An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four.

The AI Files · ABSCAM, the FBI sting that caught Congress · 1977–2026

The Sheikh’s Money

On 22 August 1979, in a hotel room near Kennedy Airport, a Philadelphia congressman named Michael “Ozzie” Myers sat down with two men he believed worked for an Arab sheikh. One was an FBI agent. The other was a con man working off a fraud conviction. Myers promised to help the sheikh with an immigration problem and walked out with an envelope holding $50,000. A camera hidden in the room recorded all of it.

The sheikh did not exist. Over the next five months the same fake company, Abdul Enterprises, met members of Congress in hotel rooms and a rented townhouse in Washington. When the operation leaked on 2 February 1980, six congressmen and a senator were on their way to prison. Others had turned the money down. This is how the FBI built the sting, what the tapes show, who said no, why judges and senators argued over whether it was fair, and what it changed.

Read the story Explore the files

An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four. Image: FBI · Public domain

The story

The story of ABSCAM, from the beginning

The whole story in chapters, from the art sting on Long Island to the last appeals and the stings that followed. Every fact is tied to a source; underlined links open the full entry on that part of the story.

An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four.
An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four. FBI · Public domain

Chapter 1

The envelope

On 22 August 1979 Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Philadelphia walked into a room at the Travelodge International Hotel, next to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Waiting for him were a businessman he knew as Tony DeVito and DeVito’s associate, Mel Weinberg. DeVito said he represented a rich Arab sheikh who might one day need to flee his country and settle in the United States. Myers had come with Angelo Errichetti, the mayor of Camden, New Jersey. For 35 minutes, on videotape, he explained how he could help: private legislation, a word with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, support from other members of Congress. [1]

Then DeVito handed him an envelope holding $50,000 in cash. [1][2] Errichetti later told a Senate committee that Myers passed the envelope to him after the meeting, that he took out $15,000 for Myers and sent the rest on to a Philadelphia lawyer named Howard Criden. [1] The FBI’s best-known ABSCAM picture is a frame from that afternoon: the agent, the congressman holding the envelope, the mayor and the informant, side by side. [3] See what the envelope scene proves.

Tony DeVito was Anthony Amoroso, an FBI special agent. Mel Weinberg was a convicted con man working for the Bureau. The sheikh did not exist. Over the next five months the same invented company would sit across from six members of the House and one senator who took money or promises, and others who walked away. [3][1] This is the story of how the FBI built that room, what happened in it, and the fight over whether it was fair, which began the moment the country found out.

A sample FBI special agent’s credentials, about 1990. The agents in ABSCAM worked under invented names.
A sample FBI special agent’s credentials, about 1990. The agents in ABSCAM worked under invented names. FBI. · Public domain

Chapter 2

The con man

Melvin Weinberg was a professional swindler. In 1977, convicted in a federal fraud case in western Pennsylvania, he agreed to work with the FBI to stay out of prison. [1][4] On 19 December 1977 the FBI’s office on Long Island sent a letter asking that he be allowed to associate with “former colleagues” the Bureau was “contemplating targeting.” On 23 January 1978 the court put him on three years’ probation and gave him that permission. [1]

He went to work with agents in about February 1978. The Senate committee that later examined the case found that this was months before anyone at FBI headquarters approved anything in writing, and that nobody had reviewed his old informant file. Had they read it, they would have found he had once been dropped as an informant for committing crimes while working for the government. [5][1] See why the FBI trusted a con man.

The FBI paid him $1,000 a month, raised to $3,000 in February 1979, plus bonuses. His total from the government is usually put between about $150,000 and $200,000, depending on what is counted. [6][4][7] He was the operation’s best asset and, as every defense lawyer would say, its weakest point. See the informant.

Camden City Hall, New Jersey. The city’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, was ABSCAM’s first and busiest middleman.
Camden City Hall, New Jersey. The city’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, was ABSCAM’s first and busiest middleman. Smallbones · Public domain

Chapter 3

Paintings, then politicians

ABSCAM did not start with Congress. The FBI dates it to July 1978, when agents on Long Island set up Abdul Enterprises, a fake company standing in for wealthy Arab investors, to catch people selling stolen art. They recovered two paintings worth about $1 million. The front then attracted dealers in forged securities. [3] The name of the operation came from the company: ABdul SCAM. [3][5]

Late in 1978 a different kind of visitor arrived. Angelo Errichetti, mayor of Camden and a New Jersey state senator, offered the sheikh help with casino licenses in Atlantic City, where gambling had just been legalized, and introductions to friends in politics. On 20 January 1979 he took a $25,000 payment from the operatives. [5][3] The Senate committee found that when the operation’s target shifted to political corruption in the autumn of 1978, nobody at headquarters signed off on the change. [5]

It was a time when the FBI was changing what it did. After Watergate and the Church Committee’s exposure of the Bureau’s domestic spying, its leaders moved toward white-collar crime and public corruption, and undercover work became the tool. The Senate committee counted 53 FBI undercover operations in 1977 and 463 in 1981. [5] See how an art sting reached Congress.

A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears.
A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears. Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain

Chapter 4

The sheikh’s problem

The scenario that brought in members of Congress was written by the informant. The Senate committee found that Weinberg devised it on 14 July 1979: the sheikh feared he might have to flee his country and wanted to be sure he could live in the United States. A member of Congress could help with a private immigration bill or a call to the immigration service. [5][1] The FBI’s summary puts the standard offer at $50,000 up front and $50,000 later. [3] See what the politicians were asked to do.

The stage was built to match. Agents played the sheikhs and their aides, in robes. One, Special Agent Richard Farhart, was brought in because he spoke Arabic. Meetings were held aboard a yacht in Florida, at hotels near Kennedy Airport and, from September 1979, in a townhouse at 4407 W Street in Washington that the FBI had rented for another undercover operation. [5][1] Videotaping began on 12 February 1979; earlier dealings survive only on audio or in agents’ notes. [5]

Time’s cover story that February filled in the set. The yacht, a 62-foot cruiser seized by customs officers from marijuana smugglers, was first named the Left Hand and then the Corsair; its crew of agents promptly blew out one of its engines. The W Street house was rented for $1,200 a month from a Washington Post reporter on assignment in New York, its first floor furnished with antiques borrowed from the Smithsonian, and fitted with a false ceiling in the basement. When visitors squinted under the television lights, the sheikh’s aides explained that he missed the blazing sun of his homeland. [8]

The middlemen chose most of the targets. Of 24 officials the FBI authorized for bribe meetings, every one but Representative William Hughes of New Jersey had first been named by a middleman who said the person could be bought. [9] That fact runs through the rest of the story. It explains why the people caught came from the same few political circles, and why some of the names the middlemen sold belonged to people who had no idea. See the middlemen.

Representative Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania.
Representative Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania. US Government Printing Office · Public domain

Chapter 5

“I can give you me”

Myers was the first. Three weeks later, on 11 September 1979, Representative Raymond Lederer, another Philadelphia Democrat, met DeVito and Weinberg. He said he could not promise other members, but he could promise himself: “I can give you me.” The indictment said $50,000 was paid and passed to Criden, who took $5,000 out of a safe-deposit box for Lederer. [2][10] See the congressman who was re-elected anyway.

Frank Thompson Jr. of New Jersey, chairman of the House Administration Committee, accepted $50,000 through Criden that autumn in return for promises of help with immigration bills; the Justice Department says his share was about $20,000. He then introduced Criden to John Murphy of Staten Island, chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and later steered John Murtha of Pennsylvania toward a meeting. [10][2] On 20 October 1979 Criden carried another $50,000 out of a meeting near Kennedy Airport, money the indictment said was to be shared by Murphy, Thompson and Criden. [10] Time described the scene as almost comic: Murphy and Criden sparred over which of them would pick up the suitcase, and Criden lost. [8] See the chairman and the recruiter and Murphy’s case.

None of these men was filmed doing exactly the same thing. Some held the cash; others let a middleman carry it. Prosecutors did not need a picture of each member pocketing money. They needed proof that he knew about it and agreed to sell official help in return. [11] See more than people touching money.

Representative Richard Kelly of Florida, the one Republican convicted.
Representative Richard Kelly of Florida, the one Republican convicted. U.S. Congress · Public domain

Chapter 6

“How about some Republicans?”

By the autumn of 1979 every member on tape was a Democrat. On 18 September Weinberg asked a middleman, on tape, “How about some Republicans? Doesn’t it look bad it’s all Democrats?” On 9 October Amoroso, as DeVito, said it “would be nice to have some guys that are Republicans in here, too.” The Senate committee found there was no factual basis for seeking the new names. [9] See why the sample tells you little about Congress.

One Republican came. Representative Richard Kelly of Florida was brought in by a middleman, Eugene Ciuzio. At his first meeting he turned down the money. The operatives tried again, and on 8 January 1980 he took $25,000, stuffed it into his pockets and asked whether it showed. [10][12] It was 200 hundred-dollar bills and 250 twenties. [8] His explanation, then and at trial, was that he was investigating the suspicious people around the sheikh himself. He told NBC’s David Brinkley that he had kept the cash in his glove compartment and then a file cabinet, and that “when they blew the cover on their case, they blew the cover on mine.” [8] See Kelly’s own investigation.

John Jenrette of South Carolina, a Democrat, told the operatives, “I got larceny in my blood.” On 6 December 1979 $50,000 was delivered to his associate John Stowe. The two also talked about $125,000 more for getting Senator Strom Thurmond to sponsor a bill. Thurmond was never approached and never accused of anything; his name was Jenrette’s boast. [10][2] When the story broke, Jenrette said his memory of the meeting was hazy: “It was a full moon, and I had three drinks. Or I had three drinks and it was a half moon.” [8] See larceny in his blood.

Senator Harrison A. Williams Jr. of New Jersey, the only senator convicted in ABSCAM.
Senator Harrison A. Williams Jr. of New Jersey, the only senator convicted in ABSCAM. U.S. Congress · Public domain

Chapter 7

The senator and the mine

Harrison Williams of New Jersey, first elected to the Senate in 1958, never took an envelope. His case was about a titanium mine. He and his associates, led by the lawyer Alexander Feinberg, wanted the sheikh to finance the venture. The court described an 18 percent interest held for Williams in Feinberg’s name, endorsed in blank so that his stake would not show, and promises to use his influence to win government contracts for the mine’s titanium. [13][1] Errichetti had first brought him aboard the Corsair, docked at Delray Beach in Florida, in March 1979. Through an interpreter, Time reported, Williams told the robed sheikh: “You tell the sheik I’ll do all I can. You tell him I’ll deliver my end.” [8][1] Over lunch with the operatives at the Hotel Pierre in New York on 31 May 1979, Williams raised the problem himself: he was under a law that required him to disclose an interest “when I have an interest.” [1] See what Williams agreed to.

What happened on 28 June 1979 became the most argued moment of ABSCAM. Minutes before Williams met the supposed sheikh, Weinberg and Errichetti briefed him alone. Weinberg told him to “forget the mine,” to “stress how important you are,” and to say: “Without me there is no deal. I’m the man.” He also called the coming speech “all bullshit” and “all talk.” No FBI agent was in the room. [1] Williams then made the promises on tape. [13]

Prosecutors were alarmed. At a meeting on 9 August 1979, New Jersey prosecutor Edward Plaza told the agents that Weinberg was “putting words into peoples’ mouths.” Plaza later testified that Weinberg had answered that unless they told people what to say, there would be no cases. [1] The Senate committee called the coaching session “shoddy investigative work” and “a glaring example of the FBI’s failure to control and supervise Weinberg.” [1] On 15 January 1980 Williams was offered an unspecified sum of cash for help with the sheikh’s asylum, and he refused it on camera. [1] See was Williams set up by his own script?.

Larry Pressler of South Dakota in 1977, before his election to the Senate. In November 1979 he turned down the operatives’ offer.
Larry Pressler of South Dakota in 1977, before his election to the Senate. In November 1979 he turned down the operatives’ offer. U.S. Congress · Public domain

Chapter 8

The ones who said no

On 7 November 1979 a middleman named Joseph Silvestri, who was supposed to bring two congressmen, called to say he would bring Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota instead. FBI headquarters approved the bribe meeting within an hour. Pressler had been told only that some people wanted to make a campaign contribution; he had met Silvestri shortly before. [1][14] At the townhouse, when DeVito raised private legislation and $50,000, Pressler said: “it would not be proper for me to promise to do anything in return for a campaign contribution.” The agents watching from another room told DeVito to end the meeting. [1] By Time’s account, when Pressler asked about the men’s political action committee, the answer was “What’s a PAC?” Later Webster called to tell him he had performed “beautifully” on the tape. Pressler was not consoled: “It’s a sad state of affairs when it’s heroic to turn down a potential bribery situation.” [8]

John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, met the operatives on 7 January 1980. On the tape he turned down $50,000 “at this point,” and in the same conversation talked about the sheikh investing in his district. [15][16] He was named an unindicted co-conspirator, then testified for the government that Thompson had told him the three congressmen would split the money. In July 1981 the House ethics committee voted not to charge him, and its special counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., resigned within hours. [17][18] Whether Murtha’s answer was principled or cautious is still argued; that he refused and was never charged is not. See Murtha: refused, or just not yet?.

Each legislator, the judge in the Myers case wrote, “could simply have said ‘no’ to the offer,” and three faced with identical offers, Pressler, Representative Edward Patten and Murtha, “did precisely that.” [1][19] William Hughes, the one official approved without a middleman’s claim that he was corrupt, never attended. His name had come up when a middleman mentioned him in passing, and twelve days later Weinberg asked, “Now, how about Hughes?” [9] The Senate committee called Pressler clearly innocent and found that the publicity that followed injured him anyway. [14] See the ones who said no.

Another frame from the same FBI footage, two minutes later. The release does not identify the men.
Another frame from the same FBI footage, two minutes later. The release does not identify the men. Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain

Chapter 9

The informant’s problem

The case against ABSCAM’s methods rests heavily on Weinberg, and the Senate committee did not spare him. It found that he obtained a $5,000 bonus in April 1979 by misrepresentation, that he took gifts from people in the operation, including three Sony televisions, a stereo, a microwave, about $2,000 worth of liquor and a Betamax, and that he denied them under oath. [6][1] See whether the allegations were tested.

Its most serious finding was about the government’s own money. By the weight of the evidence, the committee concluded, Weinberg received part of a $100,000 payment the operation made to Errichetti on 31 March 1979, then met Errichetti the next day and made a tape that gave a misleading picture of the meeting. [6][5] **Disputed:** Errichetti also testified that he gave Weinberg $10,000 of the Myers money in a restroom at the JFK Hilton. That is the word of a convicted middleman, and Weinberg was never charged with anything. [1]

The committee also listed unrecorded meetings with Errichetti on 19 January, 30 March and 22 August 1979, phone calls that were never taped, and tapes that were not numbered or logged as they were made. [5][1] Those gaps are exactly where a coached or pressured defendant would expect to find his defense. They are also gaps; nobody has shown that anything in them would have cleared anyone. See what the cameras missed.

William J. Hughes of New Jersey, in a later portrait as ambassador to Panama. He was the one target no middleman had named.
William J. Hughes of New Jersey, in a later portrait as ambassador to Panama. He was the one target no middleman had named. Ambassador William J. Hughes. · CC BY-SA 3.0

Chapter 10

2 February 1980

ABSCAM ended because it leaked. On 2 February 1980 newspapers and television reported the names of members of Congress under investigation, before any indictment. [3][5] NBC had been watching the W Street house for two months from Winnebago vans with tinted windows, too cold to run the heaters because the glass would fog; one reporter said the orange juice froze. The FBI, knowing several news organizations were about to break the story, sent about 100 agents out that Saturday to interview the subjects at once. An NBC van was already parked near Senator Williams’s Washington home when agents came to tell him he was under investigation, and his look of surprise went out on prime-time television. The New York Times account appeared to draw on a Justice Department prosecution memo. Time put the cost at about $800,000 over 23 months. [8]

Speaker Tip O’Neill said, “The institution has been hurt.” A New Jersey state senator, Joseph Maressa, admitted taking $10,000 in what he called legal fees and explained the mood better than anyone: “It was like the Arabian Nights. … It almost became patriotic to take their money. You know, let’s take some of that OPEC oil money.” [8]

The reaction split along a line that would last. Some members, like an unnamed Democrat quoted in Time, called it a setup. [8] William Hughes, who had been approved for a meeting he never attended, became a driving force for hearings on the methods, warning about “covert operatives who actually manufactured a crime.” The Justice Department’s Philip Heymann called the shift from stolen art to bribes “a relatively natural evolution.” The ACLU called it a “runaway operation.” [20]

The leaks did lasting damage. Names of people never charged reached the press, Pressler’s among them. The Senate committee found the leaks injured innocent people but found “no evidence that these leaks were politically motivated.” Who leaked was never publicly established. [5][14] See what the committee found about the leaks.

The E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in Washington, where the Jenrette and Kelly cases were tried.
The E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in Washington, where the Jenrette and Kelly cases were tried. AgnosticPreachersKid · Public domain

Chapter 11

Trial by videotape

The juries saw the tapes, and then the country did. On 29 August 1980 a Brooklyn jury convicted Myers, together with Errichetti, Criden and Philadelphia councilman Louis Johanson. On 7 October a Washington jury convicted Jenrette and Stowe. On 3 December Thompson was convicted of bribery, and Murphy of conspiracy, conflict of interest and taking an unlawful gratuity, while being acquitted of bribery. Lederer was convicted on 9 January 1981 and Kelly on 26 January. [10] The Christian Science Monitor called it “trial by videotape — a first.” [21]

Williams was convicted on all nine counts on 1 May 1981. [22] Nine juries heard the ABSCAM cases, and every one convicted every defendant before it. [5] See six House members, different verdicts.

The House did not wait for appeals. On 2 October 1980 it expelled Myers, 376 to 30, the first member expelled since three were removed in 1861 for joining the Confederacy. On the floor he said he had been playacting, telling a rich fool what he wanted to hear. [23][24] Voters did the rest: in November 1980 Jenrette, Thompson and Murphy lost their seats. Lederer won re-election while under indictment and resigned on 29 April 1981, the day after the ethics committee recommended his expulsion. [2][25] See Congress responds.

Judge John P. Fullam, who set aside the Philadelphia councilmen’s convictions in 1980.
Judge John P. Fullam, who set aside the Philadelphia councilmen’s convictions in 1980. John Fullam Family · CC BY-SA 4.0

Chapter 12

Judges who objected

The courts did not speak with one voice. In Philadelphia, Judge John Fullam set aside the convictions of two city council members caught in an ABSCAM spin-off, finding entrapment and a violation of due process. In 1982 the full Third Circuit reinstated the verdicts. Judge Ruggero Aldisert dissented, warning that investigators with unlimited money could create the crimes they then punished. [26] See the strongest objection from inside the courts.

In Washington, Judge William Bryant threw out Kelly’s conviction in May 1982, holding that the government had kept pursuing a congressman who had first said no, with nothing but a middleman’s word to suggest he was corrupt. The D.C. Circuit reversed him in 1983, and after Kelly was sentenced in January 1984 to six to 18 months, it affirmed the conviction. [27][12][28] See the Kelly reversal.

In Brooklyn, Judge George Pratt held a consolidated due-process hearing in January and February 1981 and, on 24 July 1981, denied the motions of Myers, Lederer, Thompson and Murphy. He answered the claim that the offers were irresistible by pointing to Pressler, Patten and Murtha. [1] The Second Circuit affirmed the core convictions in 1982 and set the rule that still holds: selling a promise of official help is bribery even if the seller never means to keep it. [11] See why a fake offer is not, by itself, entrapment.

The floor of the United States Senate. Senator Williams defended himself there in March 1982, then resigned.
The floor of the United States Senate. Senator Williams defended himself there in March 1982, then resigned. United States Senate · Public domain

Chapter 13

The Senate judges its own

The Senate Ethics Committee examined Williams separately and, on 24 August 1981, unanimously recommended his expulsion, calling his conduct “ethically repugnant.” [22] The full Senate began debating on 3 March 1982. Williams spoke for hours, arguing that he had been manipulated and urging senators to look at the government’s conduct. His leading defender, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, argued that the Senate had expelled members only for disloyalty and that censure was enough. [22][29]

On 11 March 1982, with the votes plainly there, Williams resigned. There was never an expulsion vote. [22] The Second Circuit affirmed his conviction in 1983, holding that coaching a willing man was not entrapment and that his hidden stake and earlier plans let a jury find he was predisposed. He served 21 months and was released in January 1986. [13][22] See conviction, ethics and resignation.

Title page of Senate Report 97-682, the undercover-activities committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982.
Title page of Senate Report 97-682, the undercover-activities committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982. US Senate / Government Printing Office · Public domain — US federal work

Chapter 14

Investigating the investigators

While Williams’s fate was being decided, a select committee of four Republicans and four Democrats, chaired by Charles Mathias of Maryland with Walter Huddleston of Kentucky as vice chairman, was taking ABSCAM apart. Its final report, Senate Report 97-682, was ordered printed on 15 December 1982. [5][1] See the Senate investigates the sting.

Its picture of the FBI was of an operation that outran its own supervisors. Agents had worked with Weinberg for months before headquarters approved anything, switched from art thieves to politicians without a sign-off, approved meetings on a phone call, as with Pressler, and let tapes go unnumbered. Because the middlemen chose the targets, the hidden cameras had recorded “at least one (and apparently more) clearly innocent public official.” [5][9][14] See the case against the FBI.

It was just as clear about what it did not find: no partisan motive, no lead dropped for an improper purpose, and no defendant “merely playacting.” Each understood the payment was a bribe. Its recommendations were for more control, not less undercover work: a law governing undercover operations, oversight by the Judiciary committees, and written notice clearing innocent people hurt by an operation. [5][30] Congress never passed that law. [30] See what it found in the FBI’s favor.

William Webster, FBI Director from 1978 to 1987, who ran the Bureau through ABSCAM.
William Webster, FBI Director from 1978 to 1987, who ran the Bureau through ABSCAM. FBI · Public domain

Chapter 15

The arguments that never ended

Four claims have followed ABSCAM for decades, and this guide treats each as a question, not a verdict. **Disputed:** that it targeted Democrats. Six of the seven convicted members were Democrats, in a House of 278 Democrats and 157 Republicans. The pipeline ran through Democratic machine figures in Camden and Philadelphia, the Justice Department of a Democratic administration ran it, and its agents asked on tape for Republicans. [31][9][5] See the partisan claim.

**Disputed:** that it was aimed at Black officials. Every member of Congress convicted in ABSCAM was white. The claim belongs to a broader allegation from a 1988 affidavit, which Representative Mervyn Dymally put in the Congressional Record, about a later FBI practice; that allegation remains unproven. [2][32] A separate objection came from Arab Americans. In 1983 former Senator James Abourezk argued that the robed-sheikh fiction fed ugly stereotypes; the FBI’s Oliver Revell replied that the name came from Abdul Enterprises and denied any racial motive. [33] See the race claim.

**Disputed:** that it was a political hit, or that bigger names were covered up. The FBI did want to show it could catch the powerful, and the leaks were real. But the bipartisan committee found no political motive for the leaks and no lead abandoned for an improper reason, and every member who took money on tape was charged. [5][9] The House ethics committee’s refusal to charge Murtha is the strongest case for a soft-pedal, and it concerned a man who had refused the cash. [18] See the political-hit claim and the cover-up claim.

The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997.
The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997. Architect of the Capitol; derivative edit by O.J. · Public domain — US federal work

Chapter 16

What the public thought

Congress was not popular before anyone saw the tapes. In June 1979, two months before the Myers meeting, Gallup found 19 percent of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing; Time contrasted that with 48 percent in 1974. [34][8] In April 1979, 34 percent said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress. [34]

The numbers after ABSCAM do not show a simple collapse. Approval was 25 percent in June 1980, after the leaks, and 38 percent in June 1981, after the trials, as a new administration and Congress took office. Confidence slipped to 29 percent by November 1981. The share rating members of Congress “very high” or “high” for honesty and ethics barely moved: 16 percent in 1977, 15 in 1981, 14 in 1983. [34][35] These are national moods with many causes, and none of these polls asked about ABSCAM.

Pollsters did ask. A Roper survey of 1,929 adults in November 1980 included two questions on the “Abscam scandals,” but the answers sit in a subscription archive and have not been published in a source this guide could read. [36] What Americans thought of ABSCAM itself, as opposed to Congress, remains one of the open questions further down this page.

Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in December 1979. He signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981.
Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in December 1979. He signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981. Rob Croes for Anefo · CC BY-SA 3.0

Chapter 17

Rules, not a ban

A common belief is that Congress banned stings on its own members after ABSCAM. It did not. On 5 January 1981 Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti signed the first formal guidelines for FBI undercover operations, issued while the Senate committee was still working. [37] They were revised in 1992 and again in 2002. [38][39]

The current version reads like a list of ABSCAM’s lessons. Any undercover operation that may involve an elected official is a “sensitive circumstance” that needs headquarters approval and review by a committee of FBI officials and Justice Department criminal prosecutors. No inducement may be offered unless the illegal nature of the activity is “reasonably clear” to the people approached, and unless there is a reasonable indication they are engaged in such crimes or the opportunity is structured to draw only the predisposed. [39] Pressler, who was told he was meeting campaign donors, would have been hard to put before the cameras under those words.

The rules did not stop stings of members of Congress. In 2005 a cooperating witness handed Representative William Jefferson cash on tape, and agents later found $90,000 in his freezer. [40] See the rules after the sting.

P.G. Sittenfeld, the Cincinnati councilman convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers.
P.G. Sittenfeld, the Cincinnati councilman convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers. Sittenfeld for Senate · CC BY-SA 2.0

Chapter 18

The stings that followed

Undercover bribery cases became a standard tool. Operation Greylord in Chicago indicted 92 officials, including 17 judges. [41] Tennessee Waltz in 2005 used a fake electronics company to pay state legislators. [42] New Jersey’s Bid Rig in 2009 charged 44 people, including three mayors, after a cooperating developer facing his own fraud charges paid bribes on tape. [43][44] See the direct descendants.

The closest modern echo is P.G. Sittenfeld, a Cincinnati councilman who took $20,000 in checks for his political action committee from FBI agents posing as developers. He was convicted in July 2022. In February 2025 a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed, while saying the line between a contribution and a bribe had grown blurry enough for the Supreme Court to revisit. On 28 May 2025 President Trump pardoned him. [45][46] See the closest modern echo.

Some comparisons do not hold. The 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor and the 6 January 2021 Capitol attack involved FBI informants, and people who distrust stings line them up beside ABSCAM. Neither was a bribery offer to a sitting official, and the records in each say different things. [47][48] See what the comparison gets wrong.

Resorts International in Atlantic City, photographed by John Margolies. Casino licensing was the first bait Errichetti offered.
Resorts International in Atlantic City, photographed by John Margolies. Casino licensing was the first bait Errichetti offered. John Margolies · Public domain

Chapter 19

The movie

In 1981 the Newsday reporter Robert W. Greene published The Sting Man, Weinberg’s story. [49] Thirty years later a screenplay by Eric Warren Singer, first titled American Bullshit and based partly on three weeks of interviews with Weinberg, became David O. Russell’s American Hustle. Russell moved it, in Singer’s account, “in a more fictional direction.” [50] The film opens with “Some of this actually happened.” [51][52]

The skeleton is real: a con man working for the FBI, a fake Arab front, envelopes of cash and politicians on tape. Most of the rest is invented or composite: the love triangle, the Mafia boss, the immunity scheme, and a sympathetic version of the Camden mayor. The real Errichetti took bribes from the start and was convicted. [52][53] What the film leaves out is the half of the story this guide is about: the coaching, the refusals, the judges and the Senate report. See American Hustle and the real sting.

Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait.
Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait. US Government Printing Office · Public domain

Chapter 20

Forty-six years on

Most of ABSCAM’s principals are gone. Richard Kelly died in 2005, Angelo Errichetti in 2013, Mel Weinberg in 2018 at 93, and John Jenrette in 2023 at 86. [54][52][4][55] Michael Myers, the first to take the envelope, pleaded guilty in 2022 to paying an election judge to stuff ballot boxes in Philadelphia and, at 79, was sentenced to 30 months in prison. [56][57]

His expulsion is still a landmark. Only two House members have been expelled since: James Traficant in 2002, after a bribery and racketeering conviction, and George Santos in 2023, while under indictment. [23] See what’s newer.

The question ABSCAM forced on the country has not been settled. The tapes proved that some members of Congress would sell their offices to a stranger with cash. The Senate report proved that the government got there with an informant it did not control and a selection process it did not run. Both are on the record, and a fair reading has to hold both at once. [5][11]

Sources for the story
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  3. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  4. New York Times obituary: “Mel Weinberg, 93, the F.B.I.’s Lure in the Abscam Sting, Dies” (June 6, 2018)
  5. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  6. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  7. Politico Magazine, Leslie Maitland: “Mel Weinberg: The Conman Who Flipped” (December 30, 2018)
  8. Time: The FBI Stings Congress (February 1980)
  9. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  10. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  11. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  12. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  13. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
  14. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  15. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980)
  16. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal
  17. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980)
  18. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
  19. United States v. Myers, 527 F. Supp. 1206 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) — published district-court opinion
  20. Christian Science Monitor: FBI ‘friend’ pushing hearings on ‘Abscam’ (14 February 1980)
  21. Christian Science Monitor: Public views Abscam on TV: trial by videotape, a first (16 October 1980)
  22. U.S. Senate historical account: Expulsion Case of Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (1982)
  23. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  24. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
  25. U.S. House biographical directory — Raymond Francis Lederer
  26. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
  27. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
  28. New York Times: Former Congressman Given 18-Month Abscam Sentence (January 13, 1984)
  29. Congressional Record, March 11, 1982: Senate debate and Williams resignation
  30. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)
  31. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
  32. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
  33. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
  34. Gallup: Congress and the Public (historical trends)
  35. Gallup: Nurses Continue to Lead in Honesty and Ethics Ratings, with the 1976–2025 trend table
  36. Roper Center iPoll: Roper Reports 80-10 (8–15 November 1980), study record
  37. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
  38. Attorney General guidelines on FBI undercover operations — archived revision, November 13, 1992
  39. Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations (30 May 2002)
  40. FBI, April 2013 — a look back at the William Jefferson corruption investigation
  41. FBI History: Operation Greylord
  42. FBI History: Tennessee Waltz
  43. U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey: Operation Bid Rig III charges (July 23, 2009)
  44. U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey: Solomon Dwek sentencing release
  45. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
  46. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)
  47. Courthouse News: Sixth Circuit upholds convictions in plot to kidnap Michigan governor (2025)
  48. DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Report 25-011: FBI handling of confidential human sources and intelligence before January 6, 2021 (December 2024)
  49. Penguin Random House: The Sting Man: Inside Abscam, by Robert W. Greene (2013 edition)
  50. The Hollywood Reporter: Abscam, ’70s couture and Jack Jones: the making of American Hustle (Gregg Kilday, 19 December 2013)
  51. Sony Pictures — American Hustle official synopsis
  52. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
  53. ABC News — Mel Weinberg discusses American Hustle (February 28, 2014)
  54. New York Times: Richard Kelly, 81, Congressman Who Went to Prison in Scandal, Dies (August 26, 2005)
  55. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
  56. U.S. Attorney, E.D. Pa.: Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia political operative pleads guilty to election fraud (2022)
  57. CNN: Former congressman Michael ‘Ozzie’ Myers sentenced to 30 months for election fraud (September 27, 2022)

Explore

Go deeper, era by era

Pick an era, or search everything at once: entries, people, dated events, claims, theories and media.

Threads

Follow one thread through the whole story

Each thread pulls together the entries on one question, across all the eras.

Key people

Who was who

34 people, from the con man and the agents to the members of Congress, the judges and the critics. Open a card for what the record shows and where to read more.

Mel WeinbergCon man turned FBI informant

A convicted swindler who worked for the FBI to stay out of prison and then for pay. He devised much of the scheme and coached targets before they met the “sheikh.” A Senate committee found he lied under oath about gifts. He died in 2018, aged 93.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  2. New York Times obituary: “Mel Weinberg, 93, the F.B.I.’s Lure in the Abscam Sting, Dies” (June 6, 2018)
  3. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
Anthony AmorosoFBI undercover agent

Played “Tony DeVito,” the sheikh’s American representative, and handed over the money at the key meetings.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  3. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
John GoodFBI supervisor, Hauppauge

Senior supervisory resident agent on Long Island who ran ABSCAM day to day; he later wrote a participant’s account.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. John Good — participant account, The Grapevine / FBI Studies (2015)
Angelo ErrichettiMayor of Camden, middleman

Camden’s mayor and a New Jersey state senator, he brought the sheikh casino contacts and then congressmen. Convicted with Myers in 1980; he died in 2013.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  3. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
Howard CridenPhiladelphia lawyer, middleman

Brought Lederer, Thompson, Murphy and Murtha to the operatives, and was convicted with Myers.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
Michael “Ozzie” MyersMichael “Ozzie” MyersCongressman, Pennsylvania (D)

The first member to take ABSCAM money and the first House member expelled since 1861. Convicted again in 2022 for election fraud.

Sources
  1. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  2. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  3. CNN: Former congressman Michael ‘Ozzie’ Myers sentenced to 30 months for election fraud (September 27, 2022)
Raymond LedererRaymond LedererCongressman, Pennsylvania (D)

Took $50,000 (“I can give you me”), won re-election under indictment and resigned the day after the ethics committee voted to recommend expulsion.

Sources
  1. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  3. U.S. House biographical directory — Raymond Francis Lederer
Frank Thompson Jr.Frank Thompson Jr.Congressman, New Jersey (D)

Chairman of the House Administration Committee. Took money through Criden and steered Murphy and Murtha toward the sheikh. Convicted of bribery.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  2. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  3. UPI Archives: Murphy and Thompson verdict (December 3, 1980)
John M. MurphyJohn M. MurphyCongressman, New York (D)

Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Acquitted of bribery, convicted of conspiracy and an illegal gratuity.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  2. UPI Archives: Murphy and Thompson verdict (December 3, 1980)
  3. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
John JenretteJohn JenretteCongressman, South Carolina (D)

“I got larceny in my blood.” Took $50,000 through an associate, was convicted, and served 13 months of a two-year sentence. He died in 2023.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  2. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
  3. New York Times: John Jenrette Jr., Congressman Nabbed in Abscam Sting, Dies at 86 (March 21, 2023)
Richard KellyRichard KellyCongressman, Florida (R)

The only Republican convicted. He stuffed $25,000 into his clothes and later said he was investigating the people who offered it. A judge threw out his conviction; appeals courts restored it.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  2. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
  3. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  4. New York Times: Richard Kelly, 81, Congressman Who Went to Prison in Scandal, Dies (August 26, 2005)
Harrison A. Williams Jr.Harrison A. Williams Jr.Senator, New Jersey (D)

The only senator convicted. He refused cash but promised to use his office for a titanium venture in which he held a hidden share. Resigned in March 1982 as expulsion loomed.

Sources
  1. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
  2. U.S. Senate historical account: Expulsion Case of Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (1982)
Rita JenretteRita JenretteJohn Jenrette’s wife

Married to Jenrette during ABSCAM; she later wrote a memoir, My Capitol Secrets. This guide does not use it as evidence.

Sources
  1. Google Books: My Capitol Secrets, by Rita Jenrette (Bantam, 1984 reprint)
Larry PresslerLarry PresslerSenator, South Dakota (R)

Told he was being offered a campaign contribution, he said no and left. The Senate committee called him clearly innocent; the leaks still put his name beside the guilty.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
John MurthaJohn MurthaCongressman, Pennsylvania (D)

Turned down $50,000 “at this point” on tape in January 1980, testified for the government and was never charged. The tape followed him for the rest of his career.

Sources
  1. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980)
  2. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980)
  3. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
  4. CNN transcript — ABSCAM footage and John Murtha discussion (November 15, 2006)
William J. HughesWilliam J. HughesCongressman, New Jersey (D)

The one approved target no middleman had named. He never came to a meeting, and afterwards helped lead hearings into the FBI’s methods.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. Christian Science Monitor: FBI ‘friend’ pushing hearings on ‘Abscam’ (14 February 1980)
Edward PattenEdward PattenCongressman, New Jersey (D)

Approved as a target; the judge in the Myers case listed him among officials who did not take money.

Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 527 F. Supp. 1206 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) — published district-court opinion
William WebsterWilliam WebsterFBI Director, 1978–1987

Appointed by Carter, he ran the FBI through ABSCAM as it moved toward white-collar crime and public corruption. On Pressler he wrote: “Try to be sure that this new Senator knows he’s being paid (bribed).”

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  3. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Benjamin CivilettiBenjamin CivilettiAttorney General, 1979–1981

Ran the Justice Department during ABSCAM and signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981.

Sources
  1. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
Philip HeymannPhilip HeymannAssistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Defended the move from catching past crimes to offering new bribes as “a relatively natural evolution.”

Sources
  1. Christian Science Monitor: FBI ‘friend’ pushing hearings on ‘Abscam’ (14 February 1980)
  2. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
Thomas PuccioChief prosecutor

Chief of the Brooklyn Organized Crime Strike Force and the principal ABSCAM prosecutor.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
Oliver RevellFBI assistant director

Head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division; in 1983 he answered the charge that the sheikh fiction was anti-Arab.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
George PrattFederal judge, Brooklyn

Presided over the Myers, Thompson–Murphy and Williams trials and rejected the due-process challenges.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  2. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
William B. BryantWilliam B. BryantFederal judge, Washington

Threw out Kelly’s conviction in 1982 as a violation of due process. He was reversed.

Sources
  1. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
John P. FullamJohn P. FullamFederal judge, Philadelphia

Set aside the Philadelphia councilmen’s convictions; the Third Circuit reinstated them.

Sources
  1. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
Ruggero AldisertRuggero AldisertAppeals judge, Third Circuit

Wrote the sharpest dissent of the ABSCAM appeals, against reinstating the Philadelphia verdicts.

Sources
  1. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
Charles McC. Mathias Jr.Charles McC. Mathias Jr.Senator, Maryland (R)

Chaired the Senate select committee whose 1982 report is the fullest account of ABSCAM.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Walter HuddlestonWalter HuddlestonSenator, Kentucky (D)

Vice chairman of the select committee.

Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Daniel InouyeDaniel InouyeSenator, Hawaii (D)

Williams’s leading defender in the expulsion debate; he argued censure was enough.

Sources
  1. U.S. Senate historical account: Expulsion Case of Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (1982)
James AbourezkJames AbourezkFormer senator, South Dakota

The first Arab American senator. He argued the robed-sheikh fiction fed damaging stereotypes.

Sources
  1. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
Mervyn DymallyMervyn DymallyCongressman, California (D)

Placed the 1988 “Fruehmenschen” affidavit in the Congressional Record.

Sources
  1. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
Robert W. GreeneJournalist

A Newsday reporter whose investigative teams twice won the Pulitzer Prize. His book The Sting Man (1981) tells Weinberg’s story. He died in 2008.

Sources
  1. Penguin Random House: The Sting Man: Inside Abscam, by Robert W. Greene (2013 edition)
William JeffersonWilliam JeffersonCongressman, Louisiana (D)

Caught in an FBI sting in 2005; agents later found cash in his freezer.

Sources
  1. FBI, April 2013 — a look back at the William Jefferson corruption investigation
P.G. SittenfeldP.G. SittenfeldCincinnati councilman

Convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers; the conviction was affirmed in 2025 and he was pardoned that May.

Sources
  1. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
  2. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)

Timeline

Day by day

109 dated events, 1977–2026, each with its source.

  1. 1977
    A con man cooperates Convicted in a fraud scheme, Weinberg agrees to work with the FBI to avoid prison. The informant · source source
  2. 1977
    The FBI turns undercover The FBI runs 53 undercover operations; by 1981 the number is 463. Was ABSCAM a political hit? · source
  3. 23 January 1978
    Probation, and permission After an FBI letter asking that Weinberg be allowed to associate with “former colleagues” the Bureau was “contemplating targeting,” a federal court puts him on three years’ probation and lets him mix with suspected criminals. The informant · source
  4. February 1978
    Weinberg goes to work Convicted con man Mel Weinberg starts working with FBI agents months before headquarters formally approves anything. The Senate later calls that period unauthorized. The operation takes shape · source source
  5. July 1978
    The art sting The FBI dates ABSCAM to July 1978: Abdul Enterprises, a fake front for rich Arab investors, set up to recover stolen art. Agents recover two paintings worth about $1 million. The operation takes shape · source
  6. July 1978
    Abdul Enterprises opens The FBI sets up its front on Long Island, presented as the American arm of rich Arab investors. The fake sheikh and Abdul Enterprises · source
  7. Late 1978
    Securities, then politicians The front attracts sellers of forged and stolen securities, then Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti, who offers help with an Atlantic City casino license. The operation takes shape · source source
  8. Late 1978
    Errichetti arrives Camden mayor and state senator Angelo Errichetti offers the sheikh casino access and political friends. The middlemen · source
  9. 1979
    The mining deal Williams and associates seek the sheikh’s financing for a titanium-mining venture. The senator and the titanium venture · source
  10. 1979–1980
    Coached, then recorded Before meeting the supposed sheikh, Williams is coached by Weinberg on what to say. He promises to help with contracts. The senator and the titanium venture · source
  11. 1979–1980
    The ABSCAM defendants All seven convicted members of Congress are white. Did ABSCAM target Black officials? · source
  12. 1979–1980
    The names Middlemen claim many officials are for sale; 24 are approved for meetings. Were more members involved, and covered up? · source
  13. January 1979
    A Democratic Congress The 96th Congress opens with 278 Democrats and 157 Republicans in the House. Did ABSCAM target Democrats? · source
  14. 20 January 1979
    First money to Errichetti Errichetti takes a $25,000 payment from the operatives, months before any member of Congress is approached. The fake sheikh and Abdul Enterprises · source
  15. February 1979
    Stipend tripled His monthly pay goes from $1,000 to $3,000. Lump-sum bonuses follow. The informant · source
  16. 12 February 1979
    The cameras go in Videotaping of meetings begins. Earlier encounters were audio-recorded, partly recorded or not recorded at all. The fake sheikh and Abdul Enterprises · source
  17. 23 March 1979
    The party on the yacht Abdul Enterprises throws a party on its yacht in Florida. Senator Williams is invited, and a recorded meeting with him takes place on board. The senator and the titanium venture · source
  18. 9 April 1979
    A bonus obtained by misrepresentation Weinberg gets a $5,000 bonus. The Senate committee later finds he obtained it by misrepresentation; he had asked for $15,000. The informant · source
  19. 23 May 1979
    A council name Errichetti first raises Philadelphia council president George Schwartz. The middlemen · source
  20. 31 May 1979
    A meeting at the Pierre Williams’s associates meet the operatives at the Hotel Pierre in New York as the titanium venture takes shape. The senator and the titanium venture · source
  21. 28 June 1979
    The coaching session Minutes before Williams meets the supposed sheikh, Weinberg tells him to “forget the mine,” to “stress how important you are,” and to say “Without me there is no deal.” He also calls the coming speech “all bullshit.” No agent is in the room. The senator and the titanium venture · source source
  22. 14 July 1979
    The asylum story Weinberg devises the scenario that will reach Congress: a sheikh who needs help staying in the United States, through private immigration bills. The operation takes shape · source
  23. 26 July 1979
    The yacht A meeting aboard the yacht Left Hand in Florida brings Errichetti and others together with the supposed sheikh. The fake sheikh and Abdul Enterprises · source
  24. 9 August 1979
    “Putting words into peoples’ mouths” At a meeting with agents, New Jersey prosecutor Edward Plaza objects to the Williams coaching session: Weinberg was “putting words into peoples’ mouths.” Plaza later testifies that Weinberg answered that without telling people what to say there would be no cases. The informant · source
  25. 22 August 1979
    The first congressman Representative Michael Myers takes $50,000 at a hotel near JFK airport, the first bribe offered to a House member. The fake sheikh and Abdul Enterprises · source source
  26. 11 September 1979
    The meeting Lederer meets the operatives and promises help with private immigration bills. “I can give you me,” he says. Raymond Lederer · source source
  27. 18 September 1979
    “How about some Republicans?” Weinberg asks a middleman on tape for Republicans, saying it looks bad that it is all Democrats. Did ABSCAM target Democrats? · source
  28. October 1979
    Thompson’s meetings Thompson accepts money through Criden and introduces Criden to Murphy and later to Murtha. Frank Thompson Jr. · source source
  29. 9 October 1979
    The agent asks too Amoroso, as DeVito, says it would be nice to have some Republicans so it does not look like the push is coming from one group. Did ABSCAM target Democrats? · source
  30. 20 October 1979
    The JFK meeting Criden carries $50,000 that the indictment says was to be shared by Murphy, Thompson and Criden. John M. Murphy · source
  31. 7 November 1979
    Pressler’s meeting A middleman’s unrecorded call sets up the meeting; FBI headquarters approves it within an hour. Pressler, told it was a campaign contribution, turns it down. The ones who said no · source
  32. 6 December 1979
    The money $50,000 is delivered to Jenrette’s associate John Stowe. John Jenrette · source
  33. 1980–1981
    Lying about gifts Weinberg denies under oath receiving gifts. The committee finds he took televisions, a stereo, a microwave, liquor and a Betamax from people in the operation. The informant · source
  34. 1980–1981
    Nine juries Every jury convicts every defendant before it. The entrapment argument · source
  35. 1980
    Philadelphia verdicts set aside Judge John Fullam sets aside the convictions of council members Jannotti and Schwartz. The entrapment argument · source
  36. 1980–1984
    Greylord Chicago court-corruption sting: 92 indicted, including 17 judges. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  37. 7 January 1980
    Murtha’s meeting Murtha declines $50,000 “at this point,” while discussing future investment in his district. The ones who said no · source source
  38. 8 January 1980
    Pockets of cash Kelly takes $25,000 on camera and stuffs it into his clothes, asking whether it shows. Richard Kelly · source source
  39. 10 January 1980
    Paid for a name Criden is paid $5,000 for bringing in Representative John Murtha, who declined the money. The middlemen · source
  40. 15 January 1980
    Williams turns down cash Offered an unspecified sum to help the supposed sheikh get asylum, Williams refuses it on camera. The loan and mine shares remain the heart of the case against him. The senator and the titanium venture · source
  41. 2 February 1980
    ABSCAM becomes public Leaks hit the newspapers and the networks before any indictment. Nine juries will later convict every defendant they hear. The operation takes shape · source source
  42. 2 February 1980
    The leaks Newspapers and television report ABSCAM names before any indictment. Was ABSCAM a political hit? · source source
  43. 13 June 1980
    Indicted Jenrette and Stowe are indicted. John Jenrette · source
  44. 29 August 1980
    Middlemen convicted Errichetti, Philadelphia lawyer Howard Criden and councilman Louis Johanson are convicted with Myers. The middlemen · source
  45. October 1980
    The real debate on TV MacNeil/Lehrer broadcasts the Myers expulsion debate. American Hustle and the real sting · source
  46. 2 October 1980
    The House debates the tape In the expulsion debate Myers says he was playacting. The House votes 376–30 to expel him. What the cameras showed · source source
  47. 7 October 1980
    Jenrette convicted A Washington jury convicts Jenrette and his associate John Stowe. Six House members, different verdicts · source
  48. October 1980
    Trial by videotape The ABSCAM tapes, played to juries, reach the public on television: what the Christian Science Monitor called “trial by videotape — a first.” What the cameras showed · source
  49. November 1980
    Re-elected Lederer wins re-election while under indictment. Raymond Lederer · source
  50. November 1980
    Defeated Thompson loses his seat, then resigns in December. Frank Thompson Jr. · source
  51. November 1980
    Voters decide Jenrette, Thompson and Murphy lose. Lederer wins. Congress responds · source
  52. 20 November 1980
    Murtha testifies Named an unindicted co-conspirator, Murtha testifies for the government at the Thompson–Murphy trial. The ones who said no · source
  53. 3 December 1980
    Thompson and Murphy Thompson is convicted of bribery; Murphy of conspiracy, conflict of interest and a gratuity, but acquitted of bribery. Six House members, different verdicts · source
  54. 3 December 1980
    Split verdict Acquitted of bribery; convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest and a gratuity. John M. Murphy · source
  55. 10 December 1980
    Resigns Defeated in November, Jenrette resigns before his term ends. John Jenrette · source
  56. 1981
    The court notes the refusals The judge in the Myers case cites Pressler, Patten and Murtha as officials who said no. Who was approached, and who said no · source
  57. January 1981
    Lederer and Kelly Lederer is convicted on 9 January, Kelly on 26 January. Six House members, different verdicts · source
  58. 5 January 1981
    Civiletti guidelines Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issues the first formal guidelines for FBI undercover operations. The rules after the sting · source
  59. 9 January 1981
    Convicted A jury convicts him on all counts. Raymond Lederer · source
  60. 26 January 1981
    Convicted A jury convicts Kelly, middleman Eugene Ciuzio and Stanley Weisz. Richard Kelly · source
  61. 28–29 April 1981
    Ethics votes, he resigns The ethics committee votes to recommend expulsion; Lederer resigns the next day. Raymond Lederer · source source
  62. 1 May 1981
    Williams Senator Williams is convicted on all nine counts. Six House members, different verdicts · source
  63. July 1981
    Ethics does not charge Murtha The House ethics committee votes not to charge him; its special counsel resigns within hours. The ones who said no · source
  64. 24 July 1981
    Judge Pratt rules After a consolidated due-process hearing in January and February, Judge George Pratt denies the motions to dismiss the Myers, Lederer, Murphy and Thompson convictions. Could the government go too far? · source
  65. 13 August 1981
    Sentenced Three years and a $20,000 fine. Michael “Ozzie” Myers · source
  66. 24 August 1981
    Ethics The Senate Ethics Committee unanimously recommends expulsion, calling his conduct “ethically repugnant.” The senator and the titanium venture · source
  67. 1982
    The committee on tape handling The Senate report criticizes numbering, logging, transcription and unrecorded contacts. What the cameras showed · source
  68. 1982–1984
    Appeals Appeals courts uphold the core convictions, reverse one Murphy count and reinstate Kelly’s verdict. Six House members, different verdicts · source source
  69. 1982
    Count reversed The Second Circuit reverses the conflict-of-interest count for a new trial and affirms the rest. John M. Murphy · source
  70. 1982
    The Senate on selection The committee finds that all but one of 24 approved targets came from middlemen. Who was approached, and who said no · source
  71. 1982
    The Third Circuit reinstates Sitting en banc, the Third Circuit reinstates the Philadelphia verdicts over a sharp dissent. The entrapment argument · source
  72. 1982
    The Second Circuit affirms Myers The core convictions of Myers, Lederer, Thompson and Murphy stand. The entrapment argument · source
  73. 1982
    Committee findings No lead abandoned for an improper purpose. Were more members involved, and covered up? · source
  74. 1982
    The committee forms Chairman Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-Md.), Vice Chairman Walter Huddleston (D-Ky.); members McClure, Simpson, Rudman, Inouye, DeConcini and Leahy. The Senate investigates the sting · source
  75. 11 March 1982
    Williams resigns Before a final Senate vote. Congress responds · source
  76. 13 May 1982
    Bryant dismisses Kelly Judge William Bryant finds the government’s conduct unconstitutional and dismisses the case. Could the government go too far? · source
  77. December 1982
    The Senate’s recommendations The committee urges legislation; it is not enacted. The rules after the sting · source
  78. 15 December 1982
    The committee on Pressler The Senate committee calls Pressler clearly innocent and urges written notice to injured innocents. The ones who said no · source source
  79. 15 December 1982
    A bipartisan verdict A committee of four Republicans and four Democrats finds the selection flawed but does not find a partisan motive. Did ABSCAM target Democrats? · source
  80. 15 December 1982
    Report 97-682 The final report is ordered printed. The Senate investigates the sting · source source
  81. 1983
    Reinstated The D.C. Circuit reverses Bryant and reinstates the verdict. Richard Kelly · source
  82. 1983–1986
    Appeal and prison The Second Circuit affirms; Williams serves 21 months and is released in January 1986. The senator and the titanium venture · source source
  83. 1983
    The Arab-stereotype debate Former Senator James Abourezk argues the sheikh fiction trades on anti-Arab prejudice; the FBI rebuts. Did ABSCAM target Black officials? · source
  84. 1983
    Printed The report is published with appendices, including trial summaries. The Senate investigates the sting · source
  85. 1984
    Kelly affirmed The D.C. Circuit rejects Kelly’s entrapment arguments. The entrapment argument · source
  86. January 1984
    Sentenced Six to 18 months. The conviction is affirmed later that year. Richard Kelly · source source
  87. 9 May 1986
    Defense-camp remand The D.C. Circuit orders hearings on claims an informant infiltrated Kelly’s defense. Could the government go too far? · source
  88. 1988
    The Friedman affidavit A former FBI informant swears the Bureau had a policy, called “Fruehmenschen,” of investigating Black officials. Rep. Mervyn Dymally puts it in the Congressional Record. Did ABSCAM target Black officials? · source
  89. 13 November 1992
    Revised guidelines An archived revision still permits public-corruption stings, with review and anti-entrapment standards. The rules after the sting · source
  90. 1998
    Scholarship A Journal of Black Studies case study examines the allegation through the prosecution of Birmingham mayor Richard Arrington. Did ABSCAM target Black officials? · source
  91. 30 May 2002
    The guidelines today The current Attorney General’s guidelines treat any undercover operation involving an elected official as a “sensitive circumstance” needing headquarters review. The rules after the sting · source
  92. 24 July 2002
    Traficant expelled James Traficant becomes the first House member expelled since Myers. Congress responds · source
  93. 2005
    Jefferson A recorded cash transaction with Rep. William Jefferson shows stings of members continue. The rules after the sting · source
  94. 2005
    Tennessee Waltz A fake company buys Tennessee legislators; a dozen convicted or plead guilty. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  95. 22 August 2005
    Kelly dies At 81. What’s newer · source
  96. 23 July 2009
    Bid Rig 44 charged in New Jersey, including three mayors and two assemblymen. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  97. 2013
    Errichetti dies The former Camden mayor dies. What’s newer · source
  98. December 2013
    The film American Hustle opens; it will get ten Oscar nominations. American Hustle and the real sting · source source
  99. 2 December 2013
    The Sting Man reissued Robert W. Greene’s 1981 book on Weinberg is reissued as the true story behind American Hustle. American Hustle and the real sting · source
  100. February 2014
    Weinberg reviews himself The real informant tells ABC what the movie got right and wrong. American Hustle and the real sting · source
  101. 30 May 2018
    Weinberg dies At 93. What’s newer · source
  102. 2022–2025
    Whitmer plot Two acquitted, two convicted at retrial; the convictions are affirmed in 2025. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  103. 6 June 2022
    A second crime Myers pleads guilty to ballot stuffing in Philadelphia elections from 2014 to 2018. Michael “Ozzie” Myers · source
  104. July 2022
    Sittenfeld A Cincinnati councilman is convicted after FBI agents pose as developers. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  105. 27 September 2022
    Sentenced again Thirty months in prison and a $100,000 fine. Michael “Ozzie” Myers · source
  106. 17 March 2023
    Jenrette dies At 86. What’s newer · source
  107. 1 December 2023
    Santos expelled George Santos becomes the third House member expelled since the Civil War; Myers was the first. Congress responds · source
  108. 12 December 2024
    January 6 informants The DOJ inspector general reports on 26 FBI sources in Washington that day. Stings after ABSCAM · source
  109. 2025
    Sittenfeld Affirmed 2–1 in February; pardoned 28 May. What’s newer · source source

What we know now

What we know now

More than forty years on, most of ABSCAM’s principals have died, one went back to prison, and the line between a bribe and a campaign contribution is still being argued in the courts. Here is what is newer.

P.G. Sittenfeld, the Cincinnati councilman convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers.
2025

The bribery line is still being argued

In February 2025 a divided Sixth Circuit upheld the bribery conviction of P.G. Sittenfeld, a Cincinnati councilman caught by FBI agents posing as developers, and said the line between a campaign contribution and a bribe had grown blurry enough for the Supreme Court to revisit. On 28 May 2025 President Trump pardoned him. ABSCAM’s defendants made a cruder version of the same argument: that a staged offer should not define the crime.

Source: United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion

Read the full entry
Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait.
27 September 2022

Myers went back to prison

Michael “Ozzie” Myers, the first congressman to take ABSCAM money and the first House member expelled since the Civil War, pleaded guilty in 2022 to paying an election judge to stuff ballot boxes in Philadelphia from 2014 to 2018. On 27 September 2022, at 79, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Source: CNN: Former congressman Michael ‘Ozzie’ Myers sentenced to 30 months for election fraud (September 27, 2022)

Read the full entry
A sample FBI special agent’s credentials, about 1990. The agents in ABSCAM worked under invented names.
12 December 2024

Informants are still the argument

In December 2024 the Justice Department inspector general reported that 26 FBI confidential sources were in Washington on 6 January 2021, and found none was authorized to enter the Capitol or encourage others to. The report is not about bribery, but the debate it fed, over what informants do and who controls them, is the one ABSCAM began.

Source: DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Report 25-011: FBI handling of confidential human sources and intelligence before January 6, 2021 (December 2024)

Read the full entry

The yardstick

The critical path

Fifteen links, from a con man’s plea deal to the Senate’s verdict on the sting. This is the spine of the page. Every theory below is laid against these numbered steps: which ones it contradicts, which it has to recast, and which new links it needs that the record does not show. Each step carries its evidence and a link to the timeline.

  1. 1
    1977The con man

    Convicted of fraud in western Pennsylvania, Mel Weinberg trades his prison term for work with the FBI. Nobody reads his old informant file.[1][2]

    On the timeline
  2. 2
    July 1978Abdul Enterprises

    Agents on Long Island open a front for a rich Arab investor who does not exist, to buy back stolen art.[3]

    On the timeline
  3. 3
    Late 1978The middlemen

    Camden’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, offers the sheikh casino licences and political friends; from here middlemen name almost every target.[2][4]

    On the timeline
  4. 4
    12 February 1979The cameras

    Videotaping begins on 12 February 1979. Earlier meetings survive only on audio or in notes, and tapes are never numbered or logged.[2]

    On the timeline
  5. 5
    28 June 1979The coaching

    Minutes before Senator Williams meets the “sheikh,” Weinberg tells him what to say: “Without me there is no deal. I’m the man.” No agent is present.[1]

    On the timeline
  6. 6
    14 July 1979The asylum story

    Weinberg devises the pitch that reaches Congress: a sheikh who may need a private immigration bill, and $50,000 for the member who helps.[2][3]

    On the timeline
  7. 7
    22 August 1979The first envelope

    Representative Michael Myers talks for 35 minutes on videotape and leaves with $50,000 in cash.[1][5]

    On the timeline
  8. 8
    1979–1980The approvals

    Of 24 officials approved for bribe meetings, all but one were first named by a middleman who said they could be bought.[4]

    On the timeline
  9. 9
    7 November 1979The refusals

    Senator Pressler, Representative Patten and Representative Murtha hear the same offer and do not take the money.[1][6]

    On the timeline
  10. 10
    2 February 1980The leaks

    On 2 February 1980 names reach the press before any indictment, innocent people among them, and the sting ends.[3][2]

    On the timeline
  11. 11
    1980–1981Nine juries

    Every jury convicts every defendant before it. Six House members and one senator are convicted.[2][7]

    On the timeline
  12. 12
    2 October 1980The expulsion

    The House expels Myers 376 to 30, the first expulsion since the Civil War, after he tells it he was playacting.[8][9]

    On the timeline
  13. 13
    5 January 1981The guidelines

    Attorney General Civiletti signs the first formal rules for FBI undercover operations.[10]

    On the timeline
  14. 14
    1982–1984The appeals

    Appeals courts reject entrapment and due-process challenges and reinstate or uphold every final conviction.[11][12][13]

    On the timeline
  15. 15
    15 December 1982The Senate report

    A bipartisan select committee faults how ABSCAM was run, finds no defendant was merely playacting, and backs the technique.[1][2][14]

    On the timeline
Sources for the 15 steps
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  3. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  4. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  5. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  6. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  7. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  8. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  9. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
  10. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
  11. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  12. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
  13. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  14. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)

The other explanations

The theories, tested

Nine alternative accounts, each in its strongest form: who holds it, where it came from, why it lasts and what it would mean if true. Then the test that matters most: the numbered steps of the critical path it contradicts or recasts, the links it would need to add and how strong the evidence for them is, and what would settle it either way.

Judge Ruggero Aldisert of the Third Circuit, who dissented when the Philadelphia convictions were reinstated.
Judge Ruggero Aldisert of the Third Circuit, who dissented when the Philadelphia convictions were reinstated. Administrative Office of the United States Courts (The Third Branch newsletter) · Public domain
Disputed

The FBI manufactured the crimes

The sheikh, the money and the script all came from the government. Critics say ABSCAM did not find corruption. It made it, and then punished it.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusalsrecast
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +An inducement that overcame an unwilling manDisputed evidence
  17. +Pursuit of a man who first said noSome evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

The argument began in the courtrooms. The defendants said they had been coached into incriminating promises they never meant to keep, by an informant who was paid to bring them in.[1][7]

Why it lives

Much of it is true. The sheikh was fake, the money was the government’s, and the approach came from the government. Weinberg coached Senator Williams before his meeting, and the Senate committee found the FBI had no factual basis for targeting most of the people it met. Two trial judges threw out verdicts.

If it were true

The seven members of Congress would have been honest men talked into crimes they would never have committed on their own. The convictions would be miscarriages of justice, and every sting since would rest on a mistake.

How it squares with the record

Under the federal test the government wins if it proves the defendant was predisposed, and an invented offer is not enough to show entrapment. [1]

Selling a promise of official help is bribery even if the seller means to cheat the buyer, so the “playacting” defense failed. [1]

The full Third Circuit reinstated the Philadelphia verdicts, and the D.C. Circuit reinstated Kelly’s. [2][4]

The Senate committee found no defendant was “merely playacting”: each understood the payment was a bribe. [5]

Three members offered the same deal, Pressler, Patten and Murtha, “did precisely that”: they said no. [6]

What holds up Disputed

As law, it lost. Every final conviction of a member of Congress stood. As an argument about method, it never went away. The Senate committee, the 1981 guidelines and the judges who dissented all accepted part of it, and that is why the rules changed.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusalsrecast
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +An inducement that overcame an unwilling manDisputed evidence
  17. +Pursuit of a man who first said noSome evidence

Contradicts steps 11 (Nine juries) and 14 (The appeals). Recasts steps 5 (The coaching), 7 (The first envelope) and 9 (The refusals). Needs 2 new links: An inducement that overcame an unwilling man (evidence: disputed); Pursuit of a man who first said no (evidence: some).

Removes from the critical path
  • 5. The coaching must recast The coaching is the crime’s true author: Weinberg wrote the lines Williams spoke. What has to be fake or wrong: The Second Circuit’s holding that coaching a willing man is not entrapment, and Williams’s own words at the Pierre on 31 May 1979, a month before any coaching, about disclosing an interest “when I have an interest.”[8][6]
  • 7. The first envelope must recast Myers was performing for a rich fool, not selling his office. What has to be fake or wrong: Thirty-five minutes of his own salesmanship on tape, and the rule that promising official help for money is bribery even if the promise is insincere.[6][1]
  • 9. The refusals must recast The offers were too large for ordinary men to refuse. What has to be fake or wrong: Judge Pratt’s answer: three members faced with identical offers “did precisely that” and said no.[6]
  • 11. Nine juries must deny Nine juries convicted men who were not predisposed. What has to be fake or wrong: Every verdict in nine trials, each reached after the defence put entrapment or government misconduct to the court.[5][1]
  • 14. The appeals must deny The appeals courts should have found entrapment or outrageous government conduct. What has to be fake or wrong: The full Third Circuit in Jannotti, the D.C. Circuit in Kelly and the Second Circuit in Myers and Williams.[2][4][1][8]
Adds to the critical path
  • An inducement that overcame an unwilling man Disputed evidence The money and the coaching are documented; whether they overcame unwilling men is what every jury rejected.[5][8]
  • Pursuit of a man who first said no Some evidence Judge Bryant found the government kept after Kelly after he refused; the D.C. Circuit reversed him.[3][4]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • Myers’s recorded pitch at the Travelodge on 22 August 1979
  • Williams’s talk of a hidden interest at the Pierre, before the coaching
  • The refusals of Pressler, Patten and Murtha, made in the same rooms to the same offer
What new information would make it true
  • A recording or record showing a defendant refusing and then being pressured until he gave in
  • Evidence that a defendant had no idea the money was meant to buy official action
What would prove it false
  • Already largely met: the recordings, nine jury verdicts and the appellate rulings
Books and films that argue it
American HustleThe MacNeil/Lehrer Report: ABSCAM TapesSenate Report 97-682
Related
The courts ruled ABSCAM was entrapment.Because the FBI made the offer up, it was entrapment by definition.Judges were seriously divided.Kelly’s conviction was overturned.Courts found the government’s conduct outrageous.Saying you’ll help without meaning it is still bribery.Williams was coached on what to say.The offers were so large that anyone would have taken them.The Senate found nobody was merely playacting.The FBI invented the offer. Did that make it entrapment?The strongest judicial objection came from inside the courtsThe Kelly reversal that often gets told backwardThe “outrageous government conduct” doctrineWas Williams set up by his own script?The recordings show more than people touching money
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  2. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
  3. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
  4. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  5. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  6. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  7. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  8. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997.
The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997. Architect of the Capitol; derivative edit by O.J. · Public domain — US federal work
Unproven

The FBI went after Democrats

Six of the seven members of Congress convicted were Democrats. Some say the FBI picked its targets by party.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A decision to choose targets by partyNo evidence
  17. +Republicans offered by middlemen and passed overNo evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Where it started

The result is lopsided. Williams, Myers, Lederer, Thompson, Murphy and Jenrette were Democrats; Kelly was the only Republican.[1][3]

Why it lives

The Senate committee found the FBI had no factual basis for targeting most of the people it met, and the leaks came in an election year. Three of the convicted Democrats lost their seats that November.

If it were true

Agents or Justice Department officials would have steered the sting toward one party, and the bipartisan Senate committee would have missed or hidden it.

How it squares with the record

The pipeline ran through Democratic machine figures: Errichetti, Criden and Johanson. Their contacts were Democrats. [1]

On tape, Weinberg asked a middleman for Republicans because it looked bad that it was all Democrats, and agent Amoroso said the same three weeks later. [1]

The investigation and prosecutions ran under a Democratic administration’s Justice Department. [4][6]

The House in 1979 had 278 Democrats and 157 Republicans; seven members drawn at random would include six or seven Democrats roughly one time in five. [3]

The committee, four Republicans and four Democrats, found no one at a bribe meeting had been targeted before a middleman raised the name. [2]

What holds up Unproven

No record shows Democrats were chosen as Democrats. The lopsided result follows from who the middlemen knew. The agents pushed the other way, asking for Republicans, which the committee also criticized.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A decision to choose targets by partyNo evidence
  17. +Republicans offered by middlemen and passed overNo evidence

Contradicts step 15 (The Senate report). Recasts steps 3 (The middlemen) and 8 (The approvals). Needs 2 new links: A decision to choose targets by party (evidence: none); Republicans offered by middlemen and passed over (evidence: none).

Removes from the critical path
  • 3. The middlemen must recast Errichetti and Criden were a funnel the FBI kept open because it led to Democrats. What has to be fake or wrong: The committee’s finding that every approved official but one had first been called corrupt by a middleman; the exception, William Hughes, was a Democrat too.[1][2]
  • 8. The approvals must recast The approvals were weighted by party. What has to be fake or wrong: The tapes of 18 September and 9 October 1979, on which Weinberg and agent Amoroso asked the middlemen for Republicans.[1]
  • 15. The Senate report must deny The bipartisan committee missed or hid a partisan pattern. What has to be fake or wrong: A report by four Republicans and four Democrats, chaired by Republican Charles Mathias, that found no partisan motive.[2]
Adds to the critical path
  • A decision to choose targets by party No evidence No document or witness has described one.[2]
  • Republicans offered by middlemen and passed over No evidence No such name has been published.[1]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The recorded requests for Republicans
  • The committee’s target-by-target review of who proposed each name
What new information would make it true
  • A document or witness showing an FBI or Justice Department decision to pick targets by party
What would prove it false
  • The full FBI target approvals, released and showing who proposed each name
Books and films that argue it
Senate Report 97-682
Related
ABSCAM only caught Democrats.The FBI deliberately targeted Democrats.It happened under a Democratic Justice Department.Agents asked middlemen for Republicans.Given the Congress, mostly Democrats would be caught anyway.Kelly was the only Republican convicted.Middlemen, not the FBI, chose which politicians came.The strongest version: a sting that found only one partyWhat the data showsWhy “a quarter of Congress took bribes” is not the findingWho were the go-betweens?
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  3. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
  4. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  5. Time: The FBI Stings Congress (February 1980)
  6. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four.
An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four. FBI · Public domain
Partly true

The con man ran the case

Mel Weinberg, a convicted swindler working off his sentence, not the FBI, decided who was caught and what they heard.

  1. 1The con manrecast
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum storyrecast
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsbreaks
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +An informant who shared in a paymentSome evidence
  17. +A misleading tapeSome evidence
  18. +Tapes he said were stolenSome evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

Defense lawyers attacked Weinberg at every trial, and in 1982 the Senate committee tested their accusations against him.[3][1]

Why it lives

Weinberg devised the asylum scenario, coached Williams, took gifts from people he was luring and lied about them under oath. By the weight of the evidence he shared in a $100,000 payment to Errichetti.

If it were true

The FBI would have handed a congressional corruption case to a criminal it did not supervise, and the tapes would show his choices more than the agents’.

How it squares with the record

The committee found Weinberg devised the asylum story and shared in the $100,000 payment, and that he lied about gifts. [1]

It found nobody reviewed his informant file before making him central, and there was no special plan to control him. [3][2]

Agents, not Weinberg, made the payments on camera, and the recordings show the officials’ own words. [2][6]

Almost every target was named by a middleman, not by Weinberg. [5]

What holds up Partly true

Partly true. Weinberg shaped the stage, the script and some of the evidence, and the FBI let him. He did not invent what the officials said on tape, and the middlemen, not he, supplied most of the names.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con manrecast
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum storyrecast
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsbreaks
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +An informant who shared in a paymentSome evidence
  17. +A misleading tapeSome evidence
  18. +Tapes he said were stolenSome evidence

Contradicts step 8 (The approvals). Recasts steps 1 (The con man), 5 (The coaching) and 6 (The asylum story). Needs 3 new links: An informant who shared in a payment (evidence: some); A misleading tape (evidence: some); Tapes he said were stolen (evidence: some).

Removes from the critical path
  • 1. The con man must recast The FBI built the case on a swindler it had once dropped, without reading his file. What has to be fake or wrong: Nothing: the Senate committee found exactly this.[2][3]
  • 5. The coaching must recast Weinberg, alone with Williams, decided what the senator would say on tape. What has to be fake or wrong: Nothing about the session itself; the theory has to explain why Williams then made the promises in his own words.[3][7]
  • 6. The asylum story must recast The pitch that caught Congress was Weinberg’s invention, not the FBI’s. What has to be fake or wrong: Nothing: the committee found he devised it on 14 July 1979.[2]
  • 8. The approvals must deny Weinberg chose who walked into the room. What has to be fake or wrong: The committee’s finding that middlemen first called 23 of the 24 approved officials corrupt. The 24th, Hughes, is the theory’s best case: Weinberg himself asked a middleman, “Now, how about Hughes?”[5]
Adds to the critical path
  • An informant who shared in a payment Some evidence By the weight of the evidence, part of the $100,000 paid to Errichetti on 31 March 1979.[1]
  • A misleading tape Some evidence He taped a meeting with Errichetti the next day that gave a misleading picture; no court found a bribe tape altered.[1]
  • Tapes he said were stolen Some evidence He said tapes were stolen from his luggage on 23 January 1980; the committee found his contradictions suggested they were not.[3]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The officials’ own words on the videotapes
What new information would make it true
  • Recordings or records showing Weinberg altering or selecting tapes to hide exculpatory meetings
What would prove it false
  • A complete log of every ABSCAM meeting, recorded or not
Books and films that argue it
The Sting Man: Inside AbscamAmerican HustleSenate Report 97-682
Related
The FBI’s star witness was a convicted con man.Weinberg was paid more than $200,000.Weinberg secretly took a share of a bribe.Weinberg lied under oath.Weinberg, not the agents, wrote the asylum story.Weinberg invented the evidence.An informant spied on Kelly’s defense.Why trust a con man?Were the allegations about Weinberg ever tested?What was Weinberg paid?The allegation that an informant entered the defense campCan genuine footage still leave important gaps?
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  3. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  4. John Good — participant account, The Grapevine / FBI Studies (2015)
  5. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  6. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  7. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
The J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI headquarters in Washington. Headquarters approved each ABSCAM bribe meeting.
The J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI headquarters in Washington. Headquarters approved each ABSCAM bribe meeting. Wikimedia Commons contributor · Public domain
Unproven

It was a political hit

A battered FBI wanted to prove itself against the Congress that had just investigated it, and leaked names in an election year to convict members in the press.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A political motive behind the leaksNo evidence
  17. +A Bureau grudge against CongressNo evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

Names, including those of people never charged, reached newspapers and television on 2 February 1980, before any indictment.[4][1]

Why it lives

The FBI had been exposed by the Church Committee, and under Webster it turned toward public corruption. The committee counted 53 FBI undercover operations in 1977 and 463 in 1981. The leaks were real and harmed innocent people.

If it were true

Leaks would have been planned to damage particular members, and the selection of targets would reflect the Bureau’s grudges rather than middlemen’s offers.

How it squares with the record

The committee found “no evidence that these leaks were politically motivated.” [1]

No one at a bribe meeting had been targeted before a middleman raised the name. [1]

A Democratic administration’s Justice Department ran it against mostly Democratic targets. [3][6]

The leaks hurt innocent people, Pressler among them. [2]

What holds up Unproven

Not as a partisan plot. The fairest reading of the record is an institution under pressure to produce, running an operation with too little control and leaking it.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A political motive behind the leaksNo evidence
  17. +A Bureau grudge against CongressNo evidence

Contradicts step 15 (The Senate report). Recasts steps 8 (The approvals) and 10 (The leaks). Needs 2 new links: A political motive behind the leaks (evidence: none); A Bureau grudge against Congress (evidence: none).

Removes from the critical path
  • 8. The approvals must recast The targets were picked to wound Congress, the institution that had just investigated the FBI. What has to be fake or wrong: The finding that no one at a bribe meeting was targeted before a middleman raised the name.[1][3]
  • 10. The leaks must recast The names were leaked on purpose to convict members in the press before trial. What has to be fake or wrong: The committee’s finding of “no evidence that these leaks were politically motivated,” and Time’s account that NBC had been watching the W Street house for two months.[1][7]
  • 15. The Senate report must deny The committee whitewashed the Bureau’s motive. What has to be fake or wrong: A bipartisan report that was otherwise unsparing about the FBI’s control of the case.[1]
Adds to the critical path
  • A political motive behind the leaks No evidence The leakers were never publicly identified.[1]
  • A Bureau grudge against Congress No evidence Members said they felt it; Time noted none could explain why.[7]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The committee’s finding that the leaks were not politically motivated
What new information would make it true
  • Identification of the leakers and evidence of a political motive
What would prove it false
  • Identification of the leakers and their reasons
Books and films that argue it
Senate Report 97-682
Related
ABSCAM was a political hit job.The FBI wanted to prove it could go after the powerful.Names were leaked before indictment.The leaks were political.Innocent people were hurt.The strongest version: an agency proving itselfWhat the committee found about motive and leaksWhat the committee found against the FBI
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  3. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  4. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  5. Christian Science Monitor: FBI ‘friend’ pushing hearings on ‘Abscam’ (14 February 1980)
  6. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  7. Time: The FBI Stings Congress (February 1980)
John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a later official portrait. He declined the money in January 1980 and was never charged.
John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a later official portrait. He declined the money in January 1980 and was never charged. U.S. Congress · Public domain
Unproven

More of Congress took the money, and it was covered up

The leaks ended ABSCAM just as it was reaching more members, and the House let John Murtha go.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusalsrecast
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +An uncharged member who took moneyNo evidence
  17. +Evidence on Murtha set asideDisputed evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it

No camp is assigned here: our sources do not establish one, so we don’t guess.

Who has voiced it
Where it started

The operation ended suddenly on 2 February 1980 when the names leaked, while middlemen were still offering names.[1]

Why it lives

Murtha declined the money “at this point” and talked about future business. The ethics committee voted not to charge him, and its special counsel quit within hours.

If it were true

Members who took money, or would have, escaped because the operation was shut down or because the House protected its own.

How it squares with the record

The committee found no lead had been dropped for an improper purpose. [1]

Of the 24 approved, four never came and several refused on tape; every member who took money on tape was charged and convicted. [2]

The committee’s worry was the reverse: innocent people smeared by middlemen’s claims. [3]

No court or ethics body found Murtha committed a crime. [4][5]

What holds up Unproven

Unproven. Murtha’s case can be read as too lenient without being a cover-up of a bribe, and no evidence shows uncharged members who took money.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusalsrecast
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +An uncharged member who took moneyNo evidence
  17. +Evidence on Murtha set asideDisputed evidence

Contradicts step 15 (The Senate report). Recasts steps 8 (The approvals), 9 (The refusals) and 10 (The leaks). Needs 2 new links: An uncharged member who took money (evidence: none); Evidence on Murtha set aside (evidence: disputed).

Removes from the critical path
  • 8. The approvals must recast More members were lined up and never reached. What has to be fake or wrong: The committee’s finding that no lead was dropped for an improper purpose.[1]
  • 9. The refusals must recast Murtha’s “not at this point” was a deferral, and the House let him off. What has to be fake or wrong: Nothing about the vote or the resignation of its special counsel; the theory still needs evidence that he took money, and there is none.[6][4]
  • 10. The leaks must recast The leak shut the sting down before it reached the powerful. What has to be fake or wrong: Time’s account that the agents had promised more bribe money than they could deliver and had to turn off the spigot.[7]
  • 15. The Senate report must deny The committee covered for Congress. What has to be fake or wrong: A report whose chief worry was the opposite: innocent people smeared by middlemen.[3][1]
Adds to the critical path
  • An uncharged member who took money No evidence None is documented.[1]
  • Evidence on Murtha set aside Disputed evidence The ethics committee voted not to charge him, and its special counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., resigned within hours.[4]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The committee’s review of every approved target
What new information would make it true
  • A recording or record of an uncharged member accepting money
  • The ethics committee’s full Murtha file showing evidence it set aside
What would prove it false
  • Release of the complete ABSCAM meeting records
Books and films that argue it
Senate Report 97-682
Related
More members took money and were covered up.The sting ended before it was finished.Murtha refused the bribe.Murtha was guilty and got away with it.The ethics committee’s special counsel quit over Murtha.A quarter of Congress took bribes.Everyone offered the money took it.The strongest version: the ones who got awayWhat the record shows about the unchargedMurtha: refused, or just not yet?Pressler, Patten and Murtha: do not turn appearances into convictions
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  3. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  4. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
  5. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980)
  6. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980)
  7. Time: The FBI Stings Congress (February 1980)
Mervyn Dymally in his California Assembly years. In Congress he put the 1988 “Fruehmenschen” affidavit into the record.
Mervyn Dymally in his California Assembly years. In Congress he put the 1988 “Fruehmenschen” affidavit into the record. California State Assembly · Public domain
False

The FBI targeted Black officials

Some Black elected officials in the 1980s said the FBI investigated them more than white officials, under an unwritten policy one informant called “Fruehmenschen.” Some apply that to ABSCAM.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsbreaks
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A race-based selection in ABSCAMNo evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

The FBI’s COINTELPRO campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and others is documented. In 1988 Hirsch Friedman signed an affidavit describing an unwritten policy of investigating Black officials.[1]

Why it lives

The history of COINTELPRO is real, so claims of selective investigation were heard seriously. A 1998 peer-reviewed study discusses the affidavit at length.

If it were true

ABSCAM’s targets would have been chosen by race.

How it squares with the record

All seven members of Congress convicted were white. [2][3]

The Senate committee examined how every target was chosen and did not suggest race played a part. [4]

The Fruehmenschen affidavit concerns Atlanta agents in the 1980s and was never proved; it does not mention ABSCAM. [1]

What holds up False

Applied to ABSCAM, false: the record does not fit. The broader 1980s claim is a separate question this guide leaves unproven.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsbreaks
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +A race-based selection in ABSCAMNo evidence

Contradicts steps 8 (The approvals) and 15 (The Senate report). Recasts step 3 (The middlemen). Needs 1 new link: A race-based selection in ABSCAM (evidence: none).

Removes from the critical path
  • 3. The middlemen must recast The middlemen were steered toward Black officials. What has to be fake or wrong: The committee’s targeting review, which traced each name to a middleman’s own contacts.[4]
  • 8. The approvals must deny Targets were approved by race. What has to be fake or wrong: Every member of Congress convicted in ABSCAM was white.[2][3]
  • 15. The Senate report must deny The committee ignored racial selection. What has to be fake or wrong: Its target-by-target review raised no racial pattern.[4]
Adds to the critical path
  • A race-based selection in ABSCAM No evidence No record; the 1988 Fruehmenschen affidavit concerns Atlanta agents and does not mention ABSCAM.[1]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The identities of those convicted
What new information would make it true
  • A record that a Black official was singled out for an ABSCAM meeting by race
What would prove it false
  • Already met for ABSCAM: the convicted members and the committee’s targeting review
Related
ABSCAM targeted Black officials.The FBI had a “Fruehmenschen” policy to investigate Black officials.The FBI had targeted Black leaders before.The strongest version, and where it comes fromWhat ABSCAM’s record shows
Sources
  1. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
  2. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  3. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  4. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait.
Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait. US Government Printing Office · Public domain
False

They were only playacting

The congressmen knew the sheikh was a mark. They talked big to get his money and never meant to deliver.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsionbreaks
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +An intent to cheat the sheikhThin evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

Myers made the argument on the House floor on 2 October 1980, hours before he was expelled.[3][4]

Why it lives

It is the one defence that does not fight the tape. The pictures cannot be denied, so it reinterprets them, and the sting invited it: the sheikh was a stage prop, the money absurd, the hosts in robes. Weinberg himself called the speech he scripted for Williams “all bullshit.”

If it were true

The defendants would have committed fraud on a sheikh who did not exist, not bribery, and the expulsion would have punished a performance.

How it squares with the record

The Second Circuit held that promising official action for money is bribery even if the promise is never meant to be kept. [1]

The Senate committee found “none of the Abscam defendants was merely playacting”; each who took money understood it was a bribe. [2]

The House heard the argument from Myers himself and voted 376 to 30 to expel him. [4][3]

Every jury that heard it convicted. [2]

What holds up False

False as a defence, and irrelevant as law: a promise sold is a bribe whether or not it is kept. What survives is a smaller point, that the scene was theatre on both sides, which is the entrapment argument by another name.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsionbreaks
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
  16. +An intent to cheat the sheikhThin evidence

Contradicts steps 11 (Nine juries), 12 (The expulsion), 14 (The appeals) and 15 (The Senate report). Recasts step 7 (The first envelope). Needs 1 new link: An intent to cheat the sheikh (evidence: thin).

Removes from the critical path
  • 7. The first envelope must recast Myers was conning a con man, telling a rich fool what he wanted to hear. What has to be fake or wrong: The rule that promising official action for money is bribery even if insincere.[1]
  • 11. Nine juries must deny The juries should have seen a joke, not a crime. What has to be fake or wrong: The verdicts, and the committee’s finding that each official who took money understood it was a bribe.[2]
  • 12. The expulsion must deny The House expelled a man for acting. What has to be fake or wrong: A 376–30 vote taken after Myers made exactly this argument on the floor.[4][3]
  • 14. The appeals must deny The courts should have accepted the defence. What has to be fake or wrong: The Second Circuit’s ruling in Myers.[1]
  • 15. The Senate report must deny The committee misread the tapes. What has to be fake or wrong: Its finding that “none of the Abscam defendants was merely playacting.”[2]
Adds to the critical path
  • An intent to cheat the sheikh Thin evidence Myers’s own account; irrelevant in law even if true.[1][3]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The committee’s finding that every official who took money understood it was a bribe
What new information would make it true
  • Evidence a defendant told someone at the time that he meant to cheat the sheikh and do nothing
What would prove it false
  • Already met in law: the Myers ruling makes intent to deliver irrelevant
Books and films that argue it
Senate Report 97-682
Related
Myers was just playing along to take a fool’s money.Saying you’ll help without meaning it is still bribery.The Senate found nobody was merely playacting.What does the famous envelope scene establish?What Myers did, and what he said he meantThe first House expulsion since the Civil WarThe recordings show more than people touching money
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  3. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
  4. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
Representative Richard Kelly of Florida, the one Republican convicted.
Representative Richard Kelly of Florida, the one Republican convicted. U.S. Congress · Public domain
False

Kelly was running his own investigation

The only Republican caught said he took the cash to expose the crooks around the sheikh.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +A private Kelly investigationThin evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

Days after the leaks, Kelly told NBC he had pocketed the money as part of his own inquiry into “the gangsters and gunmen” he met at the townhouse.[1]

Why it lives

Kelly is the strangest case in ABSCAM and the one where a judge sided with the defendant. He refused the money at his first meeting, the operatives tried again, and Judge Bryant threw out his conviction. Those facts make his story sound less absurd than it is.

If it were true

A congressman would have been convicted for infiltrating a corrupt scheme, and the FBI would have prosecuted a fellow investigator.

How it squares with the record

The tape shows him stuffing $25,000 into his pockets and asking, “Does it show?” [3][1]

He returned $24,826 on 3 February 1980, the day after the operation became public, having spent $174. [5]

The jury rejected the explanation and convicted him on 26 January 1981. [6][2]

Judge Bryant’s dismissal rested on the government’s conduct, not on the investigation story, and the D.C. Circuit reversed it. [4][3]

What holds up False

False. The real argument in Kelly’s case was Bryant’s: that the government kept after a man who had said no. The courts rejected that too, but it is a serious question. The private-investigation story is not.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +A private Kelly investigationThin evidence

Contradicts steps 11 (Nine juries) and 14 (The appeals). Recasts steps 8 (The approvals) and 10 (The leaks). Needs 1 new link: A private Kelly investigation (evidence: thin).

Removes from the critical path
  • 8. The approvals must recast Kelly came to the townhouse as an investigator, not a target. What has to be fake or wrong: His $25,000 on 8 January 1980, stuffed into his pockets with the question “Does it show?”[3][1]
  • 10. The leaks must recast The leak blew the cover on his own inquiry. What has to be fake or wrong: The Senate report’s record that he returned $24,826 on 3 February 1980, the day after the names broke, having spent $174.[5]
  • 11. Nine juries must deny The jury should have believed him. What has to be fake or wrong: His conviction on 26 January 1981.[6]
  • 14. The appeals must deny The conviction could not stand. What has to be fake or wrong: The D.C. Circuit’s reinstatement in 1983 and affirmance after his 1984 sentencing.[3][7]
Adds to the critical path
  • A private Kelly investigation Thin evidence It rests on his own account; the jury rejected it.[2]
What would have to turn out fake or wrong
  • The timing of the return, the day after the operation became public
What new information would make it true
  • A record, made before 2 February 1980, of Kelly telling anyone he was investigating
What would prove it false
  • Already met: the jury verdict and the timing of the return
Related
Kelly took the money as part of his own investigation.Kelly stuffed $25,000 into his pockets on camera.Kelly’s conviction was overturned.Kelly’s own investigationThe Kelly reversal that often gets told backward
Sources
  1. Time: The FBI Stings Congress (February 1980)
  2. United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1986), informant allegations and evidentiary remand
  3. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  4. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
  5. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  6. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
  7. New York Times: Former Congressman Given 18-Month Abscam Sentence (January 13, 1984)
A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears.
A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears. Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain
Unproven

The tapes that would have cleared them are gone

The FBI never logged its tapes, and its informant said some were stolen. Defendants say the missing record held their defence.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The camerasrecast
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesrecast
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsrecast
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +Tapes Weinberg said were stolenSome evidence
  17. +Something on them that would clear a defendantNo evidence
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare
Open the file
Who believes it
Who has voiced it
Where it started

Defendants alleged on appeal that Weinberg destroyed tapes and invented a theft to hide it.[1]

Why it lives

The gaps are real and the Senate committee drew them carefully. Blank cassettes were never numbered; Weinberg bought some himself in shops. Calls from the front’s own monitored phones went unrecorded. When he testified about the stolen tapes, the committee wrote, he produced an “astounding plethora of self-contradictory testimony.”

If it were true

Some defendants would have been convicted without evidence that could have changed the verdict, and the government’s record would be incomplete by design.

How it squares with the record

The committee found it impossible to say whether the tapes were stolen, lost, destroyed or never existed, and that Weinberg’s lies suggested they were not stolen. [1]

The government’s answer, which the committee called well taken, was that Weinberg could simply have hidden a tape rather than invent a theft. [1]

The bribe meetings themselves were videotaped, and the committee found every official who took money understood it was a bribe. [2]

The missing tapes were Weinberg’s own recordings of calls and meetings, not the townhouse and hotel videotapes. [1]

What holds up Unproven

Unproven. The record has holes the FBI made itself, and the committee said so. Nothing shows a missing tape held anything that would have cleared a defendant on camera.

Against the critical path
  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The camerasrecast
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first envelope
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesrecast
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsrecast
  15. 15The Senate report
  16. +Tapes Weinberg said were stolenSome evidence
  17. +Something on them that would clear a defendantNo evidence

Recasts steps 4 (The cameras), 11 (Nine juries) and 14 (The appeals). Needs 2 new links: Tapes Weinberg said were stolen (evidence: some); Something on them that would clear a defendant (evidence: none).

Removes from the critical path
  • 4. The cameras must recast The camera record is selective, and the missing parts would clear people. What has to be fake or wrong: Nothing about the gaps, which the committee documented: unnumbered tapes, unrecorded calls, unmemorialized meetings.[2]
  • 11. Nine juries must recast The juries convicted on an incomplete record. What has to be fake or wrong: The videotaped meetings themselves, at which officials took money and, the committee found, understood it was a bribe.[2]
  • 14. The appeals must recast The courts upheld verdicts without the whole story. What has to be fake or wrong: Rulings that weighed the same gaps the defendants raised.[3][1]
Adds to the critical path
  • Tapes Weinberg said were stolen Some evidence He claimed, by one agent’s account 15 to 20, tapes taken from his luggage on 23 January 1980; the committee found it impossible to say whether they were stolen, lost, destroyed or never existed.[1]
  • Something on them that would clear a defendant No evidence Weinberg suggested two Kelly defendants might have been on them; nobody knows what they held.[1]
What new information would make it true
  • Recovery of a missing tape, or a witness to its contents, showing an exculpatory conversation
What would prove it false
  • A complete inventory of the tapes issued to and returned by Weinberg, which the FBI never kept
Books and films that argue it
Senate Report 97-682
Related
Everything was on videotape.Can genuine footage still leave important gaps?Were the allegations about Weinberg ever tested?
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  3. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions

Genuinely unknown

Open questions

Things that are genuinely not known, as of October 2026. Each says what is established, what is missing, and what would settle it.

Genuinely unknownWho leaked the ABSCAM names?
What is known
  • Names, including those of people never charged, reached the press on 2 February 1980, before any indictment. [1]
  • The committee found no evidence the leaks were politically motivated and said they did not come from a single deficiency. [1]
What is not

Who gave the names to reporters, and why.

Why it is still open

No leaker was publicly identified.

Does it change the story?

The leaks ended the operation and harmed innocent people.

What would settle it

The Justice Department’s leak inquiry files.

It was a political hit More of Congress took the money, and it was covered up Names were leaked before indictment. The leaks were political.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Partly knownWas Murtha’s refusal a refusal?
What is known
  • On tape he said he was “not interested… at this point” and talked about future business. [1]
  • The House ethics committee voted not to charge him in 1981, and its special counsel resigned within hours. [2]
What is not

What he would have done had the operation continued.

Why it is still open

The operation ended, and the ethics committee’s full deliberations are not public.

Does it change the story?

It is the strongest argument that ABSCAM let someone off.

What would settle it

The ethics committee’s Murtha file.

More of Congress took the money, and it was covered up Murtha refused the bribe. Murtha was guilty and got away with it. The ethics committee’s special counsel quit over Murtha.
Sources
  1. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980)
  2. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
Partly knownWhat happened with the other approved targets?
What is known
  • 24 officials were approved for meetings; four never came and several who came refused. [1]
  • At least one clearly innocent official, Pressler, was brought before the cameras. [2]
What is not

The full list of names middlemen offered and why each was or was not pursued.

Why it is still open

The committee summarized the approvals; the complete files are not public.

Does it change the story?

It measures how far middlemen’s claims could be trusted.

What would settle it

Full release of the approval records.

The FBI went after Democrats More of Congress took the money, and it was covered up Anyone a middleman named was corrupt. A quarter of Congress took bribes.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Partly knownHow much did Weinberg take?
What is known
  • The committee itemized his stipends, bonuses and reward, and found he lied about gifts. [1]
  • By the weight of the evidence he shared in a $100,000 payment to Errichetti. [1]
What is not

The full amount and whether other payments were skimmed.

Why it is still open

The committee reached its finding on the weight of the evidence, not proof.

Does it change the story?

The credibility of the operation’s star witness.

What would settle it

Financial records of Weinberg and Errichetti from 1979.

The con man ran the case Weinberg was paid more than $200,000. Weinberg secretly took a share of a bribe.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Genuinely unknownWhat did Americans think of ABSCAM itself?
What is known
  • A Roper survey in November 1980 asked two questions on the “Abscam scandals.” [1]
  • Gallup’s trends on Congress show no simple collapse after ABSCAM. [2][3]
What is not

The answers to the ABSCAM-specific questions.

Why it is still open

They sit in a subscription archive this guide could not read.

Does it change the story?

It is the only direct measure of how the public judged the sting.

What would settle it

Publication of the Roper toplines.

Sources
  1. Roper Center iPoll: Roper Reports 80-10 (8–15 November 1980), study record
  2. Gallup: Congress and the Public (historical trends)
  3. Gallup: Nurses Continue to Lead in Honesty and Ethics Ratings, with the 1976–2025 trend table
Partly knownWill all the tapes ever be public?
What is known
  • Some footage, the Senate report and FBI Vault files are public. [1][2]
What is not

Whether the complete recordings survive and when they could be released.

Why it is still open

Not all tapes were made public.

Does it change the story?

The full tapes would settle arguments about context and coaching.

What would settle it

A complete release through the FBI Vault or the National Archives.

The FBI manufactured the crimes The con man ran the case You can watch all the ABSCAM tapes online. Everything was on videotape.
Sources
  1. FBI Vault — ABSCAM released records
  2. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
Partly knownWhere is the line between a donation and a bribe?
What is known
  • Pressler refused a campaign contribution offered for help. [1]
  • In Sittenfeld the Sixth Circuit said in 2025 it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit the line. [2]
  • Sittenfeld was pardoned on 28 May 2025. [3]
What is not

How the Supreme Court would draw it today.

Why it is still open

The Court has not taken a case to restate it.

Does it change the story?

It decides which stings like ABSCAM can still be prosecuted.

What would settle it

A Supreme Court ruling.

The FBI manufactured the crimes Courts are still arguing about where a contribution becomes a bribe. Sittenfeld’s case was ABSCAM all over again.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  2. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
  3. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)

What people say

97 things people say about ABSCAM, checked

Some of what people repeat about ABSCAM is exactly right, some is half-remembered, and some never happened. Each claim below is set against the court opinions, the Senate report and the congressional record, with the points for and against and a link to the full entry.

What the ratings mean
  • Documented Shown by court opinions, the 1982 Senate report, congressional records, official findings or other primary evidence. The claim as stated holds up.
  • Partly true A real fact sits inside the claim, but the popular version adds, omits or overstates something material.
  • Mixed Parts of this are documented and parts are not; the entry separates them.
  • Disputed Credible evidence points in more than one direction, or informed people, including judges, weigh the record differently.
  • Unproven Not established by any public record available on 23 October 2026. It may be believed; it is not shown. Not the same as false. Parts of the record remain redacted or withheld.
  • False Contradicted by court opinions, the Senate report, congressional records or other primary evidence.

DocumentedThe sheikh was fake, played by FBI agents.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The FBI invented Abdul Enterprises and its sheikhs; agents played the roles.

Who says it: FBI history; Senate report.

Points for
  • The FBI’s own history describes the front.
Points against
  • The officials’ words on tape were real.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedABSCAM started as a stolen-art case, not a hunt for politicians.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The FBI recovered paintings and fake securities before any politician appeared.

Who says it: FBI history.

Points for
  • Two paintings worth about $1 million recovered.
Points against
  • The Senate committee faulted the drift without approval.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe shift to politicians was never formally approved.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The Senate committee found headquarters did not approve the change of target in autumn 1978.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • A finding by both parties’ members.
Points against
  • The FBI argued the operation followed leads where they went.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe sheikh wanted to buy help staying in America.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The asylum and immigration-bill scenario was the main pitch to House members, and Weinberg devised it.

Who says it: Senate report; Myers appeal.

Points for
  • On tape and in the opinions.
Points against
  • Williams’s case was about a titanium mine instead.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  2. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedHouse members were offered $50,000 each.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. $50,000 was the standard first payment in the House cases, with more promised.

Who says it: Myers appeal; trial records.

Points for
  • Myers’s envelope held $50,000.
Points against
  • Some took it through middlemen; amounts varied.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  2. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DisputedThe offers were so large that anyone would have taken them.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. Judges disagreed about the size of the inducements; juries and appeals courts held it was not entrapment, and several officials refused.

Who says it: Defense lawyers; Judge Aldisert dissenting in Jannotti.

Points for
  • A real objection raised by judges.
Points against
  • Pressler and others refused the same offers.
Sources
  1. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
  2. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMeetings took place on a yacht and in a mansion.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. Agents used a Washington house, a Florida yacht and hotel rooms, all wired.

Who says it: FBI history; Senate report.

Points for
  • Documented locations.
Points against
  • Not every contact was recorded.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueEverything was on videotape.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The key meetings were filmed, but the committee documented unrecorded calls and meetings and tapes that were not logged.

Who says it: Popular accounts.

Points for
  • The payments were filmed.
Points against
  • Gaps in recording are a Senate finding.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseThe FBI used high-definition hidden cameras.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. It used the video equipment of 1979; taping began in February 1979.

Who says it: Online summaries.

Points for
  • The meetings were videotaped.
Points against
  • “High-definition” is anachronistic.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Appendix G: House Judiciary subcommittee summaries of the ABSCAM trials
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedABSCAM also recovered hundreds of millions in fake securities.The sting & the fake sheikh

What the record shows. The FBI says it stopped about $600 million in fraudulent securities and certificates of deposit.

Who says it: FBI history.

Points for
  • The FBI’s own figure.
Points against
  • The figure is the Bureau’s estimate.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe FBI’s star witness was a convicted con man.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. Weinberg had a fraud conviction and was working off his sentence when the FBI recruited him.

Who says it: FBI; Senate report.

Points for
  • His own history, documented.
Points against
  • The convictions rested on tapes, not just his word.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  2. New York Times obituary: “Mel Weinberg, 93, the F.B.I.’s Lure in the Abscam Sting, Dies” (June 6, 2018)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueWeinberg was paid more than $200,000.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. His pay was substantial, but totals differ depending on what is counted; the committee itemized stipends, bonuses and a reward.

Who says it: Press accounts; defense lawyers.

Points for
  • Large and varied payments documented.
Points against
  • No single figure is authoritative.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
  2. Los Angeles Times obituary: Mel Weinberg, con artist at center of Abscam sting, dies at 93 (June 8, 2018)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWeinberg secretly took a share of a bribe.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. The Senate committee found, by the weight of the evidence, that he shared in a $100,000 payment to Errichetti.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • A bipartisan finding.
Points against
  • Not a criminal conviction; Weinberg denied it.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWeinberg lied under oath.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. The committee found he lied about receiving gifts.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • Committee finding.
Points against
  • He was not prosecuted for it.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWeinberg, not the agents, wrote the asylum story.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. The Senate committee found Weinberg devised the asylum scenario used with House members.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • Committee finding.
Points against
  • Agents approved and used it.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseWeinberg invented the evidence.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. The recordings show the officials’ own words, and nine juries convicted on them.

Who says it: Defense supporters.

Points for
  • He did shape the script.
Points against
  • Tapes, not his testimony alone, carried the cases.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMiddlemen, not the FBI, chose which politicians came.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. All approved targets but one were first named by a middleman.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • Committee finding.
Points against
  • The FBI still decided whom to approve.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseAnyone a middleman named was corrupt.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. Middlemen named officials who were innocent; the committee said at least one clearly innocent official was brought before the cameras.

Who says it: Rumor at the time.

Points for
  • Some named officials did take money.
Points against
  • Being named is not evidence.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedCamden’s mayor went to prison too.Mel Weinberg & the middlemen

What the record shows. Angelo Errichetti was convicted with Myers in August 1980.

Who says it: Myers appeal.

Points for
  • Court record.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedSeven members of Congress were convicted.The convicted members

What the record shows. Williams, Myers, Lederer, Thompson, Murphy, Jenrette and Kelly were convicted.

Who says it: Court records; FBI.

Points for
  • All seven are in the record.
Points against
  • Murphy was acquitted of bribery itself.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueAll seven were convicted of bribery.The convicted members

What the record shows. Six were; Murphy was convicted of conspiracy and an unlawful gratuity and acquitted of bribery.

Who says it: Common summaries.

Points for
  • Six bribery convictions.
Points against
  • Murphy’s verdict differs.
Sources
  1. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal
  2. UPI Archives: Murphy and Thompson verdict (December 3, 1980)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMyers said “money talks” on tape.The convicted members

What the record shows. Myers took $50,000 and said on tape that “money talks in this business.”

Who says it: Myers appeal.

Points for
  • On tape.
Points against
  • He said he was only playacting.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseMyers was just playing along to take a fool’s money.The convicted members

What the record shows. Juries, the House ethics committee and the appeals court rejected it; the law treats a promise of influence as bribery even if insincere.

Who says it: Myers.

Points for
  • He did say he never meant to help.
Points against
  • Insincerity is not a defense to bribery.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMyers was convicted again decades later.The convicted members

What the record shows. In 2022 he pleaded guilty to election fraud in Philadelphia and was sentenced to 30 months.

Who says it: Justice Department.

Points for
  • Plea record.
Points against
  • Unrelated to ABSCAM.
Sources
  1. U.S. Attorney, E.D. Pa.: Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia political operative pleads guilty to election fraud (2022)
  2. CNN: Former congressman Michael ‘Ozzie’ Myers sentenced to 30 months for election fraud (September 27, 2022)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedLederer was re-elected after his indictment.The convicted members

What the record shows. He won in November 1980, was convicted in January 1981 and resigned before an expulsion vote.

Who says it: House records.

Points for
  • Election and vote record.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. U.S. House biographical directory — Raymond Francis Lederer
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThompson was a powerful committee chairman.The convicted members

What the record shows. Frank Thompson chaired the House Administration Committee and was convicted of bribery and conspiracy.

Who says it: House records.

Points for
  • Court and House records.
Points against
  • Acquitted of conflict of interest.
Sources
  1. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMurphy was accused of selling his chairmanship.The convicted members

What the record shows. The indictment accused him of offering help through the Merchant Marine committee; he was convicted of conspiracy and a gratuity.

Who says it: Indictment; UPI.

Points for
  • Indictment and verdict.
Points against
  • Not convicted of bribery.
Sources
  1. UPI Archives: Murphy and Thompson verdict (December 3, 1980)
  2. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedJenrette said he had larceny in his blood.The convicted members

What the record shows. He said it on tape and was convicted of bribery and conspiracy.

Who says it: Jenrette appeal.

Points for
  • On tape.
Points against
  • He claimed he was drunk.
Sources
  1. United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1984), conviction affirmed
  2. New York Times: John Jenrette Jr., Congressman Nabbed in Abscam Sting, Dies at 86 (March 21, 2023)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseStrom Thurmond was in on it.The convicted members

What the record shows. Jenrette boasted he could bring Thurmond; nobody approached Thurmond and nothing links him to ABSCAM.

Who says it: Jenrette’s boast on tape.

Points for
  • The boast is on tape.
Points against
  • A boast is not evidence.
Sources
  1. United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1984), conviction affirmed
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedJenrette resigned rather than face the House.The convicted members

What the record shows. He lost re-election in November 1980, was convicted and resigned on 10 December 1980; he served 13 months.

Who says it: House records; AP.

Points for
  • Record.
Points against
  • He claimed duress and drink.
Sources
  1. United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1984), conviction affirmed
  2. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DisputedKelly took the money as part of his own investigation.The convicted members

What the record shows. Kelly said so; the jury rejected it and the appeals court affirmed his conviction.

Who says it: Kelly.

Points for
  • He made the claim at once.
Points against
  • He did not report it before the sting became public.
Sources
  1. United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1986), informant allegations and evidentiary remand
  2. New York Times: Former Congressman Given 18-Month Abscam Sentence (January 13, 1984)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedKelly stuffed $25,000 into his pockets on camera.The convicted members

What the record shows. The tape shows him pocketing cash and asking whether it showed.

Who says it: FBI tape; Kelly opinions.

Points for
  • On tape.
Points against
  • He claimed it was investigation.
Sources
  1. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  2. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedKelly was the only Republican convicted.The convicted members

What the record shows. Of seven convicted members, six were Democrats; Kelly was a Florida Republican.

Who says it: House records.

Points for
  • Party records.
Points against
  • See the partisan-claim files for context.
Sources
  1. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
  2. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWilliams was promised a hidden share of a titanium mine.The convicted members

What the record shows. He was convicted for a concealed interest and promises to help with government contracts.

Who says it: Williams appeal.

Points for
  • Court record.
Points against
  • He said he was coached.
Sources
  1. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseWilliams took a $100 million bribe.The convicted members

What the record shows. The $100 million was the sheikh’s proposed loan to the mine venture; Williams’s interest was a concealed share.

Who says it: Online claims.

Points for
  • Large sums were discussed.
Points against
  • The conviction was not for a cash payoff of that size.
Sources
  1. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWilliams was coached on what to say.The convicted members

What the record shows. Weinberg told Williams what to say before a meeting, and it is on tape.

Who says it: Williams; Senate report.

Points for
  • The coaching is recorded.
Points against
  • Courts held coaching did not make it entrapment.
Sources
  1. United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983), mining venture, inducement and convictions
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Weinberg’s compensation, gifts and the Errichetti money (narrative and findings)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseWilliams was expelled from the Senate.The convicted members

What the record shows. He resigned on 11 March 1982 before the vote.

Who says it: Common error.

Points for
  • Expulsion was likely.
Points against
  • He resigned first.
Sources
  1. U.S. Senate historical account: Expulsion Case of Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (1982)
  2. Congressional Record, March 11, 1982: Senate debate and Williams resignation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueThey all got slaps on the wrist.The convicted members

What the record shows. Sentences ran from about 13 months served (Kelly, Jenrette) to three years for several; all lost their seats.

Who says it: Critics.

Points for
  • Kelly served 13 months.
Points against
  • Others got up to three years.
Sources
  1. New York Times: Richard Kelly, 81, Congressman Who Went to Prison in Scandal, Dies (August 26, 2005)
  2. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
  3. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedSenator Pressler turned down the money.The ones who said no

What the record shows. Pressler, a South Dakota Republican, refused on tape and the committee called him clearly innocent.

Who says it: Senate report; Myers district court.

Points for
  • On tape.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly truePressler was the only member who refused.The ones who said no

What the record shows. He was the clearest refusal, but Patten also took nothing and Murtha declined the cash.

Who says it: Press accounts.

Points for
  • Pressler’s refusal is the best known.
Points against
  • Others also refused.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueMurtha refused the bribe.The ones who said no

What the record shows. He refused the cash on tape but said he was “not interested… at this point” and talked about future deals; he was not charged.

Who says it: Murtha; the tape.

Points for
  • He did not take the money.
Points against
  • The tape leaves the door open.
Sources
  1. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980)
  2. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenMurtha was guilty and got away with it.The ones who said no

What the record shows. No court or ethics body found he committed a crime; the House ethics committee declined to charge him in 1981.

Who says it: Critics; later campaign opponents.

Points for
  • The tape is ambiguous.
Points against
  • He took nothing and was cleared by vote.
Sources
  1. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
  2. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe ethics committee’s special counsel quit over Murtha.The ones who said no

What the record shows. E. Barrett Prettyman Jr. resigned within hours of the committee’s decision not to charge him.

Who says it: Press.

Points for
  • Contemporary reporting.
Points against
  • The committee said the evidence was insufficient.
Sources
  1. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedRepresentative Patten was cleared.The ones who said no

What the record shows. Edward Patten met the agents, took nothing and was not charged.

Who says it: Myers district court.

Points for
  • Court record.
Points against
  • He was named in the press.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseA quarter of Congress took bribes.The ones who said no

What the record shows. Only a handful of members ever met the sheikh, chosen through middlemen; seven were convicted.

Who says it: Online claims.

Points for
  • Several did take money.
Points against
  • The sample was neither random nor large.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseEveryone offered the money took it.The ones who said no

What the record shows. Pressler refused, Murtha declined the cash and others never came.

Who says it: Cynics.

Points for
  • Most who came did take it.
Points against
  • Several refused.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseThe courts ruled ABSCAM was entrapment.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. Entrapment defenses failed at every trial and on appeal.

Who says it: Popular memory.

Points for
  • Some judges criticized the method.
Points against
  • No final ruling found entrapment.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
  2. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseBecause the FBI made the offer up, it was entrapment by definition.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. Entrapment requires that the defendant was not predisposed; an invented offer is not enough.

Who says it: Defense theory.

Points for
  • The government created the opportunity.
Points against
  • Courts applied the predisposition test.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedJudges were seriously divided.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. In Jannotti, a district judge set aside convictions and the full appeals court reinstated them over dissents.

Who says it: Third Circuit.

Points for
  • Dissents on record.
Points against
  • Convictions stood.
Sources
  1. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueKelly’s conviction was overturned.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. A trial judge threw it out in 1982; the appeals court reinstated it in 1983 and it stood.

Who says it: Popular accounts.

Points for
  • The dismissal happened.
Points against
  • It was reversed.
Sources
  1. United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversal of district-court dismissal
  2. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueNo ABSCAM conviction was ever overturned.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. The final convictions of the seven members stood, but trial judges set some aside along the way and Murphy’s conflict-of-interest count was reversed.

Who says it: FBI summary.

Points for
  • Final convictions stood.
Points against
  • Not every count or ruling survived.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal
  3. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseCourts found the government’s conduct outrageous.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. The due-process challenges failed on appeal in every ABSCAM case.

Who says it: Defense theory.

Points for
  • Trial judges were sympathetic.
Points against
  • Appeals courts disagreed.
Sources
  1. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  2. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DisputedAn informant spied on Kelly’s defense.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. The allegation led an appeals court to send the matter back for fact-finding; it was not established.

Who says it: Kelly.

Points for
  • Serious enough for remand.
Points against
  • Not proved.
Sources
  1. Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit: Abscam, 1984–1986 (contains an outcome error)
  2. United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1986), informant allegations and evidentiary remand
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedSaying you’ll help without meaning it is still bribery.Entrapment & the courts

What the record shows. The courts held a promise of official action in exchange for money is bribery even if insincere.

Who says it: Myers appeal.

Points for
  • Holding of the court.
Points against
  • Critics call it a trap for braggarts.
Sources
  1. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedMyers was the first House member expelled since the Civil War.Expulsions & resignations

What the record shows. The House voted 376–30 on 2 October 1980; the last expulsions were in 1861.

Who says it: House records.

Points for
  • House record.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  2. U.S. House biographical record: Michael Joseph (Ozzie) Myers
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseCongress expelled all the ABSCAM members.Expulsions & resignations

What the record shows. Only Myers was expelled. Williams and Lederer resigned; others lost or left office.

Who says it: Common error.

Points for
  • One expulsion.
Points against
  • Resignations are not expulsions.
Sources
  1. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  2. U.S. Senate historical account: Expulsion Case of Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (1982)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedVoters threw several out in 1980.Expulsions & resignations

What the record shows. Jenrette, Thompson and Murphy were defeated in November 1980; Kelly’s term ended in January 1981.

Who says it: House records.

Points for
  • Election results.
Points against
  • Lederer was re-elected.
Sources
  1. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  2. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueABSCAM only caught Democrats.Did it target Democrats?

What the record shows. Six of seven convicted members were Democrats; Kelly was a Republican.

Who says it: Democrats at the time; later commentators.

Points for
  • The result was lopsided.
Points against
  • A Republican was convicted.
Sources
  1. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
  2. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenThe FBI deliberately targeted Democrats.Did it target Democrats?

What the record shows. No evidence shows Democrats were chosen as Democrats; the middlemen were Democratic machine figures and agents asked for Republicans.

Who says it: Critics.

Points for
  • Six of seven were Democrats.
Points against
  • The House was about 63% Democratic; middlemen chose.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedIt happened under a Democratic Justice Department.Did it target Democrats?

What the record shows. The investigation and prosecutions ran under Carter’s Justice Department.

Who says it: Records.

Points for
  • Undermines a partisan theory.
Points against
  • Agencies can act independently of politics.
Sources
  1. DOJ Public Integrity Section, Significant Cases (ABSCAM entries and Operation Lost Trust)
  2. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedAgents asked middlemen for Republicans.Did it target Democrats?

What the record shows. The Senate committee found agents sought Republicans and non-local officials without a factual basis.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • A finding that cuts against a partisan plan.
Points against
  • The committee criticized the request as untargeted.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedGiven the Congress, mostly Democrats would be caught anyway.Did it target Democrats?

What the record shows. With 278 Democrats and 157 Republicans, a random draw of seven would yield about one Republican.

Who says it: Data.

Points for
  • House party totals.
Points against
  • The draw was not random.
Sources
  1. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseABSCAM targeted Black officials.Did it target Black officials?

What the record shows. No Black member of Congress was convicted, and we found no record one was approved for a meeting.

Who says it: Some commentators.

Points for
  • Later allegations about other probes exist.
Points against
  • The ABSCAM record shows none.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
  2. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenThe FBI had a “Fruehmenschen” policy to investigate Black officials.Did it target Black officials?

What the record shows. It rests on a 1988 affidavit by a former informant about Atlanta agents; it was never proved, and it does not concern ABSCAM.

Who says it: Hirsch Friedman affidavit; Congressional Black Caucus.

Points for
  • Raised in congressional hearings.
Points against
  • Denied by the FBI; never established.
Sources
  1. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe FBI had targeted Black leaders before.Did it target Black officials?

What the record shows. COINTELPRO’s surveillance of civil-rights leaders is documented.

Who says it: Church Committee.

Points for
  • Official findings.
Points against
  • A different era and program.
Sources
  1. Journal of Black Studies 28:5 (1998): case study of the Arrington prosecution and the “Fruehmenschen” allegation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DisputedABSCAM stereotyped Arabs.Did it target Black officials?

What the record shows. Arab American leaders said so in 1983; the FBI denied racism and said the name came from Abdul Enterprises.

Who says it: James Abourezk; Oliver Revell.

Points for
  • The costume was an Arab sheikh.
Points against
  • The FBI’s response is on record.
Sources
  1. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueABSCAM stood for “Arab scam.”Did it target Black officials?

What the record shows. The FBI says it came from Abdul Enterprises; the “Arab scam” reading was common and objected to.

Who says it: Popular usage.

Points for
  • The reading was widespread.
Points against
  • The FBI’s explanation differs.
Sources
  1. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
  2. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenABSCAM was a political hit job.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. The bipartisan committee found no evidence of political motive in targeting or leaks.

Who says it: Defendants; critics.

Points for
  • The FBI wanted a corruption win; leaks were real.
Points against
  • No evidence of a plan to destroy political enemies.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe FBI wanted to prove it could go after the powerful.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. After the 1970s scandals the Bureau shifted toward white-collar and public-corruption cases.

Who says it: Historians.

Points for
  • Institutional interest is documented.
Points against
  • Interest is not a partisan motive.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedNames were leaked before indictment.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. Newspapers and television had the names on 2 February 1980; the committee found harm to innocent people.

Who says it: Senate report.

Points for
  • Committee finding.
Points against
  • Leakers were not identified.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenThe leaks were political.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. The committee found no evidence the leaks were politically motivated.

Who says it: Critics.

Points for
  • The leaks hurt Democrats in an election year.
Points against
  • No motive shown.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
UnprovenMore members took money and were covered up.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. No evidence shows uncharged members who took money; the committee found no lead dropped for an improper purpose.

Who says it: Rumor; Weinberg’s later remarks.

Points for
  • Middlemen named many others.
Points against
  • Names are not evidence.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe sting ended before it was finished.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. The leaks forced the operation public on 2 February 1980.

Who says it: FBI; Senate report.

Points for
  • Documented.
Points against
  • Ending early does not show a cover-up.
Sources
  1. FBI — ABSCAM historical overview
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedInnocent people were hurt.Political hit & cover-up

What the record shows. The committee documented harm to innocent people named or brought before the cameras.

Who says it: Senate select committee.

Points for
  • Committee finding.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseCongress banned stings on its members.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. No law bars it; the 1981 guidelines added approvals, and later stings caught members.

Who says it: Popular belief.

Points for
  • Rules did tighten.
Points against
  • Jefferson was recorded taking cash in 2005.
Sources
  1. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
  2. FBI, April 2013 — a look back at the William Jefferson corruption investigation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedABSCAM led to the first undercover guidelines.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. Attorney General Civiletti issued them on 5 January 1981.

Who says it: DOJ inspector general.

Points for
  • OIG history.
Points against
  • Drafting had begun before.
Sources
  1. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe Senate investigation was bipartisan.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. Four Republicans and four Democrats; Mathias chaired.

Who says it: Senate report.

Points for
  • Report front matter.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueThe Senate condemned ABSCAM.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. It condemned how it was run and supported the technique.

Who says it: Popular summaries.

Points for
  • Strong criticism.
Points against
  • It also found no injustice to defendants.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  2. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedThe Senate found nobody was merely playacting.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. The committee found each official who took money understood it was a bribe.

Who says it: Senate report.

Points for
  • Finding.
Points against
  • Defendants disagreed.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseThe committee’s recommended law was passed.The Senate report & the rules

What the record shows. It was not enacted; guidelines filled the space.

Who says it: Assumption.

Points for
  • Hearings were held.
Points against
  • No statute.
Sources
  1. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedGreylord was the next big sting.Modern stings

What the record shows. It indicted 92 Chicago officials, including 17 judges; nearly all were convicted.

Who says it: FBI.

Points for
  • FBI history.
Points against
  • A courts case, not Congress.
Sources
  1. FBI History: Operation Greylord
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedTennessee Waltz was ABSCAM again.Modern stings

What the record shows. A fake company bribed legislators; a dozen were convicted or pleaded guilty.

Who says it: FBI.

Points for
  • Similar design.
Points against
  • State, not federal, officials.
Sources
  1. FBI History: Tennessee Waltz
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedNew Jersey did it again with Bid Rig.Modern stings

What the record shows. 44 charged, including three mayors; a cooperating witness facing fraud charges paid the bribes.

Who says it: Justice Department.

Points for
  • Similar cooperator problem.
Points against
  • Some were acquitted.
Sources
  1. U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey: Operation Bid Rig III charges (July 23, 2009)
  2. U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey: Solomon Dwek sentencing release
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedA congressman was caught on tape again in 2005.Modern stings

What the record shows. William Jefferson was recorded; $90,000 was found in his freezer.

Who says it: FBI.

Points for
  • Record.
Points against
  • His conviction was later cut back.
Sources
  1. FBI, April 2013 — a look back at the William Jefferson corruption investigation
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueSittenfeld’s case was ABSCAM all over again.Modern stings

What the record shows. Agents posed as developers, but the money went to a PAC as campaign checks, which raised a different legal question.

Who says it: Supporters of the pardon; critics.

Points for
  • Same sting method.
Points against
  • Campaign contributions, not cash in hand.
Sources
  1. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedSittenfeld was pardoned.Modern stings

What the record shows. President Trump granted a full pardon on 28 May 2025.

Who says it: Pardon warrant.

Points for
  • Pardon record.
Points against
  • A pardon is not an acquittal.
Sources
  1. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DisputedThe Whitmer kidnapping plot was entrapment.Modern stings

What the record shows. One jury acquitted two defendants; two others were convicted and the appeals court rejected entrapment in 2025.

Who says it: Defense; critics of the FBI.

Points for
  • Informants were deeply involved.
Points against
  • Convictions affirmed.
Sources
  1. Courthouse News: Sixth Circuit upholds convictions in plot to kidnap Michigan governor (2025)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseThe FBI ran January 6 like ABSCAM.Modern stings

What the record shows. The inspector general found 26 sources in Washington, none authorized to enter the Capitol or encourage crimes, and no undercover employees.

Who says it: Online claims.

Points for
  • Sources were present.
Points against
  • No sting design, no inducement.
Sources
  1. DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Report 25-011: FBI handling of confidential human sources and intelligence before January 6, 2021 (December 2024)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueAmerican Hustle is a true story.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. It is loosely based on ABSCAM; characters are renamed and much is invented.

Who says it: Film marketing.

Points for
  • The skeleton is real.
Points against
  • The film says “some of this actually happened.”
Sources
  1. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
  2. Sony Pictures — American Hustle official synopsis
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseWeinberg’s mistress ran the con with him.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. Evelyn Knight was not his partner in ABSCAM.

Who says it: The film.

Points for
  • She was real.
Points against
  • Her role was invented.
Sources
  1. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
FalseThe sting led to a mob boss.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. The De Niro character has no counterpart.

Who says it: The film.

Points for
  • Casino licenses were involved.
Points against
  • No mob boss.
Sources
  1. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueThe mayor was a good man caught up in it.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. Polito is based on Errichetti, who took bribes and was convicted.

Who says it: The film.

Points for
  • Errichetti was popular in Camden.
Points against
  • He was convicted.
Sources
  1. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
  2. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), opinion and count-by-count dispositions
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWeinberg recognized himself in Christian Bale.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. He told ABC so in 2014.

Who says it: Weinberg.

Points for
  • On record.
Points against
  • A participant’s view.
Sources
  1. ABC News — Mel Weinberg discusses American Hustle (February 28, 2014)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
Partly trueYou can watch all the ABSCAM tapes online.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. Some footage, the Senate report and FBI Vault files are public; not all tapes are.

Who says it: Online claims.

Points for
  • Much is public.
Points against
  • Redactions and gaps remain.
Sources
  1. FBI Vault — ABSCAM released records
  2. FBI Vault — ABSCAM Part 10, released file including contemporary clippings
  3. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedWeinberg died in 2018.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. He died on 30 May 2018 at 93.

Who says it: Obituaries.

Points for
  • Obituary.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. New York Times obituary: “Mel Weinberg, 93, the F.B.I.’s Lure in the Abscam Sting, Dies” (June 6, 2018)
  2. Politico Magazine, Leslie Maitland: “Mel Weinberg: The Conman Who Flipped” (December 30, 2018)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedJenrette died in 2023.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. He died on 17 March 2023 at 86.

Who says it: AP.

Points for
  • Obituary.
Points against
  • None.
Sources
  1. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare
DocumentedCourts are still arguing about where a contribution becomes a bribe.American Hustle & what’s newer

What the record shows. The Sixth Circuit said in 2025 that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit the line.

Who says it: Sixth Circuit.

Points for
  • Opinion text.
Points against
  • No new ruling as of 23 October 2026.
Sources
  1. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
Read the full entry
Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisRateShare

Media

Books, films and the official record

The books, broadcasts and films that shaped how ABSCAM is remembered, and the official reports where you can check it yourself.

Books 2

A sample FBI special agent’s credentials, about 1990. The agents in ABSCAM worked under invented names.FBI. · Public domainHistory · 1981The Sting Man: Inside AbscamRobert W. GreeneA Newsday reporter tells ABSCAM as Mel Weinberg’s story; reissued in December 2013 as American Hustle opened. The reissue’s blurb says “seven congressmen and one senator” were convicted; the record is six House members and one senator.
How it changes the story

Puts the con man, not the FBI or the politicians, at the centre: ABSCAM as Weinberg’s performance.

  1. 1The con manrecast
  2. 2Abdul Enterprisesrecast
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The camerasrecast
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum storyrecast
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juries
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate report
Supports
1. The con man, 2. Abdul Enterprises, 3. The middlemen, 4. The cameras, 5. The coaching, 6. The asylum story, 7. The first envelope
Challenges
none
Whose account it centres
Mel Weinberg.
For its thesis to hold
Nothing has to be fake, but read it beside the Senate committee’s findings on Weinberg’s gifts, his share of the Errichetti payment and his perjury.

Matching theories: The con man ran the case

Open
Rita Jenrette, John Jenrette’s wife at the time of ABSCAM, in later years.Wikimedia Commons contributor · CC BY-SA 3.0Memoir · 1981My Capitol SecretsRita JenretteJohn Jenrette’s wife on life as a congressional spouse; this guide does not use it as evidence.Open

Film & TV 4

Camden City Hall, New Jersey. The city’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, was ABSCAM’s first and busiest middleman.Smallbones · Public domainDrama · 2013American HustleDavid O. RussellA fictionalised ABSCAM, with renamed characters; ten Academy Award nominations. It opens with “Some of this actually happened.”
How it changes the story

It turns a story about method, about coaching, refusals, judges and a Senate report, into a story about people: a con man, his lover and an ambitious agent. The love triangle, the Mafia boss and the immunity scheme are invented, and its Camden mayor is sympathetic, where the real Errichetti took bribes from the start and was convicted. Most people who know ABSCAM today know this version.

  1. 1The con manrecast
  2. 2Abdul Enterprisesrecast
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesbreaks
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appealsbreaks
  15. 15The Senate reportbreaks
Supports
1. The con man, 2. Abdul Enterprises, 3. The middlemen, 7. The first envelope
Challenges
11. Nine juries, 14. The appeals, 15. The Senate report
Whose account it centres
Irving Rosenfeld (Weinberg), Sydney Prosser and Richie DiMaso, an invented FBI agent.
For its thesis to hold
The film’s inventions do not touch the facts of the bribes, but its sympathetic mayor and its version of who ran the sting do not match the record.

Matching theories: The con man ran the case The FBI manufactured the crimes

Open
An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four.FBI · Public domainDocumentary · 2018Scandalous: AbscamFOX NationAn episode of FOX Nation’s Scandalous series on the sting.Open
A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears.Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domainTV report · 1980The MacNeil/Lehrer Report: ABSCAM TapesPBSBroadcast on 2 October 1980, the day the House expelled Myers; preserved in the American Archive of Public Broadcasting.
How it changes the story

It put the tapes in living rooms: viewers could judge the members for themselves, before most of the trials.

  1. 1The con man
  2. 2Abdul Enterprises
  3. 3The middlemen
  4. 4The cameras
  5. 5The coaching
  6. 6The asylum story
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvals
  9. 9The refusals
  10. 10The leaks
  11. 11Nine juriesrecast
  12. 12The expulsion
  13. 13The guidelines
  14. 14The appeals
  15. 15The Senate report
Supports
7. The first envelope, 11. Nine juries
Challenges
none
Whose account it centres
The recorded meetings.
For its thesis to hold
Nothing; it shows the evidence.

Matching theories: The FBI manufactured the crimes

Open
John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a later official portrait. He declined the money in January 1980 and was never charged.U.S. Congress · Public domainTV report · 2006Anderson Cooper 360: ABSCAM footage and John MurthaCNNAired the Murtha tape in November 2006, as he ran for House majority leader.Open

Follow up: official & authoritative 4

Title page of Senate Report 97-682, the undercover-activities committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982.US Senate / Government Printing Office · Public domain — US federal workOfficial report · 1982Senate Report 97-682Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover ActivitiesThe bipartisan committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982.
How it changes the story

It changes ABSCAM from a story of corrupt members into a story about control: who chose the targets, who supervised the informant and who leaked.

  1. 1The con manrecast
  2. 2Abdul Enterprisesrecast
  3. 3The middlemenrecast
  4. 4The camerasrecast
  5. 5The coachingrecast
  6. 6The asylum storyrecast
  7. 7The first enveloperecast
  8. 8The approvalsrecast
  9. 9The refusalsrecast
  10. 10The leaksrecast
  11. 11Nine juriesrecast
  12. 12The expulsionrecast
  13. 13The guidelinesrecast
  14. 14The appealsrecast
  15. 15The Senate reportrecast
Supports
1. The con man, 2. Abdul Enterprises, 3. The middlemen, 4. The cameras, 5. The coaching, 6. The asylum story, 7. The first envelope, 8. The approvals, 9. The refusals, 10. The leaks, 11. Nine juries, 12. The expulsion, 13. The guidelines, 14. The appeals, 15. The Senate report
Challenges
none
Whose account it centres
The FBI’s management of the operation and Weinberg.
For its thesis to hold
Nothing; it is the record the theories are measured against.

Matching theories: The FBI manufactured the crimes The con man ran the case It was a political hit More of Congress took the money, and it was covered up The FBI went after Democrats They were only playacting The tapes that would have cleared them are gone

Open
The J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI headquarters in Washington. Headquarters approved each ABSCAM bribe meeting.Wikimedia Commons contributor · Public domainReleased filesFBI Vault: ABSCAMFederal Bureau of InvestigationThe Bureau’s released ABSCAM records.Open Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in December 1979. He signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981.Rob Croes for Anefo · CC BY-SA 3.0Rules · 2002Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover OperationsU.S. Department of JusticeThe current guidelines; operations involving elected officials are “sensitive circumstances.”Open William Webster, FBI Director from 1978 to 1987, who ran the Bureau through ABSCAM.FBI · Public domainOfficial report · 2005The FBI’s compliance with the Attorney General’s investigative guidelinesDOJ Office of the Inspector GeneralChapter 2 traces the guidelines back to ABSCAM and the 1981 rules.Open

Public memory

How memory changed

What Americans told pollsters about Congress before and after ABSCAM. Only published polls are used. No published poll result asked about ABSCAM directly; where there is none, we say so.

  1. The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997.
    Architect of the Capitol; derivative edit by O.J. · Public domain — US federal work
    1977–1979 Broad agreement

    A Congress already distrusted

    Dominant views
    • Americans In June 1979, before the Myers meeting, 19% approved of the job Congress was doing.[1]
    • Americans In 1977, 16% rated members of Congress “very high” or “high” for honesty and ethics.[2]
    What drove it
    • Watergate and the Church Committee had just exposed abuses in government and the FBI.[3]
  2. A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain
    1980 Split into camps

    The tapes on television

    Dominant views
    • The press The Christian Science Monitor called the trials “trial by videotape — a first.”[4]
    • The House It expelled Myers on 2 October 1980, 376 to 30, the day MacNeil/Lehrer aired the tapes.[5][6]
    • Critics Representative William Hughes said the matter had been “so badly mishandled” and pushed for hearings.[7]
    • Voters Jenrette, Thompson and Murphy lost their seats in November 1980.[5]
    What drove it
    • The leaks of 2 February 1980.[3]
  3. Title page of Senate Report 97-682, the undercover-activities committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982.
    US Senate / Government Printing Office · Public domain — US federal work
    1981–1983 Split into camps

    Doubts about the method

    Dominant views
    • Judges Trial judges threw out some verdicts; the appeals courts reinstated them over dissents.[8][9]
    • The Senate A bipartisan committee found “shoddy investigative work” and supported undercover operations under control.[10][3]
    • Arab American leaders James Abourezk argued the sheikh fed damaging stereotypes; the FBI denied racism.[11]
    • Americans Approval of Congress was 38% in June 1981; honesty ratings were 15% in 1981 and 14% in 1983.[1][2]
    What drove it
    • The trials, the appeals and the Senate hearings.[3]
  4. Camden City Hall, New Jersey. The city’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, was ABSCAM’s first and busiest middleman.
    Smallbones · Public domain
    2013–2014 Converging

    American Hustle

    Dominant views
    • Filmgoers The film opens with “Some of this actually happened.”[12][13]
    • Weinberg The real con man reviewed the film on ABC News.[14]
    What drove it
    • The Sting Man was reissued in December 2013.[15]
  5. Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait.
    US Government Printing Office · Public domain
    2018–2026 Broad agreement

    The last of the players

    Dominant views
    • The record Weinberg died in 2018 and Jenrette in 2023; Myers pleaded guilty to election fraud in 2022.[16][17][18]
    • Courts The Sixth Circuit said in 2025 it may be time to revisit the line between donation and bribe.[19]
    What drove it
    • New stings and pardons keep the argument alive.[20]
Sources and polls
  1. Gallup: Congress and the Public (historical trends)
  2. Gallup: Nurses Continue to Lead in Honesty and Ethics Ratings, with the 1976–2025 trend table
  3. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25)
  4. Christian Science Monitor: Public views Abscam on TV: trial by videotape, a first (16 October 1980)
  5. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  6. American Archive of Public Broadcasting — MacNeil/Lehrer, ABSCAM Tapes (October 2, 1980)
  7. Christian Science Monitor: FBI ‘friend’ pushing hearings on ‘Abscam’ (14 February 1980)
  8. United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), majority and Aldisert dissent
  9. United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1984), direct appeal and entrapment
  10. Senate Report 97-682 — Final Report on Undercover Activities (ordered 1982, printed 1983)
  11. Perspectives, Winter–Spring 1983 — James Abourezk essay and Oliver Revell FBI rebuttal, printed pp. 27–31
  12. Sony Pictures — American Hustle official synopsis
  13. Slate, December 2013: How accurate is American Hustle?
  14. ABC News — Mel Weinberg discusses American Hustle (February 28, 2014)
  15. Penguin Random House: The Sting Man: Inside Abscam, by Robert W. Greene (2013 edition)
  16. New York Times obituary: “Mel Weinberg, 93, the F.B.I.’s Lure in the Abscam Sting, Dies” (June 6, 2018)
  17. AP: Former US Rep. John Jenrette, jailed in Abscam scandal, dies (March 2023)
  18. U.S. Attorney, E.D. Pa.: Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia political operative pleads guilty to election fraud (2022)
  19. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
  20. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)

Lasting impact

How it changed us

The rules ABSCAM produced and whether they still stand, the people it changed, and what changed in how corruption is caught. Each with the evidence, and where the evidence is thin.

Laws & rules 3

What changed in the rules for undercover work and in how Congress polices itself, and whether it still stands.

Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in December 1979. He signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981.
Rob Croes for Anefo · CC BY-SA 3.0
1981–2002In force

Attorney General guidelines on undercover operations

Rules for when the FBI may run an undercover operation, revised in 1992 and 2002.

The evidence it changed
  • Civiletti issued the first guidelines on 5 January 1981.[1]
  • The 2002 version treats operations involving elected officials as “sensitive circumstances” requiring headquarters approval and review.[2]
James Traficant of Ohio, expelled from the House in 2002, the first expulsion since Myers.
U.S. Congress · Public domain
1980In force

Expulsion for crimes

Myers’s expulsion was the House’s first since 1861; it has been used twice since.

The evidence it changed
  • Myers, 2 October 1980; James Traficant, 24 July 2002, after a bribery conviction; George Santos, 1 December 2023.[3]
The floor of the United States Senate. Senator Williams defended himself there in March 1982, then resigned.
United States Senate · Public domain
1982Partly lapsed

The Senate’s proposed undercover law

The committee recommended a statute, a review committee and notice to injured innocents.

The evidence it changed
  • The legislation was not enacted; guidelines filled the space.[4]

People 4

Officials whose careers were shaped by ABSCAM, and the stings that followed it.

Larry Pressler of South Dakota in 1977, before his election to the Senate. In November 1979 he turned down the operatives’ offer.
U.S. Congress · Public domain
1979

Larry Pressler

The South Dakota senator who said no.

The evidence it changed
  • He refused on tape, and the committee called him clearly innocent, though the leaks harmed him.[5]
Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, caught in an FBI bribery sting in 2005.
U.S. Congress · Public domain
2005

William Jefferson

A congressman caught on an FBI recording a generation later.

The evidence it changed
  • $90,000 was found in his freezer.[6]
1983–2009

The stings that followed

Greylord, Tennessee Waltz and Bid Rig.

The evidence it changed
  • Greylord indicted 92 Chicago officials, including 17 judges.[7]
  • Tennessee Waltz used a fake company; a dozen legislators were convicted or pleaded guilty.[8]
  • Bid Rig charged 44 people in New Jersey, including three mayors.[9]
P.G. Sittenfeld, the Cincinnati councilman convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers.
Sittenfeld for Senate · CC BY-SA 2.0
2022–2025

P. G. Sittenfeld

A Cincinnati councilman convicted after agents posed as developers.

The evidence it changed
  • The money went to a PAC as campaign checks, which raised the donation-or-bribe question.[10]
  • He was pardoned on 28 May 2025.[11]

Things we now take for granted 2

Before and after.

1981

Who approves a sting on a politician

Before

No formal Attorney General guidelines governed FBI undercover operations.

After

Operations involving public officials need FBI headquarters approval and review by a committee including Justice Department prosecutors.

The evidence it changed
  • The 1981 guidelines and their 2002 successor.[1][2]
2002

Limits on inducement

Before

Agents met officials on a middleman’s word, often without any factual basis for suspecting them.

After

The illegal nature of the offer must be reasonably clear, and there must be a reasonable indication of predisposition or an opportunity structured for the predisposed.

The evidence it changed
  • Inducement limits in the 2002 guidelines.[2]
  • The committee found agents met people without a factual basis.[12]
Sources for this section
  1. DOJ Inspector General, September 2005 — historical background of investigative guidelines
  2. Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations (30 May 2002)
  3. U.S. House historian — expulsion, censure and reprimand register
  4. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents)
  5. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons
  6. FBI, April 2013 — a look back at the William Jefferson corruption investigation
  7. FBI History: Operation Greylord
  8. FBI History: Tennessee Waltz
  9. U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey: Operation Bid Rig III charges (July 23, 2009)
  10. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 23-3840 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025), opinion
  11. Executive Grant of Clemency: Alexander Sittenfeld (May 28, 2025)
  12. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80)

How this guide works

Sources and method

This guide was researched and written with AI tools and checked against the sources linked on every entry: the federal appeals and trial-court opinions in the ABSCAM cases, the Senate select committee’s 1982 final report (S. Rep. 97-682) and its appendices, the House and Senate records of the expulsion and resignation proceedings, FBI and Justice Department histories and guidelines, published polls, and reporting by news organizations.

Where the record is solid we say so. Where it is contested or thin, such as unrecorded calls, the informant’s credibility or why particular officials were approached, each entry says what the sources cannot settle. The same standard is applied to members of both parties. Theories get their strongest case before the evidence is weighed. Nothing here is the last word; if you find an error, the disputes page is the place to tell us.

Pictures are public-domain U.S. government photographs and FBI material or freely licensed images, credited on each. Frames from FBI footage are captioned only with what the FBI release or the court record says. An earlier edition of these files, with one page per case, has been retired; its addresses now open the matching case in this guide.

By the numbers
  • 56 entries in 6 eras
  • 73 distinct sources cited
  • 109 dated events
  • 97 claims checked
  • 9 theories opened up
  • 15 books, films and follow-ups
  • 15 steps on the critical path
  • 7 open questions
  • 9 lasting changes
  • 43 freely licensed pictures

Pictures & licenses

Picture credits

Every picture is public domain or freely licensed, from Wikimedia Commons. Files are stored on this site with their metadata removed; each credit links to the original.

The U.S. Capitol’s west front, photographed in 1997.
Architect of the Capitol; derivative edit by O.J. · Public domain — US federal work · original
Title page of Senate Report 97-682, the undercover-activities committee’s final report, ordered printed on 15 December 1982.
US Senate / Government Printing Office · Public domain — US federal work · original
An FBI hidden-camera frame stamped 22 August 1979, 12:43: undercover agent Anthony Amoroso, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers holding an envelope, Camden mayor Angelo Errichetti and informant Mel Weinberg, from left. The FBI’s caption identifies the four.
FBI · Public domain · original
Senator Harrison A. Williams Jr. of New Jersey, the only senator convicted in ABSCAM.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
Harrison Williams in a congressional portrait from about 1955, early in his career.
US Government · Public domain · original
Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania, 1977 congressional portrait.
US Government Printing Office · Public domain · original
Representative Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania.
US Government Printing Office · Public domain · original
Representative John Jenrette of South Carolina.
US Government · Public domain · original
Representative Richard Kelly of Florida, the one Republican convicted.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
Larry Pressler of South Dakota in 1977, before his election to the Senate. In November 1979 he turned down the operatives’ offer.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a later official portrait. He declined the money in January 1980 and was never charged.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
William Webster, FBI Director from 1978 to 1987, who ran the Bureau through ABSCAM.
FBI · Public domain · original
Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in December 1979. He signed the first undercover guidelines in January 1981.
Rob Croes for Anefo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · original
Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr. of Maryland, chairman of the Senate’s undercover-activities committee.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
Senator Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, the committee’s vice chairman.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Williams’s leading defender in the 1982 expulsion debate.
Marion S. Trikosko · Public domain · original
Judge William B. Bryant of the federal district court in Washington, who threw out Kelly’s conviction in 1982.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts · Public domain · original
Judge Ruggero Aldisert of the Third Circuit, who dissented when the Philadelphia convictions were reinstated.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (The Third Branch newsletter) · Public domain · original
Judge John P. Fullam, who set aside the Philadelphia councilmen’s convictions in 1980.
John Fullam Family · CC BY-SA 4.0 · original
Representative Edward Patten of New Jersey, approved as a target in ABSCAM; he did not take money.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
William J. Hughes of New Jersey, in a later portrait as ambassador to Panama. He was the one target no middleman had named.
Ambassador William J. Hughes. · CC BY-SA 3.0 · original
James Abourezk, former senator from South Dakota, who argued that the sheikh fiction played on anti-Arab prejudice.
Unknown, handout photo · Public domain · original
Rita Jenrette, John Jenrette’s wife at the time of ABSCAM, in later years.
Wikimedia Commons contributor · CC BY-SA 3.0 · original
Mervyn Dymally in his California Assembly years. In Congress he put the 1988 “Fruehmenschen” affidavit into the record.
California State Assembly · Public domain · original
Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, caught in an FBI bribery sting in 2005.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
James Traficant of Ohio, expelled from the House in 2002, the first expulsion since Myers.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
George Santos of New York, expelled from the House in 2023.
U.S. House Office of Photography · Public domain · original
Philip Heymann, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division during ABSCAM.
U.S. Department of Justice · Public domain · original
P.G. Sittenfeld, the Cincinnati councilman convicted in 2022 after FBI agents posed as developers.
Sittenfeld for Senate · CC BY-SA 2.0 · original
Camden City Hall, New Jersey. The city’s mayor, Angelo Errichetti, was ABSCAM’s first and busiest middleman.
Smallbones · Public domain · original
The J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI headquarters in Washington. Headquarters approved each ABSCAM bribe meeting.
Wikimedia Commons contributor · Public domain · original
Representative Frank Thompson Jr. of New Jersey, chairman of the House Administration Committee.
U.S. Congress · Public domain · original
Frank Thompson in an earlier portrait by Leon Abdalian.
Abdalian, Leon H., 1884-1967 · Public domain · original
Representative John M. Murphy of New York, chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
US Government Printing Office · Public domain · original
Resorts International in Atlantic City, photographed by John Margolies. Casino licensing was the first bait Errichetti offered.
John Margolies · Public domain · original
Philadelphia City Hall. ABSCAM reached two Philadelphia congressmen and members of the city council.
Magiluke · CC BY-SA 4.0 · original
The E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in Washington, where the Jenrette and Kelly cases were tried.
AgnosticPreachersKid · Public domain · original
The floor of the United States Senate. Senator Williams defended himself there in March 1982, then resigned.
United States Senate · Public domain · original
A sample FBI special agent’s credentials, about 1990. The agents in ABSCAM worked under invented names.
FBI. · Public domain · original
The Atlantic City boardwalk, photographed by John Margolies. Legal gambling opened in the city in 1978.
John Margolies · Public domain · original
The Pierre hotel on Fifth Avenue, New York. Senator Williams met the operatives over lunch there on 31 May 1979.
Eden, Janine and Jim from New York City · CC BY 2.0 · original
A frame from FBI hidden-camera footage released by the Bureau, stamped on screen 01-07-80. The Senate report places the Murtha meeting in the W Street townhouse on that date; the FBI release does not name who appears.
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain · original
Another frame from the same FBI footage, two minutes later. The release does not identify the men.
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Public domain · original

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #Abscam shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #Abscam.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.