FBI investigates Rep. Curt Weldon

McClatchy Newspapers ^ | 10-13-06 | Greg Gordon

[dogbyte12]

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

Karen Weldon was 28 and lacked consulting experience when she and Charles Sexton, a Weldon ally and longtime Republican leader in Delaware County, Pa., created the firm of Solutions North America Inc. in 2002. Both are registered with the Justice Department as representatives of foreign clients.

Word of the inquiry, which has been closely held within the Justice Department and the FBI, comes from two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation. They both declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

[ntnychik]

Hillary made sure there weren't any Bush 41 holdovers. Even the volunteer correspondence ladies and the White House worker who spoke to Barbara Bush about her computer were canned.

For the first time in history, Janet Reno fired all the U.S. Attorneys, ending all their pending cases.

For the first time ever, Bill Clinton, in the closing days of his administration, turned all his political appointees into instant civil servants.

Pres. Bush's first acts should have been a large layoff, back to the date that change took place and to reinstate good U.S. Attorneys.

[Eagle Forgotten]

For the first time in history, Janet Reno fired all the U.S. Attorneys, ending all their pending cases.

Why would firing the individual who heads the office end all the pending cases? If this were true, there'd be absolute chaos whenever a U.S. Attorney was replaced for political reasons.

Each U.S. Attorney's office has a large staff of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. For just about every pending case, some civil servant lower down on the chain would know more about it than the political appointee at the top.

[Miss Marple]

1. The firing of all of the US attorneys did not, as Eagle Forgotten points out, end all pending cases.

2. Bill CLinton did not turn ALL of his political appointees into civil servants. If he had, all of those Clintonistas wouldn't be appearing on TV as "former" officials. He converted about 75 mid-level political appointees to civil service jobs.

3. IT IS ILLEGAL TO FIRE CIVIL SERVICE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION. While it is true that Clinton did some of this (travel office, correspondence staff) he got away with it because he had a democrat Congress who would not criticize him, and a faawning press. Should President Bush have attempted a mass layoff, he would have been castigated and all appointments to cabinet positions would have been bottled up in Congress.

[SmoothTalker]

When it rains it pours.

[jeremiah]

A Conservative Pennsylvania politician that supports the WOT, but speaks about "Able Danger" ...........investigate and destroy him.

A liberal Pennsylvania politician, that rarely misses an opportunity to criticize the President, works to block USSC nominees, is pro-choice, spouts off consistently against the conservative agenda.........raise millions, invite him to functions, and support him in his primary and general election with appearances and personal appeals.

When the history of the Bush years are written, we will finally see how underhanded and misapplied this mans little bit of talent was.

[ravingnutter]

From my files:

We already know exactly what Berglar took and why...pay close attention to the last para on the Clarke/Kerrick memo. From Ashcroft's testimony:

The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.

In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: AD info?]

Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.

Post #745

It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:

The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.

Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):

46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).

And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)

How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.

Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.

More on Berger:

“The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. “Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”

Hamilton’s remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.

In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

“Lawyers within the administration — and we’re talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said ‘you can’t do it,’” and put post-its over Atta’s face, Weldon said. “They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco … and the Branch Davidians.”

Source

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

Source

[Arizona Carolyn]

I like Curt Weldon. If I lived in PA I'd vote for him.

I'm sick of leakers... they should all be prosecuted.

I want to know why the FBI hasn't raided Dingy Harry's sons' homes and why we're not hearing more about Harry on FOX from O'Reilly or H&C and others?

[tutstar]

I don't have time to post a thread but

FBI Raid Targets First Coast Company http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=67141

Agents searched four locations in the Philadelphia area and two in Jacksonville, said Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington.

The locations in Jacksonville were a home as well as the ITERA offices off Gate Parkway.

Weierman confirmed that the six raids included Karen Weldon's home in Philadelphia; the Springfield home of Charles Sexton, her business partner and the congressman's close friend; and the office of their company, Solutions North America, in Media.

Federal investigators are looking into whether Weldon used his influence to help the company secure lobbying contracts worth $1 million from foreign clients, two people familiar with the inquiry told The Associated Press.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

My guess is the home that was searched is either that of KAVALIEROS, THEODOROS I
or
FRENKEL, RAISSA M

ITERA is a Russian energy company

Interestingly enough...my first thought was that these folks would lean DEM but they have actually contributed to Charlie Crist's campaign.

Why would we need Russian energy when we could drill in the GULF?

[floriduh voter]

because charlie crist's big donors from New York are foreign businessmen. crist is going to sell us out and the murder rate is up 25% since he's been the Attorney General. He can't fight crime, only the phone company. lol

Curt Weldon is being targeted for his Able Danger claims. I believe Curt Weldon but they are going to make an example of him that telling the truth can finish your career.

This country is in sad shape. Florida will be run by crime syndicates that aren't even american in no time.

[Paul Ross]

we win elections, we have control of the executive branch - it means nothing. nothing.

It means nothing because of the reality that we have been instead been offered bait and switch. I.e., we don't actually win the elections....when we get Arlen Specters instead of Pat Toomeys. John Sununu's instead of Bob Smiths. Norm Colemans instead of Allen Quists. Etc.

Fortunately there are still some conservatives who have not succumbed to Bush's attacks so far. E.g., Congressmen such as Tom Tancredo, J.D. Hayworth, John Kline, Duncan Hunter, Gil Gutnecht, etc.

We need conservatives like Curt Weldon in. As far as the "executive branch" , you need to remember that the FBI is in the executive branch. Hence, this looks like a Bush-RINO attack against conservatives.

They already tried to use the FBI against Hayworth over his constituent support of an Indian tribe, and his campaign's accepting their support in turn.

Don't think for a second these FBI investigations are well-founded, accidental, or benign...or without direction right from the top.

[IrishRainy]

Me too, J.D. is my congressman, and I think he's gonna win again (Mitchell's a goofball!).

[Paul Ross]

A Conservative Pennsylvania politician that supports the WOT, but speaks about "Able Danger" ...........investigate and destroy him.

A liberal Pennsylvania politician, that rarely misses an opportunity to criticize the President, works to block USSC nominees, is pro-choice, spouts off consistently against the conservative agenda.........raise millions, invite him to functions, and support him in his primary and general election with appearances and personal appeals.

When the history of the Bush years are written, we will finally see how underhanded and misapplied this mans little bit of talent was.

BUMP!

Past time to revoke the man's keys to the Executive Washroom. And running the RNC, etc. Time to clean house. Here is one avenue of real help:

[jeremiah]

Damn, just damn.........I didn't know others see the other side, like I do on the issue.

[Paul Ross]

J.D. is my congressman, and I think he's gonna win again (Mitchell's a goofball!).

Bump! We need to seriously consider DRAFTING J.D. to run for the Big Job.

[Paul Ross]

You should note this column by John Gizzi, managing editor at Human Events, note how he flags for all conservatives just how nonexistent the "Big Tent" is for CONSERVATIVES when the seat is held by a retiring RINO or "Moderate":

Unsafe in Colorado's 'Safe' GOP District
by John Gizzi, HUMAN EVENTS
Posted Oct 16, 2006

By all the historic standards, Colorado’s 5th U.S. House District is one of the safest in the nation for Republicans. The district has been in Republican hands without interruption since it was created after the 1971 census, and the GOP primary has always been tantamount to election.

But not in ’06. With strong help from the Club for Growth and the House Conservatives Fund, State Sen. Doug Lamborn won the six-person Republican primary in the Colorado Springs-based district earlier this year. Easily the most conservative candidate in the primary, Lamborn topped the field by 800 votes and won the nomination with 27% of the vote.

But these days Lamborn is not exactly interviewing prospective congressional staff or looking at real estate in Washington, D.C. A recent Denver Post editorial said it all: “No Free Pass in 5th CD Race.” With numerous moderate Republicans and backers of Lamborn primary opponents refusing to support the nominee, the chances of an upset by Democrat Jay Fawcett, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and Desert Storm veteran, have been vastly enhanced. The National Journal’s “Hotline” elevated the 5th District race to one of its “50 House Races to Watch” and Congressional Quarterly recently profiled the Lamborn-Fawcett contest under the headline: “5th District No Longer Safe for GOP.”

The biggest blow to Lamborn’s chances of going to Congress has been dealt by the outgoing congressman—fellow Republican Joel Hefley. Following Lamborn’s primary win, 20-year Rep. Hefley made headlines by announcing he would not support the nominee of his party. Reportedly, the retiring congressman considered both running again as a write-in candidate or actually supporting Democrat Fawcett.

For all the Republican gloom and Democratic glee over the developments in the 5th District, a different view has been voiced by possibly the best-known and most-respected of all Republicans in Colorado—former Sen. (1978-90) Bill Armstrong, who from 1972-78 was the first-ever U.S. representative from the 5th District.

“It is unfortunate that Congressman Hefley is going out the way he has,” Armstrong told me. “He is a friend of mine and has many years of outstanding public service. His position won’t change the outcome in the 5th District—Doug Lamborn is going to win. But I’m afraid it will discourage the turnout among some Republicans and that could change the outcome in some close statewide and legislative elections. Right now, the race for governor [between conservative Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez and liberal Democrat Bill Ritter] is too close to call. Tipping the balance in races like that would be quite unfortunate.”

What do you think?

[jeremiah]

I think that Republicans want Republicans in office, but not TRUE conservatives. In WA state, we had a woman win the R nomination for governor. She would have been the first woman governor of our state, but she got the brush off because........she was an evangelical Christian, and had a high profile because she believed that she had been healed miraculously at one time, and had protested at an abortion clinic several other times.

It is OK to be a Christian, but only in that you attend church, if you actually BELIEVE the word of God, you are a crackpot. It is the same way with the conservative agenda. You can use the exact same rhetoric of smaller govt, balanced budget or term limits, but if you actually plan on implementing those things, and will not compromise your principles, you are not fit to support. The Republicans swept into the majority because they promised to do certain things. They then said they only promised to bring them into a discussion and try for a vote on them. Then they said that they tried, but needed more Republican cohorts. Now that they have had them for a few years, nothing new has happened to implement the "Contract with America". They whine and pule about a Pelosi speakership. The way I look at it is, they deserve to be in the minority. I will have no effect on the results either way (except for not giving to the RNC). I decided to vote against all incumbents, except in the rare exception of an outstanding pol. I know of none of them on my ballot.

[Paul Ross]

It will have massively negative effects for the defense budget. And SDI.

We conservatives have always pushed for deployments of this to the hilt.

Notice how the Administration continues to duck the obvious political hay of supposedly being a proponent of national missile defense... It could still do this on Prime Time, even though we know it has been twiddling its thumbs so extremely severely on this the last 6 years, cancelling outright all the necessary systems, like Brilliant Pebbles, and like TBMD, and the Aegis SM-3 Flight IIa restoration of the upper stage that Xlinton, Albright and Strobe Talbott killed.

[PghBaldy]

That's the point: Hillary needs Bill's record cleaned up, so there is less baggage around her.

[PghBaldy]

I often wondered exactly what he did that made them get him. I think it was an Al Capone and IRS type thing, if you catch my drift.

[cripplecreek]

I don't think he was exactly squeaky clean but he was small potatoes compared to the likes of Robert Toricelli and many others.

I think it had a lot more to do with the fact that he called for investigations of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. He was a true anti democrat democrat who supported prayer in schools, strict border control (because bin laden could walk across our border with a nuke).

Granted his one minute speeches read like a comedy routine but there were some amazingly accurate predictions in them.
http://www.traficant.com/speech.htm