. 
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rudy pled similarly:

        In June 2002, Rudy, at Abramoff's direction, solicited 
        one of Firm B's clients, a Native American Tribe in 
        Michigan, for a $25,000 contribution to CAF made by 
        check ... by falsely claiming that a public official 
        requested them to solicit funds for the charity from 
        their clients. Abramoff and Rudy intended to use this 
        money for their personal and professional benefit to 
        partially pay for a golfing trip to Scotland for 
        Abramoff, Rudy, Representative #1, members of his staff 
        and others, which Rudy ultimately did not attend.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 17, U.S. 
v. Tony C. Rudy (Dist. D.C., March 31, 2006) (CR-06-082)

    Notably, Rudy admitted in his plea agreement that he 
solicited money from the Saginaw Chippewa ``by falsely claiming 
that a public official [DeLay] requested them to solicit funds 
for the charity from their clients.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Abramoff and Scanlon Deceive the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
        Into Sending $1,000,000 to CAF--January and August 2002

    CAF's 2002 Form 990PF listed the Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'') as its biggest contributor--at 
$1,000,000.\98\ According to CAF's accounting ledger, the Tribe 
made two payments: (1) $500,000 on January 3, 2002; and, (2) 
$500,000 on August 6, 2002.\99\ The Committee finds, however, 
that Abramoff and Scanlon deceived the Tribe into paying that 
$1,000,000 into CAF for uses the Tribe never intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.
    \99\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001948) (December 31, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 19, 2001, Scanlon sent the Choctaw an invoice 
purportedly from CAF for $500,000 for ``Professional Services 
Rendered.'' Barely one week later, Abramoff was looking for the 
money. He asked Laura Lippy and Rodney Lane, two of his 
associates, ``[d]id we ever get the [sic] $500K for Cap 
Athletic from Choctaw per Scanlon?'' \100\ The payment actually 
arrived a few days after the New Year.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Laura Lippy, 
Greenberg Traurig, and Rodney Lane Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000114360) 
(December 27, 2001).
    \101\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010719) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Within two months, Abramoff and Scanlon began chasing the 
Choctaw for their next score for CAF. On March 3, 2002, 
Abramoff instructed Scanlon: ``See if you can get [Nell Rogers] 
to send my share to Capital Athletic Foundation. She liked 
using that entity anyway. This is for the next payment, not the 
last one.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110037) (March 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon continued to be the prime actor, while Abramoff 
skulked in the shadows. Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Can you have 
one of the upcoming payments from Choctaw (or one of the 
others) made to ``Capital Athletic Foundation'' up to $500K? I 
need to get more money in there.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110065) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon agreed, ``I will do it.'' \104\ And, he offered to 
go even further, ``there is another payment coming due--I can 
get 1 mil in there in about two weeks--IS [sic] that ok?'' 
\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff, however, replied that ``$500k is enough'' for 
CAF.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As time passed, and the Choctaw's money did not arrive, 
Abramoff again asked Scanlon to get it done, and this time for 
more money. In an email entitled ``Capital Athletic 
Foundation'', Abramoff reminded Scanlon ``Please don't forget 
this one. $1M in there would be good if that's the amount you 
can get Nell [Rogers] to send.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00010056) (March 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``I'll approach her on this 
today.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000110088) (April 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly two months later, the money had still not arrived. 
Consequently, over the next few weeks, Abramoff badgered 
Scanlon to have the Tribe make the payment:

           On May 23, Abramoff asked Scanlon to ``find 
        out what's up with the Choctaw's payment to CAF''.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110224) (May 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On May 29, Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Where 
        are we on this? I did not get the CAF check.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110212) (May 29-30, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On May 30, Abramoff again asked, ``Anything 
        happen with this yet?'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ Id.

    Abramoff became desperate, suggesting to Scanlon that he 
``call Nell [Rogers] today and push her on the $500K for CAF'' 
and instructing Scanlon ``to tell her that they [CAF] spent the 
money already with the trust that they'd get it, and that they 
are all over you now.'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1735978) (June 12, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff apparently grew increasingly frustrated by 
Scanlon's failure to secure the money for him. In an email 
entitled ``Choctaw CAF!'', Abramoff implored Scanlon, ``Mike, 
what do we have to do to get this money in?'' \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110378) (July 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the money had still not arrived, Abramoff suggested to 
Scanlon that he tell Nell Rogers at Choctaw that they were 
``going to lose the ability to use this group [CAF] as a front 
if we don't get this current.'' \114\ Scanlon agreed to do 
so.\115\ Abramoff followed up a few days later, asking Scanlon 
``Can you call her again today?'' \116\ Finally, on August 6, 
2002, a $500,000 check for CAF arrived from the Choctaw.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057339-40) (July 5, 
2002).
    \115\ Id.
    \116\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110378) (July 10, 2002).
    \117\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Laura 
Lippy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000110548) (August 6, 2002); see also May & Barnhard document 
production (MB-001948) (December 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite being listed as CAF's largest donor, the Choctaw 
never intended to make a charitable contribution to CAF. During 
the June 2005 hearing before the Committee, Rogers, who dealt 
with Abramoff and Scanlon, testified:

        The Chairman: Ms. Rogers, in 2002 the Capital Athletic 
        Foundation, Mr. Abramoff's private charitable 
        foundation, reported on its tax forms that the 
        Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was far and away 
        the single biggest contributor ... Michael Scanlon and 
        Jack Abramoff directed the tribe to make these 
        contributions?
        Ms. Rogers: These were not intended as contributions, 
        Senator. They were intended to be pass-throughs to 
        other groups doing grassroots public advocacy work for 
        the tribe.
        The Chairman: In other words, the tribe did not know 
        that 70 percent of these moneys were going to----
        Ms. Rogers: Not at all. They were never intended to be 
        contributions.
        The Chairman: Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon never 
        told you that the Capital Athletic Foundation was Mr. 
        Abramoff's private charity?
        Ms. Rogers: No.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Nell 
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).

    At all relevant times, the Tribe intended that the payments 
to CAF would pass through to grassroots organizations working 
to oppose the expansion of gaming in the Choctaw casino's 
customer market.\119\ At no time did Abramoff or Scanlon advise 
the Choctaw that CAF would keep any part of the money, as a 
charitable contribution or otherwise.\120\ Rogers was disgusted 
that Abramoff would not only abuse the Tribe's trust, but also 
use a charity to do it.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Philadelphia, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Neither Abramoff nor Scanlon ever told the Tribe that CAF 
was a charitable organization.\122\ The Tribe was led to 
believe that CAF ``was another one of Mike's entities that was 
a vehicle to be used as a pass-through to grassroots groups.'' 
\123\ Rogers understood that CAF was ``something conveniently 
set up to use for pass-through activities.'' \124\ Before the 
Committee's investigation, the Tribe had no idea that Abramoff 
was using CAF to finance the Eshkol Academy.\125\ Based on its 
review of CAF's Form 990PFs, accounting ledger, profit and loss 
statements, and other accounting records, the Committee finds 
that CAF paid none of the Choctaw's funds to grassroots 
organizations and vendors as the Tribe had intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Id.
    \124\ Id.
    \125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Another $1,000,000 From the 
        Choctaw--October 2002

    Abramoff and Scanlon's diversion of Choctaw funds, intended 
by the Tribe for political purposes, did not end there. In 
October 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon successfully deceived the 
Tribe into paying another $1,000,000, nearly half of which went 
to CAF. To accomplish this, Abramoff betrayed not just the 
Tribe, but also two long-time friends, and violated his 
fiduciary duty to a non-profit organization on whose board he 
sat.
    According to its president, Amy Ridenour, the National 
Center for Public Policy Research (``NCPPR'') is ``a 23-year-
old conservative free market non-profit institution.'' \126\ 
Abramoff joined the NCPPR's board in 1997.\127\ Ridenour told 
the Committee that ``[a]t that time, I had known Jack for 
nearly 17 years. He was a dedicated conservative, a successful 
lobbyist and businessman, and his managerial skills it seemed 
to me at the time exceeded my own.'' \128\ Abramoff introduced 
Ridenour and NCPPR to Chief Martin and the Choctaw in 
1997.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 29-30 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy 
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).
    \127\ Id.
    \128\ Id.
    \129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Five years later, in October 2002, Abramoff used his 
position as an NCPPR director to further carry out his and 
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. Abramoff apparently sowed the 
seeds months earlier at lunch with Ridenour and her husband at 
Abramoff's restaurant Signatures.\130\ Ridenour testified 
before the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Id.

        Jack shared with us details of his work doing what he 
        called ``a new kind of lobbying.'' He said he and his 
        colleagues working with the Mississippi Choctaws had 
        noted that for-profit non-Indian gaming establishments 
        were pushing to establish themselves in areas of the 
        Country not noted for their admiration of gaming. They 
        believed that a public backlash against gaming was 
        brewing and that before things came to a head, perhaps 
        4 to 5 years down the road, they would educate the 
        public about the Choctaw success story.
        I was very interested in what I was hearing. I noted 
        that his new kind of lobbying was not lobbying at all, 
        but educational work and I expressed an interest in the 
        National Center sponsoring it. Jack seemed mildly 
        agreeable, but noncommittal. I did not press the 
        matter, assuming the Choctaws were financing the 
        project and would have to approve our involvement.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\ Id.

    Nothing happened for four months.\132\ Then, on October 1, 
Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Amy Ridenour has asked if we can run 
any funds through them to pump up their non email donations 
(they will give us back 100%). Let's run some of the non-caf 
Choctaw money through them to the camans [sic].'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1636313) (October 1, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To induce the Tribe into making the payment, Abramoff told 
them that the money would be used for their grassroots 
activities. In her interview with Committee staff, Rogers said 
that the Tribe paid $1,000,000 to the NCPPR at Abramoff's 
direction.\134\ The Tribe intended and understood that the 
money would pass-through the NCPPR to grassroots organizations 
and vendors trying to defeat the expansion of gaming into the 
Choctaw casino's customer market.\135\ Ralph Reed's firm 
Century Strategies was among the firms that, Abramoff assured 
Rogers, would ultimately receive part of the $ 1,000,000.\136\ 
The Tribe never intended any part of that $1,000,000 to go to 
CAF, Abramoff, Scanlon, or any other entity owned or controlled 
by Abramoff or Scanlon.\137\ Until the Committee's 
investigation, the Tribe did not know that Abramoff and Scanlon 
had diverted the $1,000,000 for their own personal use and 
benefit.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians, in Philadelphia, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
    \135\ Id.
    \136\ Id.
    \137\ Id.
    \138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, on October 10, 2002, at Abramoff's direction, NCPPR 
drew up a $1,000,000 invoice.\139\ The invoice Ridenour 
prepared listed as its purpose ``contribution to the National 
Center for educational and research programs and activities.'' 
\140\ Ridenour sent the invoice to Abramoff by email.\141\ That 
was not the invoice that the Choctaw received, however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 30 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy 
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).
    \140\ Greenberg Traurig document production (Bates number 1640098) 
(October 10, 2002).
    \141\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Amy 
Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research (Bates number 
1640097) (October 10, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff forwarded NCPPR's original invoice to 
Scanlon.\142\ Someone at Scanlon's companies apparently 
fabricated another invoice purportedly from the ``National 
Center for Public Policy Research'' for ``Professional 
Services.'' \143\ That was the invoice the Tribe ultimately saw 
and paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\ Id.
    \143\ Greenberg Traurig document production (Bates number 1640097-
99) (October 10, 2002). The Committee observes that this invoice is 
similar in form and content to the invoices Scanlon sent on his 
companies' behalf, usually just identifying ``Professional Services' as 
the reason for the payment request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To NCPPR's Ridenour, Abramoff explained that part of the 
money was a donation ultimately destined for CAF, and the rest 
was intended for a huge educational effort the Tribe was 
undertaking to educate the public on the benefits of Indian 
gaming, and the distinction between Indian and non-Indian 
gaming. According to Ridenour's testimony before the Committee:

        When the funds arrived, he [Abramoff] told me how they 
        should be disbursed: $450,000 to the Capital Athletic 
        Foundation as a grant; $500,000 to Capitol Campaign 
        Strategies; and; and $50,000 to a company called 
        Nurnberger and Associates.
        I believe Capitol Campaign Strategies was to be paid 
        for educational program services, while Ralph 
        Nurnberger was going to help coordinate the project. 
        Jack referred to his receiving ``instructions'' for the 
        disbursements, which I took to mean recommendations 
        from the donor, which was consistent with my belief 
        that the Mississippi Choctaws were actively 
        involved.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 30-31 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy 
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).

    Abramoff repeatedly assured Ridenour that influencing 
legislation was not part of the effort.\145\ Abramoff explained 
that the payment to CCS ``was to be used for educational 
program services, particularly polling and telephone banks, but 
not necessarily exclusively; research, potentially paid 
advertising; I was told later petition drives, that sort of 
thing, but 100 percent educational program services.'' \146\ 
Abramoff told Ridenour that Nurnberger & Associates would 
coordinate the effort.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\ Id. at 37.
    \146\ Id.
    \147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 17, 2002, Ridenour confirmed for Abramoff 
NCPPR's receipt of the $1,000,000 dollar wire transfer from the 
Choctaw.\148\ Two days later, Abramoff instructed Ridenour to 
send $450,000 to CAF and $50,000 to Nurnberger & 
Associates.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Email from Amy Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy 
Research, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) 
(October 17, 2002).
    \149\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Amy Ridenour, 
National Center for Public Policy Research (no Bates number) (October 
19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In dividing their ``gimme five'' spoils, Scanlon reminded 
Abramoff to have NCPPR send Abramoff's share directly to CAF to 
avoid a taxable event.\150\ When Ridenour requested invoices 
from CAF and Nurnberger, Abramoff directed his assistant to 
``make up two invoices.'' \151\ Abramoff further instructed 
that the ``invoices should be generic as follows: 1. From 
Capital Athletic Foundation for `Sports and Politics' project 
for $450K 2. Nurnberger and Associates (use Ralph Nurnberger's 
home address) for `research grant' for $50K.'' \152\ Abramoff 
similarly instructed Christopher Cathcart, Scanlon's right-hand 
man at CCS, to prepare an invoice from CCS ``for polling 
services or something like that.'' \153\ When Cathcart 
forwarded the invoice to him, Abramoff asked him to ``change 
this to $500K and find out from Amy is [sic] this suffices.'' 
\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, (GTG-E000034219) (October 21, 2002).
    \151\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034220) (October 21, 2002).
    \152\ Id.
    \153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00011851) (October 21, 
2002).
    \154\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011848) (October 22, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCPPR paid according to the invoices submitted by Abramoff 
and Scanlon. From a review of CAF's internal business and 
financial records, the Committee finds that CAF performed no 
services benefitting the Choctaw. Similarly, from a review of 
CCS's records, the Committee finds it performed no services for 
the $500,000 it received through NCPPR. Cathcart told the 
Committee that, contrary to the invoice he prepared, CCS did 
not provide polling or any other services to NCPPR.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former employee, Capitol 
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee finds that Abramoff fabricated the invoice 
from Nurnberger & Associates. During his interview with 
Committee staff, Nurnberger reviewed the invoice purportedly 
sent by his firm, Nurnberger & Associates, dated October 2002, 
for a ``Research Grant.'' Nurnberger said that he had never 
seen the invoice, and was certain that neither he nor his firm 
had ever invoiced the NCPPR for this $50,000 payment.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Interview of Ralph Nurnberger, president, Nurnberger & 
Associates, in Washington, D.C. (June 21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nurnberger also told the Committee that at no time did he 
or his firm provide any service to the NCPPR requiring 
remuneration.\157\ The payment, according to Nurnberger, was in 
fact repayment of a $50,000 loan that Nurnberger had made to 
Abramoff many years earlier for the production of the movie 
``Red Scorpion.'' \158\ After reading articles lauding Abramoff 
and his success in 2002, Nurnberger approached Abramoff about 
repayment.\159\ Abramoff claimed he was not liquid; however, 
Abramoff explained that the NCPPR, of which Abramoff admitted 
he was a director, owed him money, and he would arrange for 
payment to go instead directly to Nurnberger.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Id.
    \159\ Id.
    \160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, the Tribe never intended to donate any of that 
money to Abramoff's personal charity, to Nurnberger, or to CCS. 
Donald Kilgore, the Attorney General for the Choctaw, testified 
before the Committee that Abramoff told the Tribe that the 
entire $1,000,000 would be passed through to grassroots 
organizations working on issues important to the Tribe.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 15, 18 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of 
Donald Kilgore, Attorney General, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2002

    Based on its review of the records, the Committee finds 
that Abramoff never passed the Choctaw's money through CAF to 
grassroots groups or vendors working for the Tribe's benefit as 
the Choctaw had intended. Nor did CAF perform the work itself. 
Abramoff instead diverted the funds to his own personal causes 
and concerns.
    In 2002, CAF doled out $2,331,656 to various organizations. 
Before Abramoff shut it down, CAF's website identified the 
following organizations as representative grant recipients:

         The Alexandria Police Youth Camp Foundation
         American Youth Soccer Organization
         Bethesda Chevy Chase Baseball
         Belize Youth Soccer
         Boy Scouts of America
         Columbia Heights Youth Club
         Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital
         Howard County Youth Program
         JCC of Greater Washington
         Joy of Sports Foundation
         Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Club
         Washington DC Scores
         Washington Tennis Education Foundation
         YMCA of Metropolitan Washington \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004) .

    Despite millions of dollars in ``grants'' that year, these 
organizations received a mere $500 each. Cumulatively, the 
organizations received $7,000, which is only 0.3% of the 
purported grants made that year by CAF.
    Individuals and organizations Abramoff did not tout 
publicly were, in fact, the major beneficiaries of Abramoff's 
share of the ``gimme five'' scheme. According to CAF's 2002 
Form 990PF, the ten top recipients were:

         Eshkol Academy--$1,857,704
         P'tach--$300,000
         Kollel Ohel Tiferet--$97,000
         Chabad Lubavitch--$20,000
         GIFT School--$14,500
         Toward Tradition--$10,000
         The Waldorf School of Atlanta--$6,000
         Jewish Federation of Greater Washington--
        $5,000
         Washington Redskins Leadership Council--$4,000
         The Voice Behind--$2,500 \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.

    Despite receiving $2,254,704--nearly all of the $2,331,656 
that Abramoff had CAF dole out in ``grants'' in 2002--neither 
Eshkol Academy, P'tach, nor Kollel Ohel Tiferet were listed 
among the recent recipients identified on CAF's website. In 
fact, of the top ten recipients of CAF funds, only the Waldorf 
School and the Voice Behind were listed.\164\ Similarly, in 
promotional literature distributed to the public for ``The Spy 
Game,'' an event scheduled at the Spy Museum for March 26, 2003 
but which apparently did not occur, the Eshkol Academy, Kollel 
Ohel Tiferet, and P'tach are conspicuously absent from the list 
of recent grant recipients.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ See Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004) 
.
    \165\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of the top ten recipients of CAF largesse in 2002 had 
close ties to Abramoff:

         The single largest beneficiary of money was 
        the Eshkol Academy, the middle school and high school 
        for Orthodox Jews founded in 2001 by Abramoff. He and 
        his wife were the only members of the board of 
        directors.\166\ The money allegedly was used for 
        teaching facilities, instructors, and an ice rink.\167\ 
        In concealing his use of CAF to fund Eshkol, Abramoff 
        told Greenberg Traurig's Baggett that he was personally 
        funding the Eshkol Academy.\168\ Abramoff's school, 
        Eshkol Academy, received nearly 80% of the funds 
        Abramoff had CAF distribute as ``grants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Mimi Stansbury 
(MB-002043) (November 7, 2002).
    \167\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.
    \168\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Toward Tradition is ``a non-profit 
        (501.c.3), educational organization working to advance 
        our nation toward the traditional Judeo-Christian 
        values that defined America's creation and became the 
        blueprint for her greatness.'' \169\ During 2002, 
        Abramoff sat on the Board of Directors of Toward 
        Tradition.\170\ Toward Tradition is headed by Rabbi 
        Daniel Lapin, a long-term Abramoff friend.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\ Toward Tradition: Mission Statement (visited June 13, 2006) 
.
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Rabbi David Lapin received $60,529 from CAF 
        for ``consulting'' services.\172\ According to news 
        reports, Rabbi David Lapin is Daniel Lapin's brother, 
        and another long-time Abramoff friend.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990.
    \173\ See Rick Anderson, Meet the Lapin Brothers, Seattle Weekly, 
May 11, 2005 at 11. According to Seattle Weekly, Daniel Lapin allegedly 
received a $1.2 million no-bid government contract with the Northern 
Marianas, an Abramoff client during his days at the law and lobbying 
firm of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington 
        describes itself as ``the voice of the Jewish community 
        in and around the nation's capital since 1925.'' \174\ 
        The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington is the 
        ``operating agency'' of the Torah School of Greater 
        Washington, which is located at 12721 Goodhill Road in 
        Silver Spring, Maryland.\175\ Records filed with the 
        Maryland Secretary of State show that Abramoff was/is 
        the registered agent for the Torah School of Greater 
        Washington.\176\ The Torah School of Greater Washington 
        is a Jewish school for kindergarten through sixth 
        grade.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\ The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington: About Us, 
(visited June 7, 2006)  
(explanatory parenthetical needed).
    \175\ The Jewish Information and Referral Service, (visited June 7, 
2006)  (explanatory parenthetical needed).
    \176\ Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation.
    \177\ Torah School of Greater Washington, (visited June 7, 2006) 
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In 2004, the Voice Behind claimed to be ``a 
        faith-based, 501c3 [sic] non-profit creative 
        organization dedicated to creating, commissioning, and 
        celebrating transcendent works of art and media.'' 
        \178\ Its vision was a ``creative renaissance that 
        illumines the good, the true, and the beautiful through 
        excellence and artistry for the glory of God, the 
        service of neighbor, and the renewal of culture.'' 
        \179\ According to a press release, The Voice Behind, 
        in collaboration with Abramoff, the Capital Athletic 
        Foundation, and others hosted the premier of ``the Best 
        of the Damah Film Festival: Spiritual Experiences in 
        Film'' in Washington, D.C.\180\ The Committee has not 
        been able to confirm whether this event actually 
        occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\ The Voice Behind, (visited June 28, 2004) .
    \179\ Id.
    \180\ Id.

    The second largest recipient, P'tach, is a school in 
Brooklyn, New York for Jewish children with learning 
disabilities.\181\ Among CAF's donations to P'tach were 
$275,500 for P'tach to purchase a new facility for its GIFT 
High School, Gutmann Institute for Child Development, and for 
administrative offices, and $47,500 for a deposit on a proposed 
campus in Marriottsville, Maryland.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\ P'tach: About P'tach, (visited June 13, 2006) .
    \182\ Letter from Brian Caplan, P'tach, to Capital Athletic 
Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack Abramoff (GTG001764-JA-P) (March 12, 
2002) (concerning $14,500 gift); Letter from Brian Caplan, P'tach, to 
Capital Athletic Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack Abramoff (GTG001762-
JA-P) (July 11, 2002) (concerning $47,500 gift); Letter from Brian 
Caplan, P'tach, to Capital Athletic Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack 
Abramoff (GTG001761-JA-P) (August 14, 2002) (concerning $275,500 
donation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third largest recipient, Kollel Ohel Tiferet, is a 
purported educational institution in Israel; according to CAF's 
2002 990 Tax Return, the grant was supposedly used for 
education, athletics, and security. Based on its review of the 
documents, the Committee finds that the Kollel Ohel Tiferet was 
nothing more than an entity established on paper to conceal the 
ultimate recipient of CAF grants: Shmuel Ben Zvi.
    As noted above, in 2001 CAF apparently purchased a thermal 
imager for one Shmuel Ben Zvi for paramilitary use in the 
Israeli West Bank. In 2002, CAF sent money to Ben Zvi in 
Israel, simply listing it as a transfer.\183\ Additional 
entries reflect that the payments were for a ``new Jeep.'' 
\184\ Gail Halpern, Abramoff's tax advisor, labeled the 
purchases for Ben Zvi as ``spy equipment.'' \185\ According to 
one former Abramoff friend, Abramoff allegedly procured ``rifle 
scopes for settlers'' in Israel.\186\ The Committee thus finds 
that in 2002, Abramoff was making jeep payments for Ben Zvi and 
paying him a stipend from CAF funds.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December 31, 
2002).
    \184\ Id.
    \185\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E00001186) (November 5, 2002).
    \186\ Email from Don Feder to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig 
(GTG-E000020082) (July 2, 2002).
    \187\ See May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December 
31, 2002); see also Email from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard 
(GTG-E00008858) (September 19, 2002) (referring to payments used for 
jeep); Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011885) (November 5, 2002) (requesting 
Abramoff cut ``Shmuel spy equipment and his monthly stipend ($3560) 
...''); Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000088619-21) (December 24, 2002) (``I cannot cut 
him off from the stipend and the jeep payment.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At some point, Abramoff began getting pressure to ``clean 
up'' the books of CAF to conform, at least on paper, CAF's 
expenditures with some legitimate charitable purpose. When 
Abramoff proposed changing how the payments were made, Allison 
Bozniak, one of Abramoff's former assistants at Greenberg 
Traurig, reported to Abramoff:

        I spoke with Shmuel [Ben Zvi] and he is a little afraid 
        to begin changing things with the bank since they set 
        up the loan for the jeep based on the 2K payments each 
        month for the last year. They regarded the 2k as a sign 
        that the transfers were stable and felt that these 
        consistent payments, plus the letter from Jack made the 
        loan a good risk.
        He studies half a day at a place called ``Kollel'' but 
        he doesn't think that they even have a bank account as 
        it really doesn't pay it's [sic] members. He also has 
        no way to set this up with a Yeshiva at the 
        moment.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard (GTG-
E000088582) (September 19, 2002).

    Bozniak proposed a solution, ``He did suggest that he could 
write some kind of letter with his Sniper Workshop Logo and 
letter head. It is an `educational' entity of sorts.'' \189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff could only respond, ``No, don't do that. I don't 
want a sniper letterhead.'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff's use of CAF continued to raise alarm among his 
tax advisors. On November 11, 2002, Halpern wrote specifically 
about the payments to Ben Zvi:

        [W]e need to work this into the tax exempt purpose of 
        the Foundation. More to come on this subject in an 
        email tomorrow or so. [The accounting firm of May and 
        Barnhard] is finishing the 2001 return and read me the 
        riot act on some of the stuff that we are doing. We 
        need to ``fix'' the holes.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088599) (November 11, 2002).

    Abramoff's solution was not to cease the questionable 
activity; rather, he chose to conceal it with a paper 
transaction. Abramoff advised Ben Zvi, ``The other thing is 
that, if possible, it would be easier for me to get you funds 
through a kollel over there or something like that. my [sic] 
accountant is very unhappy with the way we have done this, 
through our foundation which was not set up for these kinds of 
activities.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel 
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088186) (December 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Zvi advised Abramoff, ``Anyone can have a Kollel here. 
If I set up the account name in the name of a Kollel and send 
you papers with a Kollel stationary would that work?'' \193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel 
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088183) (December 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Abramoff shared Ben Zvi's hardship with his tax 
planner Gail Halpern, Halpern suggested ways to make the 
transaction pass muster on paper, although she knew the 
ultimate recipient and use of the payments.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly one month later, Abramoff asked Ben Zvi to ``set up 
an account for a kollel and get me the info so we can send the 
$ [sic] there from now on.'' \195\ Later that same day, Halpern 
advised Abramoff on the need to route the money through another 
institution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shmuel Ben 
Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088623) (December 24, 2002).

        [B]ut let's try to figure it out in a way where we 
        don't screw up the foundation. we [sic] need to get the 
        money to a 501c3 [sic] or an educational institution, 
        not directly to him. can [sic] you ask him if he can 
        work something out w/the kollel so the money goes from 
        the kollel to him? \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088619) (December 24, 2002).

    When Ben Zvi reported to Abramoff that the bank from which 
he had obtained the loan for the jeep insisted the money 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continue to go through Ben Zvi's account, Abramoff responded:

        They are being ridiculous. tell [sic] them that all the 
        money will come into the Kollel account, which can be 
        in their bank. Same amount of money, but CAF cannot 
        make the payments directly to you. must [sic] be to the 
        kollel.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel 
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088618) (December 26, 2002).

    Ben Zvi soon succeeded. On December 27, 2002, in an email 
entitled ``CAF/Shmuel payments,'' he sent wiring information to 
Abramoff for the ``KOLLEL OHEL TIFERET (For: Shmuel Ben Zvi).'' 
\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \198\ Email from Shmuel Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet, to Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088616) (December 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Abramoff advised Halpern that Ben Zvi would do the 
kollel, Halpern instructed, ``[H]e needs to give us the name 
and bank account info. and [sic] can the jeep payments go to 
the kollel as well, as well as all the other military expenses 
that don't look good on the Foundation's books?'' \199\ Halpern 
further suggested that ``at the end of the year, he'll need to 
write us a letter on Kollel stationary thanking the Foundation 
for the money to promote their educational purpose.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088619) (December 24, 2002) (emphasis 
added).
    \200\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of the nearly $100,000 booked on CAF's ledger as 
contributions to Kollel Ohel Tiferet, not all were payments to 
Ben Zvi either directly or through the Kollel account. Listed 
under the Kollel entry of CAF's ledgers are sizable 
reimbursements of a number of Greenberg Traurig employees: 
Allison Bozniak, Hillel Broder, Holly Bowers, and Laura 
Lippy.\201\ The reimbursements appear to be for the purchase of 
``books,'' ``videos,'' ``supplies,'' ``camera,'' ``light/photon 
supplies,'' ``custom suit expense'' and ``lights and alarms,'' 
apparently intended for paramilitary use.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December 31, 
2002).
    \202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``custom suit expense'' on CAF's books is curious. The 
``custom suit'' is a ghili suit, that is, camouflage apparel, 
typically used by snipers. According to one email from Ben Zvi 
to Hillel Broder, apparently a former Greenberg Traurig 
employee:

        Hillel, I want to order a GHILLI SUIT [sic]. from [sic] 
        this company so that we have a basic structure to copy 
        from.
        These are made well and will help us to no end.
        I want to get the FULL MILITARY GHILI SUIT [sic] in 
        (light) BROWN DICIDOUS [sic] colors just like the one 
        display in the photo on their site.
        The sizes go by BDU (battle dress uniform) So [sic] the 
        bottom should be XXX long and the top should be XXXX 
        long.
        Now the order form on their site gives a buba misa 
        about these suits needing a special state department 
        licence and blah, blah, blah.
        These suits are used by goyim who do alot [sic] of 
        hunting. PLEASE [sic] don't get freaked out about this 
        warning, suits of similar design can be bought from any 
        of the hunting supply catalogs.
        Anyway when you box it up and send it to me, send it as 
        THE GRANDMOTHER TREE COSTUME [sic] for the play 
        POCAHONTAS [sic].\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\ Email from Shmuel Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet, to Hillel 
Broder, Greenberg Traurig (GTG008442-JA-P) (July 29, 2002).

    Ben Zvi further advised that should Broder need ``to call 
them and they ask you what you need it for just tell them that 
it is a present for a relative who goes DEER HUNTING [sic].'' 
\204\ Scribbled upon the return email is one word: ``Orderd'' 
[sic].\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\ Id.
    \205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Broder also apparently ordered other sniper paraphernalia 
for Ben Zvi, for which he was reimbursed by CAF. According to 
invoices from Blackhawk Industries, Inc., Broder purchased 
tactical hydration tubes, web gear, shooters mats, sniper mats, 
and sniper cleaning kits.\206\ Holly Bowers, Abramoff's 
assistant, apparently paid for some of the items Broder ordered 
for Ben Zvi. On July 23, 2002, Bowers listed in her daily wrap-
up list on item 12: ``Gave Hillel my credit card number to 
order the anti-terrorism literature for your friend in 
Israel.'' \207\ Bowers similarly included in her August 12, 
2002 list in item 14: ``Gave Hillel my credit card to order 
things for Shmuel.'' \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \206\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG008438-JA-P/
GTG008439-JA-P) (entitled ``Packing List from Blackhawk Industries, 
Inc. to Hillel Broder'') (August 6, 2002).
    \207\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059454) (July 23, 2002).
    \208\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026750-51) (August 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other, curious expenditures are on CAF's accounting ledger. 
To name a few,

           Abramoff spent another $10,000 on The 
        Lexington Group in April and May 2002.\209\ On its 
        website, The Lexington Group claimed to practice ``in 
        all areas of legislative representation.'' \210\ 
        Abramoff described it as ``just something i have set up 
        with a guy who gt [Greenberg Traurig] would not hire 
        but who will do a lot of business.'' \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001946) (December 31, 
2002).
    \210\ See The Lexington Group (visited July 8, 2004)  (The website also claimed that The Lexington 
Group was partnered with Greenberg Traurig).
    \211\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011514) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Abramoff spent $50,000 on an ice rink for 
        Eshkol.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001946) (December 31, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In 2002, CAF spent $67,685 on a Spy Museum 
        Fundraiser.\213\ Despite the large expenditures, the 
        fundraiser apparently never occurred.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001940) (January-
December 2002).
    \214\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           CAF funds were apparently paid to Livsar, 
        the company that owned and operated Abramoff's 
        Signatures restaurant. On January 3, 2002, Rodney Lane, 
        Abramoff's former assistant who left Greenberg Traurig 
        to set up the restaurant, advised Abramoff of a ``5 
        minute transfer from CAF to Livsar.'' \215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ Email from Rodney Lane, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, 
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107574) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   F. IN 2003, ABRAMOFF FUNNELS TRIBAL MONEY THROUGH CONDUITS TO CAF

    CAF's 2003 Form 990PF does not list any Tribe as a 
donor.\216\ The major donors listed on CAF's 2003 Form 990PF 
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \216\ See Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.

         Kaygold, LLC--$47,891
         IIA--$500,000
         National Center for Public Policy Research--
        $250,000
         Atlantic Research & Analysis--$950,000
         Sony Electronics, Inc.--$6,000
         Jack Abramoff--$400,000 \217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.

Nevertheless, the Committee has found substantial evidence 
establishing that the alleged contributions from Kaygold and 
Atlantic Research & Analysis (``ARA'') were actually funds from 
Indian Tribes.

1. Kaygold Sends Tribal Funds to CAF

    According to Kaygold's bank statements, Kaygold's primary 
source of income was Scanlon's companies. Thus, the $47,891 
``contribution'' was actually fruits of the ``gimme five'' 
scheme.

2. Abramoff and Scanlon Use ARA as a Conduit To Funnel Louisiana 
        Coushatta Funds to CAF

    From its review of banking and accounting records, the 
Committee finds that the money allegedly from ARA is actually 
money from the Louisiana Coushatta. Scanlon's right-hand man, 
Christopher Cathcart, apparently set up ARA solely to run 
through payments from the Louisiana Coushatta.
    As he had in 2001, Scanlon started this scam with another 
memorandum. According to a January 21, 2003, memorandum 
prepared by Scanlon for then-Tribal Vice-Chairman William 
Worfel on the Louisiana Political Program, ARA was allegedly 
established as a front entity to provide cover to Worfel and 
then-Chief Poncho politically by concealing that the Louisiana 
Coushatta was still paying Scanlon.\218\ Scanlon attached 
invoices to the memorandum ``that direct the funds to several 
different entities that will play different roles in this 
campaign along with a letter from Me/CCS informing the tribe 
that I will no longer be providing the political services to 
the tribe as I have in the past.'' \219\ Regarding ARA 
specifically, Scanlon wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \218\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Louisiana 2002[sic] Political Program'') (undated) 
(erroneously date stamped ``9/21/2005'').
    \219\ Id.

        ARA will be the entity to conduct all the market 
        analysis, polling, district research, opposition 
        research and general strategy. ARA will also be that 
        primary funding entity for the campaign; Meaning that 
        this is where the lions share of the money will go, and 
        then ARA can sub-contract or hire CCS to conduct 
        strategic functions for the campaign.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Id.

    On January 21, 2003, the same day as his memorandum to 
Worfel, Scanlon asked Cathcart, ``Can you get A [sic] DBA on 
the Scanlon CM account that is Atlantic Research and 
Analysis.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
and Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) 
(January 21-22, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day, Cathcart informed Scanlon: ``[I] am going to 
have JD [Scanlon's accountant Jeremy Diehl] set up a new llc 
[sic] for ara [sic] ... reason is that ScM has its own unique 
tax status as a commercial real estate lessor. [S]o, added 
liability protection and smarter for tax reasoins [sic] to keep 
separate. [W]ill not impact our ability to collect the dough 
from coush [Coushatta].'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two hours later, Scanlon authorized Cathcart to establish 
the new entity.\223\ The Committee has found no corporate 
registration or other filing for ARA in Maryland, Delaware, or 
the District of Columbia establishing that ARA was ever 
incorporated. The Committee has determined that ARA opened a 
bank account on or about April 1, 2003.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ Id.
    \224\ See Wachovia document production (D00519-20) (April 1, 2003-
April 30, 2003) (bank account statement for Atlantic Research & 
Analysis, which is the first such statement for ARA and shows a $0.00 
opening balance on 04/01/03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, Abramoff and Scanlon were on the move. In an 
apparent effort to avoid taxes on his take, Abramoff wanted 
Scanlon to have the Coushatta send his share of the ``gimme 
five'' funds directly to CAF. Abramoff told Halpern, his tax 
adviser, that he would soon have $1,000,000 for CAF ``directly 
from Coushatta.'' \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \225\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, 
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012166) (March 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff directed Scanlon: ``Please make sure the next $1M 
from Coushatta for me goes to Eshkol Academy directly. Please 
tell them that we are `using the school as our conduit for some 
activities.' If that won't fly with them, use CAF, or National 
Center for Public Policy Research.'' \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000034571) (February 20, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following month, Abramoff asked Scanlon ``did we get 
the Coushatta money?'' and implored Scanlon, ``Can you please 
please please get it written to Eshkol Academy?'' \227\ 
Abramoff again suggested that Scanlon ``[t]ell them that's our 
front group to cover some of this.'' \228\ Scanlon agreed to do 
so.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252852) (March 18, 2003).
    \228\ Id.
    \229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about April 15, 2003, Scanlon submitted a $2,000,000 
invoice to the Louisiana Coushatta in the name of ARA, along 
with invoices from his other groups.\230\ The address listed on 
the invoice for ARA--53 Baltimore Avenue, Rehoboth Beach, DE 
19971--was the clapboard house from which another Scanlon 
entity, the American International Center, operated.\231\ 
Worfel, the Louisiana Coushatta's Vice-Chairman at the time, 
was led to believe that ARA was ``just another entity of 
Greenberg ... that they operate under.'' \232\ Worfel 
understood ARA was one of many front-groups that Abramoff and 
Scanlon used so the Tribe's political opposition would not know 
what they were doing.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates 
number) (entitled ``Atlantic Research and Analysis INVOICE'') (April 
15, 2003).
    \231\ See Chris Barrish, Abramoff Cohort Spent Millions on Sussex 
Homes, The New Journal, May 16, 2006.
    \232\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \233\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff still wanted Scanlon to have the Tribe send his 
part of the ``gimme five'' payments to CAF.\234\ While Scanlon 
awaited arrival of the funds, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``I really 
need to get those funds into Eshkol asap.'' \235\ Scanlon 
advised Abramoff that he could not guarantee the payment would 
go to CAF, and was certain the money would not be routed 
directly to Eshkol because he could not find ``any invoices on 
the school.'' \236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April 16, 
2003).
    \235\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April 28, 
2003).
    \236\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (April 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 1, 2003, ARA received a $2,000,000 wire transfer 
from the Louisiana Coushatta.\237\ Scanlon advised Abramoff in 
a May 5 email entitled ``Coush!'': ``Hey FYI--Coushatta has 
paid for the Louisiana 2003 program in full now. If it's ok--I 
think it would be wise to hold back a bit for a rainy day (100 
or so to cover operations), other than that please tell me 
where to send the funds.'' \238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \237\ Wachovia document production (D00521-22) (May 1, 2003-May 30, 
2003).
    \238\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff instructed Scanlon to send it to CAF.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \239\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Abramoff did not receive the money, he asked Scanlon 
on May 6, ``Did we get this money yet? I am in urgent need of 
funds.'' \240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \240\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scanlon assured Abramoff that he would ``have a check 
tomorrow at your office via courier!'' \241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \241\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    True to his word, on May 7, 2003, Scanlon instructed 
Cathcart to ``cut a check to Capital Athletic Foundation for 
950k.'' \242\ Cathcart responded, ``950? Wow. It will come from 
atlantic research [sic]. I will pay Ccs [sic] out of the 
rest.'' \243\ According to ARA's bank records, ARA executed a 
check for $950,000.\244\ Abramoff deposited the $950,000 into 
CAF's bank account on May 8, 2003.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to 
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) 
(May 7, 2003).
    \243\ Email from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies, 
to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May 
7, 2003).
    \244\ Wachovia document production (D00521-22) (May 1, 2003-May 30, 
2003).
    \245\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-000252) (December 31, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Abramoff's Use of CAF Funds in 2003

    In 2003, Abramoff used CAF as he had before. According to 
the 2003 Form 990PF, Abramoff directed CAF to pay:

Eshkol Academy..........................................      $2,366,512
Beis Avrohom Chaim......................................        $251,242
Kollel Ohel Tiferet.....................................         $44,220
American Friends of Lubavitch...........................         $10,000
The DeLay Foundation for Kids...........................         $25,000
Bais Yaakov Brooklyn....................................         $20,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      $2,716,974

    Abramoff's Eshkol Academy was again the biggest 
beneficiary, receiving 87% of CAF's grants. Kollel Ohel 
Tiferet, the paper entity established by Abramoff's friend in 
Israel, received another $44,000.
    Beis Avrohom Chaim is another Abramoff entity that received 
CAF funding. According to the articles of incorporation, Beis 
Avrohom Chaim was incorporated in June 2003 under Maryland law 
as a religious corporation.\246\ The trustees were Jack 
Abramoff and his wife; Shana Tesler, a former Greenberg Traurig 
employee who worked closely with Abramoff; and, her husband Sam 
Hook.\247\ The principal place of worship listed in its 
articles of incorporation is Abramoff's home address.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \246\ Beis Avrohom Chaim, Articles of Incorporation.
    \247\ Id. For reasons unknown to the Committee, Rodney Lane, 
Abramoff's former executive assistant who was instrumental in setting 
up the Signatures restaurant, subsequently replaced Abramoff's wife as 
a trustee. See Articles of Amendment for a Religious Corporation, for 
Beis Avrohom Chaim.
    \248\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Beis Avrohom Chaim's General Ledger, total 
contributions from CAF totaled $251,242 in 2003.\249\ Two 
payments made on July 10, 2003, for $241,250 are described as 
contributions from CAF.\250\ Another payment on August 5, 2003, 
for $2,500 is described as payment by CAF for professional 
services.\251\ A final payment of $7,492 on August 8, 2003 is 
described as mortgage recordation fees related to a mortgage 
closing.\252\ The total listed on Beis Avrohom Chaim's general 
ledger--$251,242--matches the amount of donations listed on 
CAF's Form 990.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \249\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-00255) (December 31, 
2003).
    \250\ Id.
    \251\ Id.
    \252\ Id.
    \253\ Compare May & Barnhard document production (MB-00255) 
(December 31, 2003), with Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incorporated as a religious corporation, Beis Avrohom Chaim 
appears to be a holding company for real estate. According to a 
deed filed in Montgomery County, Maryland, on July 10, 2003, 
Beis Avrohom Chaim purchased property at 800 Edelblut Drive, 
Silver Spring Maryland (close to Abramoff's home) for 
$845,000.\254\ On CAF's 2003 Form 990, Abramoff described Beis 
Avrohom Chaim as a ``religious organization, [that] provides 
religious services for the congregation and housing for the 
Eshkol Academy student athletes.'' \255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \254\ Deed, July 10, 2003 between Benjamin L. Allen, PR and Marie-
Louise Allen Kempe, PR of the Estate of Marie Louise Allen, Estate no. 
W-37905 as to \1/2\ interest and Marie Louise Allen and James S. Allen, 
by Benjamin L. Allen, his Attorney-in-fact, as to \1/2\ interest, as 
tenants in common as to the whole to Beis Avrohom Chaim. The property 
is apparently down the street from Abramoff's home.
    \255\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As it had for 2002, for 2003 CAF also listed substantial 
expenses associated with travel, conferences, and meeting: 
$251,163.\256\ Abramoff used approximately $150,000 of CAF's 
funds to finance another trip to Scotland.\257\ Abramoff also 
spent over $100,000 on the Spy Museum Event that apparently did 
not take place.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \256\ Id.
    \257\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-000250) (January-
December 2003).
    \258\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             G. CONCLUSION

    Despite the self-serving statements about ``ethical 
conduct'' and helping ``disadvantaged youth'' on CAF's website, 
the Committee finds that Abramoff used CAF as his personal 
slush fund. In pleading guilty to tax evasion, Abramoff 
admitted that he ``misrepresented the receipt of diverted funds 
[from the Tribes] as charitable donations and mischaracterized 
personal and business expenditures as being used for a tax 
exempt purpose.'' \259\ He further confessed that he ``engaged 
in similar evasive conduct for the tax years 2001 and 2003. Due 
to this and other evasive conduct, Abramoff attempted to evade 
approximately $1,724,054 in individual income taxes for the 
2001 through 2003 tax years.'' \260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 39, U.S. 
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
    \260\ Id. at para. 41.
                           PART THREE--OTHER

                               CHAPTER I

           COUNCIL OF REPUBLICANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY

        Who writes $50,000 checks to people they don't know if 
        it wasn't what Jack--Jack said these people have a lot 
        of money, they want to give to Republicans, they're 
        taking my advice, and they really just don't want to be 
        bothered with executive directors [like me]. Fine, and 
        then they sent their checks in. And then what did these 
        disappointed people think they were going to get, and 
        you tell me who's committing fraud ... I mean it all 
        fit ...

    Deposition testimony of CREA president Italia Federici to 
Committee staff, October 7, 2005

        You are an environmental organization. You come into a 
        lot of money from Indian tribes. My guess is that that 
        money had nothing to do with generosity, or had very 
        little to do with energy or the environment but had a 
        lot to do with Mr. Abramoff saying to his contacts in 
        these tribes, ``I want you to stick money into Ms. 
        Federici's organization,'' and they did.

    Comments from Committee Vice-Chairman Byron Dorgan to CREA 
president Italia Federici during Committee hearing, November 
17, 2005

                             A. BACKGROUND

    Among the issues investigated by the Committee is whether 
monies paid by the Tribes at Jack Abramoff or Michael Scanlon's 
direction, to or through particular entities, were used for 
purposes intended by the Tribes. In that context, the Committee 
is concerned about ``contributions'' that some of the Tribes 
made at Abramoff's direction to an organization called the 
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA'') 
and, in particular, the circumstances under which they made 
those contributions.
    CREA was created in 1997 by Italia Federici.\1\ In her 
deposition with Committee staff, Federici stated that she 
originally formed the organization in the memory of her 
mother.\2\ According to Federici, her mother passed away two 
weeks before former Interior Secretary Gale Norton's 1996 
campaign for the U.S. Senate ended.\3\ (Federici testified that 
she worked on Norton's failed Senate campaign ``from the day 
that it started to the day that it ended.'' \4\) Federici 
stated that her mother ``liked the notion, my idea of a 
Republican environmental organization, so I decided to kind of 
honor her memory by creating CREA in 1997.'' \5\ Subsequently, 
Norton and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist came on board as 
CREA's honorary national co-chairmen.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id. During her deposition, Federici recalled first working with 
Norton on her race for Colorado attorney general, after a volunteer 
stint on the 1994 Jeb Bush for Governor campaign. Id.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id. In her deposition, Federici could not recall having drawn a 
salary from CREA from 1997-2000. Id. In 2001, she believed that ``her 
income tax return said that [she] made like $25,000.'' Id. And, in 
2002, she believed that she ``might have made like 56 [thousand 
dollars]'' and $85,000 in 2003. Id. It is noteworthy that Federici's 
salary from CREA appears to have spiked during the period that 
Abramoff's Tribal clients contributed to CREA.
    \6\ Id. Federici described, in her deposition with Committee staff, 
that Norquist was instrumental to CREA by including CREA in his 
Wednesday policy meetings and introducing CREA to Newt Gingrich, who 
served as CREA's ``first kickoff speaker ever, which was huge.'' Id. 
She further described Norquist as ``[j]ust always helpful, [providing] 
good advice.'' Id. According to an email dated January 8, 1999, 
Federici met Abramoff ``at a football game with ... Norquist.'' Email 
between Susan Ralston, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig, ``Call from'' (GTG-E000079149) (January 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Federici, CREA later closed ``because we 
reorganized when we moved out here [to Washington, D.C.] in 
1999 and [prominent Republican lawyer] Ben Ginsburg became our 
general counsel and he said, I want to reincorporate you guys 
in the District [of Columbia].'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It did so.\8\ After having been registered as a 527 
political fund-raising entity, it reorganized as a 501(c)(4) 
non-profit organization.\9\ According to CREA's website, its 
mission is ``to foster environmental protection by promoting 
fair, community[-]based solutions to environmental challenges, 
highlighting Republican environmental accomplishments and 
building on our Republican tradition of conservation.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Originally called the Coalition of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, in mid-2000, CREA was renamed the Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy and registered as both a 527 
political fund-raising entity and as a D.C.-based 501(c)(4), a 
nonprofit organization that may engage in some lobbying activities. 
Josephine Hearn, DOJ Subpoenas GOP Group, The Hill, March 1, 2005. 
However, last year, CREA reportedly edited a reference on its website 
referring to it as a 501(c)(4), replacing the text with more vague 
language. Id.
    \10\ Website, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, 
``Mission Statement,'' http://www.crea-online.org/2222-20.html (last 
visited, June 3, 2006). Since its inception, CREA has met skepticism 
from other environmental groups. See Josephine Hearn, DOJ Subpoenas GOP 
Group, The Hill, March 1, 2005. For example, Republicans for 
Environmental Protection called the group a ``greenscam'' in 1998 after 
it was revealed that the group received significant funding from the 
mining, logging, chemical and coal industries. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Abramoff Has His Tribal Clients Pay CREA
    In testimony before the Committee, Federici revealed that, 
from 2001 through 2003, Abramoff or his clients ``contributed'' 
in total about $500,000 to CREA.\11\ Evidence obtained by the 
Committee indicates that Abramoff directed some of his Tribal 
clients to ``contribute'' to CREA, occasionally under false 
pretenses. For example, to induce the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of 
Texas (``Tigua'') into giving $25,000 to CREA in 2002, Abramoff 
told a Tribal representative that CREA was ``a DeLay 
organization.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 38-40 (November 17, 2005).
    \12\ See Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group 
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2002, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
(``Choctaw'') contributed $50,000 to CREA.\13\ In soliciting 
the Tribe for that contribution, Abramoff told that Tribe that 
CREA did work ``in terms of liberalizing environmental rules 
and that was an activity the Tribe wanted to support.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27, 2005).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2001, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana 
Coushatta'') gave $50,000 and $100,000 in 2002.\15\ Of the 
$50,000 that the Tribe paid CREA in 2001, it paid at least 
$25,000 in connection with a private fund-raiser, held on 
September 24, 2001.\16\ During that dinner, then-Tribal Chief 
Lovelin Poncho met Norton and other senior Administration 
officials.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his interview, former Louisiana Coushatta Vice-Chairman 
William Worfel testified that the $25,000 that the Tribe paid 
to CREA was actually intended to support a ``national park 
research study'' that Interior was supposedly conducting--a 
``pet project.'' \18\ He was told that the Choctaw had 
contributed, or intended to contribute, $25,000 to CREA in 
support of the study \19\ and that ``Interior then would look 
and always consider you [that is, the Tribe] friends because 
you went out on a limb, you went out, reached in your pockets 
and helped a pet project of the U.S. Department of the Interior 
when they was [sic] strapped for funds.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id. See ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 45 (November 2, 2005).
    \19\ Id. See Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27, 2005).
    \20\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has seen no evidence that this study was ever 
conducted. Worfel never saw this study and does not know 
whether such a study was actually conducted.\21\ Former 
Interior Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles testified at a 
Committee hearing that he too is unaware of such a study and is 
highly skeptical about whether one was ever conducted.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 50-53 (November 2, 2005).
    \22\ See id. at 107 (``I do not have any recollection of that today 
at all. At some point in my background, somebody may have told me 
something, but I was not at Interior, and I cannot imagine conducting a 
poll for Interior, Senator.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apparently, Abramoff used a different pretext to induce the 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa'') to 
contribute at least $50,000 to CREA. In his interview with 
Committee staff, former Tribal Council member David Otto 
recalled that former Tribal legislative director Christopher 
Petras told him that CREA was a group with which then-Interior 
Secretary Norton was ``involved.'' \23\ Petras said that 
supporting a project the Secretary was involved with would 
``look good'' for the Tribe, according to Otto.\24\ Otto also 
recalled that he was told that doing so would help them with 
appropriations for their school, drug abuse center, senior 
center, and other facilities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Interview of David Otto, former council member, Sagniaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents reflect that after Norton became Secretary, 
Abramoff told Petras (and members of his own lobbying team) 
that Norton supported CREA. In an attempt to get the Tribe to 
financially support the September 2001 CREA fund-raiser, 
Abramoff pitched CREA to Petras as ``hav[ing] been incredibly 
helpful on certain specific tribal issues.'' \26\ He also 
identified CREA as ``[Secretary] Norton's main group outside 
the department.'' \27\ Having sold CREA on Petras (who was to 
approach the Tribal Council for a contribution), Abramoff 
directed his assistant to amend a requested contribution list 
he was sending to the Saginaw Chippewa to ``add in $50,000 for 
CREA and put a note in the candidate column as follows: Sec. 
Norton.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher 
Petras, Sagniaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000105234) (September 20, 
2001).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison 
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107697) (January 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has seen no evidence that Abramoff's 
representations about Norton's interest in CREA are true. Nor 
has the Committee seen any evidence to suggest that Norton knew 
of, much less sanctioned, Abramoff or anyone else using her 
name in seeking fees and donations from Native Americans.\29\ 
However, it is clear that, at some point, Abramoff came to 
believe that CREA president Italia Federici had special access 
at Interior and that she was willing to use it for his or his 
clients' benefit. That is reflected in numerous documents, 
described in this Chapter, illustrating how Abramoff repeatedly 
went to Federici urgently asking for her help with Interior on 
pending matters affecting his much-valued Tribal clients. It is 
also reflected in how much he had these same clients ``donate'' 
to CREA. It is further corroborated by a number of internal 
business communications between Abramoff and his team members 
that reflect his belief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Federici, Griles and Norton's former counselor at Interior, 
Michael Rossetti, have testified that Norton had no relationship with 
CREA after Norton became Interior Secretary. Deposition of Italia 
Federici, president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, 
in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005); Interview of J. Steven Griles, 
former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in 
Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005); Interview of Michael Rossetti, 
former counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in 
Washington, D.C. (October 28, 2005). In addition, Federici testified 
that she never had any conversations with Norton between 2001 and 2004 
about any of Abramoff's Tribal clients. Deposition of Italia Federici, 
president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in 
Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A notable example of such a communication is an email, 
dated January 3, 2002, entitled ``Italia Meeting,'' from 
Abramoff to members of his team. In this document, Todd 
Boulanger, a senior member of Abramoff's team asked, ``Can 
[Italia] get shit in the President's budget to [C]ongress?'' 
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack 
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107575) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``I don't think she has juice beyond 
[I]nterior.'' \31\ Another example is an email between Abramoff 
and Boulanger, dated February 12, 2002, entitled ``Political 
Contribution Requests.'' In that email, the two discussed 
including CREA in a political contribution request list they 
were submitting to the Saginaw Chippewa.\32\ Abramoff wrote 
Boulanger, ``Todd, did we not request money for CREA from them? 
That's our access to Norton. We need $ for them more than many 
of these others.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd 
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025072) (February 12, 2002).
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Still another example is an email from Abramoff to business 
associate and Signatures partner Rodney Lane, entitled ``CREA--
Freshman Reception.'' There, the two discussed ``comping'' a 
CREA function.\34\ Ultimately, Abramoff replied, referring to 
Federici, ``[u]nfortunately, she is critical to me.'' \35\ This 
email is typical of others, such as an email dated June 27, 
2002, that describes Abramoff's reluctantly ``comping'' CREA 
functions--at least some of which appear to have been attended 
by Members of Congress, senior Administration officials, or 
their senior staff.\36\ The Committee finds that only one 
person could have induced Abramoff so convincingly into 
believing that Federici had stroke at Interior that he directed 
his Tribal clients to provide substantial contributions to what 
she herself described as a ``mom and pop non-profit'' \37\--
Italia Federici. What she said or did to so induce him into 
this belief is one question, among others, that this Chapter 
attempts to answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Rodney 
Lane (GTG-E000105191) (March 4, 2003).
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See, e.g., Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to 
Rodney Lane (GTG-E000105140) (June 27, 2002).
    \37\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Federici Promises To Help Abramoff in Exchange for, or Because of, 
        CREA Contributions

    When she testified before the Committee, Federici attempted 
to explain the Tribes' largesse to her organization by saying 
that Abramoff told her that his Tribal clients were concerned 
that over the decades, Democrats became dominant in electoral 
politics.\38\ So, according to Federici, Abramoff told her that 
those Tribes had become used to giving very ``heavily to one 
political party and ... wanted to diversify.'' \39\ They wanted 
to make sure that they were giving ``more evenhandedly.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As an explanation for why Abramoff's clients gave so much 
to CREA within such a short period of time, this is 
unconvincing.\41\ There is no doubt that Abramoff directed his 
Tribal clients to contribute to CREA. The question is why? Why 
would Abramoff have had his much-valued Tribal clients (whom he 
relied on as a significant source of sizeable federal campaign 
contributions as well as millions in federal lobbying revenue 
to Greenberg Traurig, secret ``gimme five'' partnership income 
with Scanlon, contributions to run his Jewish boys' school in 
Maryland; and capital to float his restaurants) pay so much to 
this obscure organization? Documents in the Committee's 
possession suggest that Abramoff did so because of, or in 
exchange for, special favors that Federici had promised to do 
for him or his Tribal clients at Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ In somewhat surprising testimony, it seems that Federici too 
found this rationale implausible. While discussing Abramoff's 
explanation as to why his Tribal clients were willing to make sizeable 
contributions to CREA without directly discussing with her CREA's 
mission or work, the following exchange occurred during Federici's 
deposition. ``FEDERICI: Who writes $50,000 checks to people they don't 
know if it wasn't what Jack--Jack said these people have a lot of 
money, they want to give to Republicans, they're taking my advice, and 
they really just don't want to be bothered with executive directors 
[like me]. Fine, and then they sent their checks in. And then what did 
these disappointed people think they were going to get, and you tell me 
who's committing fraud ... I mean it all fit. ... STAFF: [Mr. Abramoff] 
told you that? FEDERICI: Yes. ...'' Id. Why, given her concerns, 
Federici continued to accept these contributions remains unclear. The 
Committee defers to law enforcement authorities to determine (1) 
whether, in connection with their contributions to CREA, the Tribes 
were in fact defrauded and, (2) if they were defrauded, who did so or 
conspired to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            B. ABRAMOFF AND FEDERICI START WORKING TOGETHER

    In her deposition with Committee staff, Federici recalled 
first reaching out to Abramoff, on the advice of friends, to 
try to persuade him to participate in a real estate investment 
deal.\42\ In the course of discussing that deal, they first 
discussed CREA.\43\ On January 30, 2001, it appears that 
Federici held herself out to Abramoff as having access to the 
political appointment process being undertaken by the incoming 
Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ See id.
    \43\ See id.

        I very much appreciate your generous offers regarding 
        CREA and I've been working on the document you 
        requested regarding grassroots and strategy. I look 
        forward to sharing it with you when you return. 
        According to the folks I've talked with, Gale is 
        expected to be confirmed with about 80 votes. ... 
        Jeanne Adkins (my friend from [Colorado]) has been 
        offered the CFO position. She and I are talking later 
        about other positions and she will continue to discuss 
        resumes with appropriate contacts ...\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105164) (January 30, 2001) (emphasis added). Federici construed 
these ``generous offers' from Abramoff to mean ``[in] general, let's 
get you funded, let's get some support for you guys, this looks like a 
really good idea.'' Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council 
of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 
7, 2005).

    Abramoff got the hint. After having offered to help raise 
money for CREA, \45\ he responded, ``Thanks so much Italia. 
Please let me know what I can do to help Dennis Stevens, Mark 
Zachares (Office of Insular Affairs) and Tim Martin (Bureau of 
Indian Affairs) be placed. Look forward to hearing form [sic] 
you regarding CREA.'' \46\ Apparently, these were individuals 
who Abramoff, for his own reasons, wanted placed in the 
Administration.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105164) (January 30, 2001).
    \47\ During Federici's deposition with Committee staff, staff 
specifically asked her, ``Did you ever help Mr. Abramoff in getting any 
particular person into the U.S. Department of the Interior at 
transition in 2000 after the election? '' Deposition of Italia 
Federici, president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, 
in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005). She responded, ``No. Like 
everyone else in Washington, Jack was forwarding me names of people he 
thought [then-Interior Secretary] Gale [Norton] would love ... 
[Abramoff would ask] Hey it would be great if she could interview this 
person or that person.'' Id. Documents in the Committee's possession 
suggest what Abramoff had in mind. For example, in a contemporaneous 
email from Abramoff to former Christian Coalition Executive Director 
Ralph Reed, Abramoff asked Reed for help placing him on the Interior 
transition team, noting, ``this [sic] would be really key for future 
clients for both of us. Let's discuss.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, 
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century 
Strategies, ``Interior Dept [sic] transition team'' (GTG-E000022954) 
(October 24, 2000). Reed responded, ``ok.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to an email dated March 1, 2001--just seven days 
before the President nominated Griles for the second highest 
position at Interior, Abramoff met with Griles.\48\ Apparently, 
Federici was present--later reporting to Abramoff that 
``[a]fter I retrieved my coat I ended up sharing a cab with 
Steve [Griles]. He really enjoyed meeting you and was grateful 
for the strategic advice on BIA and Insular Affairs. You 
definitely made another friend.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ See Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``Thanks 
from me and Steve and Invitation'' (GTG-E000037865) (March 1, 2001).
    \49\ Id. While Griles vaguely recalls having met Abramoff 
``sometime before becoming Deputy Secretary,'' he specifically recalls 
first meeting him at the September 2001 private dinner for CREA. See 
Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department 
of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005). Griles could 
not remember what he talked with Abramoff about--only that he ``spoke 
and said hello to everyone who was there.'' Id. A few weeks after that 
dinner, Abramoff prepared a letter to Griles, thanking him for 
``calling me today'' and expressing appreciation for ``your help with 
the [Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (``CNMI'')] 
governor's race and ensuring that the President does NOT endorse anyone 
in that race, in particular the liberal ``Republican'' Juan Babuata, 
who is running against the Speaker and former chairman of the Bush 
campaign there, Ben Fitial.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg 
Traurig, to J. Steven Griles, U.S. Department of the Interior; to Laura 
Lippy, Greenberg Traurig, ``FW: Letter'' (GTG-E000105260) (October 18, 
2001) (emphasis in original). At his deposition, Griles had no 
recollection of having had any conversations with Abramoff about the 
CNMI, Fitial or ``anything like that with the White House.'' Interview 
of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005). Furthermore, Griles 
insisted that ``if [he] would have done something on that, [he] would 
think that [he] would recall it today.'' Id. In his draft letter to 
Griles, Abramoff went further, writing, ``I also appreciate anything 
you can do to prod things forward to get Mark Zachares into position at 
OIA.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to J. Steven 
Griles, U.S. Department of the Interior; to Laura Lippy, Greenberg 
Traurig, ``FW: Letter'' (GTG-E000105260) (October 18, 2001). The 
Committee has seen no evidence that this letter was ever sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, in part: ``Thank you so much for 
everything. I am so glad we are working together.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``Thanks 
from me and Steve and Invitation'' (GTG-E000037865) (March 1, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to records recently released by the Secret 
Service, Abramoff visited the White House on March 6, 2001--two 
days before Griles' nomination.\51\ After Griles was nominated 
but before he was confirmed, documents suggest, Abramoff tried 
to approach Griles about tribal issues, in particular, about 
the BIA's tribal insurance policy.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Press Release, Judicial Watch, U.S. Secret Service Releases to 
Judicial Watch White House Logs Detailing Abramoff Visits--Logs Appear 
to be Incomplete, Show 2 Documented Visits Available on Judicial 
Watch's Internet Site, www.judicialwatch.org, http://
www.judicialwatch.org/abramoff-docs.shtml May 10, 2006 (linking to 
``Abramoff Secret Service Logs'').
    \52\ See e.g., Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to 
Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, 
``Subject: urgent tribal issue'' (SENCREA 00018) (March 20, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also in this interim, Abramoff worked with Federici on some 
special projects. For example, according to an email dated 
April 10, 2001, entitled ``Ben Fitial seeing Secretary 
Norton,'' Federici tried to help Abramoff get a photo 
opportunity for Ben Fitial with Secretary Norton.\53\ Fitial 
had successfully run for governor of the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marinas Islands (``CNMI'') and reportedly pressured 
senior CNMI officials to hire Abramoff. In this email, Federici 
and Abramoff discussed that the Secretary was not doing 
``photo-ops' with anyone.\54\ In that context, Federici 
promised Abramoff that she would ``try to figure out what 
exactly is going on over there.'' \55\ Interestingly, Federici 
also offered to cover Fitial's travel expenses to Washington, 
D.C. in the future and ``schedule [a] meeting with Gale.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105287) (April 10, 2001).
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in an email dated May 7, 2001, entitled, 
``[former Louisiana Coushatta Chairman] Chief Poncho,'' 
Federici asked Abramoff, ``[i]s there something that I can do 
to say thank you for [Chief Poncho's] support for CREA--besides 
the time with Sec. Norton [?].'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Email from Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105174) (May 7, 2001). This is similar to an email dated a few 
months later, January 26, 2002, entitled ``Hi Italia.'' There, Abramoff 
asked Federici whether she had ``any word on getting the Chief a 
meeting with Gale?'' Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, 
and Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy 
(SENCREA 10/04 000018) (January 26, 2002). In response, Federici 
offered, ``I meet with folks tomorrow and I will call you tomorrow in 
the early evening.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 18, 2001, less than a week after Griles arrived in 
office, \58\ Abramoff wrote former Louisiana Coushatta counsel 
Kathryn Van Hoof and an associate covering the Tribe:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ The Senate confirmed Griles as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. 
Interior Department on July 12, 2001.

        I have a call into our guy Steve Griles, the Deputy 
        Secretary and his assistant has a memo on the situation 
        ... Just so I am clear when he and I do hook up, what 
        is our full wish list at this point other than to 
        inform him of the situation on the ground and the need, 
        possibly, to get some positive signals from Norton to 
        the Governor? \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van 
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and Shawn Vasell, Greenberg 
Traurig, ``Status'' (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001529) (July 18, 2001).

    He concluded, ``Just want to make sure I make all the asks 
we need.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Afterwards, with Abramoff apparently having induced at 
least one of his Tribal clients into contributing to CREA in 
connection with the September 2001 private dinner, Federici 
wanted to help with Abramoff's book of business. In an email 
dated January 2, 2002, entitled ``dates for another dinner 
[sic],'' Federici proposed to Abramoff another CREA dinner at a 
private residence.\61\ According to this email, Federici 
offered to ``target'' intergovernmental relations officials 
from agencies that Abramoff ``need[ed] to work with on CNMI and 
Indian issues.'' \62\ Abramoff was amenable to the idea.\63\ In 
a similar email, Federici held out the possibility that she 
could get Abramoff together with Griles and former Assistant 
Secretary for Indian Affairs Neil McCaleb for a small lunch or 
dinner.\64\ Abramoff responded, ``A small lunch with Steve 
would be huge for us, since we really need to get to know 
him.'' \65\ There can be no doubt that a ``CREA dinner'' that 
focused on Abramoff's lobbying needs and ``target[ed]'' 
agencies that Abramoff ``need[s] to work with on CNMI and 
Indian issues'' \66\ had little to do with CREA's tax exempt 
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000253568) (January 2, 2002).
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105067) (January 3, 2002).
    \65\ Id. The Committee notes the apparent inconsistency between 
Abramoff's statement in this email and other older emails (some of 
which the Committee has cited to above) in which Abramoff professes to 
have a close relationship with Griles.
    \66\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000253568) (January 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                C. CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR ACCESS?

    A number of records indicate that Federici promised to help 
Abramoff's clients in contemplation of continued contributions 
from Abramoff's clients to CREA. Among those records is a 
January 9, 2003, email between Federici and Abramoff, entitled 
``help??!!,'' in which Federici asked Abramoff, ``I hate to 
bother you with this right now, but I was hoping to ask about a 
possible contribution for CREA ... [we] have started out the 
new year with practically nada. I thought I'd see if there was 
any way you could help us reach out to some of your folks who 
were so generous last year?'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105202) (January 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abramoff responded, ``Absolutely. We'll get that moving 
asap. [REDACTED] are coming to DC [REDACTED] so I'll hit them 
immediately.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, he continued, ``By the way[,] Gov Foster ... just sent 
Gale another letter pushing a new compact he signed for [J]ena. 
Can you make sure Steve [Griles] knows about this and puts the 
kibosh on it? Thanks.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federici promised, ``I will tell him where they are now--
and with whom. Thanks Jack!'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Email from Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (SENCREA 
10/04 000057) (January 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in an email from Abramoff to Federici, dated 
January 21, 2003, entitled ``Intel from Dept of Int/BIA,'' 
Abramoff asked Federici if she could help him get inside 
information on BIA action on a pending matter affecting the 
Louisiana Coushatta, one of Abramoff's clients and a major 
contributor to CREA.\71\ In the very next sentence, he told 
Federici that a contribution from one of his clients was on the 
way: ``I'll have it in a week or so. I'm still working on the 
rest.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000062) (January 21, 2003).
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, Federici wrote, ``Thanks Jack! I will ask 
about the timing and content and call you.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, in an April 3, 2003, email entitled, ``urgent 
alert--DOI Proposes Policy Changes in Compact Review Process,'' 
Abramoff attached a memo on this issue to an email to Federici 
and wrote, ``If this attached memo is correct, someone over at 
BIA is doing some really odd things. Any way to see if this is 
something coming from the top? All of our tribes are very 
agitated about this one.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 [illegible]) (April 3, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, Federici wrote, ``I will definitely see what I 
can find out. I hate to bug you, but is there any news about a 
possible contribution from [REDACTED]?'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in an email from Abramoff to Federici, dated 
April 10, 2003, Federici discussed the costs associated with a 
CREA program. In response, Abramoff wrote, ``I met last night 
with [a client]. They offered [REDACTED] but I felt badly 
asking them since they are not getting any cooperation yet. 
Perhaps once the court case clears in a few weeks Steve 
[Griles] might be able to grab control of this. [T]hey are 
great folks.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000094) (April 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example is contained in two emails from Abramoff to 
Federici, dated May 1, 2003. There, referring to a matter 
pending before Interior, Abramoff told Federici that the BIA is 
``about to screw the Coushattas, and the other tribes there as 
well'' and asked ``[c]an you bring this to [Steve Griles'] 
attention? We MUST get this stopped.'' \77\ About an hour 
later, Abramoff reported to Federici that one of his clients 
was going to send over a contribution to CREA the following 
week.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000100) (May 1, 2003) (emphasis in original).
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an email dated August 2, 2003, and entitled ``Saginaw 
Cost Share,'' Federici responded to an email from Abramoff 
regarding an apparently unrelated tribal issue pending before 
Interior.\79\ There, Federici invited Abramoff to call her ``if 
there is an urgent matter'' and said that she will ``try to 
talk to someone about this first thing.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for 
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (SENCREA 
10/04 000110) (August 2, 2003).
    \80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Still another example can be seen in the email between 
Abramoff and Federici, dated January 26, 2002, entitled, ``Hi 
Italia.'' There, Abramoff asked Federici for an update on 
getting the chief of one of his Tribal clients a meeting with 
then-Secretary Norton.\81\ In the very next sentence, he gave 
Federici an update on a contribution to CREA from one of his 
clients.\82\ In the same email stream, he insisted that 
Federici needed to get information related to the Jena Band's 
efforts to get a compact, to Griles ``immediately.'' \83\ A few 
weeks later, in an email, dated February 15, 2002, between 
Abramoff and Scanlon, entitled ``shit,'' Abramoff described a 
phone call he received from Federici about information she 
obtained from Griles about the Jena deal.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000018) (January 26-27, 2002).
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010914) (February 15, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In testimony before the Committee, Federici attempted to 
explain away her solicitousness for Abramoff's practice as 
generosity or, in her words, ``to be nice''--acts of kindness 
in the face of complaints by Abramoff, ``consistent ... over 
the course of years,'' that the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(``BIA'') was ``in the back pocket of people who didn't like 
him'' and that his work-product and clients were not being 
treated fairly by Interior.\85\ Federici maintained that she 
was sympathetic to Abramoff's concerns about not being able to 
get a meeting on a timely basis or get answers to basic 
questions.\86\ And, she insisted, with her friend Griles 
serving as the chief operating officer at Interior, she was 
happy to help a friend.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005). According to Federici, Abramoff elaborated that ``his work 
product and his clients were being mistreated and not treated 
equitably, not treated the way other lobbyists' clients were being 
treated.'' Id.
    \86\ Id.
    \87\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federici's explanation is unconvincing. The documents 
described above suggest that Federici promised to help Abramoff 
with Interior because of, or in exchange for, Abramoff's 
directing his clients to contribute to CREA.\88\ Indeed, 
contributions from Abramoff's Tribal clients were critical to 
CREA. During a Committee hearing, Federici admitted that 
Abramoff and his clients contributed about $500,000 over the 
relevant period. Also, during his deposition, Griles told 
Committee staff that one evening Federici called him very upset 
after money from Abramoff's clients stopped coming in.\89\ 
Griles recalled that Federici complained that because ``Jack is 
not giving us funds anymore,'' she had to ``go back and find 
more money in order to keep [CREA's] activities going.'' \90\ 
Griles recalled simply telling Federici that she had to go back 
to contributors who helped her in the past.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ It is notable that, during her deposition, Federici admitted 
that she never mentioned Abramoff's concerns about BIA being ``in the 
back pocket'' of others, to Griles. Id.
    \89\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federici's explanation that she was motivated strictly by 
friendship and generosity is also belied by at least one 
occasion when Federici apparently lied to Abramoff about a 
promise to communicate with Griles. In an email, dated 
September 24, 2002, Abramoff asked Federici for a favor: to ask 
Griles to mention him to a Tribe with which Griles was 
meeting.\92\ To this request, Federici responded, ``I will 
remind him about that and I'm sure he'd love to mention your 
help.'' \93\ However, in her deposition, Federici dismissed the 
email, saying that she did not approach Griles about this 
because she actually thought Abramoff's request was ``cheesy.'' 
\94\ But, she never told Abramoff that she decided not to do as 
she had originally promised.\95\ Why not? Likely to ensure that 
Abramoff would continue directing his clients to make 
significant contributions to CREA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005). See also Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and 
Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy 
(GTG-E000105153) (September 24, 2002).
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
    \95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vice Chairman Dorgan summarized Federici's testimony, and 
the Committee's skepticism of her testimony, at a recent 
hearing: ``You are an environmental organization. You come into 
a lot of money from Indian tribes. My guess is that that money 
had nothing to do with generosity, or had very little to do 
with energy or the environment, but had a lot to do with Mr. 
Abramoff saying to his contacts in these tribes, `I want you to 
stick money into Ms. Federici's organization,' and they did.'' 
\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 31 (November 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same hearing, the Vice Chairman succinctly described 
the Committee's belief of why Abramoff's clients contributed so 
much to CREA, as follows:

        I am just telling you that our records are full of 
        these things. It is full of references to the duties 
        that you were performing [or promised to perform] for 
        Mr. Abramoff. Those duties had to do with the term 
        `juice' that also exists in our set of records. You had 
        `juice.' You got paid for that `juice' by having Mr. 
        Abramoff direct funds to your organization, and you 
        spent a lot of time in your correspondence back and 
        forth with Mr. Abramoff about what you are doing; not 
        about the environment; not about energy; [but about] 
        all of these issues that have to do with Mr. Abramoff. 
        It looks to me like you were working for Mr. Abramoff 
        and you were getting money from Indian tribes to do it. 
        That's what it looks like to me.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Id. at 32.

    He also observed, ``The way you describe it in this 
testimony is the Indian tribes are generous; Jack is generous; 
everybody is generous. That is unbelievable to me.'' \98\ It is 
unbelievable to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           D. WHAT DID FEDERICI DO FOR ABRAMOFF AT INTERIOR?

    In her deposition with Committee staff, Federici said that 
she could only remember talking to Abramoff about three 
issues--a ``school cost-share'' issue, relating to the Saginaw 
Chippewa; the Gun Lake Tribe's land-into-trust application; and 
the Jena Band's attempts at getting land-into-trust and a 
compact in Louisiana.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the Saginaw Chippewa, Abramoff asked Federici to help 
him with former Interior Deputy Secretary Griles on a ``school 
cost share program.'' \100\ This was one context that, 
according to Federici, Abramoff told her that the BIA was in 
the back-pocket of people who did not like him and that his 
clients were not being treated fairly. Consequently, Federici 
testified, she felt bad for Abramoff and thought she could help 
with Griles.\101\ But, when Abramoff sometimes asked her to get 
Griles to ``kill'' this or ``put the kibosh'' on that, she 
never told him that she would not do any of it or ever correct 
him, she said.\102\ She wasn't ``going to correct a 50-year 
old, male, conservative activist leader, [and] you know, 
donor.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000110) (August 21, 2003).
    \101\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
    \102\ Id.
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About the ``school cost share'' program, Federici denied 
having had a substantive conversation with Griles.\104\ 
According to Federici, she merely mentioned to Griles, ``Is 
anybody paying attention to what's going on with the school 
cost share [?]'' \105\ Otherwise, she recalled only having 
repeated Abramoff's ``line'' that excluding the Saginaw was 
``unfair''; that his ``[clients] [weren't] being treated 
adequately''; and that ``[M]embers of Congress are worked into 
a frenzy.'' \106\ Regarding her interaction with Griles on 
these and similar issues, Federici insisted, ``[T]hese were not 
conversations. These were mentions and sort of heads-up ...'' 
\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Id.
    \106\ Id.
    \107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Gun Lake Tribe's application for land-into-trust also 
had the potential to negatively affect the Saginaw Chippewa. 
Federici could only recall that Abramoff told her that Interior 
was ``directly going against what Steve wanted.'' \108\ 
However, Federici has no recollection of having talked with 
Griles about that issue.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Id.
    \109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, regarding the Jena Band's efforts to get a compact 
and land-into-trust, which would have harmed the Louisiana 
Coushatta, Federici testified that Abramoff told her that key 
conservatives, including James Dobson and Ralph Reed, were 
writing in opposition.\110\ As a result, Federici recalls, she 
just made sure that Griles knew that ``conservatives were 
upset'' and were calling into Interior in droves.\111\ 
According to Federici, the foregoing reflects her memory about 
her discussions with Abramoff about matters affecting his 
clients and her communications with Griles about those 
issues.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ Id.
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, documents indicate that Federici at least promised 
Abramoff that she would liaise with Griles more extensively 
than she has admitted to the Committee. For example, according 
to a September 24, 2002, email, Abramoff asked Federici to talk 
to Griles about a ``Tigua water issue.'' \113\ Federici 
responded, ``I am calling right now.'' \114\ Similarly, in an 
email dated December 4, 2002, entitled ``[G]un [L]ake [I]ndian 
[T]ribe [C]asino,'' Abramoff complained to Federici about 
developments relating to this Tribe and conveyed to Federici a 
strategy, regarding that Tribe's environmental impact report, 
to shut down its land-into-trust application.\115\ Federici 
responded, ``I will call [Steve Griles] asap.'' \116\ Also, in 
another email dated December 6, 2002, entitled ``Gun Lake: New 
Hope For Gun Lake Casino,'' Abramoff urged Federici, ``[T]his 
is what we have to stop.'' \117\ Federici responded, ``seeing 
him at 4pm today.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 035) (September 24, 2002).
    \114\ Id.
    \115\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (GTG-
E000024441) (December 4, 2002).
    \116\ Id.
    \117\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000041) (December 6, 2002).
    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a related email dated March 6, 2003, and entitled 
``Saginaw Chippewa Tribe--School Cost Share,'' Abramoff asked 
Federici ``if [she] can call Steve on this.'' \119\ She 
responded, ``got it.'' \120\ Additionally, in an email from 
Abramoff to Federici, dated December 2, 2002, entitled ``Jena 
Band: Panel, Logansport asked to speak on proposed casino-
Shreveport Times,'' Abramoff wrote, ``It seems that the Jena 
are on the march again. [I]f you can, can you make sure Steve 
squelches this again?'' \121\ Federici responded, ``Thanks for 
the update. I'll bring it up asap!'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (GTG-
E000027919) (March 6, 2003).
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000039) (December 2, 2002).
    \122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in an email from Abramoff to Scanlon, dated 
February 15, 2002, entitled ``shit,'' Abramoff wrote that he 
``just got a call from [Federici].'' \123\ According to that 
email, Federici apparently provided Abramoff with then-
nonpublic information she indicated that she had gotten from 
Griles that ``as of now, Norton is going to sign the Jena 
deal.'' \124\ Similarly, in an email dated January 21, 2003, 
entitled ``Intel from dept of Int/BIA,'' Abramoff asked 
Federici if there is ``any way to find out'' when and how the 
BIA will respond to a letter from Governor Foster about a new 
Jena casino.\125\ Federici responded, ``Thanks, Jack! I will 
ask about the timing and content and call you. ...'' \126\ 
Abramoff also reached out to Federici about the Jena Band's 
casino proposal in another email, dated March 9, 2003, entitled 
``Jena Choctaw Update.'' \127\ Then, Federici responded, ``I 
will call you on Monday with whatever I can find out.'' \128\ 
These emails stand for a modest, but important, proposition: 
that Abramoff repeatedly asked Federici to contact Griles on 
issues important to his clients--the same clients that 
contributed to CREA--and that Federici promised to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael 
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010914) (February 15, 
2002).
    \124\ Id.
    \125\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000062) (January 21, 2003).
    \126\ Id.
    \127\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA 
10/04 000075) (March 9, 2003).
    \128\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In attempting to explain away those emails, Federici 
suggested that she did not necessarily follow-through on 
Abramoff's requests.\129\ She explained that after she received 
such ``hair-on-fire'' emails from Abramoff requesting that she 
talk to Griles, she would say ``I'll call'' or ``something like 
that.'' \130\ But, Federici testified, ``[a]nd if I said yes, 
I'll try to call Steve, and I couldn't reach Steve, it's not 
like anybody was, you know, necessarily--it could just 
completely drop off his plate until the next hair-on-fire 
email, you know. I just figured Jack was throwing stuff against 
the wall. Maybe somebody else sorted it out.'' \131\ Federici 
elaborated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005).
    \130\ Id.
    \131\ Id.

        I would say, I'll call. But the gist of the email. If 
        he would say--Jack, I think some of them are almost 
        comical. It's like his hair is on fire: Oh my God, this 
        is happening and that's happening. By the way, great to 
        see you tonight. It's like, you know, you go back and 
        you read some of these. So, if he said, you know, I'm 
        having a problem, this problem with the Saginaw thing, 
        again with the school cost share, this Saginaw thing, 
        this Saginaw thing, can you--or the Jena, you know. ... 
        I mean, I would just take that information and digest 
        it down into what it, the components that it actually 
        was, which is Jack's worried about Jena. And ... if I 
        said I would call Steve I would try to reach him. But 
        if he was traveling or giving a speech or something and 
        a few days passed, I wouldn't try to take it back up 
        again. I mean, again it's something I was just doing to 
        be polite to Jack. It's not my job, and I was actually 
        doing CREA work.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Id.

    Federici underscored that while she originally helped 
Abramoff with his Tribal clients vis-a-vis Griles ``to be nice, 
... after the Saginaw thing it was just, it was way too 
stressful and, frankly, not my job.'' \133\ But, having 
repeatedly promised Abramoff that she would speak with Griles 
on matters at Interior affecting his Tribal clients, she was 
all too willing to continue accepting significant tribal 
``contributions'' from Abramoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Id. Federici elaborated, ``The whole cost share, just the 
whole like--you know, to the best of my recollection it was like oh my 
God, Senator this and Senator that, the Senate's leaving in a half an 
hour and this is going to expire, and why are they doing this, that, 
and the other thing. And it was just like, you know--I think my initial 
response to that was, I don't care. And then, you know: But you have to 
care; it's about money for school for poor kids and it's $3 million, 
this is terrible. I mean, it was just way over the top. It was too much 
pressure on me.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   E. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, GRILES DID FOR ABRAMOFF'S CLIENTS IS UNCLEAR

    Griles repeatedly testified that Abramoff had no special 
access to him.\134\ In his deposition, Griles agreed that 
``[Abramoff] was another lobbyist with whom he did business. 
Just as [he] did business with many others in town.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 89 (November 2, 2005). See, e.g., 
``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 89 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of J. Steven 
Griles, former Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior); Letter 
from Barry M. Hartman, Esq., counsel to J. Steven Griles, Kirkpatrick & 
Lockhart Nicholson Graham, to Pablo E. Carrillo, Esq, Chief 
Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, January 
3, 2006; Letter from Barry M. Hartman, Esq., counsel to J. Steven 
Griles, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, to the Honorable John 
McCain, U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, April 6, 2006.
    \135\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005) 
(``That was my vision, and there was nothing unique about it.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, some evidence suggesting that Griles may have 
assisted Abramoff gives rise to concern. Former Louisiana 
Coushatta Tribal councilman William Worfel testified that 
Abramoff told him that he would approach Griles about stopping 
the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians' attempt to get a compact in 
Louisiana.\136\ Worfel recalls that Abramoff ultimately told 
him that Griles helped kill, or helped convince the Secretary 
to reject, the Jena compact.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
    \137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During his interview, Worfel also told staff that 
Abramoff's lobbying associate Stephanie Leger Short told him 
that Griles was also supposed to help the Tribe with economic 
development grants.\138\ In her interview, Short, who formerly 
managed the Louisiana Coushatta account for Abramoff, testified 
that Abramoff described Griles as ``[his] guy'' and was always 
``going to call Griles'' and ``get on Griles.'' \139\ Based on 
Abramoff's comments, Short understood that Abramoff and Griles 
were ``close'': ``When things got hairy with Coushatta, it was 
always [that Abramoff] was going to call Griles and see what he 
could do.'' \140\ Regarding the Louisiana Coushatta, Griles' 
name came up mostly during the Jena Band's efforts in 
Logansport and Vinton, Louisiana.\141\ It also came up, 
according to Short, on an Agua Caliente tax issue and an issue 
regarding the Choctaw.\142\ According to Worfel, Abramoff said 
that Griles was willing to help the Tribe because of its 
``contribution'' to CREA, which made the Tribe ``a friend of 
Interior.'' \143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Id.
    \139\ Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, 
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
    \140\ Id.
    \141\ Id.
    \142\ Id.
    \143\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta 
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Worfel also stated that Abramoff told him that he 
interviewed Griles for his position at Interior and, in fact, 
helped him get his job there.\144\ He also recalled that 
Abramoff mentioned Griles' name many times and said that they 
were ``close.'' \145\ From his conversations with Abramoff, 
Worfel thought of Griles as Abramoff's ``point man'' or 
``inside man'' at Interior: ``[t]hat was his person. Boom, he 
could pick up the phone and Griles--it was like Griles worked 
for him.'' \146\ At his interview, Worfel told Committee 
investigators, ``The only thing I can tell you is I've said 
Steve Griles' name about 20 times since we started this 
[interview]. [In the context of getting help for the Tribe,] 
Jack Abramoff said Steve Griles' name maybe 200 times.'' \147\ 
Worfel's recollection about what Abramoff told him about how 
Griles could help his Tribe is consistent with the accounts of 
other Tribal representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Id.
    \146\ Id.
    \147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the testimony and documents described 
above, Griles could recall only one or two conversations with 
Federici concerning Abramoff's Tribal clients.\148\ In that 
conversation, Griles remembered Federici saying only something 
to the effect of ``I was talking [to] Jack Abramoff, he really 
would like for you to give him a call.'' \149\ Griles said he 
believed that this communication may have been related to ``an 
Indian insurrection question.'' \150\ Nor does Griles recall 
Federici's asking him to help Abramoff's clients.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
    \149\ Id.
    \150\ Id.
    \151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Griles denied talking with Federici about matters that, 
according to documents, Abramoff asked her to discuss with him. 
In his interview, Griles stated, ``I don't recall Ms. Federici 
ever mentioning Gun Lake to me.'' \152\ Similarly, Griles held 
that he did not ``recall ever having a discussion on a Tigua 
tribe or a water issue with anyone.'' \153\ Griles also stated 
that he did not ``recall receiving any information from Ms. 
Federici on Bay Hills [sic].'' \154\ Likewise, when asked about 
Abramoff or Federici asking him to pull [BIA personnel] from 
the Choctaw elections, Griles asserted ``I don't recall ever 
hearing of the issue.'' \155\ Griles' recollection failed him 
again when he stated ``I don't recall any discussion with 
[Abramoff] about Mashpee. I didn't do tribal recognitions.'' 
\156\ Correspondingly, Griles did not ``recall a conversation 
with [Federici] either'' regarding the Mashpee 
recognition.\157\ Griles later declared, ``I don't recall today 
having any discussions with [Federici] about [the Jena Band 
compact].'' \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\ Id.
    \153\ Id.
    \154\ Id.
    \155\ Id.
    \156\ Id.
    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee staff tried to explore the precise nature of 
Griles' relationship with Abramoff and whether Griles did 
anything to further the interests of Abramoff's clients on 
matters pending at Interior. To that end, a discussion about a 
binder ensued. During his interview, Griles stated that one day 
he returned to his office to find a mysterious binder with no 
name on his desk.\159\ After inquiring where the binder came 
from, his secretary told him that it had been delivered to the 
front desk, and he decided to ``just [flip] through it.'' \160\ 
Skimming the documents he discovered that the notebook was 
actually a packet of information about the Jena Band and 
``looked like it had letters--congressional letters, it had 
studies or something in it.'' \161\ Accordingly, Griles 
remembered asking Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Counselor to the 
Interior Secretary, what to do with the notebook and was 
informed that it was now a federal record and that he had ``no 
option except to give it to Interior lawyer Michael Rossetti.'' 
\162\ Griles maintained that he gave the notebook to Rossetti 
and ``didn't endorse its contents.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\ Id.
    \160\ Id.
    \161\ Id.
    \162\ Id.
    \163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rossetti, however, has a different recollection of those 
events. Rossetti recalled that only after ``some time'' and ``a 
series of questions that took much longer to get to that answer 
than I would have thought was necessary,'' Griles actually told 
him where the binder came from: from a member of Congress by 
way of a chief of staff by way of a lobbyist ``who turned out 
to be Mr. Abramoff.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 91 (November 2, 2005) (Rossetti's 
testimony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Griles strenuously disagreed: ``I did not say it came from 
Mr. Abramoff. I did not say it came from Congress. I speculated 
that it could have come from any of those sources. I did not 
know and I do not know today where it came from.'' \165\ Griles 
testified that the conversation concluded with his advising 
Rossetti ``to please make sure the Secretary knew that there 
were all sides of this issue, and please brief her on that.'' 
\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Id. at 92 (Griles' testimony). In an interview with Committee 
staff, former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger Short indicated that 
she prepared the binder. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former 
associate, Greenberg Traurig, by telephone (June 16, 2006). She 
explained that in the binder, which was actually one of about 15 or so, 
she inserted letters opposing the Jena Band's land-into-trust 
application, applicable sections of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(``IGRA''), and other related documents. Id. She also noted that, while 
some copies went to members of the Louisiana delegation, she was ``99 
percent sure'' that Abramoff was supposed to get a copy to the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. Id. But, she had no recollection of 
Abramoff's mentioning Griles at the time. Id.
    \166\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 92 (November 2, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With regard to the charge that Griles tried to insinuate 
himself in matters pending at Interior affecting Abramoff's 
Tribal clients, Rossetti's account is again fundamentally 
different from Griles. Rossetti recalls that Griles became 
involved with the Jena's land-into-trust application issue the 
second time it was brought up at Interior.\167\ Rossetti 
testified that Griles had several discussions with him during 
which Griles requested to be involved in his meetings with 
career employees and the Secretary about a possible decision on 
the Tribe's application.\168\ Rossetti said that those 
discussions took place twice in a hallway and in Rossetti's 
office and that he thought that it was unusual that Griles was 
so concerned about those meetings.\169\ He speculated that 
Griles was worried that some secret discussion might be taking 
place.\170\ Rossetti stated that he assured Griles that Griles 
would be there at the meeting.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ Id. at 99.
    \168\ Id.
    \169\ Id.
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Interview of Michael Rossetti, former counselor to the 
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. 
(October 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rossetti testified that Griles' attendance at a meeting 
regarding Abramoff's clients came up again.\172\ At that time, 
Rossetti asked Griles, ``[w]hy is this issue so important to 
you?'' \173\ According to Rossetti, Griles simply replied, ``I 
just want to be at the meeting.'' \174\ On a third occasion, 
Rossetti asked Griles, ``[w]hat's your deal? What do I need to 
know? Are there any outside voices that I need to know about?'' 
\175\ At that point, according to Rossetti, Griles ``turned 
purple'' and immediately left.\176\ Ultimately, Rossetti said, 
Griles told him that he did not have to be at that meeting and 
did not attend.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ Id.
    \173\ Id.
    \174\ Id.
    \175\ Id.
    \176\ Id.
    \177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Relevant to understanding the full extent of Griles' 
relationship with Abramoff are any communications that Griles 
may have had with Abramoff about possibly working at Greenberg 
Traurig. According to a July 17, 2003, email from Abramoff to 
Federici, whatever direct line of communication Abramoff had 
with Griles was disrupted:

        Hi there. Are you around for a chat? I am in a most 
        difficult situation regarding Interior and need your 
        advice. Steve [Griles] is nothing but a gentleman and 
        great guy to me, but he can't (or at least won't) 
        discuss any of my clients with me. the [sic] problem is 
        that, since he won't do so, and since you are not able 
        to chat with him now, I am left in a real dilemma. I 
        can't deliver anything from Interior for my clients. It 
        is as if the Clinton guys are back in power. I don't 
        know what to do. I have a few clients that need 
        answers, basic answers, from Interior, and I have no 
        one to chat with. What should I do? \178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia 
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, ``FW: 
Griles' (SENCREA 10/04 000108) (July 17, 2003). While Federici's answer 
to this email is unknown, she recalled this email during her 
deposition. Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of 
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 
2005). She testified that she never asked Abramoff or Griles about why 
Griles was not ``discussing [Abramoff's] clients with [him]'': ``I 
didn't ask Jack because I didn't want to pry and I didn't raise it with 
Steve [Griles] because I knew better.'' Id. She elaborated, ``I [knew] 
that if Steve's not going to talk with somebody he's not going to talk 
with them ...'' Id.

    But, subsequently, on September 9, 2003, Abramoff wrote to 
some of his associates: ``This cannot be shared with anyone not 
on the distribution list. I met with [Griles] tonight. He is 
ready to leave Interior and will most likely be coming to join 
us ... I expect that he will be with us in 90-120 days.'' \179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kevin Ring; 
Todd Boulanger; Michael Williams; and Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig; 
``Griles' (Bates number 56340) (September 9, 2003). Exactly when and 
where this conversation occurred, much less what was discussed, remains 
unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apparently, on or about January 12, 2004, Griles and 
Abramoff met with Greenberg Traurig lobbying practice head Fred 
Baggett.\180\ In testifying before the Committee, Griles stated 
that ``[a]t the end of [the meeting], they said, we would like 
for you to join our firm.'' \181\ Griles insisted that he 
merely ``politely listened'' and replied, ``I'm not leaving the 
Federal Government.'' \182\ Griles testified that he had made 
the determination that he was going to serve through ``the 4 
years of the President before [he] left.'' \183\ According to 
Griles, he then returned to Interior and spoke with the agency 
ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer at Interior about 
the discussion.\184\ Griles remembered that these ethics 
officials told him that this meeting triggered no waiver or 
recusal obligations--he did not have to do anything.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\ See Event Reminder from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to 
self, ``Steve Griles and Fred Baggett--Sigs' (Bates number 100878) 
(undated) (indicating that meeting was to occur on ``Mon 1/12/2004 
[from 5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.]''). Griles best recollection is that this 
meeting might have occurred sometime in 2003. See Interview of J. 
Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
    \181\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005). But see 
Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department 
of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005) (attributing 
statement to ``[e]ither [Abramoff or Baggett] or both'').
    \182\ Id. See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
    \183\ Id.
    \184\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005); 
``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
    \185\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005); 
``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast to Griles' recollection that ``they,'' that is, 
Abramoff and Baggett, told him that ``we would like for you to 
join our firm,'' in his interview with Committee staff, Baggett 
described the meeting as merely ``introductory'' and maintained 
that he never talked to Griles about coming to work at 
Greenberg Traurig.\186\ Baggett also indicated that he had no 
knowledge about Abramoff (or anyone else at Greenberg Traurig) 
having had employment discussions with Griles.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \186\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs 
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
    \187\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Days after the meeting at Signatures, on February 3, 2004, 
Abramoff followed-up with his associates about the prospect of 
Griles' joining Greenberg Traurig, writing simply, ``Has 
decided he cannot leave the administration before the 
election.'' \188\ Griles categorically denied having had any 
other conversations with Abramoff about possibly working at 
Greenberg Traurig, other than this meeting.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to DCCasino, 
Greenberg Traurig, ``Griles'' (Tracking Number 3707795) (February 3, 
2004).
    \189\ See Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, 
U.S. Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the information in its possession, the Committee 
cannot definitively conclude what, if anything, Griles did to 
assist Abramoff's clients on matters then pending at Interior. 
In its totality, the information described above supports 
relatively modest propositions, namely, that Abramoff believed 
that he had influence over Griles, either directly or through 
Federici; that Abramoff told others that he had a robust 
relationship with Griles or had some influence over decision-
making at Interior; and that it was likely on that basis that 
he may have directed his Tribal clients to ``contribute'' to 
CREA. However, it must be carefully said that, without more 
evidence, it is plausible that, in fact relying on his 
relationship with Federici, Abramoff may have simply 
exaggerated his access to Griles to his clients.
    In any event, given the paucity of evidence in the 
Committee's possession, the Committee is unable to arrive at 
any definitive conclusions as to the veracity of Griles' 
testimony on his relationship, and interaction, with Abramoff 
during all times relevant. And, without a good faith basis for 
concern that Griles may have been untruthful with the 
Committee, further exploration is beyond the scope of the 
investigation. However, it should be noted that the Committee 
is troubled by the marked inconsistency between Griles' and 
Rossetti's testimonies on the narrow issue of whether Griles 
tried to insinuate himself in decision-making processes 
affecting any of Abramoff's Tribal clients. It is also 
concerned about the implications of some of the fragmentary 
evidence discussed above.

                             F. CONCLUSION

    Over the last two years, the Committee's investigation has 
sought to determine, among other things, whether monies paid by 
the Tribes at Abramoff or Scanlon's direction to or through 
various entities were ultimately used for purposes intended by 
those Tribes. In the case of CREA, by Federici's own admission, 
Abramoff and/or his clients contributed about $500,000 to the 
organization between 2001 and 2003.
    From the evidence discussed above, it appears that some of 
the Tribes were induced into paying CREA because Abramoff told 
them, among other things, that those payments would get them 
favorable treatment at Interior. The evidence also suggests 
that Federici may have led Abramoff into believing that she had 
pull at Interior and that she would use it in exchange for, or 
because of, contributions by Abramoff's Tribal clients to CREA. 
Unfortunately, the extent to which Federici actually sought to 
influence Interior on pending matters affecting Abramoff's 
clients remains unclear. Also unclear is what, if anything, 
Griles (who Abramoff believed was Federici's contact at 
Interior) might have done on behalf of Abramoff's clients at 
Interior and (if Griles did anything) what his motives for 
doing so might have been.
    Against that backdrop, the Committee is concerned about the 
veracity of Federici's testimony on several important areas, 
discussed above.\190\ Additional inquiry into those areas by 
the appropriate authorities appears warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ A part of Federici's testimony that concerns the Committee 
relates to the nature of CREA. When Federici appeared before the 
Committee on November 17, 2005, a Member asked her whether any of 
monies paid to CREA as contributions were ultimately used for purely 
personal purposes. ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 49 (November 17, 2005). In 
response, Federici said, ``No; not to the best of my recollection.'' 
Id. at 38-40. Elsewhere in the hearing, Federici responded to a similar 
question, stating, ``No. I mean if money from CREA goes to me, it is 
salary or reimbursement.'' Id. at 49. Therefore, an outstanding fact 
question is whether any of those expenses, for which Federici sought 
and received reimbursement, were purely personal in nature. Elsewhere, 
Federici testified, ``But Senator, I was not abusing non-profit 
resources, okay?'' Id. at 40.
                       PART FOUR--RECOMMENDATIONS

                            A. INTRODUCTION

    Over the past two years, the Committee on Indian Affairs 
(the ``Committee'') has developed a robust legislative record 
on the facts and circumstances surrounding Jack Abramoff and 
Michael Scanlon's relationship with and representation of the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''), the 
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta''), the 
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa''), the Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''), the 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), and the Pueblo of 
Sandia (collectively, ``Tribes''). After careful consideration 
of that record, the Committee makes the following observations 
and recommendations.

   B. CONTRACTING FOR LEGAL, LOBBYING AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

1. No New or Revised Federal Legislation Needed
    The Committee has exhaustively examined Abramoff and 
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme, by which the two bilked the 
Tribes out of tens of millions of dollars. Without doubt, the 
depth and breadth of their misconduct was astonishing. 
Nevertheless, with respect solely to the kickbacks from Scanlon 
to Abramoff, the Committee concludes that existing federal 
criminal statutes are sufficient to deter and punish such 
misconduct.
    Indeed, there is no better support for the Committee's 
conclusion than Abramoff's and Scanlon's guilty pleas. On 
November 17, 2005, Scanlon pled guilty to, among other things, 
conspiracy (1) to defraud some of the Tribes under 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1343; and, (2) to defraud and deprive some 
of the Tribes of Abramoff's honest services under 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343, and 1346. On January 3, 2006, Abramoff 
pled guilty to, among other things, (1) conspiracy to commit 
mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1343; 
(2) conspiracy to commit honest services wire and mail fraud, 
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343, and 1346; (3) honest 
services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1346.
    That Abramoff and Scanlon perpetrated their kickback scheme 
against Indian tribes does not change the applicability or 
effectiveness of those statutes as tools to deter and punish 
such misconduct. The Committee sees no basis for treating 
Indian tribes differently than other similarly aggrieved 
parties in this respect. The Committee thus finds no reason or 
basis to carve out or create a special category for fraud 
against Indian tribes under federal law.
2. Best Practices Recommendations
    Although the Committee does not believe that additional 
federal legislation is required to address Abramoff and 
Scanlon's misconduct, it does recommend that tribes consider 
adopting their own laws to help prevent a similar tragedy. Over 
many years and innumerable scandals, the federal and state 
governments learned difficult lessons regarding appropriate 
decision-making processes when contracting for services. From 
these lessons a consensus has developed around core good 
governance principles. These principles embody a philosophy 
that focuses on providing sufficient information to 
constituents regarding the basis for decisions made by 
government officials, thereby fostering trust and confidence 
that governmental decisions are being made based on the best 
interests of the government and not of the individual 
decisionmakers. Accordingly, the federal and state governments 
have enacted laws and regulations addressing issues relating to 
contracting for services and conflicts of interests.
    Some Indian tribes have already adopted laws and 
regulations addressing some or all of these matters, while a 
significant number have not. The Committee strongly encourages 
those tribes that have not adopted such laws and regulations to 
enact laws and regulations that embrace the principles 
contained in the following recommendations. The Committee 
notes, however, that it is not recommending that Congress enact 
legislation mandating tribes to enact laws dealing with these 
subjects, but that the tribal governments themselves consider 
the following recommendations and determine for themselves 
whether enacting such laws might benefit the tribe and its 
members. Tribal governments, as the government closest and most 
responsive to tribal members, are best able to develop laws and 
regulations that appropriately take into account the unique 
history, cultural and legal authorities of a particular tribe.
            a. Contracting for legal, lobbying and other services 
                    should follow a specific, open and competitive 
                    process
    Tribal governments should consider adopting laws applicable 
to contracting for legal, lobbying or other professional 
services, at least when the cost of the services will exceed, 
or has the potential of exceeding, a certain threshold amount. 
Contracting for these services should not be an ad hoc decision 
of the tribal council or a tribal official but instead should 
follow a process that requires decision-makers to assess what 
it is that the tribe needs; determine the kinds of skills, 
experience and expertise the contractor must have in order to 
meet those needs; solicit contracting proposals from the 
applicable community of contractors or providers, based on a 
clearly articulated set of requirements; evaluate the 
responsive proposals in light of the stated requirements; 
perform appropriate background checks on responding contractors 
and providers; and document the contracting decision in 
writing.
            b. Contracting rules should be structured to prevent 
                    conflicts of interest
    Even a fair and open contracting process can be abused. 
Accordingly, contracting rules should include provisions 
calculated to prevent improper considerations in the 
contracting process--such as prohibitions against contracting 
decision-makers from receiving anything of value from persons 
or firms seeking to obtain or renew contracts with the tribe; 
requirements that tribal campaign contributions (including 
contributions of services or assistance) at or above a certain 
threshold dollar amount be publicly disclosed; or rules 
prohibiting tribal council members from voting on any measure 
relating to a contract where the contractor has contributed to 
his or her campaign for office. Tribes should consider 
examining whether, under any circumstances, a firm that 
provides legal, lobbying or other professional services to the 
tribe should ever be allowed to contribute money, services or 
anything of value to the campaign of anyone running for tribal 
office, or to provide professional services to a tribal 
official in his or her personal capacity apart from the 
services being provided to the tribe or to the official in his 
or her official capacity.
            c. Contracting and conflict of interests rules should 
                    include appropriate sanctions
    To ensure an adequate level of compliance with contracting 
and conflict of interests rules, there should be appropriate 
sanctions in place for violations of the rules. Apart from laws 
criminalizing the receipt of kickbacks and fraud (which many, 
if not most, tribes have already enacted), tribes should 
consider enacting laws that would render professional contracts 
awarded in violation of the contracting or conflict of 
interests rules to be void or voidable; subject a contractor 
found to have violated the rules to a contracting bar period or 
for egregious violations even a permanent bar; and make 
violation of the conflict of interests rules by a tribal 
official grounds for civil sanctions such a fines, suspension 
or even removal from office.
            d. Tribes should consider working with tribal organizations 
                    and educational institutions to develop model codes 
                    and education programs addressing contracting and 
                    conflicts of interests
    Tribes should consider working with their regional or 
national tribal organizations or with universities, colleges 
and law schools to develop model codes or laws to address 
contracting and conflict of interests issues, as well as ``good 
government'' education programs for elected and non-elected 
tribal officials designed to improve decision-making and avoid 
conflicts of interests in general but in the contracting 
process in particular.

                    C. INTEGRITY OF TRIBAL ELECTIONS

    In its investigation, the Committee determined that certain 
non-tribal members insinuated themselves into and influenced 
tribal governmental elections. These non-tribal members did so 
with the intent or understanding that should their allies 
prevail, they would receive lucrative lobbying contracts from 
the respective tribe. Examples of these egregious actions 
include recruiting candidates for tribal governmental 
positions, organizing and funding comprehensive electioneering 
efforts, and providing monetary and other assistance to recall 
successful candidates who were unfavorable to the non-tribal 
members.
    Tribal elections are internal tribal governmental matters 
that are governed by the laws of each tribe. The Committee, 
however, is concerned that the economic success of certain 
tribes and the increasing number of contracts tribes enter into 
with outside entities may lead to an increase in the efforts of 
non-tribal members to interfere with or influence tribal 
elections.
    Based on these concerns, the Committee recommends that 
tribal governments should consider adopting or revising laws 
applicable to their elections that govern the scope of 
involvement by non-tribal members and entities. Tribal 
governments should consider adopting laws that address the 
following issues:

         Whether, and to what extent, non-members may 
        contribute to campaigns for tribal office.
         Whether, and to what extent, non-members may 
        provide non-monetary support in campaigns for tribal 
        office.
         Limitations on the amount of monetary 
        contributions any person or entity can make to a tribal 
        campaign.
         Reporting requirements for donors and 
        recipients of monetary contributions in tribal 
        elections.
         Prohibiting persons or entities that make 
        monetary contributions to candidates in tribal 
        elections from entering into contracts with the tribe 
        for a specific period of time after the election.

    The Committee is aware that some tribes already have 
comprehensive election laws that address these issues, 
including prohibiting non-tribal members from making monetary 
contributions to tribal elections. The Committee commends these 
efforts as further examples of strong tribal governance and 
encourages tribes that have not yet adopted laws governing 
tribal elections to do so.

                   D. TRIBAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

    Integral to Jack Abramoff's lobbying practice were the 
substantial political contributions that he requested or 
directed his Tribal clients to make, and for which he and his 
team members attempted to take credit. Whenever he pitched his 
services, he would discuss the need for the Tribe to make 
substantial political contributions.
    Whether following Abramoff's advice or not, Abramoff's 
tribal clients made substantial political contributions during 
the time he represented them. The sizeable aggregate campaign 
contributions by some of Abramoff's tribal clients has focused 
attention on the treatment of Indian tribes under campaign 
finance law. This has resulted in calls to restrict tribal 
campaign contributions. Proposals to limit contributions range 
from treating Indian tribes like ``individuals'' for purposes 
of imposing aggregate caps on their contributions from tribal 
funds, to treating tribes like corporations, which cannot use 
treasury funds for contributions but can instead establish 
separate segregated funds, also known as political action 
committees (``PACs''), to receive limited voluntary 
contributions.
    Many tribes object to these proposed restrictions on their 
political contributions, arguing that they are truly unique 
entities that should not be equated to individuals or 
corporations. They further argue that they are particularly 
impacted by Congressional actions, and must be afforded the 
opportunity to participate in the political process by using 
tribal funds for political contributions.
    On February 8, 2006, the Committee held an Oversight 
Hearing on Indian Tribes and the Federal Election Campaign Act 
to examine this issue. The Federal Election Commission 
(``FEC'') testified at this hearing that Indian tribes are 
subject to the same contribution limitations and prohibitions 
in the federal campaign law as are other unincorporated 
associations. In instances where a tribe is acting through a 
corporation or federal government contractor, those tribal 
entities are governed by the same rules generally applicable to 
corporations and federal government contractors. Additionally, 
the FEC informed the Committee that political committees, 
including candidate and general party committees, must report 
contributions from Indian tribes.
    Concerns were raised by many of the witnesses testifying 
before the Committee about difficulties in researching and 
monitoring tribal political contributions. These difficulties 
do not appear to be unique to Indian tribes, but also exist 
with respect to researching and monitoring contributions from 
individual donors and other entities.
    The Committee believes that it is prudent to increase the 
level of transparency with regards to all political 
contributions, including those from Indian tribes. Thus, after 
considering the record before it, the Committee recommends, at 
a minimum, the following either be implemented by rule by the 
Federal Election Commission or law enacted by Congress.

         Tribes should be required to register with the 
        FEC, which will assign each tribe a unique identifier, 
        for the purpose of better tracking tribal campaign 
        contributions.
         Contributions should be made only in the 
        tribe's name as it appears on its registration on file 
        with the FEC.
         The contributions must be reported by the 
        recipient in the Tribe's name.

    In the opinion of the Committee, based on the extensive 
legislative record and the February 8, 2006, hearing, these 
public disclosure recommendations adequately protect the public 
trust and confidence in the Federal election system, without 
unduly excluding Indian tribes from participating in that 
system.

                    E. REFERRALS TO OTHER COMMITTEES

            1. Possible Misuse of Tax Exempt Organizations
    In the course of its investigation, this Committee 
uncovered numerous instances of nonprofit organizations that 
appeared to be involved in activities unrelated to their 
mission as described to the Internal Revenue Service. In 
addition, the Committee observed that a number of nonprofit 
organizations were used as instruments to channel money from 
one entity to another in an effort to obscure the source of 
funds, the eventual use of funds, and to evade tax liability on 
funds. Finally, the Committee also observed tax exempt 
organizations apparently serving as or being used as extensions 
of for-profit lobbying operations.
    Recognizing that oversight of nonprofit organizations under 
the Internal Revenue Code is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Committee, at the 
request of the Senate Committee on Finance, transmitted a 
number of relevant documents pertaining to this issue to the 
Senate Committee on Finance on February 9, 2006. Those 
documents are included in this Report in the supporting 
documents following the text of the Report.
    The Committee believes that the evidence it uncovered 
raises serious issues involving nonprofit organizations, not 
only with regard to compliance with existing federal revenue 
laws, but also with regard to whether existing federal revenue 
laws should be altered to prevent or discourage such activity. 
The Committee therefore recommends that the Senate Committee on 
Finance investigate, hold hearings, and report to the Senate on 
its findings and recommendations on these issues.

                            PART FIVE--VIEWS

              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

                              Introduction

    In the Recommendations section of the Report, ``Gimme 
Five''--Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, the Committee 
discusses tribal political contributions and provides a 
proposed policy concept that it recommends be implemented 
either by rule by the Federal Election Commission or law 
enacted by Congress. I concur that more transparency is needed, 
however, I would clarify that the proposal should also apply to 
unincorporated associations. Although unincorporated 
associations are not within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
or this report, I would broaden this recommendation to ensure 
that unincorporated associations are included.

                               Discussion

    As the Report accurately notes, the Committee held an 
Oversight Hearing on Indian Tribes and the Federal Election 
Campaign Act and received testimony from various witnesses, 
including the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and others. The 
Report notes that the FEC testified that Indian tribes are 
subject to the same contribution limitations and prohibitions 
in the Federal Election Campaign Act as are other 
unincorporated associations. Further, the report noted that 
many witnesses testified about the difficulty in researching 
and monitoring tribal political contributions from Indian 
tribes, individual donors and other entities. Consequently, the 
Committee put forth a policy recommendation for either the FEC 
or Congress.
    Although I agree with the Committee that this issue may 
need to be addressed, I must provide additional views to this 
particular recommendation as it could imply that the policy 
recommendation only applies to Indian tribes. Despite the 
Committee's statement that the level of transparency with 
regards to all political contributions should be increased, the 
Report could be read to unfairly single out Indian tribes by 
proposing a recommendation that only addresses contributions by 
Indian tribes.
    In lieu of the Committee's recommendation regarding tribal 
campaign contributions, I would propose a broader 
recommendation of the issue identified by the FEC and other 
witnesses--that this issue affects Indian tribes and other 
entities. Since the FEC noted that Indian tribes are subject to 
the same contribution limitations and prohibitions as other 
unincorporated associations, I believe that the recommendation 
should continue this similar treatment, without unfairly 
singling out Indian tribes, by suggesting the following:
         Each unincorporated association that intends 
        to make a federal campaign contribution should be 
        required to obtain a unique identifier for the purpose 
        of better tracking campaign contributions from 
        unincorporated associations.
         For purposes of this policy only, Indian 
        tribes shall be considered unincorporated associations.
         All federal campaign contributions from 
        unincorporated associations shall include the unique 
        identifier.
         The contributions must be reported by the 
        recipient by the unique identifier as well as the name 
        of the unincorporated association.
    While donations from individual donors are subject to the 
same confusion, my suggestion makes no attempt to address this 
issue because of the burden and confusion that it would likely 
impose on individual donors as well as the burden on the FEC to 
enforce such a provision. I am willing, however, to consider 
other suggestions on how to increase the transparency of these 
contributions.
