COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Did ABSCAM target Democrats?

Six of seven convicted members were Democrats. Here is what that number does and does not mean.

← Interactive guide and chronology · The ABSCAM File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The strongest version: a sting that found only one party

Why reasonable people suspected a partisan aim.

Start with the result. Six of the seven members of Congress convicted were Democrats: Williams, Myers, Lederer, Thompson, Murphy and Jenrette. The only Republican was Kelly. Many of the other officials caught were Democrats too, in Camden and Philadelphia. [1]

Add the process. The Senate committee found the FBI had no factual basis for targeting most of the people it met, that it relied on middlemen, and that headquarters approvals were rushed. If the selection was not driven by evidence, the critics ask, what was it driven by? [2]

And the timing. The leaks came in an election year, in February 1980, and three of the convicted Democrats lost their seats that November. [1]

That is the honest case. The rest of this file asks whether the record supports the conclusion it points toward.

What we can’t tell you. Party counts are for members of Congress; the committee did not tabulate every official by party.

The sources

  1. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80) ↗

    Primary. Records the September 18 and October 9, 1979 recorded requests for Republican and non-Atlantic targets and the committee’s conclusion that no predicate existed for them.

  2. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25) ↗

    Primary committee report, December 15, 1982. Bipartisan select committee (4 R, 4 D). Findings on informant control, authorization, recording failures, leaks and harm to innocent people.

  3. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House ↗

    Official historian’s table; 96th Congress (1979–1981): 278 Democrats, 157 Republicans at the start.

What the data shows

A lopsided result, a Democratic network and agents asking for Republicans.

Base rates first. The House in 1979 had 278 Democrats and 157 Republicans, about 64 percent Democratic; the Senate was also Democratic. If seven members had been picked at random from that Congress, the chance that six or seven would be Democrats is roughly one in five. Lopsided, but not wildly improbable on its own. [1]

Selection was not random, and the direction it ran matters. The pipeline went through Angelo Errichetti, a Democratic mayor, and Howard Criden and Louis Johanson, Philadelphia Democrats. Their contacts were Democrats from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and nearby, the party that controlled those city halls and most of those seats. [2]

The agents pushed the other way. On tape, Weinberg asked for Republicans because it looked bad that it was all Democrats, and agent Amoroso said the same thing three weeks later. The committee criticized that too: it found no basis for seeking Republicans either. [2]

And the people running it: a Democratic Justice Department under President Carter and Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, with FBI Director William Webster, a Carter appointee. A Republican-led Senate committee later investigated the operation with an even split of Republican and Democratic members and did not find a partisan aim. [3]

What we can’t tell you. A small sample and a non-random pipeline; the base-rate calculation is illustrative only.

The sources

  1. U.S. House History, Art & Archives: Party Divisions of the House ↗

    Official historian’s table; 96th Congress (1979–1981): 278 Democrats, 157 Republicans at the start.

  2. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80) ↗

    Primary. Records the September 18 and October 9, 1979 recorded requests for Republican and non-Atlantic targets and the committee’s conclusion that no predicate existed for them.

  3. Senate Report 97-682, Summary of findings and conclusions (printed pp. 11–25) ↗

    Primary committee report, December 15, 1982. Bipartisan select committee (4 R, 4 D). Findings on informant control, authorization, recording failures, leaks and harm to innocent people.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

5 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 97 rated claims ↗

← The ABSCAM File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

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 are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. 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.