• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: bribery

Go to school, do your homework, and never, ever, engage in sloppy conspiracy theories with people who are just as dumb as you

24 Sunday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

American Oversight, bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Mike Pompeo, quid pro quo, Rudy Giuliani, transliteration, Ukraine

On the fake “do not prosecute” list:

“…THE CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us what that letter was and what you know of its provenance?

MR. KENT: Well, that was part of series of news articles that came out I believe starting March 20th, this spring. There with a number of articles that were initially led by John Solomon of The Hill, who gave — who took an interview with Yuriy Lutsenko earlier in March. And so, there was, I believe, video somewhere, there certainly were pictures of them doing interview. And it’s part of a series of articles, it was an intense campaign. One of those articles released because the interview on the first day Lutsenko had claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch had given him a list in their first meeting of people not to prosecute. Several days later, a list of names was circulated on the internet, with — the photograph had a copy of my temporary business card that I used for a short period of time in 2015. So it was a real — it didn’t look like a regular business card. It was the one that we did on the embassy printer. So I think the card was genuine, and someone attached that to a list of names that was a hodgepodge of names. Some of the people I had to google, I had not heard of. Half the names were misspelled. Not the way that any American, or even Ukrainian, or Russian would transliterate Ukrainian names. My best guess, just from a linguistics semantic point is the person who created the fake list was either Czech or Serbian…” – INTERVIEW OF: GEORGE KENT – Tuesday, 0ctober 15, 2019 – Washington, D. C.

Transliteration – Tchaikovsky, Tschaikovsky, or Tschaikowsky? It’s important to pay attention in language school.

“…There were about 15 names, and I remember it was very odd. It included the country’s leading rock star, Slava Vakarchuk, who is now the leader of one of the parties in parliament. It included very bizarrely a person who was a friend of the current — the ex-President Poroshenko and was head of the overseer of the defense industry named Gladkovskiy, and in parentheses it had his previous name, Svinarchuk. The reason why that’s memorable is because it means a pig or a pig farmer, and he changed his name before he went into government so he didn’t have a name that said basically Mr. Piggy. But no one knew that that was really — knew that was his name when the list allegedly was created in 2015. That was a story line from 2019…” – George P. Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs: “Mr. Piggy” and the list (November 11, 2019)

In 2015 and 2016 the story of Mr. Piggy’s name change was not known.

“…they were quoting Giuliani saying to a Ukranian that the President really wants Ambassador Yovanovitch to go. And this seemed to be — the implication was that this was a roundabout way the President was trying to get rid of the Ambassador through this smear campaign.

I found it at the beginning very — I found it very hard to understand why a President of the United States would do it that way when he can just — I mean, all Ambassadors are Presidential appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the President, so it didn’t — it didn’t add up to me. I didn’t understand why that would be…” – Ambassador David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (November 19, 2019)

Donald Trump (r) could have removed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post by just simply removing her from her post. Instead, she was subjected to a campaign impugning her professionalism and character. For what reason?

Very late on Friday, in response to a court order in a lawsuit by American Oversight:

Publish Date: November 22, 2019
State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight

On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

[….]

From the material (C06852069) released to American Oversight:

The cover envelope. Note the “return address”.

“Timelines” folder. Note the “Trump Hotels” imprint.

“Outline”. “Source of this document?”

The “list”.

Mar. April 2016
Prosecutor General Lutsenko meets with US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Yovanovitch tells Lutsenko that he must drop investigation of individuals and institutions. The list includes an organization run by George Soros. Lutsenko is aware that Yovanovitch is very close to Biden and Soros.

And, in one of the articles:

…’Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,’ Lutsenko, who took his post in 20016, told [The Hill] last week…

It’s evident that the campaign to impugn the character of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was used, in part, to neutralize any questioning of the validity of the accusations aimed at the Bidens which were contained in this “package”. If, in their world, Marie Yovanovitch’s character and professionalism have no value, then any challenges to the accuracy of the information in their “package” have no value either.

And now, according to various news sources, Lutsenko has retracted his statement that there was a list.

It’s like Watergate, only this time, concocted by idiots. A student winter dance organizing committee at a junior high school run by clowns would have left fewer tracks.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Exquisite timing

22 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, Fiona Hill, John Bolton, quid pro quo, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine

John Bolton (r) [2010 file photo].

This morning, at 7:00 a.m.:

John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton
Glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months. For the backstory, stay tuned……..
7:00 AM · Nov 22, 2019

There was much disdain in the comments:

Okay, lightweight.

Testify

If only John Bolton had the courage of Fiona Hill

“Few Republicans are going to want to read a Bolton book showing Trump in a bad light. And Democrats are not about to put money into the pockets of a man who effectively blocked us from hearing damning testimony.”

It’ll be enough.

Testify to Congress under oath. That’s really the only thing we want to hear from you.

While you were away from Twitter, sir, a lot of people found it cowardly that you chose to discuss the Trump administration before a “gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients” but not before Congress.

There’s that.

In it for the glory, but mostly the profit.

There’s that, too.

Trump is burning this country to the ground. DO SOMETHING.

Testify in public and under oath, or you are just wasting air and space.

Hey John Bolton why don’t you do your patriotic duty and come forward – if it’s a matter of money we can start a Go Fund Me page for your testimony
It wouldn’t be a “quid pro quo” cause the GOP doesn’t think anything is so we are good!

We see what they did there.

To sell a book? Or do justice now? You watched Trump up close and know what he’s capable of if he’s allowed to continue.

It will be on you.

You sent those under your charge to the NSC lawyers and they agreed to testify to Congress. Are you too cowardly to do the same? Is the power of your party affiliation more important than your duty to country?

Testify under oath or leave us all alone.

Public servants with everything to lose stepped forward.

Come forward for the right reason.

We’re full up on schemes and bribes.

Just testify, dude. Fiona Hill did.

The only way I want to hear from you is under oath, before the American people. It’s your duty.

You need to testify.

#BoltonUnderOath

Do your duty; testify.
You’ll always be able to sell your book. But you’ll never be able to get this moment in history back.

How about testifying in the Impeachment hearings and tell the FRONT story? That madman you’re protecting in the White House is destroying our country, and you stand silent? You are better than this, sir.

I think we’re very close to finding out whether John Bolton really is better than this.

Quit fan-dancing for tips and testify.

Testify first. Tweet later.

We’re waiting…..

Your timing is curious sir. It’s either to promote your book (which is more likely the case) or to antagonize the monster in the WH. Either way I care less about what you tweet and more about you stepping forward and telling the Impeachment committees what you know. #BeBest

Sir, US Capitol Building, First Street SE, Washington, D.C. Wear a jacket and tie.

And on and on.

“This is a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government.”

22 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, Fiona Hill, impeachment, quid pro quo, Russia, Sarah Kendzior, social media, Twitter, Ukraine

Yes, we are.

Last night:

Sarah Kendzior @sarahkendzior
I’m glad people listened to Fiona Hill. I wish you’d listen when she says we’re running out of time. We *never* had time. A central tactic of autocrats is to simply run out the clock. That’s what Trump’s been doing while people take their sweet time catching up to the obvious.
8:31 PM · Nov 21, 2019

“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.

#ImpeachTheMF

#resist

Previously:

The resistance (December 18, 2016)

Keep a civil tongue…

21 Thursday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Putin's Puppet, quid pro quo, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine, useful idiot

“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.

It’s not a possibility.

This morning:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Corrupt politician Adam Schiff’s lies are growing by the day. Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us during the most unfair hearings in American History……
7:15 AM · Nov 21, 2019

Consciousness of guilt.

“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor to the Vice President

17 Sunday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

bribery, corruption, deposition, Donald Trump, impeachment, Jennifer Williams, Mike Pence, transcript

“Again, I would say that it struck me as unusual and inappropriate.”

“Ms. Williams, that’s not the question. How did it make you feel?”

“I guess for me it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.”

It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.

A deposition transcript of Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor to the Vice President, was released last night:

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: JENNIFER WILLIAMS

[….]

Q Was there any discussion of the reason for the hold in that small group?

A No.

Q No. I mean, it seems a litt1e odd that there’s this hold in place that’s been in place since July 3, as you said, the entire interagency supports lifting the hold, the Vice President anticipates getting questions about it from President Zelensky, but there’s no discussion of like why are we even doing this, like why is this hold in place?

A That’s correct.

Q Okay. Are you familiar with a firsthand on first-person cable that Ambassador Taylor drafted and sent to Secretary Pompeo, and that we believe was further distributed possibly to the White House?

A I am. I’ve read the cable.

Q Were you on the distribution of the cable?

A I received it, I believe, from State Department colleagues, but not on the original distribution, since it was a limited cable that went straight to the Secretary’s office.

Q Do you remember who sent it to you or how you got it?

A I don’t recall, to be honest. It might have been from NSC colleagues.

Q Do you recall what the cable said?

A It was a cable outlining Ambassador Taylor’s rationale on the importance of our U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, and why it was important for the security assistance to continue to flow.

Q Do you recall him saying that the hold was folly?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall anything else that he said, on any other recommendations that he made?

A It was a lengthy cable. I don’t remember it verbatim, but I thought it was a very persuasive case.

Q Do you remember approximately when you received a copy of it, on obtained a copy of it? Was it before the Warsaw bilat?

A It was certainly before the Warsaw trip, because I recall reading it in the process of preparing for the trip. I don’t recall the precise date, but it would have been around that timeframe, end of August.

[….]

Q And I believe you testified that prior to the July 25 call, you had listened in on about a dozen other calls between President Trump and other foreign heads of state. Is that night?

A Probably, around that number.

Q Okay. During the July 25 call, did you have any concerns about the conversation that you heard between President Trump and President Zelensky?

A I certainly noted that the mention of those specific investigations seemed unusual as compared to other discussions with foreign leaders.

Q And why were they unusual?

A I believed those references to be more political in nature and so that struck me as unusual.

Q Were you involved in preparing talking points for President Trump for that July 25 call?

A No.

Q Okay. Did you see the call package on talking points in advance of the call?

A No.

Q So you just — you learned about the call and were asked to participate in it?

A Correct.

Q Okay. As you were sitting in the Situation Room and you were taking notes, did you notice whether other people were taking notes?

A Yes, others were taking notes as well.

Q Do you recall who took notes during the call?

A I believe everybody in the room was taking notes, yes.

Q Okay. Prior to the July 25 call, you said that these things, the investigations that you said were political and unusual, had you even heard President Trump or anybody else in the Office of the Vice President on the White House raise the issue of CrowdStrike or the Ukrainian server?

A. No.

Q. I mean, on the DNC server?

A. No.

Q So that was — that struck you as — that was something new?

A I had never heard the word “CrowdStrike” before, so that’s why it struck me as noteworthy.

Q Okay. And what about the — President Trump’s raising the issue of the 2016 election during the call? Had there been discussion in the Office of the Vice President or the White House, to your knowledge, about concerns about possible Ukrainian interference in the 2O16 U.S. Presidential election? Had you heard anything —

A No, not to my knowledge.

Q Okay. So that wasn’t anything that was part of the official U.S. policy channel?

A No.

Q What about investigating the Bidens?

A I had never heard discussion of that issue prior to that phone call.

Q Okay. Do you recall what language President Zelensky was speaking during the phone call?

A I don’t. My understanding, he’s more comfortable in Russian. But not speaking either Ukrainian on Russian, I can’t confirm that.

Q Well, was he speaking English —

A No.

Q — the whole time?

A No. The call was interpreted on both sides.

Q So in your other calls with — that you listened in on between President Trump and foreign heads of state, had any other issues that you would describe as political been raised, on domestic political issues been raised in those calls?

A No.

Q How did General Kellogg react when President Trump raised these political issues on the July 25 call?

A I didn’t sense any reaction. We were all really just focused on taking notes.

Q Did you notice a reaction from anyone in the room?

A No. Honestly, we were all petty busy taking notes in the moment, and we didn’t have any follow-on conversations about it.

Q And I believe you testified you never spoke to General Kellogg about the call afterwards?

A I did not.

Q Did you speak to anybody about the fact that you found these — the call unusual on that political issues had come up in a call with a foreign leader?

A No, I did not.

Q Were you aware of whether Ambassador Vo1ken on Ambassador Sondland had prepared the Ukrainians to expect President Trump to raise these political issues on the call? Were you aware of that?

A I was not aware of that.

Q So you weren’t aware of like text messages and phone conversations they were having with Andrey Yenmak behind the scenes?

A No.

Q Okay. Were you aware, after the Warsaw bilat in September, of a proposal to have President Zelensky do a televised interview during which he would announce the investigations into 2016 election interference, Burisma, on the Bidens? Were you aware of that?

A No, I was not aware of that.

Q So there was no discussions of that in the official Ukraine policy — policymaking channel?

A No.

Q No, okay. Now, I believe minority counsel had asked you that — or maybe it was Mr. Meadows had asked about the fact that after the bilat in Warsaw, Vice President Pence was going to call President Trump to relay, I guess, the positive feedback he got from President Ze1ensky. Did you participate in that phone call that night?

A No, I didn’t.

Q Okay. Do you know that a phone call did occur though between the Vice President and the President?

A I believe he did have a phone call with the President, but, again, I don’t know what topics they discussed.

Q Okay. But President Trump didn’t — after that phone call did not immediately release the hold on the security assistance, did he?

A No.

Q It wasn’t until about 10 days later that the hold was lifted?

A That’s connect.

Q And I believe you testified that it was on September 9, so 2 days before the hold was lifted, that you became aware that the Congress had launched an investigation into the freeze and the Ukrainian issues more generally. Is that night?

A I believe so. I can’t recall if it was the 9th or the 10th, but, yes it was before the hold was lifted

Q Was that investigation discussed within the Office of the Vice President?

A No.

Q Did you have any discussions with General Kellogg about the investigation?

A No. I’m trying to remember where I learned of it, but, no, I didn’t have any conversations.

[….]

Q Okay. Are you aware of the call between Vice President Pence and President Zelensky on September 18?

A Yes.

Q What was the purpose of that call?

A The purpose was to follow up on his successful meeting with President Zelensky on September 1, and to reiterate the news that the security assistance hold had been lifted, and that the security assistance would be provided. We knew at that point that President Zelensky was already aware that the security assistance would be
released. But because the Vice President had a successful meeting with President Zelensky, it was a good opportunity for them to have a follow-on conversation.

Q And did you listen in on the call?

A Yes.

Q Can you describe the conversation for us?

A Sure. It was a very positive discussion, again, kind of following up on their successful meeting from September 1, as well as, at that point, I believe it was just prior to President Trump’s first meeting with President Zelensky in New York, which, I believe, took place the following week. So it was a good opportunity to kind of bridge that gap and to convey that the President — President Trump was looking forward to meeting President Zelensky in New York the following week, and the Vice President reiterated the news that the security assistance had been released.

[….]

MR. RASKIN: Some people would say that diplomacy itself is inherently political, and so everything diplomatic is, by definition, political a1so, but you had a strong reaction to that. Can you spe1l out what you saw as improperly political about those mentions?

MS. WILLIAMS: I believe I found the specific references to be — to be more specific to the President in nature, to his personal political agenda, as opposed to a broader —

MR. RASKIN: Do you mean related to a campaign?

MS. WILLIAMS: Potentially, as opposed to a broader foreign policy objective of the United States.

MR. RASKIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chainman.

[….]

MR. HECK: Thank you, Mr. Chainman. Ms. Wi11iams, thank you again very much for being here. I actually want to briefly follow up on a question that Congressman Swalwell asked. He asked you how it made you feel when you heard the President in the July 25th call invoke the specter of investigations for which you’ve now characterized as personal political interest. And your response to that was that you found them unusual and political. But the question was how did it make you feel? Given that what you’ve just said, would it be fair to infer that it made you
uncomfortable?

MS. WILLIAMS: I guess I would say, as a diplomatic professional, I try to keep my own personal feelings out of, you know, the day-to-day work, but —

MR. HECK: You had no personal feeling response to that, given how you’ve characterized it?

MS. WILLIAMS: Again, I would say that it struck me as unusual and inappropriate.

MR. HECK: Ms. Williams, that’s not the question. How did it make you feel?

MS. WILLIAIMS: I guess for me it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.

[….]

Q The information you received from Marc Short’s assistant on May 13th — was that the day?

A Correct.

Q You were told by Marc Short’s assistant that the VP was not going on the trip?

A Correct.

Q And did the assistant — I think you said it was a she, right?

A Yes.

Q Did she explain why on how she came to learn that?

A My best recollection is that she informed me that the VP would not be traveling to Ukraine for the inauguration. And I asked her, why not? And my best recollection is that she then let me know that the President had determined that the Vice President should not go.

[….]

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Impeachment: Greenland

07 Thursday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, Greenland, impeachment, Ukraine

My God, it’s a perpetual clown show.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

From Ambassador Bill Taylor’s deposition [pdf] before the House Intelligence Committee in the matter of the impeachment investigation of Donald Trump (r):

[….]
THE CHAIRMAN: And you go on jn that paragraph to say: “My understanding was that the Secretaries of Defense and State, the CIA Director, and the National Security Advisor sought a joint meeting with the Presjdent to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting was hard to schedule.” What do you deduce from that, that our alIy is fighting with the Russians, but all of these agencies that support this can’t get a meeting with the President to discuss it?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: It turns out, Mr. Chairman, that those principals, as we call them, were on different trips at different times. I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a 1ot of energy in the NSC.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That’s disturbing for a whole different reason.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Different story. Different story.[….]

“…a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government…”

A refresher

09 Wednesday May 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bribery, Constitution, Donad Trump, impeachment

In the Constitution of the United States:

Article II, Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bribery.

Karma strikes again

02 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-porn bill, bribery, Ethics Reform, Matt Bartle, missouri, Rod Jetton

Looks like karma has finally caught up with the odious Rod Jetton.  Via TPM:

Rod Jetton, the former Missouri pol charged with assault after a November sexual encounter, is now reportedly under scrutiny in an FBI probe into the killing of a bill to regulate strip clubs.

…

No question there’s interest in Rod Jetton,” former lawmaker Bob Johnson, who was interviewed by three agents, told the Star. “That’s all they wanted to talk about.

We learn from Fired Up! Missouri that when Republican State Senator Matt Bartle testified before a federal grand jury today, he likely discussed a 2005 anti-porn bill he supported that was killed after opponents donated $35,000 to a political committee with links to Jetton – who, like all his Republican brethren, liked to talk out of the right side of his mouth about “family values.”  Mike Mahoney adds:

Rumors of a federal probe have prompted lawmakers on both sides and the Governor to call for major ethics reform.

Don’t you just love how everybody gets so reform-minded when somebody gets nailed for doing what everybody knew everybody else was doing all along? I’ll believe there’ll be reform when I see it – but meanwhile, karma couldn’t blow-back on a more deserving member of the fraternity of evil clowns that seems to want to congregate in Jefferson City.

Army to review Iraq contracts for fraud

27 Saturday Oct 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

audit, bribery, Camp Arifjan, corruption, fraud, Iraq, malfeasance

A 105mm M1 Abrams tank, outside the
Tank-Army Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM)
Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI

On Monday, ten specially trained auditors, criminal investigators and acquisitions experts will descend on the Tank-Army Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) north of Detroit to begin an audit of a sampling of approximately 6000 contracts worth $2.8 billion issued by an Army office in Kuwait that has been identified as a hotbed of corruption.

The office in question, located at Camp Arifjan, buys supplies and gear to support American G.I.’s as they rotate in and out of Iraq.  Nearly two dozen Army, military and civilian employees have been charged with accepting bribes and kickbacks, and $15 million has changed hands.  Depending on what the investigators discover, the number of individuals charged will likely grow.  Currently the Army Criminal Investigations Command  has 83 ongoing corruption investigations relating to contract fraud.

The highest profile corruption case to be charged so far involves Army Maj. John Cockerham, who stands accused of bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction. Prosecutors charge that Cockerham, in concert with his wife and sister, took at least $9.6 million in bribes in 2004 and 2005 during the time he was a contract officer in Kuwait.

Some of the red flags that have been raised include contracts awarded to vendors outside the usual competitive bidding process and contracts that went through the motions of the bidding process, then were awarded to the highest rather than the lowest bids.  In other instances, what was purchased  was not what was delivered.

“Is there anything in there that might indicate to us that there might be some potential fraudulent activity?” Jeffrey Parsons, director of contracting at Army Materiel Command, said in an AP interview. “If there are patterns that we start to identify, then we’re going to do further review.”

Contracts with significant problems will be forwarded to the Army Audit Agency and the Army Criminal Investigation Command. If there’s credible evidence of wrongdoing, the FBI and prosecutors from the U.S. Justice Department are called in.

In Warren, Mich., home to a large Army acquisition center, the contracting review team will examine 314 of the Kuwait contracts, each worth more than $25,000 and issued between 2003 and 2006.

In Kuwait, a separate team of 10 at Camp Arifjan is already going through 339 contracts of lesser value and awarded during the same time period, according to Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir, Va.

Both reviews are to be finished before the end of the year.

Preliminary results of an investigation into the contracts coming out of Camp Arifjan in 2007 has wrapped up, and the investigators uncovered numerous problems with the office, including high staff turnover, slip-shod record keeping, inadequate staffing, and lack of oversight.  Those personnel problems, coupled with billions of dollars of war funding,  create an environment where corruption, malfeasance and misconduct find fertile soil.

The investigative teams in both Michigan and Kuwait  will be reviewing paper records, but they will also be using data-mining techniques to search electronically stored data for signs of wrongdoing.  “Do we have contractors with different names but the same address?” Parsons said. “That would cause some suspicion.”  He also indicated that the investigators would be relying on tips provided by individuals familiar with the imperfect process.

If a contractor and an acquisitions officer conspire to break the rules for personal gain, uncovering the corruption can be extremely difficult.  “You can have a contract file that is pristine – all the documentation is there,” Parsons said. “Just going through the contract files doesn’t necessarily give you 100 percent assurance that something else might not have been going on.”

Beating the checks and balances in the federal procurement process is a difficult trick to pull off, requiring attention to detail and precise planning.  It takes someone schooled in the system to know how to evade it.  Unfortunately, the Army had some very smart “bad apples” who knew how to pull it off.

The 6000 contracts that came from the office in Kuwait spawned 18,000 transactions for myriad support items, from laundry and warehouse services to bottled water and food.  Every transaction presented an opportunity for fraud to be committed.

In 2005, two Lt. Generals who were top commanders in Iraq, Steven Whitcomb and John Vines, became so concerned about allegations of corruption that they pushed for the Criminal Investigation Command to establish field offices in Iraq and Kuwait.

The Army investigating the allegations of fraud, abuse, bribery, corruption and kickbacks is a good start, but it is time to take a page from history.  It is time for a reprise of the Truman Committee. 

In 1940, as World War II gripped the globe and United States involvement in the conflict became more and more likely, the United States appropriated $10 Billion in defense contracts in preparation for that eventuality.

Early in 1941, reports of malfeasance and abuses by the contractors reached Missouri Senator Harry S Truman, and the news did not sit well with WW I Infantry Captain “Give ’em Hell Harry.” In typical Truman fashion, he set out to seek the truth, not by summoning “experts” but by embarking on a 10,000 mile tour of military installations. On this fact-finding tour, he discovered that the companies that received the contracts were clustered in the east, with a mere handful divvying up most of the largesse. He also discovered that they were receiving a fixed-profit, regardless of performance.

He returned to the Senate convinced that the defense efforts of the United States were being undermined by waste and corruption, and he proposed the notion of a special Senate committee that would investigate the National Defense Program.

President Roosevelt was convinced to let Truman head up the committee, being sympathetic to the President and his administration. The President was assured that the committee would not be too much trouble, as it would only be allotted $15,000 to investigate billions in defense contracts.

The Truman Committee was created by unanimous Senate decree on 01 March 1941. Over the next three years, with Senator Truman at the helm, the committee held hundreds of hearings, traveled thousands of miles to conduct field inspections, and saved millions of dollars in cost over-runs. Senator Truman was not shy about threatening executives with prison time as he whacked greedy corporate snouts out of the public trough.

Before Claire McCaskill announced her Senate bid, I was encouraging her to run for the Class I seat that Truman once held, and touting her background as our state auditor and as a tough prosecutor as reasons she should run and reasons we should vote for her, because the Iraq fiasco needed a good auditing, in the spirit of Harry Truman.

During her campaign, she seized on my the idea of a modern day Truman Committee to investigate waste, fraud and corruption in the reconstruction of Iraq. During a speech in Harry S Truman’s hometown of Independence last year, she spoke admiringly of the former President and his diligence in reining in war profiteers. “He was fearless. He uncovered enormous undeserved profits. I believe we need a new Truman Committee. I will fight for such a committee.”

Less than a year after she was elected, and a mere nine months after taking her seat, she is very close to bringing the notion to fruition. The Senate recently agreed to a plan from Senators McCaskill and Webb to get a handle on the Pentagon’s scattershot method of awarding private contracts for work in Iraq. It was added to the Defense Authorization Bill for 2008.

The audits that get underway on Monday certainly underscore the need for the oversight body that would be created from the legislation offered by Webb and McCaskill.  In fact, they  demand it.

Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Denny Hoskins (r): “…unclean hands…”
  • Tears in the rain
  • Campaign Finance: bring a nuke to the fight
  • Missouri Supreme Court slaps down Denny Hoskins (r)….again
  • What the Missouri Supreme Court said

Recent Comments

Denny Hoskins (r):… on HB 1: Gerrymander this
Tears in the rain |… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Campaign Finance: br… on Campaign Finance: Next
Missouri Supreme Cou… on HB 1: Gerrymander this
What the Missouri Su… on Can play with AI, can’t…

Archives

  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,084,302 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...