Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Livingston, Scanlon and DeLay

further to my current interest in all things Livingston - i thought i'd have another look at the snippet last week from New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams, January 25, 2006 (via TPM)
"Jack Abramoff's partner Mike Scanlon admitted to digging up former Congressman Robert Livingston's private life. Set to become speaker, Livingston then got sidelined for Tom DeLay's man Denis Hastert. Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest."
This is most odd for a variety of reasons. As Laura noted, it's difficult to see where any conceivable criminality might exist.

At the time, I asked:
"my question is under what circumstances did Scanlon 'admit' it? was he asked about it by prosecutors? why on earth would they do that? or did scanlon offer it up all by himself? and if so, why?"
Adam's scoop seems to have two distinct elements - a) Scanlon admitted it, and b) the prosecutor is 'checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest'.

Did Scanlon cough up the info on his own as part of his attempt to negotiate a deal? or were prosecutors already probing the issue? If it is the former, then Scanlon presumably coughed up 3 pieces of information: 1) that he looked into Livingston's 'Teh Sex' life 2) that there is something amiss (legally) about what happened, and 3) at whose behest.

If it was the latter (that prosecuters were probing a reluctant Scanlon about the issue) - then it's conceivable that he 'admitted' his involvement (perhaps given proof of some sort), but not admitted who was the client - which would explain why the prosecutors are still looking into it (and we also have to assume some criminality).

Why would the prosecutors be looking at DeLay? Either because Scanlon is squealing, or perhaps because his ex-fiance knows something...
"Scanlon was implicated in the Abramoff scandal by his former thirtysomething fiancee, Emily J. Miller, whom he met in the late 1990s while working as communications director for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)" (link)
Both Scanlon and Emily Miller continued working in DeLay's office till 2003 - which means that they were both there through the impeachment, and Livingston's resignation.

Most people seemed a little skeptical (or at least, not entirely convinced) about the scoop - not surprisingly - single source and all.

There's another possibility - perhaps this 'scoop' was leaked/laundered through a gossip columnist as a shot across someone's bow from Scanlon and/or Abramoff. (It's not obvious why Abramoff was involved at all - Scanlon didn't join Abramoff for years later)

In any case, I was reminded of the story in the book 'The Breach : Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton' by WaPo's Peter Baker where he retold the story of Livingston getting cold feet on the eve of impeachment - and I wondered whether Livingston's outing/ouster by DeLay/Scanlon?abramoff was related to Livingston's cold feet...

The two events were virtually contemporaneous, but as best as i can tell, they probably weren't related/causal - although we can't quite be sure.

According to wikipedia:
"After Newt Gingrich was forced to resign (Nov 6, 1998) as Speaker due to Republican losses at the 1998 elections, Livingston announced that he was not only running but had lined up enough support to win. He was nominated as the Republican candidate for Speaker without opposition. As the Republicans had narrowly retained their majority, this effectively made him Speaker-elect."
And according to WaPo reporter Peter Baker's book, it was Tom DeLay himself "who had helped (Livingston) secure the Speakership" (page 16). This is kinda interesting because Cindy Adam's suggests that it was DeLay who led to Livingston's resignation within 5 weeks.

Gingrich resigned on Friday the 6th of Nov, and by Monday the 9th Livingston was a shoe-in for the gig (link).

Other accounts are a little more circumspect about DeLay's involvement. This from the 9th:
"Besides Largent, Reps. Jennifer Dunn of Washington and Dennis Hastert of Illinois were considering entering the fray, according to GOP sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Hastert is a close ally of Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who is backing Livingston for speaker but has been conspicuously silent about the majority leader's race."
Fast forward a few weeks to the week of impeachment and Livingston was acting Speaker.

On Monday December 14, "...prodded by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay... Livingston announced that he would not permit" a censure vote on Clinton (which would have nullified the impeachment). (Baker, p16)

On December 17, Livingston made a statement on the floor of the House
""It has suddenly come to my attention that there are individuals working together with the media, who are investigating my personal background in an effort to find indiscretions which may be exploitable against me and my party on the eve of the upcoming historic vote on impeachment.

[snip]

"Because of the tremendous trust and responsibilty my colleagues have placed in me, and because of forces outside of this institution seeking to influence the upcoming events and/or media coverage of these events, I have decided to inform my colleagues and my constitutents that during my 33-year marriage to my wife, Bonnie, I have on occasion strayed from my marriage and doing so nearly cost me my marriage and my family."

According to published accounts, the following day Livingston got cold feet about the impeachment - possibly because of his own sexual indiscretions. From Baker's book again:
"It was Friday, December 18, 1998, and Livingston stood on the precipice of power, slated to become the next Speaker of the House... "We've got to stop this," Livingston said. "This is crazy. We're about to impeach the president of the United States."

Livingston had lost his nerve. He couldn't go through with it... "We're going to have a censure vote"

The import of those words were immediately clear. It meant no impeachment. It meant surrender. "
And then on Saturday the 19th, literally the day of the impeachment vote (from Time)
"Early Saturday morning before the impeachment vote, House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston called majority whip Tom DeLay with a piece of news: I'm resigning.
By all accounts, however, Hastert wasn't in on the plan, although Gingrich may have been (if so, it was odd that he hadn't managed his own exit better - allowing for Livingston to become Speaker-elect):
"Hastert says that even before Livingston finished his resignation speech he received a call from Gingrich telling him he was the only one who could pull the Republicans back together again." (link)

and:
"With Livingston out, the rush was on to fill the speakership. Even as the House was preparing to vote on impeachment and Livingston's corpse was still warm, G.O.P. leaders were just a few feet away tapping a successor. Dennis Hastert, a six-term Illinois Congressman, was the reluctant draft pick. "What's Dick going to do?" Hastert asked David Hobbs, chief of staff for majority leader Dick Armey, who was once considered a contender for the top spot. "I don't know," Hobbs answered. "What are you going to do?" Hastert responded, "I don't know." But before he had even decided he wanted the post, Hastert was already the front runner. Outgoing speaker Gingrich, whom Livingston had informed the night before, was buttonholing members on the floor. DeLay was harnessing his network of 64 vote counters on behalf of Hastert, who happens to be his chief deputy. Within five hours of Livingston's announcement, the race was won. "It's over," said a senior Republican aide. "Denny was the hardest one to convince."" (link)
Let's take that at face value. I don't really understand politics very well - but is it likely that DeLay was simultaneously orchestrating the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Livingston so that he could install his own crony without having informed his own crony? That's what Cindy Adams' scenario would have us believe.

An alternative scenario, which doesn't quite mesh with the published dates, is that DeLay was so desperate to impeach Clinton that he couldn't afford to risk having Livingston get nervous at the last moment - so when Livingston got wobbly at the last moment, DeLay had 'no alternative' but to throw Livingston under the bus and install Hastert.

Whichever scenario is correct, congratulations to Tom DeLay - no wonder he is called The Hammer. Macchiavello eat yer heart out. DeLay was apparently able to manage the installation of someone to the Speakership position while simultaneuously destroying a popular president on trumped up charges. That's not a bad week's work in any business.

There are probably a range of possible interim scenarios between the two that i've outlined. One curious element is that Livingston apparently saw a middle road where he apparently thought that he could hold onto his Speakership by standing on the House floor and outing himself as an adulterer - that fantasy only lasted a few days - but he was apparently prepared to take the risk (which is no mean feat). As it happened, he outed himself, only to ouster himself a few days later. That is, he wore all the cost, but for no benefit. (and yep, i realise that in retrospect the cost wasn't so great because he subsequently made millions whoring out his 'loyalties')

but presumably he had discussions with DeLay et al prior to calling himself an adulterer - and presumably he received some sort of assurances that he'd be able to hold onto his promotion. if Livingston knew that DeLay was trying to get rid of him (and had proof) so that he could install hastert, then he probably would have simply stepped down and wouldn't have taken the political/peronal hit of outing himself on the Floor for no reason.

Coming back to Cindy Adams' item:
"Jack Abramoff's partner Mike Scanlon admitted to digging up former Congressman Robert Livingston's private life. Set to become speaker, Livingston then got sidelined for Tom DeLay's man Denis Hastert. Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest."
Is it possible that DeLay was sexually blackmailing everyone? It's the oldest trick in the book - probably because it's really effective. Is that how DeLay has been able to implement such extraordinary discipline? Does DeLay have hidden cameras in his hottub?

Is sexual blackmail illegal? is that why Adams can claim that the prosecutors are involved? is that what Scanlon offered them? is that what Emily Miller was able to offer the prosecutors?

These, and many more unanswered questions to follow...
Posted by at

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"is sexual blackmail illegal?"

blackmail: to extort or obtain money by threats esp. by exposure of secrets.

Appointment to a government position obtained by blackmail where a salary or financial benefit was received as a consequence would meet this criterion, as would appointment to such a position that allowed the appointee to provide benefits to related third parties. On the face of it, the legal definitions would appear to have pretty broad scope.

Undoubtedly, blackmail - sexual or otherwise - in the setting of government office holders would undoubtedly attract serious corruption charges of one sort or another.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:46:00 AM
Anonymous said...

Hey lukery--

I'm wondering if it's not a tad bit more complicated than that. Maybe DeLay does have sexual blackmail on everyone, and also maybe Delay didn't really want Livingston to begin with.

But Livingston was too powerful at the time for Delay to nix him on the up-and-up. So Delay "appears" to go along with Livingston-as-speaker, while quietly peddling his sexual blackmail to PIs who launder it to Flynt. This creates a "crisis" situation (esp. with regards to the upcoming impeachment vote) that Livingston has to weather; he tried to stave it off with his preemptory strike of admission of fault, but that clearly wasn't going to pass muster.

I wonder if Delay had even more devastating secrets over Livingston's head, and his price was go along with impeachment, or else I leak. Livingston was clearly ambivalent about impeachment, he didn't try to block it, but he wasn't 100% behind it, so Delay pulled the trigger as he felt Livingston wasn't sufficiently loyal enough to Delay's cause. When Livingston saw the handwriting on the wall, he figured he'd better resign before worse stuff came out. And that's exactly what Delay wanted. Because now there's a power vacuum, and Delay was able to put in his hand-picked successor with the help of Gingrich. You know, the ole problem-reaction-solution paradigm authoritarians are so fond of.

I doubt we'll ever know the truth. But I wouldn't be surprised that Delay was only going along with Livingston because he thought he could control him. Once it became apparent that he couldn't, that was that.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:02:00 AM
Anonymous said...

thnx anon - i figured it probably was. if adams' story is factually correct, then DeLay has a real problem on his hands. and even if her story isn't quite correct, but is 'just' a shot across the bow, as i speculated, then whoever is doing the shooting has some heavy artillery.

i'm not sure where the line is drawn between 'blackmail' and outing someone's sexual proclivities

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...

viget - i agree that maybe DeLay didnt really want livingston. that's why i started with Baker's version, and offered the 'conspicuously silent' option as well. i actually had quite a lot of difficulty writing this post - and i tried re-writing it a few different times with different starting points - i didnt really have a specific point in my post - i was just trying to unpick the situation to see if i could unravel it - i don't think that i came up with anything conclusiv - i was just trying to merge the three different stories to see if that shed any light on the situation

" he tried to stave it off with his preemptory strike of admission of fault, but that clearly wasn't going to pass muster."
this is probably true as well - but to accept it, we have to accept that DeLay didnt let livingston know what DeLay had in his back pocket. if DeLay had the goods on Livingston, surely it would have been best for everyone to remove livingston in one step, rather two - particularly given that it was undoubtedly distracting them from the main game of the impeachment. as i said, if DeLay could manage those two things simultaneously then he probably deserves a Freedom Medal!

"I wonder if Delay had even more devastating secrets over Livingston's head, and his price was go along with impeachment, or else I leak."
i think this is also probably true - but these events occured literally days apart - perhaps DeLay didnt quite make 'the price' sufficiently clear. It's almost unimaginable (to me) that Livingston would out himself on the floor if he knew that something else was coming. and it's also almost unimaginable that DeLay would prefer a two-step from Livingston, rather than a clean exit. to some extent, you seem to support my hypothesis - which is that Livingston's resignation was somehow related to his wobbliness about impeachment - although i don't know that the two have ever been linked.

again - i don't think i proved anything - but the circumstances are certainly odd.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:34:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)