AP Exclusive: Letter Says Donor Was Promised Ambassadorship

By Sharon Theimer Associated Press Writer
Published: Feb 15, 2005






WASHINGTON (AP) - A big Republican donor goes to his governor and senator, saying he was told by President Bush's chief fund-raiser he'd be getting a plum ambassadorial appointment but it wasn't delivered. The senator takes his case right to the top of the White House.
Nothing happens for two years.

The donor then helps stage a fund-raiser for Bush. A week later, the donor lands an appointment as the chairman of the federal board overseeing billions of dollars of student loans.

The aggressive job campaign of businessman Duane Acklie - detailed in the Nebraska gubernatorial files of new Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns - provides a rare window into donors, their access and their rewards.

And there's a twist.

Acklie named names - including chief fund-raiser Jack Oliver - and committed to writing one of the unwritten rules of politics: Presidents for years have rewarded big donors with plum ambassadorships.

"My only interest, if I am going to serve, would be in serving as an ambassador or in a position involving trade," Acklie wrote in a May 2001 "Dear Mike" letter to then-Gov. Johanns. The letter was contained in the official gubernatorial correspondence obtained by The Associated Press under Nebraska's open records law.

more:

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB449QQ75E.html

It's a "Blue Light Special"!

There is nothing in DC that isn't for sale now, from Ambassadorships to ass (Gannon).

Good work, AP. Keep 'em coming.

How many scandals have we had so far?

I have not even had time to mourn the beheading of John Adams Cody.

i think i remember in a history or politics class it was mentioned in some video we saw.

A male prostitution sex scandal! What an astounding coincidence!

W made Victor Ashe the Ambassador to Poland?



Vice President Dick Cheney, left, talks with Victor Ashe, United States Ambassador to Poland, right, as White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, center, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, far right, look on.

anymore.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http%3A//www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20040116.wreid0116%2FBNStory%2FFront&ord=1108329956349&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Bush prefers Martin spokesman to his own
By JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update

Friday, January 16, 2004

Ottawa — This is the tale of the two Scotts — one American, the other Canadian. One is dark-haired, the other blond. Both are 35 and both work for the most powerful men in their respective countries.

Scott McClellan is the press secretary to U.S. President George W. Bush; Scott Reid is the senior strategist to Prime Minister Paul Martin.

But, according to Mr. Bush, Mr. Martin has the prettier Scott.

Indeed.

to come to his room that night?
Is Bush (and others of his kind) against Gay Marriage because they think it will stabilize more monogamous relationships thereby reducing their selection of Boy Toys?

Hypocrites suck.

an excellent idea of mobilizing untapped voters. The born agains. Most were not involved in politics then, and Jr. pandered to them. Telling them exactly what they wanted to hear. He is still pandering and it has nothing to do with his beliefs.

A captive press that will let the whole matter fade away without comment, let alone outrage.

A week after the Omaha event, Bush nominated Acklie to the Student Loan Marketing Association's board of directors as its designated chairman. Acklie lost the post when the board was dissolved late last year.

2 adults of the opposite sex, even.

But "thank god there's a godly man in the White House now!"

ROTFLMAO!!!

The guys in power have always put their Friends in embassies.

Red herring alert.

And you are right, one scandal to cover a much bigger one.

Its easier for people to accept something that is done all the time as opposed to a special level of corruption like Gannon.

But Gannon is not really getting plastered over every news station 24/7 anyway. The MSM doesn't want to cover ANY scandal now.

before we can't sit on it any more!"

If we were smart, we'd take bets right about now. :)

Gossip sells... look at Enquirer, Globe, etc.

Sex sells... just turn on the TV and watch.

Gossip about a gay prostitute and porn guy getting press credentials for his fake-ass website and lobbing leading, softball questions at Bush and McClellan would sell like hotcakes... especially when it's true, documented, and there's no fear of slander/libel charges.

So now here's the big question: Why, all of a sudden, don't these media sources want to make money?

we know corruption is the name of the game....but never IN YOUR FACE SELLING of the ambassadorship.

Anyway you look at it...President Bush or his spokesmen won't be able to justify the sale of an ambassadorship...I expect denials to come from the White House...

and if this man has documents to prove his contention...oh boy is it gonna get nice and hot!

My vote is we beg Mexico to take Texas back.

I really don't know what else to think. Oh wait, this is a cowboy from Connecticut.

That's a harder deal. "If I could turn back the hands of time"

is not necessarily ethical and/or legal. Just because we are politically saavy and appreciate that everyone does it, doesn't make it right. Most folks have a child like understanding of government and politics. They believe that our leaders are just and moral and will follow the law. Because we don't object to the practice, they assume it is legal and correct.

Like the weed's campaigning on military bases -- no one questioned it, no one pitched a fit. Campaigning on a military base or other federal properties is a violation of the Hatch Act.

Buying an ambassadorship or cabinet post could very well be a violation of the federal bribery statutes. A good prosecutor could craft an indictment to charge someone.

There are laws written to prevent this type of behavior. Accepting it as a norm is the problem. (imho)

2041 Bribery of Public Officials

Section 201 of Title 18 is entitled "Bribery of public officials and witnesses." The statute comprises two distinct offenses, however, and in common parlance only the first of these is true "bribery."

The first offense, codified in section 201(b), prohibits the giving or accepting of anything of value to or by a public official, if the thing is given "with intent to influence" an official act, or if it is received by the official "in return for being influenced."

The second offense, codified in section 201(c), concerns what are commonly known as "gratuities," although that word does not appear anywhere in the statute. Section 201(c) prohibits that same public official from accepting the same thing of value, if he does so "for or because of" any official act, and prohibits anyone from giving any such thing to him for such a reason.

The specific subsections of the statute are:

Bribery

a. § 201(b)(1): offering a bribe to a public official

b. § 201(b)(2): acceptance of a bribe by a public official

Gratuities

a. § 201(c)(1)(A): offering a gratuity to a public official

b. § 201(c)(1)(B): acceptance of a gratuity by a public official.


The two offenses differ in several respects. The most important of these differences concerns how close a connection there is between the giving (or receiving) of the thing of value, on the one hand, and the doing of the official act, on the other. If the connection is causally direct - if money was given essentially to purchase or ensure an official act, as a "quid pro quo" then the crime is bribery. If the connection is looser - if money was given after the fact, as "thanks" for an act but not in exchange for it, or if it was given with a nonspecific intent to "curry favor" with the public official to whom it was given -then it is a gratuity. The distinction is sometimes hard to see, but the statute makes it critical: a § 201(b) "bribe" conviction is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while a § 201(c) "gratuity" conviction permits only a maximum 2-year sentence. In addition, with a "bribe" the payment may go to anyone or to anything and may include campaign contributions, while with a "gratuity" the payment must inure to the personal benefit of the public official and cannot include campaign contributions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02041.htm

from 1979 to now...one long list:
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Duane_Acklie.php

You can't BUY government posts! That's corruption...that's illegal.

Can we arrest President Bush if he really did promise this man an ambassadorship...because I'd say that's a "high crime".

Screw perjury regarding dick sucking...President Bush is selling ambassadorships!

Is it getting hot in here? Or is it just me ...

The elites sliced and diced and studied the people - like they were ants. So it only makes sense that we do that to them. To keep it all real.

And I thing the MSM has really not done very many stories on what it means to be rich or 'special' - so now is the time. Five % of stories should be about rich people.

Everyone in the UK knew the last US Ambassador only got his job for services to the Bush family. He was useless at it too - often away from the Embassy and in touch only with the horsey set.

(Edit for typo)

To put it into a letter in a public file....what a maroon.

(sarcasm off)

Some older DUers may remember when Shirley Temple (former child star and big-time Republicanite) was named ambassador to Ghana.

A former professor of mine used to work for the State Department providing language training for diplomats.

She was assigned to a group that was providing orientation for a major donor to Nixon's campaign who had been rewarded with the job of U.S. consul in one of the Japanese cities where there's a U.S. consulate. It was clear that the guy was a complete idiot and would be disastrous in the job, but there was nothing the State Department people could do about it.

When it came time for the donor's airheaded and talkative wife to receive her orientation, my former professor asked her, "Just why did President Nixon give your husband that consulship?"

"Because we've never been to Japan," came the reply.

Oooo-kayyy!

Appointments as a reward for political and financial support have been around since the beginning of the US.

President Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled former supporter who was not given the appointment he felt he deserved.

I remember Peter Sechia getting the ambassador's post to Italy under Poppy. My dad knows Sechia, I've met him before (it's a Grand Rapids thing) and everyone knew he got the assignment because he raised money for Bush I's election campaign.

I don't know if this ranks really high on the scandal meter.

Somebody with a clue. Yes, this is how ambassadorships have been handed out for many administrations.

You don't think Shirley Temple earned her ambassadorship from years of government work do you?

he thinks he's more than paid for that post. He was on the security commitee for the gop hatefest this August and he's been dloing out money for years to the GOP.

It's been a sore point with career Foreign Service professionals for decades. What's different is that this Acklie guy was brazen enough to put it in writing.

Given the way the Bushes operate, the awarding of ambassadorships on the basis of pure patronage/bribery/whatever you want to call it, has probably increased tenfold over the level it was in past Adminstrations.

while it kind of sucks that big money donors get plum assignments all administrations have engaged in similar practice.

There's a definite pattern here: http://ideamouth.com/appointments_and_disappointments.htm#Ambassador

So's masturbation. Everybody does it, everybody KNOWS everybody does it, but try announcing at work that you're going home to jerk off and see what the reaction is.

Not that our glorious leaders will do anything to investigate this because they've been selling jobs for years too. That's the problem when you let criminals decide who to persecute for criminal activity.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/14/national/w234357S76.DTL

A big Republican donor goes to his governor and senator, saying he was told by President Bush's chief fund-raiser he'd be getting a plum ambassadorial appointment but it wasn't delivered. The senator takes his case right to the top of the White House.

Nothing happens for two years.

The donor then helps stage a fund-raiser for Bush. A week later, the donor lands an appointment as the chairman of the federal board overseeing billions of dollars of student loans.



Acklie's plea for help ...
http://wid.ap.org/documents/acklie.pdf