http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/06delay.html

First Charges Filed in Case on Lobbyist

By PHILIP SHENON
Published: October 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - The former head of procurement policy for the White House budget office was indicted Wednesday on charges of obstructing investigators and lying about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist who is at the center of a federal investigation that has brought Representative Tom DeLay under scrutiny.

Chronology: House Majority Leader DeLay The indictment of the former official, David H. Safavian, was the first to result from the Justice Department's larger investigation of Mr. Abramoff, a major Republican fund-raiser who was once among the most powerful lobbyists in Washington.

Administration officials acknowledged this week that the Justice Department had asked the British police to interview former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about a meeting with Mr. DeLay during a 2000 trip to Britain arranged by Mr. Abramoff. It was the first public acknowledgment that Mr. DeLay's actions were also under investigation.

Mr. DeLay stepped down as majority leader after he was indicted last week on conspiracy charges as a result of a separate, unrelated investigation in Texas.

Mr. Safavian was accused in the indictment of lying about his contacts with Mr. Abramoff when Mr. Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, which is the government's property-management agency. He held that post from 2002 until 2004.

Mr. Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said that he would plead not guilty and suggested that the indictment's real target was Mr. Abramoff. "This is not a case of guilty as charged," Ms. Van Gelder said. "Rather, it is an attempt to prove guilt by association."

Prosecutors said Mr. Safavian insisted to investigators that Mr. Abramoff had no business at the General Services Administration in 2002. E-mail messages traded between the two men at the time showed that Mr. Safavian was trying to help the lobbyists acquire two government-owned properties.

Mr. DeLay has not been linked to the investigation of Mr. Safavian. Mr. DeLay is facing two indictments in his home state - he is accused of conspiracy and money laundering.

Mr. DeLay's lawyers in Texas stepped up their attacks on the Democratic prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle, the district attorney of Travis County, which includes most of Austin, after Mr. Earle's disclosure this week that a third grand jury refused to indict Mr. DeLay on similar charges Friday.

Mr. Earle has been unwilling to say why that grand jury refused to act.

One of Mr. DeLay's lawyers, Dick DeGuerin, said the moves reflected a desperate effort by Mr. Earle to rescue his case against Mr. DeLay in light of defense arguments that the original conspiracy charges were fundamentally flawed.

Documents unearthed this week and reported by The Associated Press and PoliticalMoneyLine, a research group, revealed fund-raising tactics used by Mr. DeLay in 2000 that could draw additional scrutiny.

The documents showed that a committee operated by Mr. DeLay for the Republicans' 2000 convention in Philadelphia diverted tens of thousands of dollars to other organizations run by the former majority leader and his allies, including Representative Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican who assumed Mr. DeLay's duties after his indictment.

Mr. DeLay's committee gave at least $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's Rely on Your Beliefs Non-Federal Committee in 2000, which in turn wrote checks to several other DeLay organizations, the documents showed.

They showed that Mr. Blunt's group gave $100,000 to the Missouri Republican Party, which later spent tens of thousands of dollars supporting Mr. Blunt's son, Matt, in his campaign for secretary of state. Matt Blunt is now the state's governor.

An aide to Mr. Delay declined to comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt said there was nothing improper in the transfer of the money between the groups.

Glen Justice contributed reporting for this article.

Just a quick question, not to sound smug, however, it there some particular reason the former Prime Minister cannot be questioned and required to answer to the AMERICAN Police, FBI, or Secret Service? Do we smell bad or something? Why is the American Justice Department depending on information gathered by the British Police?

She was given full access in the 80's to send British agents INTO the UNITED STATES to spy DOMESTICALLY on potential IRISH AMERICAN families that may be engaging in activities that supported activity subversive to British interests. Being of Anglo, Irish and Native American descent, I always have to wonder what the 12 different British families that my particular family encountered (by chance only I am sure ) in the 1980's were all about? Amazing isn't it, I think the percentage of British in our country is something like 1% out of the 12% that immigrate here, and we meet 12 different families? Need I say any more? Just one more word on this, given the recent information that has been discovered about MI6, British agents posing as terrorists, America would do well to find out what else these agents were persuing while they were here as I doubt it was only to infiltrate the IRA.

They were on our soil, persuing their needs, unrestrained. Again, here we go with the British attitude.... so above us, they will use us to attain what they need, however....when we need something, access is restricted and tailored to their particular needs. What a crock of sh*&!! IMO, I don't think we should accept the questioning untill she speaks to an American agency directly.