Casino Jack And The United States Of Money Online Free

I recently watched Casino Jack and the United State of Money, a new documentary about Jack Abramoff by Alex Gibney, in a virtually empty movie theater. (Gibney won an Oscar for Documentary Feature in 2008.) Casino Jack regurgitated the story the media had proffered about “evil” Abramoff, and thematically repeated a Bill Moyers documentary several years ago. Gibney’s film would have been far more insightful and compelling had it been even-handed.

Directed by Alex Gibney. With Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, William Branner, Melanie Sloan. A probing investigation into the lies, greed and corruption surrounding D.C. Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his cronies. Casino Jack and the United States of Money. The big question for this two hour long documentary is whether the story is understandable and compelling. This is a simple to understand story. The story is eye-opening. It online compelling for anybody who wants to know what united going on.

Casino Jack And The United States Of Money online, free Checking

Disclaimer: Even though I found his Abramoff documentary tendentious and flawed, I admire and respect Gibney’s work very much. Politically, we are hard-core liberals. Because I was writing a book about Abramoff (and secretly interviewing him before and during his imprisonment,) Gibney and I have been occasionally meeting and talking about the Abramoff scandal for the past three years.

There are so many disappointing things with this documentary I don’t know where to begin. My overarching problem was that Gibney made no attempt to be objective, and that he omitted a plethora of important information that might have afforded the audience a chance to draw a more balanced, nuanced, and more informed conclusion about this complex scandal.

Gibney knew what his conclusion would be long in advance. Presumably for that reason, he did not interview anybody who defended Abramoff or anyone who argued that this scandal was far more convoluted than the simplistic, black-and-white narrative that has been repetitiously presented to the public and now by Gibney.

The film opens with footage of the 2001 mob murder of Florida businessman Gus Boulis, even though Abramoff had met Boulis only once and had nothing to do with his murder. (Boulis had just sold SunCruz casinos to Abramoff and his partner Adam Kidan.)

Soon, there is footage of the casinos operated by Abramoff’s tribal clients. Clearly, these casinos are on par with those in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. And clearly, these thriving casinos, earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year, belong to Indians who are well-to-do, not bumpkins that just fell off a log. They can afford the best consultants, lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. Hence, these particular Indians–for whom Abramoff was the lobbyist–were hardly unsophisticated, which I doubt anyone in the audience have grasped. Gibney should have made this point clear.

Casino Jack And The United States Of Money online, free Shipping

(A large part of the virulent antipathy toward Abramoff was fueled by our collective guilt over the genocide our European ancestors committed against the Native Americans. In 1892, there were wild celebrations across the nation. In New York City, for example, a statue was erected of the Great Navigator in an area re-named Columbus Circle. But in 1992, there were essentially no national or regional celebrations to mark a stellar numerical anniversary: the quincentenary of the European discovery of the New World. The reason? We were too ashamed.)

Yes, the public was infuriated with Abramoff. Here was this white man–(that he was an Orthodox Jew only made matters worse)–stealing candy from these poor, unsophisticated Indians. The Washington Post, which broke this story, exploited this undercurrent of shame brilliantly and cynically. I feel it was disingenuous of Gibney not to make clear that these particular Indians–whom Abramoff was accused of defrauding–were not your stereotypic unemployed Indian, boozing it up on a hard-scrabble reservation. In the end, these Indians proved to be far more sophisticated than Washington uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The other impression Gibney, The Washington Post, and Sen. John McCain, (former chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which also investigated Abramoff,) wanted to impart was that not only had Abramoff defrauded his clients, but he had been a lousy lobbyist. In other words, they wanted the public to believe that all these gullible, unsophisticated Indians had not only been bamboozled into paying Abramoff gargantuan sums, but had received nothing in return.

This is untrue. Abramoff was perhaps the most effective Indian lobbyist who ever lived. It would have been fair if Gibney had at least made that clear. But he did not. Apparently, Gibney preferred Abramoff’s iconic image as the indelibly vile pariah, Indian exploiter, and corrupter of the democratic process.

TAXING TRIBAL CASINOS
The most compelling example of Abramoff’s lobbying magic was his successful efforts for three successive years to defeat Republican-controlled congressional legislation that would have taxed tribal casinos. (Federally recognized Indian tribes are “sovereign nations” and are supposedly exempt from federal and state taxes.) Had that legislation passed, tribal casinos would have been required to pay about 33% of their profits to the US Treasury. By killing this legislation, Abramoff has cumulatively saved Indian Country about $30 billion for the past 12 years and counting, exponentially more than the relative pittance he charged them for his services. But once again, Gibney omitted this Abramoff triumph from his film.

THE CHOCTAWS OF MISSISSIPPI
Gibney describes how Abramoff, (remember, a lobbyist advocates for and protects his clients as does a lawyer), protected the interests of his client, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi, so that its casino could keep making money. If a nearby casino opened up, it would hurt his client’s revenue stream. So Abramoff worked hard to kill all competing casinos. (This is precisely what anyone hiring a lawyer/lobbyist wants done–the American Way, for better or worse.)

The Choctaws ran a lucrative casino near the Alabama border. The Jena Tribe, also located nearby in Mississippi, wanted to open its own casino, which would have put a big dent in the Choctaws’ profits. But first, the Jena Tribe needed federal approval. With the help of Tom DeLay and other Republican lawmakers in Washington, Abramoff blocked the Jena’s casino. But Gibney made it seem that Abramoff’s successful efforts were somehow sleazy. Perhaps they were. But that’s not the point. Abramoff did his job. He may have charged a lot, but he did save the Choctaws many hundreds of millions of dollars–far in excess of what he charged his client. Gibney should have pointed that out.

Gibney also completely omitted another far more spectacular Choctaw success Abramoff engineered. He somehow stopped a referendum in next-door Alabama that would have led to the opening of Indian casinos in that state. Since most of the Choctaw casino clients came from Alabama, the passage of that referendum would have probably put their casino out of business. Again, Abramoff saved his client hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, something Gibney did not to mention.

THE COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
Gibney omitted another impressive Abramoff lobbying coup involving the wealthy Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, which also operated a casino and resort.

The Louisiana Coushatta had applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1927 for permission to purchase about 9,000 acres of land “in trust” to add to its reservation. For nearly 75 years, the BIA did nothing but sit on that application. It was Abramoff, with the help of Tom DeLay, who forced the BIA to grant the Coushatta’s request. Again, Gibney made no mention of this.

Abramoff’s biggest lobbying coup for the Louisiana Coushatta was shutting down a casino east of Houston, Texas, that may have put his client’s casino out of business. It may seem hard to believe, but a complicating factor involved his also shutting down the casino of a tribe 1000 miles away in El Paso, Texas.

THE TIGUA TRIBE OF EL PASO, TEXAS
Gibney focused much attention on the Tigua tribe of El Paso. This pivotal and controversial episode in the Abramoff scandal is the one which reporter Susan Schmidt of The Washington Post, (whom Gibney interviewed extensively in the film), manufactured so that Abramoff appeared to be the most deceitful villain to have ever slithered out of the slime.

Schmidt claimed that Abramoff had secretly shut down the Tigua’s casino simply so he could appear the next day to persuade the tribe to hire him to get its casino reopened! The ultimate sleazebag, right? Well, not quite. It was Schmidt who was sleazy–some would say dishonest–in how she manipulated the facts. Her little work of fiction created such a firestorm of public fury against Abramoff that it helped her win a 2005 Pulitzer Prize, (which, in my opinion, should be rescinded.) What’s more, it was also the final straw that made Abramoff’s imprisonment inevitable.

The problem is that Schmidt withheld a crucial bit of information from her story. Here are the facts. (Please bear with me.This is a bit complicated.)

Back in 2001, there was one tribal casino in Texas, and it was being operated illegally (something Gibney neglected to mention) by the Tigua Tribe in El Paso. There was a second tribe preparing to open its own illegal casino 700 miles away, east of Houston. That second tribe is confusingly called the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. A pending bill in the Texas state legislature would have legalized both tribal casinos. Abramoff’s client–the Louisiana Coushatta, (who had just purchased 9,000 acres of land thanks to Abramoff and DeLay), operated a very lucrative casino near the Texas border–felt threatened. Most of its gamblers drove three hours from the Houston area to play slots and blackjack in its casino. Had the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas opened its own casino east of Houston, Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, might have been forced out of business. (Why drive three hours to gamble when a new casino has just opened minutes away?)

Here’s the point of this complex-sounding story. Abramoff needed to stop that Texas bill which would have legalized the two tribal casinos, even though only one of them–the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas–threatened his Louisiana client. Obviously, Abramoff had absolutely no interest in shutting down the Tigua casino, because it was located in El Paso, 1000 miles from (and therefore no threat to) his client in Louisiana. But, yes, if Abramoff could find a way to kill the bill, the Tigua casino would also be shut down.

In another brilliant lobbying coup, (which Gibney once again failed to point out), Abramoff managed to derail the Texas bill. (The bill had already passed in the Texas House by an 83-vote margin. It would have easily passed in the Texas Senate by an even greater margin, but Abramoff was able to stop the bill from reaching the Senate floor for a vote! Hence, the bill failed to become law; both tribal casinos were shut down.)

But The Washington Post’s Susan Schmidt never mentioned the part about the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas in her story! She claimed that Abramoff’s sole purpose was to shut the Tigua’s casino so he could persuade them to hire him to get it reopened. She completely omitted the fact that the casino of another tribe–the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas–was the only one he was interested in shuttering. Did Schmidt know that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas even existed and that it was a threat to Abramoff’s client in Louisiana? Indeed, her name had appeared on a recent story in which those two facts were identified by her! Hence, it would appear that Schmidt deliberately omitted this key bit of information simply so her story would make Abramoff’s behavior seem so reprehensible.

Casino Jack And The United States Of Money online, free Online

I discussed this complicated story a number of times with Gibney. He didn’t seem as outraged as I. But he did end up conceding in his film that Abramoff’s shuttering of the Tigua casino was “collateral damage.” Schmidt, on the other hand, never used the term collateral damage–or any similar term, because that would have undermined her fairy tale of righteous indignation. She simply omitted the name of the second tribe and, most importantly, that the second tribe was Abramoff’s real target. Given Schmidt’s previous reporting, she knew that the real reason for Abramoff’s actions were not what she reported, but rather to protect his Louisiana-based casino client.

In the film, Gibney did not call Schmidt on the carpet for her journalistic transgression or question her on this matter at all. Why he gave her a free pass I find puzzling.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN
Let’s take a look at the illustrious Sen. John McCain. Although Gibney was well aware that there was bad blood between McCain and Abramoff, he failed to mention this in his film. First of all, Abramoff was an arch conservative, allied with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, former Christian Coalition chairman Ralph Reed, right-wing ministers James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others. They all loathed “maverick” John McCain, who then touted himself as a moderate Republican.

Secondly, Abramoff had inadvertently funded the notorious and scurrilous “black baby smear” campaign that had helped to sink McCain’s presidential bid in the South Carolina Republican primary of February 2000. So it could be argued that McCain’s investigation of Abramoff was in large part motivated by personal vendetta. Gibney omitted this.

Casino Jack And The United States Of Money online, free

Although Gibney did mention that McCain had suppressed many of Abramoff’s subpoenaed emails, Gibney did not provide a readily available and widely known specific numerical percentage. Straight-talk McCain suppressed 99% of Abramoff’s emails! In other words, he only released 1% to the public. This highly selective release of emails allowed McCain to paint Abramoff in the worst possible light, especially since Abramoff foolishly decided not to defend himself during the hearings. (On advice of counsel, he exercised his Fifth Amendment right, which led many to conclude he was guilty.)

Gibney did point out that McCain suppressed many of Abramoff’s emails, but that he did so to avoid injuring his fellow Republicans. That was only partly true. The tiny fraction of emails McCain released had been selected and taken out of context in order to generate the greatest possible damage to Abramoff. Gibney knew this, because we discussed it many times, but did not mention it.

SUNCRUZ CASINO
Regarding the purchase of SunCruz casino, Abramoff had been indicted for wire fraud, involving a forged $23 million wire transfer, supposedly the down payment for the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz casino. Abramoff, however, knew nothing about this phony wire transfer. I interviewed Adam Kidan, Abramoff’s SunCruz partner, for over 100 hours. I asked him if Abramoff knew about this forged wire transfer. Kidan repeatedly told me that Abramoff knew nothing about it. Since I had told Gibney this fact and since Gibney also interviewed Kidan for the film, I was quite surprised that Gibney did not mention it.

So why did Abramoff plead guilty to wire fraud in the SunCruz matter if he knew nothing about the concocted $23 million wire transfer? Here’s another key issue that Gibney chose not to address in his film.

WHITE-COLLAR GUILTY PLEAS AND HONEST-SERVICES FRAUD
Like many defendants, especially white-collar defendants, Abramoff pleaded guilty, because he was afraid not to. (The New York Times reported that over 25% of convicted and imprisoned rapists and murderers, later exonerated by DNA evidence, had pleaded guilty!) The truth is that Abramoff was intimidated and pressured into pleading guilty, even though he didn’t think he was guilty. First, his legal fees were becoming astronomical. Second, federal prosecutors threatened to sentence him to 30 years in a maximum-security prison with violent offenders. Abramoff was told, however, if he agreed to plead guilty to whatever they told him to plead guilty to, his sentence would be reduced to four years and he would do his time it in a cushy prison camp close to home, conveniently allowing his wife and five children to visit him. Again, Gibney failed to mention this.

What exactly was Abramoff guilty of? Bribing congressmen? He never did that, (although he did plead guilty to it.) Tax evasion? Doubtful, (although he did plead guilty to this. Even some of the federal prosecutors who worked on the case disagree on this tax-evasion charge.) Wire fraud? Definitely not, (though he did plead guilty to this too.) Defrauding his tribal clients? Well, now we’ve now arrived at the crux of the criminal matter, which centers on the “kickback” scheme involving Abramoff’s public-relations colleague, Michael Scanlon.

THE “KICKBACK” SCHEME
Gibney prominently mentions that Abramoff took “kickbacks” from Scanlon. The Post and McCain contend that Abramoff should have informed his tribal clients that he was getting a “kickback” from Scanlon, whom they hired at Abramoff’s behest. But there is nothing criminal in not informing his clients. And calling it a “kickback” is a misnomer. It was a perfectly legal referral fee, something that orthopedic surgeons, lawyers, and mortgage brokers engage in everyday without informing their clients. Federal prosecutors knew it wasn’t a crime, but had to conjure up something to charge Abramoff with so he could appear to plead guilty to defrauding his tribal clients. The conjured-up was “honest-services fraud,” a nebulous felony impossible to define. In fact, a few days from now, the U. S. Supreme Court will probably declare this controversial law unconstitutionally vague…and yet Gibney chose not to mention anything at all about the storm swirling around the honest-services fraud statute.

THE GUILTY PLEA OF REP. ROBERT NEY
Gibney extensively interviewed former Ohio Congressman Robert Ney, who spent nearly a year in prison as a result of the Abramoff scandal. For a long time, Ney had stubbornly refused to plead guilty, claiming he had done nothing wrong. And in my opinion it is unlikely that Ney would have ever been indicted, never mind found guilty of any charge related to the Abramoff scandal. What cooked Ney’s goose, however, was not Abramoff. Ney was caught accepting a $50,000 cash bribe from a Syrian businessman who asked Ney’s help in obtaining spare parts for Iranian military jets, something Abramoff had nothing to do with. With that little incriminating tidbit, however, federal prosecutors were able to tighten the screws on Ney until he squealed guilty to the Abramoff charges as well, in return for a reduced sentence in a cushy prison camp. Gibney knew all about that fat Syrian businessman, but did not to mention it.

Gibney also mentioned that Ney had placed at Abramoff’s behest two statements in the Congressional Record–one that disparaged SunCruz owner Gus Boulis and a subsequent one that praised Adam Kidan. Well, this isn’t exactly true. Those statements had not been placed in the Congressional Record, but in the Congressional Records Extensions, an obscure publication that essentially no one reads, in which lawmakers insert statements praising local boy-scout troops; honoring a constituent’s birthday, marriage, graduation, or death. Gibney made a big deal out of that frivolous favor. Frivolous comments made in an obscure publication pale in comparison to helping the terrorist state of Iran and sworn enemy of the United States obtain spare parts for its aging American fighter jets. But Gibney said nothing about this.

FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER TOM DELAY
As for Tom DeLay, former Republican House speaker and Abramoff’s most valuable asset, Gibney makes it clear how much he loathes his politics and his tactics–and so do I. And I can’t stand Abramoff’s politics as well, (even though he tried to change my mind during the 100 hours I interviewed Abramoff). Gibney did his best to make DeLay, who was extensively interviewed in the film, look hypocritical and sleazy. Gibney even included clips from DeLay’s embarrassing appearance on the TV show “Dancing With The Stars.” This was gratuitous and only served to make DeLay look foolish, which I thought was unfair. No matter how unsavory Gibney tried to make DeLay appear in the film, there is one incontrovertible fact Gibney had to concede: DeLay has never been indicted–(and never will be indicted, due to the statute of limitations)– for anything involving Abramoff. (And Abramoff, who has been cooperating with federal prosecutors for nearly five years, told me how badly they wanted to indict DeLay.)

ADAM KIDAN
Even minor things were not dealt with even-handedly in Casino Jack. For example, Gibney interviewed Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW (Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), a liberal, non-profit watchdog group. She stated that Adam Kidan, Abramoff’s SunCruz partner, had been disbarred for fraud. But Gibney chose not to give Kidan a chance to respond or defend himself. It just so happens that those charges were brought by Kidan’s stepfather, the controversial owner of adult video stores. They were embroiled in a business dispute. However, the stepfather later wrote to the authorities withdrawing his complaint. (These letters are archived and readily available in Brooklyn and Long Island courthouses.)

Furthermore, Naomi Seligman, former deputy director of CREW and one of Sloan’s dearest friends, used to date Kidan. Perhaps this was not worth mentioning in the film, but Gibney knew this.

THE EELEMOSYNARY ABRAMOFF
In the tradition of Orthodox Judaism, Abramoff had been an extraordinarily generous person. Essentially, he gave away much of his money, often anonymously, mostly to Jewish charities. He never even paid off his own home mortgage. And yet Gibney didn’t mention any of this at all. It’s as if he went out of his way to avoid saying anything that might cast Abramoff in a positive light.

CONCLUSION
Gibney ends the film decrying lobbying. He cites how banking and financial lobbyists are preventing the government from reigning in and controlling derivatives, such as credit-default swaps, which recently nearly triggered an economic depression. He also cites the recent Supreme Court decision, allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on lobbying. And somehow he compares those cataclysms to the alleged crimes of Jack Abramoff.

What crimes did Abramoff actually commit? He got Rep. Bob Ney to insert frivolous comments in the frivolous Congressional Records Extensions. Abramoff gave lawmakers and their staff free meals, drinks at his restaurant and free seats at sporting events, and subsidized a few golf trips. And what did he get in return? He helped his tribal clients’ casinos remain profitable. He wangled an audience with President George W. Bush for the prime minister of Malaysia. So what? This is inconsequential compared to the great evils perpetuated by the financial-industry lobbyists, the health-care lobbyists, the tobacco lobbyists, the National Rifle Association, etc. And for these petty gems of sleaze and corruption, Abramoff is sent to federal prison for four years? Seems to me like much ado about nothing.

What Gibney did not mention in his film is that lobbying–the right to petition Congress–is protected by the very First Amendment to the Constitution. Sure, every liberal wants elections to be publicly financed, but it will never happen because of something called the “incumbency advantage.” Incumbents get reelected about 90% of the time, thanks, in part, to the money that lobbyists funnel into their reelection campaigns. (Yes, the “bad” lobbyists include Exxon Mobil, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, as well as the “good” lobbyists like the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the AARP.) It’s doubtful that current lawmakers are going to pass legislation that would make it easier for their opponents to take away their jobs.

When Abramoff stopped the Republican-controlled Congress from taxing Indian casinos, do you know how he did it? He didn’t do it with free drinks and meals at his restaurant, free tickets to sporting events at his skyboxes, or golf trips. What those freebies got him was access to the lawmakers and their staff, so he could present a compelling argument. And what was that compelling argument that killed the bill? He told Republican lawmakers that they should vote against this bill because it was a tax, and Republicans were supposed to be anti-tax fanatics. It worked, but people who see the documentary won’t know that, because Gibney didn’t mention it.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Remember those naïve, unsophisticated Indians that Abramoff bamboozled? Well, they all sued the law firms that Abramoff used to work for. And guess what? They all won huge settlements, so that in the end, they got Abramoff’s phenomenal lobbying services for a pittance…Gibney forgot to mention that too.

Gary S. Chafetz is the author of The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


January 27, 2010

from DemocracyNow Website


As a Supreme Court ruling opens the floodgates for corporations to affect elections, we take a look at corporate money and politics with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney.

His new documentary, Casino Jack and the United States of Money, focuses on the rise and fall of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

We also speak with David Sickey, a member of the Tribal Council of the Coushatta Tribe, and Tom Rodgers, a lobbyist and member of the Blackfeet tribe who was a key whistleblower in the Abramoff case.

Outside of the film, this is Rodgers’ first national broadcast interview.


Guests

  • Alex Gibney, Academy Award-winning filmmaker. His latest documentary is called Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

  • Tom Rodgers, member of the Blackfeet tribe and a lobbyist with Carlyle Consulting.

  • David Sickey, member of the Tribal Council of the Coushatta Tribe.

Video Interview


Rush Transcript

AMYGOODMAN: We turn now to the issue of corporate money and politics.

Seven days ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. In a five-to-four decision, the conservative members of the court argued that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.

Many advocates for fair elections say the Court’s decision in the Citizens United case will open the floodgates of corporate campaign donations. In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, quote,

“The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

Here at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, where we’re broadcasting, one of the most talked-about films deals with the topic of money and politics. It’s called Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

The documentary is by the Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney. It focuses on the rise and fall of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is now serving time in jail for defrauding American Indian tribes, bribing public officials, and evading taxes.

In a moment, Alex Gibney will join us here in Park City, but first, a clip from Casino Jack.

    NEWSREPORT: The government says Abramoff has admitted to bribing as many as twenty members of Congress.

    ALICEFISHER: His activities went far beyond lawful lobbying.

    MIKEWALLER: He was the number one lobbyist in Washington, who could get you in touch with the best and most influential members of Congress.

    NEILVOLZ: It’s amazing how many members of Congress wanted in with Jack.

    NEWSREPORT: When the story broke, President Bush publicly tried to distance himself from Jack Abramoff.

    PRESIDENTGEORGE W. BUSH: I frankly don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy.

    BOBNEY: You know, all of a sudden, nobody remembered Jack Abramoff.

    PRESIDENTGEORGE W. BUSH: I don’t know him.

    BOBNEY: Of course Bush knew him. Absolutely.

    SUSANSCHMIDT: It’s just amazing how close Abramoff and his people got to the levers of power in Washington.

    TOMRODGERS: We had no idea that it would lead to the resignation of Tom DeLay, to the conviction of Bob Ney, to Tony Rudy, to Neil Volz. So many people were pulled into this web: Ralph Reed, John Doolittle, Karl Rove, Dick Armey, Conrad Burns, Don Young, Grover Norquist. It was all about the money. It’s the selling of America.

AMYGOODMAN: An excerpt from Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

The filmmaker Alex Gibney joins us here in Park City. We’re broadcasting from the headquarters of the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

In 2007, Alex won an Academy Award for his documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. He also made the film Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

We’re also joined by two other guests who certainly played a role in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and they appear in the film. David Sickey is a member of the Tribal Council of the Coushatta Tribe. He’s the vice chair.

Tom Rodgers is a member of the Blackfoot Tribe, and he’s a lobbyist with Carlyle Consulting. The Hill newspaper just published an article about Rodgers titled 'The Man Who Blew the Whistle on Jack Abramoff Tells the Story of How He Did It.'

Well, I want to welcome you all here in Park City to Sundance headquarters, where we’re broadcasting from. Your film, Alex, has been received, as Taxi to the Dark Side was, with great acclaim here, the first time it’s showing.

Talk about the significance of going back in time a bit to Jack Abramoff, what could look like a really interesting historical piece, and the Supreme Court decision that just came out.

ALEXGIBNEY: Well, I think the Supreme Court decision suddenly pulls these events from the past into the present with unbelievable force.

It’s like - the film is about buying influence, and Jack Abramoff is a wild and outrageous example of how that works.

But what the Supreme Court decision does is to show just how - I mean, as much - the tools that Jack had to work with, now anybody like Jack, a lobbyist who wants to really push a political agenda, can do so with unbelievable power, just by eliciting the aid of massive amounts of corporate money.

AMYGOODMAN: Now, go back, for people who, when asked, Jack Abramoff - is it a drink? Some corrupt politician? Explain what happened. Tell us the story in a nutshell. And you can’t speak in sound bites.

ALEXGIBNEY: Jack Abramoff is a lobbyist, or was a lobbyist. And a lobbyist is somebody who represents people’s interests, trying to get laws passed in Congress on their behalf.

But Jack Abramoff really is better understood as a political zealot. He was a college Republican who came to some prominence with his friends Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, as they began to enter the political arena with a kind of a radical agenda for sort of extreme free market views and also a very sort of radical anti-Soviet agenda.

He then launched some rather - he was also a movie producer at times, doing a rather unique genre, which was to produce political action thrillers, which were actually very ideological in tone.

In one of them, called Red Scorpion, which stars the action hero Dolph Lundgren, he...

AMYGOODMAN: Which was supported by the South African apartheid regime.

ALEXGIBNEY: Which was supported by the South African apartheid regime. The film tries to resuscitate the career of Jonas Savimbi, a rather brutal dictator.

But from there, Jack launched his career - with the ascent of the Republicans in 1994, Jack launched his career as a lobbyist in Washington, DC. And he had tremendous credentials among kind of the conservative community, the movement conservative community, and that allowed him access to people in power.

With access to people in power, he could sell that access to clients who wanted to buy that access. And that’s how he really made his fortune. And that’s how he really made a name for himself.

You know, he’s now called “disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” and a lot of people like to say that they didn’t really know him. In fact, he was in the mainstream. He was very much a power broker in Washington, DC, very good relationships with Karl Rove, President Bush, and particularly Tom DeLay, the former Majority Whip.

So, that’s the big story about Jack Abramoff. He was a guy who really bought and sold politicians, is really what he did.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip of Alex Gibney’s film Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

    NARRATOR: To reach his goal, he had to get to one man: Tom DeLay.

    TOMDELAY: Jack Abramoff was a committed conservative. He was well known in the conservative movement. And I dealt with him no differently than I dealt with any other lobbyist.

    NARRATOR: Jack was not like any other lobbyist. He had a very special relationship with Tom DeLay. He took him on trips to Russia, Scotland and the South Pacific. He made sure that his clients showered money on DeLay’s foundation and employed his wife. And in return, DeLay let Jack market himself as the man who had access to DeLay’s power.

    NEILVOLZ: The first time I met Jack Abramoff was in the Majority Whip’s office at an event. Jack is one of a kind. I mean, Jack Abramoff could sweet talk a dog off a meat truck. He’s that persuasive. And he’s the king of K Street. This is the guy. And he comes in for five minutes, sits down next to somebody who’s willing to spend millions of dollars, you know, to lobby Washington, and then he leaves in five minutes. And the guy or the woman thinks that Jack’s talking to the President, but he’s probably playing solitaire on his computer. And then he comes back in, and it’s like,

    “Hey, you know, sorry about that, but you got two more minutes. And by the way, I need about $250,000 a month,” and then walks out the door.

    One of a kind. One of a kind.

AMYGOODMAN: That, a clip from Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

Alex, go on from there and talk about Tom DeLay. Interestingly, at your premier here at the Sundance Film Festival, one of those who were in the audience was Bob Ney, who went to jail, the congressman.

ALEXGIBNEY: Congressman Bob Ney spent seventeen years in a federal - seventeen months, I should say, in a federal penitentiary. Bob was caught up in Abramoff’s web, and it was really a very powerful moment.

I mean, when we screened the film here, Bob had never seen it before. And I was unsure a little bit how he was going to react. He’s in the film. He’s interviewed at length, as is his former chief of staff, who then went on to work for Jack Abramoff, Neil Volz.

And Bob came out of the audience to talk to people afterwards, and a lot of people were very interested, because Bob is very candid about how this influence-peddling process works. Interestingly enough, now Bob is one of the most vigorous advocates of campaign finance - more than reform, it’s like taking the money out of the system.

AMYGOODMAN: And Tom DeLay?

ALEXGIBNEY: Tom DeLay would not be like - that would not be his view. Tom DeLay’s view is, we spend more money on potato chips than we do on political campaigns. His view would be, let the money rush down like great waters.

AMYGOODMAN: So his wish was answered by the Supreme Court.

ALEXGIBNEY: Indeed. I think the Supreme Court was channeling Tom DeLay when they issued their recent decision.

AMYGOODMAN: But Tom DeLay is out of office now. How does it tie into this?

ALEXGIBNEY: Well, Tom DeLay is out of office now, but I think the point is that...

AMYGOODMAN: Forced to resign.

ALEXGIBNEY: He was forced to resign as a result of this scandal. And he’s still facing charges for violating campaign finance laws in Texas, but under a cloud, he resigned his position from the Congress.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re going to break in a minute, and then we’re going to come back to this discussion. But before we do, I wanted to introduce our next guest, who has - well, just beginning to speak out, really the first time in your film, Alex. Tom Johnson [sic], talk about your role in the unraveling, in the exposing of Jack Abramoff.

TOMRODGERS: I’m a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, and I represent a number of Native American tribes across the country and have advocated for Native Americans, like...

AMYGOODMAN: Tom Rodgers, sorry.

TOMRODGERS: That’s alright, no problem.

And my family is Native American. And I came back to work in DC, and in working with tribes, and some tribal leaders who had trusted me throughout my career reached out to me a time in early 2002 because of threats that had been made to them regarding the lobbying practices of a lobbyist who was representing them.

And I received a number of phone calls and was asked to meet with a number of tribal leaders, because they felt that their lobbyist was defrauding them and cheating them, and they had no idea what they were paying for with these large, large amounts of money.

And so, through phone calls and meetings, all the way back into 2002, through Monica Quigley at the Saginaw Chippewas, Kevin Battise at the Alabama Coushattas, Ernest Sickey, David’s father, we met in 2002, started to collect our data. Bernie...

AMYGOODMAN: How did you go about checking this data?

TOMRODGERS: Checking the what?

AMYGOODMAN: The data.

TOMRODGERS: What was very evident, we looked at the political contributions that Jack was asking the tribes to make. And I saw that they were making contributions to politicians who were in opposition to Native American ideas and concerns.

That immediately was, you know, an indicia of “Oh, my God, this is not right.”

AMYGOODMAN: What do you mean?

TOMRODGERS: Well, I mean, there are members in Congress, like, for one, John Doolittle. John Doolittle - some of the tribes were making - were asked to make campaign donations to John Doolittle, who is in opposition to long-term Native American interests.

Tom DeLay, even though I know Jack and Mr. DeLay would like to represent that Tom DeLay was there for Indian country, if you look at his legislative record, he was not. On one or two rare isolated instances. But you look at his overall track record, legislative record, he was not a supporter of Indian country.

And so, I looked at this, and I said, we are making contributions to people who are in opposition to us, who avidly work against Indian country.

And there was that, and there was also these invoices, these amounts, which were - and I kept saying this, and we had to convince the media, these were numbers that were like - the only organization at that time that was spending the amount of money that these tribes were spending, were being asked to spend, was the US Chamber of Commerce.

Not - even Microsoft under divestiture or GE were not spending these gross amounts of money. And I work in Indian country, and I’m going - and I was benchmarking against what work was being done. There was no way - no way - you could rationalize these amounts.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, and then we’re going to come back, and I want to ask David Sickey, who is a vice chair of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, about how his nation was involved, his relationship with Jack Abramoff.

This is Democracy Now!. We’re talking about a film that has premiered here that is, well, going to have a big effect in this country, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision that has just come down.

It’s about the jailed, the disgraced lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. It’s called Casino Jack [and] the United States of Money.

Stay with us.

[break]

AMYGOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from the Sundance Film Festival headquarters here in Park City, Utah. We’re here because it’s the largest celebration of independent film in this country. And it goes throughout the week. I’m Amy Goodman.

Our guests now are - well, one of the features of this film festival, Alex Gibney has come back, the Oscar Award-winning filmmaker who did Taxi to the Dark Side and also Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

And he has a new film called Casino Jack [and] the United States of Money. We’re also joined by Tom Rodgers, a member of the Blackfoot Tribe and a lobbyist with Carlyle Consulting, and David Sickey, who’s vice chair of the Tribal Council of Coushatta Tribe.

David, before we go to you, I wanted to play yet another clip from Casino Jack.

    PRESIDENTGEORGE W. BUSH: I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, so help me God.

    NARRATOR: Jack had raised lots of money for Bush and convinced his tribal clients not to contribute to Bush’s key Republican rival, John McCain. In 2001, Abramoff was asked to bring his lobbying practice to the same firm that Bush had hired to win the battle of the Florida recount, Greenberg Traurig.

    RONPLATT: He clearly had a big practice, five or six million dollars. The Marianas, the Mississippi Choctaw, I guess the Louisiana Coushattas. He was making a big push for the Saginaw Chippewa.

    JACKABRAMOFF: How do I help this tribe? Any fees you end up spending with us, you get back, you know, with a multiple. Last year, Choctaw fees were, I think, like three-and-a-half million dollars, in terms of the lobbying fees, and they got $120 million in direct and indirect federal help, grants, etc.

    NARRATOR: Suddenly, Jack was a popular man in Indian country.

AMYGOODMAN: An excerpt of Casino Jack and the United States of Money. David Sickey, you’re vice chair of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. Talk about Jack Abramoff and Native politics.

How was your tribe affected?

DAVIDSICKEY: Well, my tribe became involved with Jack Abramoff in and around 2000, 2001. Just to kind of give you a little bit of background, I was elected for the first term, for my first term, in May of 2003.

So the previous administrations had brought in Jack Abramoff as a consultant. And also I think there was a tribal state gaming compact renewal issue that needed some level of sophistication, as far as negotiations were concerned. And I believe he was referred to the tribe from another tribe, a neighboring tribe from a neighboring state.

So it’s kind of interesting how it evolved.

By the time I came into office, it was clearly evident that there were appalling, just huge amounts of money already being sent to Jack Abramoff and/or Michael Scanlon. And there were - you know, we would hear different things about lobbyists being paid, but the average member of the tribe simply had no clue as to how big these payments were. And that’s the type of platform that I came in on in ’03.

So, Tom Rodgers, much credit to him, came in at a very appropriate time, as we were sifting through some of these documents. I finally made contact with Tom Rodgers soon after my election.

And Tom helped out as far as, you know, giving me a sense of what to look for, providing me a grocery list of the internal documents to begin looking for and sifting through.

AMYGOODMAN: Now, Tom, you were finding that people who raised questions, within the various tribes...

TOMRODGERS: Right.

AMYGOODMAN: - who had hired Abramoff ...

TOMRODGERS: Right.

AMYGOODMAN: - were starting to get fired.

TOMRODGERS: Yes. Sadly, Monica Quigley, in November of 2002, who is a former - one of the former in-house counsels for the Saginaw Chippewas, when she proceeded, because she’s - once again, started to see these large incredible invoices, she saw that - she reached out to me, and she says,

“Tom, I cannot believe these numbers that are coming into us and why we’re paying them.”

AMYGOODMAN: What are the numbers?

TOMRODGERS: Oh, we’re looking at $1.875 million for three months of work, which had not - not even done yet. In fact, Jack asked that $1.875 million be wired to him.

And the line, the addendum on the explanation for services, was simply “professional services.” So we want $2 million. We want it three months before we’ve done the work. And we want it wired to us immediately.

And she was fired when she started to raise questions, so she reached out to me in November of 2002 and said, “Tom, would you be willing to help us?” And that led to David Sickey, Bernie Sprague and -

AMYGOODMAN: And who is Bernie Sprague?

TOMRODGERS: Bernie Sprague was a sub-chief at the Saginaw Chippewas. And he ended up calling me in January of 2003. He had made previous attempts, but it was very - the atmosphere at the Saginaw Chippewas was very threatening at that time.

Jack had told him that if he continued to raise questions regarding his invoicing and spread ill-founded rumors about him, that he might be suing him. And that’s when I talked to Bernie Sprague at 1:30 in the morning on January the 3rd.

And it was very interesting, because Bernie - I picked up the phone, and at that late hour, I didn’t recognize the phone number, but I said, “Can I help you, sir?”

And he goes, “Well, my name is Bernie Sprague. I was told I could trust you.” And I says, “Well, I don’t know if you can. Who told you that?” He said, Rick Hill. And Rick Hill is a national leader in Indian country and is a very close friend of mine.

So that was my kind of password that we could trust each other, even though I had never met the man.

AMYGOODMAN: They asked you to check out where they were sending their checks to when they weren’t wiring them?

TOMRODGERS: Right. That was a very interesting point. We had - then I sat down on the edge of the bed, and I said, “Bernie, let’s talk.” This conversation went on for quite a while early in the morning on January the 3rd.

And he goes, “Well, Tom, we’ve been sending these large amounts of money.” And I said, “Well, Bernie,” I said, “be more specific.” He says, “Well, there’s this one check we were going to send, it’s going to 611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE in Washington, DC at Suite 375.”

Well, I’ve lived in DC for a number of years, and I said, “Bernie, with all due respect, there’s nothing up at 611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE but nail salons, bars and gas stations. He says, “No, no, no, no, no. This is a reputable business. We’re sending them to a large organization.”

So I said, “Bernie, I will drive up there, and I will take a picture of where you’re sending it.”

So I drove up there, and I started to look around, and it’s a Mailboxes Are Us. It’s now a UPS store. But at that time, it was a Mail Boxes, Etc. And I said, “Bernie” -

AMYGOODMAN: Mail Boxes, etc...

TOMRODGERS: Exactly.

AMYGOODMAN: - that has the little mailboxes.

TOMRODGERS: The little mailboxes. And that point exactly, I went in, and I - of course, looking for Suite 375, was a mailbox. And it was eight inches across and eleven inches deep.

AMYGOODMAN: Alex Gibney, talk about the significance of this. And David Sickey mentioned Michael Scanlon. Talk about the people around Jack Abramoff, because this isn’t just, by any means, one individual story.

ALEXGIBNEY: No, it’s not. And one of the interesting things about Jack is, a lot of people have painted him as a bad apple, but he’s really kind of more spectacular evidence of a rotten barrel.

And in terms of Mike Scanlon, who was his kind of key co-conspirator, Mike Scanlon was a guy who had worked as the press secretary of Tom DeLay, and then he came over to Jack’s shop and then started setting up business on his own.

And what they would do is, Jack would go in to an Indian client, and he would say, “Well, look, I’ll charge you so much, but the guy you really need to hire is Mike Scanlon, because he does this grassroots work that you’re really going to want to have.”

And then they would pay Scanlon, and then Scanlon would kick back about half his fee to Jack.

But in terms of the bigger picture, it’s interesting that Jack would get a number of staffers. He got staffers of John Doolittle to work for him, staffers of Bob Ney to work for him. And that’s really the way it works in Washington, DC. It’s the revolving door. Lobbyists use relationships that staffers have with members.

They take them over to their shop, and then that’s how they get inside the members’ offices.

AMYGOODMAN: And Neil Volz?

ALEXGIBNEY: Neil Volz was a former chief of staff for Bob Ney, and he was also - he also came to work for Jack Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to play a last clip from your film, from Casino Jack, that looks at how Jack Abramoff got involved with the Tigua Tribe in Texas.

    NARRATOR: “Fire up the jet, baby, we’re going to El Paso!!”

    SUSANSCHMIDT: “Fire up the jet, baby, we’re going to El Paso!!” That refers to maybe the most cynical campaign involving Indian tribes that they were involved in.

    NARRATOR: Jack gave the caper a code name: 'Operation Open Doors.' A plan to sell his services to a Texas tribe whose casino had just been shut down.

    MELANIESLOAN: Michael Scanlon sends Abramoff a piece from the El Paso Times.

    TOMRODGERS: This was on the front page of today’s paper, while they’ll be voting on our plan.

    MELANIESLOAN: Which is the plan to pay Abramoff and Scanlon to reopen the casino.

    TOMRODGERS: Abramoff replied, “Is life great or what?”

AMYGOODMAN: An excerpt of the new film Casino Jack. It’s Alex Gibney’s. He’s here next to me, Tom Rodgers next to him, and David Sickey next to him. David Sickey, vice chair of the Coushatta Tribe.

But, Tom Rodgers, you’re a lobbyist.

TOMRODGERS: Right.

AMYGOODMAN: You’re Blackfeet yourself.

TOMRODGERS: Right, right.

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about this last deal, the Tigua. Talk about - also I want to hear about the email that were going back and forth that really blew this out into the public.

TOMRODGERS: This is probably, as Alex has raised, it is one of the saddest chapters, a complete betrayal of trust amongst all the tribes. The Tigua tribe was - and you have to look at the political conditions in Texas, are very adverse for Native Americans. We used to have almost thirty tribes in Texas; we have three now. And for a reason.

And what happened with the Tiguas, their economic situation was so dire that they were willing to hire somebody like Jack.

Of course, not all the necessary due diligence was done, and I understand that, but what happened was, is that they were trying to have their casino operation open up, where they could once again use their moneys to educate their youth, provide healthcare.

But what Jack and Mike did is they - kind of a bait and switch on them. They were hired by them to help them open their casino, and then also the collateral effect of efforts to close casinos statewide had the impact of closing their casino. And so, they got paid millions and millions of dollars.

At the same time as they read as - on the front page of the El Paso newspaper, when they were closing the casino and over 450 employees were being let go, they were sitting in their offices in Washington, DC, reading these newspaper articles of 'Fire up the jet, baby, let’s go back out to El Paso and rebuild them.'

And the cynicism was over the top.

AMYGOODMAN: And the names that they were calling Native Americans in their emails, Alex?

ALEXGIBNEY: Well, yeah, there’s a rather shocking series of exchanges, in terms - I mean, Jack routinely referred to a lot of his clients in really derogatory terms. And this was certainly no exception.

AMYGOODMAN: Ralph Reed was head of the Christian Coalition. So they’re working to close the tribes to get more money to fight to reopen them.

ALEXGIBNEY: Well, what happened was, actually, Jack was hired by a tribe out of Louisiana - in fact, under a previous administration, the Coushatta Tribe - to try to shut down the casino of a tribe just outside of Houston.

And Ralph would often employ Ralph Reed, who was, in theory, you know, radically opposed to gambling. He called it a cancer on the body politic.

But in fact, what would happen is Ralph would hire - I mean, Jack would hire Ralph to, you know, beat the drum against gambling, in a religious way, but would never disclose that, in fact, Ralph was being paid millions of dollars - I think he ultimately got $7 million - from casinos to - so that they were basically playing one casino off of another.

And it was Ralph’s campaign and also - and his relationship with Senator - now Senator John Cornyn, then Attorney General John Cornyn, that led to the shutting down of tribal casinos in Texas.

And then, once they were shut down, then Jack went to the Tigua tribe and said, “Hey, you guys have been shut down. How about hiring me to open you up?”

AMYGOODMAN: Then, we only have a minute, but the death certificates, Tom?

TOMRODGERS: That is a disturbing thing, is, you know, in corporate America, yes, there is insurance policies called corporate-owned life insurance, but once again Jack and Mike took this to another level.

Our elders in our society are incredibly respected. They are our - they teach us. What these people did was beyond beyond.

They asked the Tiguas to take out life insurance policies on our elders, and once they died, then they would pay those benefits to them to pay their lobbying fees.

AMYGOODMAN: They would pay the benefits to...?

TOMRODGERS: To Jack and Mike, to pay the lobbying fees.

ALEXGIBNEY: I have to say, I mean, I think that I find this unbelievably extreme, but I should note that this is a rather common practice. AIG used to do this all the time.

You know, it’s one of those - and, in fact, many investment banks have huge programs for this, where they buy life insurance policies for people. I mean, it’s staggering. It’s shocking. But...

AMYGOODMAN: We only have a minute. Very quickly, the reforms that were passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, do they mean anything?

ALEXGIBNEY: No, I don’t think the reforms passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal really mean much of anything, because they haven’t taken the money out of the system.

You know, we now have congressmen and senators who spend sometimes two, three days out of every week raising money. Well, how perverted is that in our system? Why should we be paying them to raise money?

That’s really the fundamental problem here. And, you know, deciding how and when lobbyists can have lunch or dinner with members is really not the point. The point is, how do you take the influence of money out of the system?

That’s really the key issue.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. Alex Gibney, Oscar-winning filmmaker, his new film just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. It’s called Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

Tom Rodgers, thank you for speaking out, in his first national broadcast outside of the film that Alex has done. And thank you very much, David Sickey, vice chair of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

Casino Jack and the United States of Money
2010

The documentary focuses on the career of Washington, D.C. lobbyist, businessman, and con man Jack Abramoff, who was involved in a massive corruption scandal that led to the conviction of himself, two Bush White House officials, Rep. Bob Ney, and nine other lobbyists and congressional staffers.

Abramoff was convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and tax evasion in 2006 and of trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political favors. As of December 2010 Abramoff has completed his prison sentence.
This portrait of Washington super lobbyist Jack Abramoff - from his early years as a gung-ho member of the GOP political machine to his final reckoning as a disgraced, imprisoned pariah - confirms the adage that truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

A tale of international intrigue with Indian casinos, Russian spies, Chinese sweatshops, and a mob-style killing in Miami, this is the story of the way money corrupts our political process.

Following the ongoing indictments of federal officials and exposing favor trading in our nation's capital, the documentary illuminates the way our politicians' desperate need to get elected - and the millions of dollars it costs - may be undermining the basic principles of American democracy.

Infuriating, yet undeniably fun to watch, CASINO JACK is a saga of greed and corruption with a cynical villain audiences will love to hate.