EXCLUSIVE: Here’s Draft Of ‘Opposition … 
Adam Scott Joins ‘The Secret Life Of Walter … 
Report: News Corp May Face A U.S. Lawsuit On Hacking 
Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
EXCLUSIVE: Is Casino Jack ever going to see the light of day? The feature drama about the rise and fall of D.C. lobbyist Jack Abramoff certainly seems to have a lot going for it. Kevin Spacey in the starring role, cooperation from Abramoff — who allowed Spacey and director George Hickenlooper to visit him in jail– and an 8-figure distribution deal by upstart independent distributor Metropolitan.
What a turn of events for the film, and Abramoff! The ex-lobbyist has been sprung and works for a kosher Baltimore pizzeria. He might be up to his eyeballs in dough, but a lack of money due from Metropolitan has prompted the makers of Casino Jack to reclaim the film. They say Metropolitan has defaulted, and CAA is showing it to distributors again. They hope to make a new deal that will keep plans intact for an October opening to exploit what the filmmakers believe is an awards-caliber performance by Spacey.
The Casino Jack development parallels the Jim Carrey-Ewan McGregor film I Love You Phillip Morris. In April, Deadline revealed that Luc Besson’s EuropaCorp reclaimed that film from upstart distribution company Consolidated Pictures Group, after CPG was late with funds and canceled three release dates on a movie that has already been released around the world. While CPG denied it was let go, I’m told EuropaCorp—which sued CPG—will close a new deal shortly.
Metropolitan owner, Romar Entertainment’s James Schramm, vehemently denied he has defaulted, or that he will lose custody of Casino Jack. He acknowledged things have gotten hairy enough that he cut off communication with CAA, Hickenlooper, and just about everyone else screaming to get paid. Schramm said Friday that he has been in constant contact with the only person who matters–the film’s financing producer, and that everything is okay. He wouldn’t say who that was. I suspect it is Gary Howsam, the Rollercoaster Entertainment chief. Howsam confirmed to me over the weekend that the deal with Metropolitan has been rescinded.
“Rollercoaster Entertainment is proud of the picture and the amazing work by George Hickenlooper, Kevin Spacey and the entire cast and crew,” Howsam relayed in a statement via e-mail. “Though Rollercoaster had previously entered into a distribution agreement with Metropolitan, that agreement has been terminated according to its terms.”
When we spoke this morning, Schramm–whose Metropolitan acquired the film last March for a low-seven figure minimum guarantee and a promise to spend $9 million in P&A–wasn’t letting go.
“We still have the rights to Casino Jack,” Schramm said. “We are still planning to release it in theaters across the country as well as DVD. Gary’s attorney had a conversation with our investor at the time we were showing proof of funds. After that conversation, our investor was a little concerned regarding the business practices of Gary and his attorney and was unclear on their motives. Therefore, our investor is taking as much time as he needs to make sure the long form contract is acceptable for us to move forward.” That conversation took place just over a month ago, said Schramm, who added he can’t move until the investor does.
When established distributors clash with sellers, the beefs go to arbitration. Because Metropolitan is new to the game, I’m told the contract contains language permitting sellers to reclaim films when deadlines are missed, a mechanism designed to keep films from getting stranded indefinitely and damaging their chance of being re-sold. That clause is the reason I Love You Phillip Morris is now in play for a new deal.
While it would be easy to point to both films as the byproduct of a fractured indie distribution marketplace, sellers are more optimistic than they have been in years. The reason: the influx of monied newcomers lining up to supply P&A and distribution. Whatever the final outcome on Casino Jack and I Love You Phillip Morris, sellers acknowledge it is more important than ever for film financiers to choose carefully, and sometimes the biggest offer isn’t the best one.
Casino Jack covers Abramoff’s descent from GOP true believer to fatcat lobbyist who profited protecting the interests of such unsavory types as Asian slave labor-sweat shop owners, murderous third world “freedom fighters,” Russian gangsters, Indian casino operators and drug companies. Abramoff and pols who fed at the money trough were brought down in scandal, and he was convicted in 2006 of fraud, corruption and conspiracy involving his work on behalf of the Indian casino operators. and drew a three and one-half year sentence. Abramoff isn’t spinning pizzas, by the way, he’s reportedly lending his business acumen to the eatery’s owner.
Casino Jack is scheduled to be screened tomorrow at Santa Monica’s Aero Theater, and several minutes of footage are making the rounds online.
EuropaCorp Takes Jim Carrey Film ‘I Love You Phillip Morris’ Away From Distributor
Movie Starring Kevin Spacey As Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Finds Distributor
EXCLUSIVE: Abramoff Gets Hollywood Prison Visit; Kevin Spacey Starring As ‘Casino Jack’
Loading ...
I’m in Vermont at the moment, staying in a Holiday Inn Express and “Casino Jack” is available on their pay-per-view movie system for $12.99
That’s a different film, a documentary actually. Same subject.
What a shocker!!! Jim Schramm didn’t deliver on his word?! No way!! This charlatan released one horrible movie theatrically, and was promptly sued for not delivering the promised P&A. And people thought this would end differently? And where did this “20 Year Industry Veteran” nonsense start? Nikki, why did you not call him out on this? Veteran of what exactly? Which part of the entertainment industry? And at which company? Does anyone know where this fraud actually worked or got his money from? Did anyone read the company bios on Metropolitan’s website? The guy’s wife is charge of “theatrical.” Some actor from one of his unreleased films is in charge of acquisitions. And they were promising to release 20 films a year! Here’s some choice gibberish from their company bio:
“Our principals and staff have proven media experience and a high proficiency in theatrical and DVD distribution, domestically and internationally. MI has the executives, relationships and resources to provide our clients and partners with the best distribution services in the industry. This includes over 210 media executives, many with over 20 years experience on over 400 campaigns with major studios.”
Again, with the 20 years. And which 210 executives? And which 400 campaigns? Why are there never any specifics with this guy?! BECAUSE IT’S ALL MADE UP!! Hopefully, people will finally stay away from this lunatic. There’s enough crazy in this town already.
THE GUY IS A TOTAL DIRTBAG!
Who are you? A looser. it is a work day. Still looking for a job but instead you like bashing someone you could only wish you had some of his success. You have no facts. You focus on rumors, just like a little child. Jim does not have a actor as a partner. He has no partners you idiot.
You are probably one of those internet predators we see on TV.
You are a looser. You no nothing about Jim.
What is your real name you coward?
This and all the other negative posts were obviously made by James Schramm who is paranoid, delusional, and angry that his lies have been discovered in his pathetic attempt to acquire ‘Casino Jack’ in order to gain leverage for his smoke and mirrors company, Metropolitan. He is a complete fraud. Read his biography? He played for the NFL? There is no record of that. His films have grossed over 100 million dollars. On Box Office Mojo you can see that his pictures have barely made 3.5 million. I don’t think there’s an ounce of truth to anything he claims, including the school he went to. Beware of James Schramm. He’s stiffed George Hickenlooper, he stiffed Kevin Spacey, he stiffed Avi Lerner, he has stiffed Uwe Boll, and the list goes on and on… The saddest thing about this is that he’s more crazy than dishonest.
Roger Farris is an idiot.
You know nothing about James.
You have zero facts. Your post just shows how stupid you really are.
Avi screwed James, Uwe screwed James you idiot. James has been played by the best of them and yet he keeps coming back.
This deal is taking longer for justified reasons but nothing you would check out because your tiny little brain could not digest the truth.
You are a coward
I would like to see you and James in a boxing ring. That would be a site to see.
Nick
Schramm did the exact same thing to Avi Lerner’s film ‘My Mom’s New Boyfriend.’ He strung us a long for six months, always pretending Avi’s side handn’t given him all the right information, always an excuse with the long form, always an excuse. He strung Avi along for six months promising the P and A funds, and then finally one day he just disappeared. His offices were empty and he changed his phone number. This is how Schramm works. The true con artist. He’s charming on the surface but lies through his teeth, pathologically, about everything. I am not sure what motivates him. Perhaps in his mind he thinks he can do a shell game by claiming to own the rights to a ‘hot’ film, like ‘Casino Jack,’ and then he goes around shopping it to hedge funds, trying to use as leverage. Schramm wouldn’t be the only one guilty of doing this. There are a lot of folks in the business who claim to have money, but then leave the films hanging out to dry. I think film producers are becoming saavy to this though. It is unlikely Schramm will ever be able to do business in this town again. And if he tries, he should be ignored as a flim flam man.
Who is Hj? Rich? George?
Hiding behind a message board just shows that your statements are invalid. I asked James about that, James laughed at your information: Avi had a deal with James that did not work out. That is it, drama queen HJ.
They are on good terms and like each other. when they see each other, they greet with a hug, now that sounds like James did something bad, yeah right. When you want to lie about someone make it more dramatic.
They would not be on good terms if James was unethical you idiot.
Who are you HJ? you coward. Making untrue statement just makes you look like an ass. You are just like all the other bottom feeders, when you cannot get info, you make it up.
You were probably someone James kicked to the curb because you were wasting his time.
Nick
Another unemployed bottom feeder.
In response to HJ’s comments about me, which is published above.
Lets get this straight. These are the facts.
It is sad that the posting above came from an employee of the company that had the movie “My Moms New Boyfriend”.
I know you really are trying to be somebody someday HJ, but lying and committing slanderous comments to someone is not a good way to go. Does Avi know you are committing slander and defamation of character to me? You do know you are representing “New Image” and “Millennium films”. You are not very smart. That is probably why you are where you are today; Still trying to be somebody. I wish you luck with that sweetheart.
The facts regarding “My Moms New Boyfriend”:
There was never an issue with long form contracts ever, it always takes time especially when the contract is over 40 pages.
We moved 10 million dollars. The contracts were all getting done, then I discovered some very important information in which you guys failed to tell me. You took a 4 million dollar line of credit from Commerica bank (confirmed by Adam Corn) who did the line of credit for you. YOU OWED 4 MILLION DOLLARS USING THE MOVIE AS COLLATERAL WITHOUT TELLING ME. Commercia had a lean on this title. We conducted business that there was no lean. Isn’t that fraud HJ? This would be disastrous because the distributor always is in first position (which was the deal) to recoup and you guys tried to pull one over on me. As far as box office receipts; Commerica would get 4 million dollars (1st position) before we would recoup a penny from our 10 million dollar P&A spend. That was not the deal we agreed to.
So you wonder why I pulled out of that deal? Now you know. Now everybody knows.
I feel sorry for you HJ because you will always be kissing ass to make a buck and I will always be running many companies, creating jobs while creating my empire.
Since your posting we have completed 6 theatrical releases as service deals (that means we do the distribution for companies without using our name/ they pay us to give them all the credit) I like that better because we don’t have to deal with ignorant people like yourself HJ. Service deals is a big part of our business and that is why many people have not heard of me and my companies. The more we are under the radar, the more valuable we are to our clients (other distributors and ad agencies). Our clients want the world to think that they are doing all of the distribution, when we are actually making it happen. You never know who really released and actually booked a movie. Distribution companies always play that game. It is how they make money. I let them play as they pay me. I also watch them go out of business or make huge box office which we have had two this year.
I hope this clears that up for all you people out there.
Three weeks ago I released Casino Jack to Gary H. It was a document we both signed. If I didn’t have the rights, then why did I have to get him a document to release the film to him. It was my decision to do this.
Gary still wants Metropolitan to do the marketing campaign for the release.
We have moved on and funded 5 productions for release in 2011 and 2012.
I never talk to the press and I almost never give interviews.
I have no issues with Avi, Gary or anyone I ended up not doing business with. This is the movie business. I think Avi and Gary are very nice men. Every experience, bad or good is an opportunity for knowledge and growth, and that is how I see life.
I hope some day you grow up HJ. I feel sorry for you.
I am happy every day, are you?
I hope this clears everything up.
God Bless
Jim Schramm
Casino Jack is a fantastic film with assured and ballsy direction from a director whose time is long overdue, George Hickenlooper. Kevin Spacey is, as always, transformational to the degree he occupies the character of Abramoff, simply another magnificent turn in this amazing career from one of the industry’s most talented actors… Barry Pepper and John Lovitz show up in ways that you will wonder why they are not utilized more succinctly in other films.
When a film is this good, it cannot be held down.
Look for It When It Comes Out!!!
Yeah, “Casino Jack” has a lot going for it — except a potential audience. This won’t make a dime, because the only people who want to see it made are in Hollywood, and they don’t pay to see movies.
is this movie any good?
Casino Jack and the United States of Money.
Excellent movie…. gets your totally attention….We were able to see it through “Documentary” category of Netflix.
I have been trying to find out where I can purchase it for everyone for Christmas…no luck.
This is a “must see” ..why is it so difficult to find?
beefs with established distributors don’t always go to arbitration – see West Avenue Films LLC v. Artisan Pictures http://scr.bi/cEiLvT
@ Kevin Ackerman
Nice try George. You can’t even lie well because your empty-headed conceit trips you up. Straight to DVD!
Metropolitan’s investor had right to be concerned with the business practices of Howsam. He was under federal indictment for doctoring up presales. Pretty much everyone who has done business with Rollercoaster, Howsam, and sales agent Richard Rionda say it was the most unpleasent experience of their life.They have a track record lying and of not paying anyone………..Guess they got what they deserved.
Agreed– look at Howsam’s filmography: straight to DVD where 90% of the budgets slipped into his back pockets and the rest went to his minions.
He’s can’t even work with banks anymore– they won’t touch him. He has to get one of his butt-lickers from his past to do all that work…
Right, Howsam’s rolling in dough.
You’re right, he was arrested and charged, but was exonerated.
Why?
Because they had no evidence of wrongdoing, and only arrested him because the real culprit was under investigation and his cooperation in the case amounted to making up VICIOUS LIES about Howsam. It turned out that tales of Howsam’s involvement were patently false.
I saw the movie at CAA and it’s very good, very strong performances all around.
Speaking of arrests, Lovitz should watch his back; he steals this movie.
This is blatantly untrue. My experience with Gary Howsam and Richard Rionda was anything but stellar. Both lived up to their promises in every way. Rionda found the initial money and without Howsam the picture would have no life whatsoever. He put his own money in, until we could find investors and creatively he allowed me to have final cut. Howsam’s charges were dropped by the FBI over a year ago, so to bring them up is pretty low brow. In my view, and knowing Gary well, I find him to be a great guy with great taste and a great producer who can get films made. I’d also like to add that Donald Zuckerman, who has been so instrumental in my career, was instrumental in getting the film made. Anyone who has anything nasty to say about Gary or Richard on this sight is obviously connected with Metropolitan. That is my opinion.
What is blatantly untrue?
1. Most, if not all of Howsam’s films are straight-to-DVD fair.
2. Most, if not all of the budgets never end up on screen.
3. Tell me one bank that will work directly with him.
YES I AGREE.
I talked to James.
I am sure that is a issue. Lets see. James feels that Metropolitan is risking 11 million dollars with a movie whose attorney, Uri Emerson-Fleming is committing slander to the investor during proof of funds. I am sure the investor checked out Garys past and exposed that he was arrested for fraud. This is the first big release for Metropolitan and if I was James Schramm, I would take my time for due diligence as well. Metropolitan currently has already funded 3 productions which is not on the radar because people are crazy and talk shit about everything. James is in talks with two other features to release.
Nick
I am sure you talked to James, Nick. He is in your head because he is you.
As the filmmaker there can be nothing more distressing than this. The bottom line is that this is my best work and I believe it will find an audience with a proper and reputable distributor. I just received calls from two different reporters who are doing investigative pieces on Mr. Schramm. It appears that nothing on this biography can be verified. At least this is what I am being told. Mr. Schramm seemed charming on the service, but if this is true, and he fabricated his past and everything about Metropolitan, than I feel sad that all those who have worked so hard to find a home for the film, have been hoodwinked. Regardless, the film is what counts and I believe it will get out there. Kevin Spacey has rarely been better, and a Washington tale that is so gothic, has rarely been told. Thanks for listening. GH
I saw it. Kevin Spacey’s performance is out of control and without finesse or modulation. It is as if he is doing a parody of himself. Every actor but one is chewing scenery through out. The script is terrible. It is a terribly obvious telling of the story. Greed, delusion, narcissism, sociopathic ambition… sadly we’ve seen it all before in other, better, more clever movies. Or we have lived it with the last Paramount regime. And the entire film is way too long. The filmmaker was so in love with the project it clouded his ability to make it well.
Kelly Preston is the one bright light. She is truly wonderful. It was unexpected as the part on paper is pretty weak but she brought something to it that was far more than the film deserved.
I appreciate your comments but I don’t agree with you. Please feel free to take another look at it, or stop by the Aero Theater tomorrow night at 7pm. I’ll be happy to debate the picture with you. Thanks.
The real pity here is the distributor’s loss. Fifteen years ago, a movie like this could have more easily found a home . Distributors of films about people, politics and intelligent conversation are few and far between and it is an unfortunate truth that the artist is the one getting the shaft. George sweated to get this film financed, assembled an amazing cast and broought a story to life that marks our history Scandal begets scandal, but Casino Jack will stand the heat. Congratulations George and kudos to an amzing cast
It was in the news a few days ago that Abramoff got a job working at a pizza shop. A shame that couldn’t have been part of this film.
Abramoff has many enemies at the white house. He is a convicted criminal. I know that Metropolitan does not want any involvement with Jack at all. This is simply a release. A movie. A story. That is all.
Nick
I’ve seen it and Casino Jack is hilarious, true and containing a number of fine performances. Spacey is, as always, the master of control, very often the calm center of the craziness that Abramoff sets in orbit around himself, his finest leading role work in ages. Barry Pepper is also terrific, surprisingly cast against type. Very much hope this gets the (yes, indie) distribution it deserves.
Saw it. Loved it!!
I too have seen the film and greatly enjoyed it! No B.S.
Hopefully the movie will still be released and won’t face the same issues as “Phillip Morris”. Both Spacey and Pepper deserve Oscar nominations.
Aside from pizza and his 250 hours per year of community service, you may have heard/read there are also two films about Abramoff.
The first is a somewhat fictionalized drama, called “Bagman,” starring Kevin Spacey. I’ve read the script and watched the trailer. I doubt it will make it into the theatres, but will go directly to video.
The second, a more serious endeavor, I recently watched in a virtually empty movie theatre. It’s called “Casino Jack and the United State of Money,” a new documentary about Jack Abramoff by Alex Gibney. (Gibney won an Oscar for Documentary Feature in 2008.) Casino Jack regurgitated the story the media had proffered about “evil” Abramoff, and thematically repeated a Bill Moyers documentary several years ago. Gibney’s film would have been far more insightful and compelling had it been even-handed.
Disclaimer: Even though I found his Abramoff documentary tendentious and flawed, I admire and respect Gibney’s work very much. Politically, we are hard-core liberals. Because I was writing a book about Abramoff (and secretly interviewing him before and during his imprisonment,) Gibney and I have been occasionally meeting and talking about the Abramoff scandal for the past three years.
There are so many disappointing things with this documentary I don’t know where to begin. My overarching problem was that Gibney made no attempt to be objective, and that he omitted a plethora of important information that might have afforded the audience a chance to draw a more balanced, nuanced, and more informed conclusion about this complex scandal.
Gibney knew what his conclusion would be long in advance. Presumably for that reason, he did not interview anybody who defended Abramoff or anyone who argued that this scandal was far more convoluted than the simplistic, black-and-white narrative that has been repetitiously presented to the public and now by Gibney.
The film opens with footage of the 2001 mob murder of Florida businessman Gus Boulis, even though Abramoff had met Boulis only once and had nothing to do with his murder. (Boulis had just sold SunCruz casinos to Abramoff and his partner Adam Kidan.)
Soon, there is footage of the casinos operated by Abramoff’s tribal clients. Clearly, these casinos are on par with those in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. And clearly, these thriving casinos, earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year, belong to Indians who are well-to-do, not bumpkins that just fell off a log. They can afford the best consultants, lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. Hence, these particular Indians–for whom Abramoff was the lobbyist–were hardly unsophisticated, which I doubt anyone in the audience have grasped. Gibney should have made this point clear.
(A large part of the virulent antipathy toward Abramoff was fueled by our collective guilt over the genocide our European ancestors committed against the Native Americans. In 1892, there were wild celebrations across the nation. In New York City, for example, a statue was erected of the Great Navigator in an area re-named Columbus Circle. But in 1992, there were essentially no national or regional celebrations to mark a stellar numerical anniversary: the quincentenary of the European discovery of the New World. The reason? We were too ashamed.)
Yes, the public was infuriated with Abramoff. Here was this white man–(that he was an Orthodox Jew only made matters worse)–stealing candy from these poor, unsophisticated Indians. The Washington Post, which broke this story, exploited this undercurrent of shame brilliantly and cynically. I feel it was disingenuous of Gibney not to make clear that these particular Indians–whom Abramoff was accused of defrauding–were not your stereotypic unemployed Indian, boozing it up on a hard-scrabble reservation. In the end, these Indians proved to be far more sophisticated than Washington uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The other impression Gibney, The Washington Post, and Sen. John McCain, (former chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which also investigated Abramoff,) wanted to impart was that not only had Abramoff defrauded his clients, but he had been a lousy lobbyist. In other words, they wanted the public to believe that all these gullible, unsophisticated Indians had not only been bamboozled into paying Abramoff gargantuan sums, but had received nothing in return.
This is untrue. Abramoff was perhaps the most effective Indian lobbyist who ever lived. It would have been fair if Gibney had at least made that clear. But he did not. Apparently, Gibney preferred Abramoff’s iconic image as the indelibly vile pariah, Indian exploiter, and corrupter of the democratic process.
TAXING TRIBAL CASINOS
The most compelling example of Abramoff’s lobbying magic was his successful efforts for three successive years to defeat Republican-controlled congressional legislation that would have taxed tribal casinos. (Federally recognized Indian tribes are “sovereign nations” and are supposedly exempt from federal and state taxes.) Had that legislation passed, tribal casinos would have been required to pay about 33% of their profits to the US Treasury. By killing this legislation, Abramoff has cumulatively saved Indian Country about $30 billion for the past 12 years and counting, exponentially more than the relative pittance he charged them for his services. But once again, Gibney omitted this Abramoff triumph from his film.
THE CHOCTAWS OF MISSISSIPPI
Gibney describes how Abramoff, (remember, a lobbyist advocates for and protects his clients as does a lawyer), protected the interests of his client, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi, so that its casino could keep making money. If a nearby casino opened up, it would hurt his client’s revenue stream. So Abramoff worked hard to kill all competing casinos. (This is precisely what anyone hiring a lawyer/lobbyist wants done–the American Way, for better or worse.)
The Choctaws ran a lucrative casino near the Alabama border. The Jena Tribe, also located nearby in Mississippi, wanted to open its own casino, which would have put a big dent in the Choctaws’ profits. But first, the Jena Tribe needed federal approval. With the help of Tom DeLay and other Republican lawmakers in Washington, Abramoff blocked the Jena’s casino. But Gibney made it seem that Abramoff’s successful efforts were somehow sleazy. Perhaps they were. But that’s not the point. Abramoff did his job. He may have charged a lot, but he did save the Choctaws many hundreds of millions of dollars–far in excess of what he charged his client. Gibney should have pointed that out.
Gibney also completely omitted another far more spectacular Choctaw success Abramoff engineered. He somehow stopped a referendum in next-door Alabama that would have led to the opening of Indian casinos in that state. Since most of the Choctaw casino clients came from Alabama, the passage of that referendum would have probably put their casino out of business. Again, Abramoff saved his client hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, something Gibney did not to mention.
THE COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
Gibney omitted another impressive Abramoff lobbying coup involving the wealthy Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, which also operated a casino and resort.
The Louisiana Coushatta had applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1927 for permission to purchase about 9,000 acres of land “in trust” to add to its reservation. For nearly 75 years, the BIA did nothing but sit on that application. It was Abramoff, with the help of Tom DeLay, who forced the BIA to grant the Coushatta’s request. Again, Gibney made no mention of this.
Abramoff’s biggest lobbying coup for the Louisiana Coushatta was shutting down a casino east of Houston, Texas, that may have put his client’s casino out of business. It may seem hard to believe, but a complicating factor involved his also shutting down the casino of a tribe 1000 miles away in El Paso, Texas.
THE TIGUA TRIBE OF EL PASO, TEXAS
Gibney focused much attention on the Tigua tribe of El Paso. This pivotal and controversial episode in the Abramoff scandal is the one which reporter Susan Schmidt of The Washington Post, (whom Gibney interviewed extensively in the film), manufactured so that Abramoff appeared to be the most deceitful villain to have ever slithered out of the slime.
Schmidt claimed that Abramoff had secretly shut down the Tigua’s casino simply so he could appear the next day to persuade the tribe to hire him to get its casino reopened! The ultimate sleazebag, right? Well, not quite. It was Schmidt who was sleazy–some would say dishonest–in how she manipulated the facts. Her little work of fiction created such a firestorm of public fury against Abramoff that it helped her win a 2005 Pulitzer Prize, (which, in my opinion, should be rescinded.) What’s more, it was also the final straw that made Abramoff’s imprisonment inevitable.
The problem is that Schmidt withheld a crucial bit of information from her story. Here are the facts. (Please bear with me.This is a bit complicated.)
Back in 2001, there was one tribal casino in Texas, and it was being operated illegally (something Gibney neglected to mention) by the Tigua Tribe in El Paso. There was a second tribe preparing to open its own illegal casino 700 miles away, east of Houston. That second tribe is confusingly called the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. A pending bill in the Texas state legislature would have legalized both tribal casinos. Abramoff’s client–the Louisiana Coushatta, (who had just purchased 9,000 acres of land thanks to Abramoff and DeLay), operated a very lucrative casino near the Texas border–felt threatened. Most of its gamblers drove three hours from the Houston area to play slots and blackjack in its casino. Had the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas opened its own casino east of Houston, Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, might have been forced out of business. (Why drive three hours to gamble when a new casino has just opened minutes away?)
Here’s the point of this complex-sounding story. Abramoff needed to stop that Texas bill which would have legalized the two tribal casinos, even though only one of them–the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas–threatened his Louisiana client. Obviously, Abramoff had absolutely no interest in shutting down the Tigua casino, because it was located in El Paso, 1000 miles from (and therefore no threat to) his client in Louisiana. But, yes, if Abramoff could find a way to kill the bill, the Tigua casino would also be shut down.
In another brilliant lobbying coup, (which Gibney once again failed to point out), Abramoff managed to derail the Texas bill. (The bill had already passed in the Texas House by an 83-vote margin. It would have easily passed in the Texas Senate by an even greater margin, but Abramoff was able to stop the bill from reaching the Senate floor for a vote! Hence, the bill failed to become law; both tribal casinos were shut down.)
But The Washington Post’s Susan Schmidt never mentioned the part about the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas in her story! She claimed that Abramoff’s sole purpose was to shut the Tigua’s casino so he could persuade them to hire him to get it reopened. She completely omitted the fact that the casino of another tribe–the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas–was the only one he was interested in shuttering. Did Schmidt know that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas even existed and that it was a threat to Abramoff’s client in Louisiana? Indeed, her name had appeared on a recent story in which those two facts were identified by her! Hence, it would appear that Schmidt deliberately omitted this key bit of information simply so her story would make Abramoff’s behavior seem so reprehensible.
I discussed this complicated story a number of times with Gibney. He didn’t seem as outraged as I. But he did end up conceding in his film that Abramoff’s shuttering of the Tigua casino was “collateral damage.” Schmidt, on the other hand, never used the term collateral damage–or any similar term, because that would have undermined her fairy tale of righteous indignation. She simply omitted the name of the second tribe and, most importantly, that the second tribe was Abramoff’s real target. Given Schmidt’s previous reporting, she knew that the real reason for Abramoff’s actions were not what she reported, but rather to protect his Louisiana-based casino client.
In the film, Gibney did not call Schmidt on the carpet for her journalistic transgression or question her on this matter at all. Why he gave her a free pass I find puzzling.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN
Let’s take a look at the illustrious Sen. John McCain. Although Gibney was well aware that there was bad blood between McCain and Abramoff, he failed to mention this in his film. First of all, Abramoff was an arch conservative, allied with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, former Christian Coalition chairman Ralph Reed, right-wing ministers James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others. They all loathed “maverick” John McCain, who then touted himself as a moderate Republican.
Secondly, Abramoff had inadvertently funded the notorious and scurrilous “black baby smear” campaign that had helped to sink McCain’s presidential bid in the South Carolina Republican primary of February 2000. So it could be argued that McCain’s investigation of Abramoff was in large part motivated by personal vendetta. Gibney omitted this.
Although Gibney did mention that McCain had suppressed many of Abramoff’s subpoenaed emails, Gibney did not provide a readily available and widely known specific numerical percentage. Straight-talk McCain suppressed 99% of Abramoff’s emails! In other words, he only released 1% to the public. This highly selective release of emails allowed McCain to paint Abramoff in the worst possible light, especially since Abramoff foolishly decided not to defend himself during the hearings. (On advice of counsel, he exercised his Fifth Amendment right, which led many to conclude he was guilty.)
Gibney did point out that McCain suppressed many of Abramoff’s emails, but that he did so to avoid injuring his fellow Republicans. That was only partly true. The tiny fraction of emails McCain released had been selected and taken out of context in order to generate the greatest possible damage to Abramoff. Gibney knew this, because we discussed it many times, but did not mention it.
SUNCRUZ CASINO
Regarding the purchase of SunCruz casino, Abramoff had been indicted for wire fraud, involving a forged $23 million wire transfer, supposedly the down payment for the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz casino. Abramoff, however, knew nothing about this phony wire transfer. I interviewed Adam Kidan, Abramoff’s SunCruz partner, for over 100 hours. I asked him if Abramoff knew about this forged wire transfer. Kidan repeatedly told me that Abramoff knew nothing about it. Since I had told Gibney this fact and since Gibney also interviewed Kidan for the film, I was quite surprised that Gibney did not mention it.
So why did Abramoff plead guilty to wire fraud in the SunCruz matter if he knew nothing about the concocted $23 million wire transfer? Here’s another key issue that Gibney chose not to address in his film.
WHITE-COLLAR GUILTY PLEAS AND HONEST-SERVICES FRAUD
Like many defendants, especially white-collar defendants, Abramoff pleaded guilty, because he was afraid not to. (The New York Times reported that over 25% of convicted and imprisoned rapists and murderers, later exonerated by DNA evidence, had pleaded guilty!) The truth is that Abramoff was intimidated and pressured into pleading guilty, even though he didn’t think he was guilty. First, his legal fees were becoming astronomical. Second, federal prosecutors threatened to sentence him to 30 years in a maximum-security prison with violent offenders. Abramoff was told, however, if he agreed to plead guilty to whatever they told him to plead guilty to, his sentence would be reduced to four years and he would do his time it in a cushy prison camp close to home, conveniently allowing his wife and five children to visit him. Again, Gibney failed to mention this.
What exactly was Abramoff guilty of? Bribing congressmen? He never did that, (although he did plead guilty to it.) Tax evasion? Doubtful, (although he did plead guilty to this. Even some of the federal prosecutors who worked on the case disagree on this tax-evasion charge.) Wire fraud? Definitely not, (though he did plead guilty to this too.) Defrauding his tribal clients? Well, now we’ve now arrived at the crux of the criminal matter, which centers on the “kickback” scheme involving Abramoff’s public-relations colleague, Michael Scanlon.
THE “KICKBACK” SCHEME
Gibney prominently mentions that Abramoff took “kickbacks” from Scanlon. The Post and McCain contend that Abramoff should have informed his tribal clients that he was getting a “kickback” from Scanlon, whom they hired at Abramoff’s behest. But there is nothing criminal in not informing his clients. And calling it a “kickback” is a misnomer. It was a perfectly legal referral fee, something that orthopedic surgeons, lawyers, and mortgage brokers engage in everyday without informing their clients. Federal prosecutors knew it wasn’t a crime, but had to conjure up something to charge Abramoff with so he could appear to plead guilty to defrauding his tribal clients. The conjured-up was “honest-services fraud,” a nebulous felony impossible to define. In fact, a few days from now, the U. S. Supreme Court will probably declare this controversial law unconstitutionally vague…and yet Gibney chose not to mention anything at all about the storm swirling around the honest-services fraud statute.
THE GUILTY PLEA OF REP. ROBERT NEY
Gibney extensively interviewed former Ohio Congressman Robert Ney, who spent nearly a year in prison as a result of the Abramoff scandal. For a long time, Ney had stubbornly refused to plead guilty, claiming he had done nothing wrong. And in my opinion it is unlikely that Ney would have ever been indicted, never mind found guilty of any charge related to the Abramoff scandal. What cooked Ney’s goose, however, was not Abramoff. Ney was caught accepting a $50,000 cash bribe from a Syrian businessman who asked Ney’s help in obtaining spare parts for Iranian military jets, something Abramoff had nothing to do with. With that little incriminating tidbit, however, federal prosecutors were able to tighten the screws on Ney until he squealed guilty to the Abramoff charges as well, in return for a reduced sentence in a cushy prison camp. Gibney knew all about that fat Syrian businessman, but did not to mention it.
Gibney also mentioned that Ney had placed at Abramoff’s behest two statements in the Congressional Record–one that disparaged SunCruz owner Gus Boulis and a subsequent one that praised Adam Kidan. Well, this isn’t exactly true. Those statements had not been placed in the Congressional Record, but in the Congressional Records Extensions, an obscure publication that essentially no one reads, in which lawmakers insert statements praising local boy-scout troops; honoring a constituent’s birthday, marriage, graduation, or death. Gibney made a big deal out of that frivolous favor. Frivolous comments made in an obscure publication pale in comparison to helping the terrorist state of Iran and sworn enemy of the United States obtain spare parts for its aging American fighter jets. But Gibney said nothing about this.
FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER TOM DELAY
As for Tom DeLay, former Republican House speaker and Abramoff’s most valuable asset, Gibney makes it clear how much he loathes his politics and his tactics–and so do I. And I can’t stand Abramoff’s politics as well, (even though he tried to change my mind during the 100 hours I interviewed Abramoff). Gibney did his best to make DeLay, who was extensively interviewed in the film, look hypocritical and sleazy. Gibney even included clips from DeLay’s embarrassing appearance on the TV show “Dancing With The Stars.” This was gratuitous and only served to make DeLay look foolish, which I thought was unfair. No matter how unsavory Gibney tried to make DeLay appear in the film, there is one incontrovertible fact Gibney had to concede: DeLay has never been indicted–(and never will be indicted, due to the statute of limitations)– for anything involving Abramoff. (And Abramoff, who has been cooperating with federal prosecutors for nearly five years, told me how badly they wanted to indict DeLay.)
ADAM KIDAN
Even minor things were not dealt with even-handedly in Casino Jack. For example, Gibney interviewed Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW (Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), a liberal, non-profit watchdog group. She stated that Adam Kidan, Abramoff’s SunCruz partner, had been disbarred for fraud. But Gibney chose not to give Kidan a chance to respond or defend himself. It just so happens that those charges were brought by Kidan’s stepfather, the controversial owner of adult video stores. They were embroiled in a business dispute. However, the stepfather later wrote to the authorities withdrawing his complaint. (These letters are archived and readily available in Brooklyn and Long Island courthouses.)
Furthermore, Naomi Seligman, former deputy director of CREW and one of Sloan’s dearest friends, used to date Kidan. Perhaps this was not worth mentioning in the film, but Gibney knew this.
THE EELEMOSYNARY ABRAMOFF
In the tradition of Orthodox Judaism, Abramoff had been an extraordinarily generous person. Essentially, he gave away much of his money, often anonymously, mostly to Jewish charities. He never even paid off his own home mortgage. And yet Gibney didn’t mention any of this at all. It’s as if he went out of his way to avoid saying anything that might cast Abramoff in a positive light.
CONCLUSION
Gibney ends the film decrying lobbying. He cites how banking and financial lobbyists are preventing the government from reigning in and controlling derivatives, such as credit-default swaps, which recently nearly triggered an economic depression. He also cites the recent Supreme Court decision, allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on lobbying. And somehow he compares those cataclysms to the alleged crimes of Jack Abramoff.
What crimes did Abramoff actually commit? He got Rep. Bob Ney to insert frivolous comments in the frivolous Congressional Records Extensions. Abramoff gave lawmakers and their staff free meals, drinks at his restaurant and free seats at sporting events, and subsidized a few golf trips. And what did he get in return? He helped his tribal clients’ casinos remain profitable. He wangled an audience with President George W. Bush for the prime minister of Malaysia. So what? This is inconsequential compared to the great evils perpetuated by the financial-industry lobbyists, the health-care lobbyists, the tobacco lobbyists, the National Rifle Association, etc. And for these petty gems of sleaze and corruption, Abramoff is sent to federal prison for four years? Seems to me like much ado about nothing.
What Gibney did not mention in his film is that lobbying–the right to petition Congress–is protected by the very First Amendment to the Constitution. Sure, every liberal wants elections to be publicly financed, but it will never happen because of something called the “incumbency advantage.” Incumbents get reelected about 90% of the time, thanks, in part, to the money that lobbyists funnel into their reelection campaigns. (Yes, the “bad” lobbyists include Exxon Mobil, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, as well as the “good” lobbyists like the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the AARP.) It’s doubtful that current lawmakers are going to pass legislation that would make it easier for their opponents to take away their jobs.
When Abramoff stopped the Republican-controlled Congress from taxing Indian casinos, do you know how he did it? He didn’t do it with free drinks and meals at his restaurant, free tickets to sporting events at his skyboxes, or golf trips. What those freebies got him was access to the lawmakers and their staff, so he could present a compelling argument. And what was that compelling argument that killed the bill? He told Republican lawmakers that they should vote against this bill because it was a tax, and Republicans were supposed to be anti-tax fanatics. It worked, but people who see the documentary won’t know that, because Gibney didn’t mention it.
Oh yes, I almost forgot. Remember those naïve, unsophisticated Indians that Abramoff bamboozled? Well, they all sued the law firms that Abramoff used to work for. And guess what? They all won huge settlements, so that in the end, they got Abramoff’s phenomenal lobbying services for a pittance…Gibney forgot to mention that too.
Gary S. Chafetz is the author of The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff.