SEE UPDATE BELOW FOR NEW INFORMATION AND APOLOGY

It’s the old Washington two-step; when under investigation, change the subject.

This may have been the case yesterday as it has been revealed that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is “in the mix” of Congressmen being investigated by the Justice Department for possible illegalities connected with the Jack Abramoff case:

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is “in the mix” in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.

Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was “absolutely untrue” and has demanded ABC News retract its story.

Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.

“You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully,” a senior official said.

This news comes on the heels of protests yesterday by Hastert and other House members regarding the legal search carried out by the FBI of Congressman William Jefferson’s Capitol Hill offices in connection with a bribery investigation. The novel legal position taken by our upstanding Representatives is that the law does not apply to them due to the sacrosanct nature of the Capitol building and how the separation of powers doctrine prevents the executive branch from enforcing the law.

One would agree with the House member’s position if we lived in medieval Europe and Jefferson had set up his bribery operation in a church. Their bleats for sanctuary could then be adjudicated by the Pope rather than the courts, which is where this issue will end up. However, the American people may have a little different take on the matter; such as wondering how many freezers in how many offices may, like Jefferson’s home, contain wrapped bundles of of tens of thousands of dollars in $100 bills.

But that’s an entirely different issue than what is happening with Hastert. Apparently, the Congressman engaged in a time honored tradition involving Capitol Hill horse trading with lobbyists:

One focus involves a letter Hastert wrote in 2003 urging the Secretary of the Interior to block an Indian casino that would have competed with tribes represented by Abramoff.

The letter was written within days of a fund-raiser held for Hastert at Abramoff’s restaurant in Washington. Federal campaign records show more than $26,000 was raised at the time from Abramoff and his clients.

Hastert has denied doing anything unlawful and says he has a long history of opposing certain types of Indian casinos.

Hastert is correct. It is perfectly legal to be bribed in this manner. As long as the fig leaf can be maintained that there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, the Congressman can make laughable statements like he has a “long history” of opposing certain types of Indian casinos. No doubt true, although it might be interesting to check and see if any of those tribes he opposed raised any money for his political campaigns.

This raises the age old argument about lobbyists and money: Do representatives receive campaign contributions because of their positions on the issues or do they take positions on issues as a result of campaign contributions?

This is not an inconsequential question. Just ask Denny Hastert. The difference may well be the only thing standing between him and jail time. Because if it can be proven that Abramoff raised the $26,000 in exchange for Hastert’s intervention (and how many 5 year olds believe that this was not the case) then what Hastert did varies little from what Duke Cunningham did; trading votes and influence for cash. Whether he got the cash to put in his campaign war chest or for his personal use is beside the point – at least as far as the law is concerned.

If however, Hastert is able to show that indeed, his legislative history on the matter of Indian casinos is consistent with or without Abramoff’s largess, he is probably in the clear. Of course, it doesn’t change the morality of the situation one iota. The practice is widespread according to Common Cause and is extraordinarily difficult to regulate given the expectations of lobbyists and lawmakers in this dance of money and politics.

I can’t imagine that Hastert was stupid enough to run afoul of the law in this case so expect the Speaker to walk away clean. Or, at least as clean as any Congressman can be these days where the confluence of big money and high powered lobbyists join to tempt even the most upstanding of our legislators.

UPDATE

Dan Riehl has a rundown of ABC’s problems with truth telling as well as some facts on what happened when Hastert actually sent the letter to Interior on behalf of Abramoff’s client – in short, nothing. The casino deal Abramoff wanted killed went forward despite the intervention by Hastert and others including Harry Reid.

While Dan is correct in pointing out that this is an old story and that ABC fails to mention this (as well as the involvement of Democrats in sending the letter), this would be non-germane to the question of whether or not Hastert was induced to send the letter in the first place as a result of campaign contributions raised by Abramoff. It is this tit for tat that Justice is looking into, buttressed by new information from Abramoff himself who is now singing as a result of his plea deal with prosecutors.

As I said, however, unless Hastert was incredibly stupid about leaving a paper trail leading directly back to Abramoff’s request, he is probably in the clear.

Michelle Malkin has the link round-up including this from Bob Owen:

Ross provided an initial report with carefully constructed sentences that are phrased in such a way that even the best of minds inferred that Hastert is most likely the target of the investigation.

Bravo, Mr. Ross. Very well played.

Semantics aside, it appears that Ross (who Allah points out “broke” the story last week that the FBI was “tracking” the calls of reporters) has exaggerated an old story and recycled old news for the purposes of garnering cheap headlines.

But what of his source? Is it beyond the realm of imagining that the “leak” occurred at this particular moment to put pressure on Hastert in some way?

Stay tuned…

UPDATE: NEVER MIND…

ABC’s Brian Ross should be fired:

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is demanding a full retraction from ABC NEWS after it led its WORLD NEWS TONIGHT broadcast with a report that claimed he was being investigated for “bribery.”

ABC claimed the Hastert turn was a “major development” and possible “political earthquake.”

The only earthquake should be taking place at ABC News headquarters right about now. And slipping into one of the fissures and disappearing forever should be correspondent Brian Ross, who “broke” this story late yesterday afternoon on the ABC blog The Blotter.

Couple this episode with his wild exaggerations about the FBI leak investigation “tracking” the phone calls of ABC news correspondents and his attempt to tie that information disingenuously into the NSA telephone program (the two were entirely separate and unrelated) and you have what should be grounds for kicking Ross off the ABC blog and perhaps even terminating his employment outright.

I am embarassed to have carried the story – not Hastert’s shenanigans with Abramoff but rather the ABC News contention that Hastert is under investigation at all, in any way, for what was apparently a perfectly legal (yet still immoral in my opinion) practice.

I apologize to Representative Hastert and my readers who should expect better from me.

FINAL UPDATE

This makes me want to vomit:

The widening FBI investigation of congressional corruption is being fueled by two convicted Washington insiders, who federal officials and defense lawyers say are telling the FBI “anything they want to know.”

[snip]

As for Abramoff, federal law enforcement officials say he has spent “hours and hours” with FBI agents detailing his relationships with dozens of members of Congress.

Since our report, the Justice Department has twice denied that Hastert is under investigation or “in the mix.”

Get it? By writing right up front that Abramoff is cooperating with the feds by “telling the FBI anything they want to know,” Ross is letting himself and ABC off the hook by saying “Hey! It’s not our fault that we’re reporting Abramoff’s lies. Our source is bad.”

And they’re still sort of standing by their story, by the way.