Talk:Bob Ney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Bob Ney is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Peripheral content - Ralph Reed

I'm trying to add context of the investigations as they purport to involve Ney. As such, I removed this statment:

In 2002, after Abramoff worked with conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed to close the casino of the Tigua tribe.

It may belong in the main Abramoff scandal article. --Ej0c 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. John Broughton 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of article and context

The original authors made no attempt at a proper encyclopedic introduction of Bob Ney the lifelong public servant. Instead they have chosen to make this article merely about a 5 month old investigation with only a smattering of information on the man as a whole.

I've tried to add a couple small things to add context to this non-encyclopedic smear piece. I can't claim to have the ability to make it encyclopedic, but I will continue to try to place the stuff of high-emotion allegations into some sort of meaningful context. --Ej0c 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While the original article may have been a smear peice, I'm afraid that your corrections are "counter-smear", rather than straigtening things out. Caling Abramoff and informant, and then claiming that _they_ are making the allegations (rather than the prosecutor) is just one example. Others including what seems to be blaming the Wash Post for starting the whole thing, and so forth. Some of this ought to be removed. Sholom 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts. Unless some indictment has been released in the last few minutes, no allegations have been made by the prosecutor.

I totally do not comprehend your statement. The prosecutor is the one who writes the indictment. So, of course the allegations were made by the prosecutor. Abramoff was charged with bribing a Congressman to insert comments in the Congressional Record. Abramoff admitted it. Ney inserted the comments. What facts do I need to check? Sholom 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll need a lawyer to sort this out. I can only find an indictment for the Florida charges and a plea agreement from the DC Public Ethics office. In either case, the agreement was to guilt in "conspiracy to violate the following federal laws...: (3) bribary and honest services fraud of public officials". That does not seem to me to be any official accusation of any government official. --Ej0c 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/January/06_crm_002.html. In it, you can see it in the DOJ's own words. See also http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/usabrmff10306plea.pdf, the actual indictment. It's an admission of charges that were made by the government. How can you possibly say that the government is not making the charge? Sholom 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but saying that Jane conspired to bribe Sue and saying that Sue accepted and acted upon a bribe are two different things. The single charge plead to here involves only conspiring to bribe. --Ej0c 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things: (a) I am a lawyer; (b) whether he was charged for the acts or for the conspiracy, the facts alleged by the government (and this is what our entire discussion is about -- what was alleged by the government) include directs acts of bribery. See paragraphs 32 and subsequent ones in Attachment A of http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/usabrmff10306plea.pdf . The fact remains, the government alleged that Abramoff et al bribed him. Sholom 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to cite sources earlier than the Washington post. However, please remember that to this day there are no OFFICIAL allegations. --Ej0c 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The plea agreements are official, aren't they? Sholom 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Feb rewrite by Sholom

Well, we seem to have gone from incendiary blogger post to law review news of note. There must be some happy middle which spells out the story in a way that helps the students of America understand what is really going on here. I'm not saying that this is purely a case of a con now claiming what he will to get time off (see plea bargain ) and a excited prosecutorial team jumping at the chance to be famous. But I'm also shocked to learn that Bob Ney even plays golf. There just isn't that much time when you fly 700 miles and cover a district as large as the 18th every weekend. Can't we tell students something more about the case of the high rolling fibber vs. the man once named "Poorest Congressman"? --Ej0c 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have any verifiable/linkable source about Ney traveling to his district every weekend, then by all means add some text and the source/link in the article. Or just post the link here; I'll be happy to add text from it if you want. Ditto for "poorest Congressman" - I ran a google search on that phrase, and got essentially nothing pertaining to anyone in the U.S. Congress, let alone to Bob Ney. (It's almost as if "poorest Congressman" is an oxymoron.)

As far as the question of Bob Ney playing golf, I offer this (not article-worthy, but in response your comment):

August 15, 2005: 12:00 Registration. 1:00pm Shotgun Start.

Mark Your Calendar! Join the Friends of Congressman Bob Ney for the Annual Bob Ney Open Golf Outing, Longaberger Golf Course - 1 Long Drive, Nashport OH 43830

$1,000 Hole Sponsor/ $350 per Golfer, RSVP by August 1, 2005 at 1-888-639-4698 or mparker@bobney.org

John Broughton 03:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Golf: I used a little hyperbole to get across the point that we are not talking the Kennedy clan here with condos in Vail and villas in the Keys. We will hear another story of why and how a Congressman went to

Actually, the larger point is that we know nothing at all about Bob Ney from this article. If the writers who started this were interested in telling students about Bob Ney, they would have checked on a few things and added them. They would mention that his district is spread out over 5 television markets, and mention that he often puts up his own campaign signs deep into the night. Think you that they came here and wrote out of an interest in educating people about an Appalachian Congressman? Or maybe a different purpose? --Ej0c 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think those factoids about Abramoff, his career, and his district, are relevant and encyclopædic (at first glance, they certainly seem worthy), then please add them! It's okay to criticize an article; it's far better to improve it.--RattBoy 14:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "help the students of America understand what is really going on here." That's exactly what I'm attempting to do. I'm just noting the facts. Prosecutors charged that Abramoff bribed Ney (no, not just conspiracy (which was count #1), but the bribery itself (which is count #2)), and Abramoff pleaded guilty to it. It's that simple. I have tried to stay away from adjectives, which are often subjective ("excited prosecutorial team", "high rolling fibber", etc.). As far as your shock at Ney playing golf, I don't understand the relevance of your comment. Are you trying to say you don't believe it? Travel records show that Abramoff and Ney travelled to Scotland for a golf trip. (Whether they actually played golf is irrelevent, and nobody accused him of playing golf). Ney's statements about SunCruz, etc., are in the Congressional record. Emails from Abramoff talk about money credited to Ney. It's all there in black and white. It's a sad story, but what we have here is indeed factual and not misleading. Sholom 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am not expressing this better; maybe I have seen too much of the world and you too little. Yes, it appears to be black and white to you. It certainly does not appear black and white to those of us who have watched these things play out before. Circumstantial evidence falls apart; prosecutorial theories dry up; cases fold. Yet the 17 year old who does his current events research gets just the black - nothing from the article to indicate that there are many reasons we might have a plea agreement which ends up meaning nothing at all at the end of the day.

Among the deep problems with this case are 1) credibility of the witness and 2) motive. Jack Abramoff appears to be about as non-credible a person as you might ever encounter. Bob Ney on the other hand, would seem to have nothing at all to gain from selling favors for campaign contributions: he will be backed to the hilt by the RNC, NRCC, etc, etc as the election approaches. And selling statements for golf - well I suppose there are people that shallow, but Ney sure does more work here than he needs to if that's the life he wants to live. Heck, if that's what he wanted, the thing to do would be leave Congress and join a lobbying firm. --Ej0c 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Careful with the ad hominem attacks ("maybe I have seen too much of the world and you too little"; "Yet the 17 year old...gets just the black"), Ej0c. If you stray from the facts into the area of insults, you risk being seen as a POV-pusher—and an unpleasant one, at that.--RattBoy 14:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ej0c, you can complaing about Abramoff as a witness all you want -- but the allegations were stated in official documents by the prosecutor (as we argued at length about, above). Further, the facts speak for themselves: Ney did go on those trips, Ney did get campaign money, Ney did get other favors from Abramoff, Ney did insert statements about SunCruz into the Congressional Record; former chief of staff, Volz, did leave Ney's office to work as a lobbyist, and so forth. The only fact in dispute is if there was a quid pro quo -- but that is, in fact, what the prosecutor charged and what Abramoff pled guilty to. In any event, the article itself never says Ney was bribed, it only says that these are allegations. Which is entirely correct -- these are official and documented allegations. Sholom 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, golly, dudes. Nothing makes me feel more in the light of wisdom than the citation of ad hominem, NPOV, and FACTS. Everyone knows facts are always right and sufficient--yes? I apologize profusely for the suggestion that we might somehow work together to help the 16-17 year-old learner come to see a bigger picture.

(For my punishment, I shall spend the day building a semiconductor using Newtonian physics. F=ma being a fact afer all).

[edit] Play Golf?

As for your surprise that Bob Ney plays golf, check out http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/?q=node/90 -- and see the "Bob Ney for Congress" golf tees. As the blog says: "unbelievable." -- Sholom 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable is Bill Clinton lobbying for Dubai Ports World, getting paid $600,000 for it, and his wife standing on the national stage denouncing the deal as harmful to national security. Golf tees are just golf tees.
Though now you mention it, ...given the Prosecutors theory that Ney sold statements in the Congressional record for campaign donations,... why in the world would the campaign bother with such small efforts as golf tees when powerful commercials could be bought with the extreme profits of selling congressional favors?
Still wish you would remove the insufficient section from this article and place it in the Abramoff Scandal article with the rest of the allegations. --Ej0c 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Abramoff section in the article. To make sure it's fair, I expanded the rebuttal by Ney. As far as moving the text to the Abramoff section, that makes no sense - the text is about Ney; if anything, the cross-reference should be from the Abramoff article to this one. John Broughton 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peripheral content - Coingate

I'm sorry, but I had to remove the following. It doesn't even pretend to have any significance to students of Bob Ney. --Ej0c 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohio Coingate/Thomas Noe Connection

Thomas Noe of Coingate infamy is a Bush Pioneer fundraiser and under investigation by the FBI for violations of campaign contribution laws in the 2004 presdential election. The investigation is focusing on a particularly notorious 2003 Republican fundraising event that raised a million dollars for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Columbus, Ohio.

This fundraiser occured in the 12th District of Ohio [4], which is directly adjacent to U.S. Rep Bob Ney's district. Bob Ney is also a Bush Pioneer and a prominent figure in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal.

Agreed. John Broughton 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning at top of section on Abramoff

I replaced the warning at the top of the Abramoff section. Wikipedia should not be in the business of repeating the slander and speculation which has become acceptible in the nation's newspapers. If the poor journalism of declaring 12 minors alive is not enough of a wake-up call, I refer you to the many, many later disproven pronouncements in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Echoing up to the minute guessing by unnamed sources and biased news sources should never be Wikipedia's standard. --Ej0c 16:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive links

Inserting links to everyday terms like emails, tribe, and golf should be avoided. It hinders reading. --Ej0c 16:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. John Broughton 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CREW

The line concerning the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is really non-POV. CREW is definitely a liberal group as can be gleaned from their http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/index.php page. All activities center on attacking members of the Republican party. Opposing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT:most likely a conservative backed group) is an example of deviating from their stated cause. If the line is to be left in, it should be noted that the group makes a habit of primarily attacking conservative and Republican issues/persons. 138.145.211.130 13:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

At first I deleted it, but then thought better of it. I added in another heading to give the line proper context instead of passing it off as a mainstream research group. 138.145.211.130 13:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, extensive information about CREW should be in the article about that group, not in the Bob Ney article. That's the purpose of having the link, and a seperate article. In fact, a few days ago I moved some information on CREW that was in the Bob Ney article to the CREW article, since it wasn't there. (I consider the current "three-person liberal group" description to be in a grey area; while one can argue it should only be in the CREW article, it does provide the reader the quick context that can be helpful.)

Yeah, (John, I think), the problem with a statment like that is that I can easily go spend $2.99 for a domain name, NationalEthicsCenter.org; slap up a list like that, and put it in an article. The youts of America, reading Wiki for their Current Events class see it and go, boy that guy is one corrupt person. --Ej0c 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Bellaire

By the way, I should say a word on behalf of my friend Eva Lunder, economic develoment director for Belmont county. I doubt she would appreciate the international plug of Bellaire as "an aging industrial town on the Ohio"! :-) Nonetheless, it would seem to adequately represent to young'uns the constituency and the problems Ney usually works to overcome. --Ej0c 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That wording, as is the case with much of the article, comes from a news article; it's not something that anyone made up. I'm not sure what you're saying here - on the one hand, your friend wouldn't appreciate the description; on the other hand, it (maybe) adequately represents the situation. In any case, either it is true (in which case your friend's feelings are really irrelevant; a lot of people don't happen to like accurate descriptions); or it's not, in which case it would be great if you or someone else would edit it to be more accurate. John Broughton 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably accurate to say that it was aging (maybe dying) as he was growing up; reviving now. Ohio isn't near as bad off as certain politicians painted it a year ago November. We've had our rough spots and we'll never be California--but remarkable change has occurred. --Ej0c 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism for corruption section

I'm inclined to move the contents of this brief section to the Political career section, and delete the section title. But I'd like some feedback first - thoughts of others? John Broughton 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Intersting you mention that, as I was thinking that that section needed re-organization, too. I think that

4 Connections to Abramoff Indian Gambling Scandal
5 Connections to the SunCruz Casinos Scandal
6 Involvement in U.S. sanctions on arms sales to Iran

should be grouped together under a larger title (perhaps something like, "political controversies"), and each of the above would be subheadings. As for "Criticism for corruption" -- it should be wrapped into either "political career", or the new section I've just proposed. In any event, I fully agree that this single sentence should not be its own section. --Sholom 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for "Controversies" as a section title, with three subsections as you've noted. Then the single sentence could go immediately after the new section title and before the first subsection. John Broughton 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. John Broughton 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

This article has simply become silly. It has no relation whatsoever to the traditional form of an encyclopedia article. Instead, it is merely a platform for people to play a little game of making unproven charges more public while pretending to stick to "NPOV". (Anyone who attempts to add context will of course be "Non-NPOV").

An article about Bob Ney should be mostly about Bob Ney - not about the accusations of admitted felons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej0c (talk • contribs)

EjOc - you've been a consistent critic of adding much of anything that could be seen as negative for Bob Ney, and apparently quite a disbeliever in what everyone else sees as (accumulating) evidence against Bob Ney. I don't know if you think he's to be indicted (I'd be happy to give you 10-1 odds that he will be, by the Department of Justice of a Republican administration), and I'd guess that you think he won't be convicted. You might consider that you're in a small minority here; do you really think all this is because government prosecutors have nothing better to do? Bob Ney is going down in history as the Congressman most closely tied to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and that's what should be in the wikipedia article. And what is most interesting to readers, now, is where things are in the process of bring Ney to trial.

Here's a challenge: (a) find (useful) denials and counter-facts that Ney and his supporters have put out (my sense is that Ney has responding to specific accusations with blanket denials and a lack of details; I'd be happy to be shown wrong), and add them to the article; (b) find missing "context" from reputable newspapers and magazines (let's say the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, Newsweek, and Time Magazine, as starters), and add that to the article, with a citation. When you can do (a) and/or (b), I'll be happy to defend keeping your additions in the article. John Broughton 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

John: As of this week, you all know who "leaked" Valery Plame's name--and thus you know that prosecutors do indeed go down silly, outrageous, and tax-wasting paths. --Ej0c 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. No one believes the New York Times to be a reputable paper anymore. Time hasn't been reputable since the 70's --and only then Hugh Sidey's column on the back page. --Ej0c 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

	Bob Ney is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."