The connection? Perhaps corruption is the common thing between these events? Duh.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
How about we get right to the REAL SCANDAL. Wait let me guess – all coincidence right?
Lawmaker’s Abramoff Ties Investigated
As federal officials pursue a wide-ranging investigation into the activities of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his arrest on fraud charges in the purchase of a Florida casino boat company has increasingly focused attention on a little-known congressman from rural Ohio.
Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) placed comments in the Congressional Record favorable to Abramoff’s 2000 purchase of the casino boat company, SunCruz Casinos.
Ney approved a 2002 license for an Israeli telecommunications company to install antennas for the House. The company [Foxcom] later paid Abramoff $280,000 for lobbying. It also donated $50,000 to a charity that Abramoff sometimes used to secretly pay for some of his lobbying activities.
U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Spy Network
The U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), appear to have been breached by organized crime units working inside Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad.
The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
The foundation was ostensibly created to help inner-city children through organized sports. There is no evidence money went to city kids, but the foundation did fund some of Abramoff’s pet projects: a sniper school for Israelis in the West Bank, a golf trip to Scotland for Ohio congressman Ney and others, and a Jewish religious academy in Columbia that Abramoff founded and where he sent his children to be educated.
Feds probing SunCruz links to GOP
Untangling a Lobbyist’s Stake in a Casino Fleet
With Millions of Dollars Unaccounted for, Another Federal Investigation Targets Abramoff
It was a gangland-style hit straight out of “Goodfellas.”
Not long after Abramoff and his partners bought SunCruz Casinos in September 2000, the venture ran aground after a fistfight between two of the owners, allegations of mob influence, dueling lawsuits and, finally, Boulis’s death on Feb. 6, 2001. Now, Abramoff is the target of a federal investigation into whether the casino ship deal involved bank fraud. According to court records, the SunCruz purchase hinged on a fake wire transfer for $23 million intended to persuade lenders to provide financing to Abramoff’s group.
Three charged in gangland-style murder of Suncruz founder ‘Gus’ Boulis
FORT LAUDERDALE – Perhaps solving one of South Florida’s most notorious crimes, police arrested three men Tuesday in the 2001 ambush slaying of Konstaninos ``Gus’’ Boulis – a murder that happened a few months after Boulis sold a fleet of casino boats to prominent Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a partner.
SunCruz Casinos turns over documents in terrorist probe
TAMPA, Fla. - SunCruz Casinos has turned over photographs and other documents to FBI investigators after employees said they recognized some of the men suspected in the terrorist attacks as customers.
Michael Hlavsa, chairman of the gambling cruise company, said Wednesday two or three men linked to the Sept. 11 hijackings may have been customers on a ship that sailed from Madeira Beach on Florida’s gulf coast.
http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/terrorists_at_casinos.html
Cause it’s common knowledge devout, suicidal Muslims LOVE to party and gamble…
[/quote]
It’s the Jews again… What’s the SOLUTION JTF?
Honestly, your connections are ridiculously thin threads.
As for the charity, yeah, collecting for one charitable purpose and then spending money on other projects is bad, but how many leaps and bounds of reasoning do you expect people to countenance in order to swallow these theories you’re apparently implying?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.
Damn.
I heard his speech, when he fessed up, admitted his guilt and described how he would go through the rest of his life in various stages to deal with what he allowed to happen to himself.
It sounds like he was a damned good man that lost his moral convictions and rode the system, then found his morals again.
When he has done his time, paid his debt to society, if he does the things he said he would, I will have a lot of respect for the man. Not for screwing up, but for standing up and taking responsibility and doing his best to make things right.
I’m interested to see what, if anything, is in his future.[/quote]
That was a shame – he was considered one of the best ace fighter pilots during Nam. I think he was the only fighter pilot during Nam to ever shoot down 3 MiG’s in a single day. He was also a Top Gun instructor after the war.
Ultimately the question might be, could a totally honest politician ever get to his position? The one thing criminals don’t trust is an honest person.
As an analogy I remember the only time I ever took a drag off a cigarette in my life was in jr high. I was with some friends and they were smoking behind the school – since I wasn’t smoking people started getting paranoid and got the idea that I might turn them in. I had to take a puff to prove I wasn’t some narc and if the federales came I could be implicated and we’d all go down together.
Obviously I never inhaled…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What makes you think this is connected? Cunningham plead guilty to essentially taking improper payments from defense contractors. Unless there’s some connection here of which I’m unaware, this is completely unrelated to the Abramoff fiasco.
vroom wrote:
The connection? Perhaps corruption is the common thing between these events? Duh.[/quote]
No, I was specifically refering to JTF’s implication that Cunningham’s donning of a wire was somehow going to bring down a bunch of GOP lawmakers. It would seem a much more likely implication would be that he wore the wire in talking to the defense contractors. Duh…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Grab some popcorn and enjoy the GOP flame out.
Disgraced Congressman ‘Wore a Wire’
Jan. 06, 2006
Sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1146700,00.html
What makes you think this is connected? Cunningham plead guilty to essentially taking improper payments from defense contractors. Unless there’s some connection here of which I’m unaware, this is completely unrelated to the Abramoff fiasco.[/quote]
Ultimately it will come out that there were a lot of ‘phony’ defense contractors that were used as front companies to launder taxpayer money into the GOP coffers. Wilkes Corp will be the common thread.
Wilkes companies leave little trace in cyberspace
Group W Advisors is part of Wilkes Corp., an umbrella company that encompasses at least 13 other firms, including ADCS and Group W Transportation which, over the years, has flown several members of Congress to privately funded events.
Group W Advisors is registered as a defense and intelligence consulting firm specializing in defense appropriations and budget issues, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
Among other companies, Group W has represented ADCS, Perfect Wave Technologies, MailSafe, Pure Aqua Technologies, Archer Defense, Al Dust Properties, Group W Holdings and Mirror Labs, all part of Wilkes Corp.
Wilkes has been named “co-conspirator No. 1” by Justice Department officials in the criminal investigation into the Cunningham bribery scandal. Wilkes is suspected of giving more than $630,000 in cash and favors to Cunningham in exchange for landing lucrative appropriations earmarks and federal contracts.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/120605_wilkes.html
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
It does appear that there are alot of dems with dirty hands as well. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’m not saying that Abromof isn’t real damn dirty, I’m just saying that there are alot of Dems mixes up in this as well. I wonder if these dems intend on giving this money back. Hmmmmmm
Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:
Max Baucus(D-MT)
Received At Least $22,500
Evan Bayh(D-IN)
Received At Least $6,500
Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Received At Least $1,250
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Received At Least $2,000
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Received At Least $20,250
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Received At Least $21,765
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Received At Least $7,500
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Received At Least $12,950
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Received At Least $8,000
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Received At Least $7,500
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Received At Least $14,792
Byron Dorgan(D-ND)
Received At Least $79,300
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Received At Least $14,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Received At Least $2,000
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Received At Least $1,250
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Received At Least $45,750
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Received At Least $9,000
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Received At Least $2,000
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Received At Least $14,250
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Received At Least $3,300
John Kerry (D-MA)
Received At Least $98,550
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Received At Least $28,000
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Received At Least $4,000
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Received At Least $6,000
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Received At Least $29,830
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Received At Least $14,891
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Received At Least $10,550
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Received At Least $78,991
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Received At Least $20,168
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Received At Least $5,200
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Received At Least $7,500
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Received At Least $2,300
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Received At Least $3,500
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Received At Least $68,941
John Rockefeller (D-WV)
Received At Least $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Received At Least $4,500
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Received At Least $4,300
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Received At Least $29,550
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Received At Least $6,250
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Received At Least $6,250
[/quote]
Actually this post/or at least it’s RNC derived info is deliberately misleading as I’m sure bigflamer knows. For those who don’t know and for those just pretending to not know, Abramoff did not give a single cent to democrats, all of his own donations went to republicans. What the the RNC, lying right-wing blogs, lying right-wing think tanks are doing here is misleading their sheepish base by confusing totally legal contribution from clients with illegal contributions republicans recieved in exchange for official actions (bribes). I guess the new low is saying some dems are so greedy that they are almost as bad as us.
Correctly phrased: It doesn’t appear that any dems have dirty hands here. That’s not such a great headline for newsmax.com though…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s the Jews again… What’s the SOLUTION JTF?
Honestly, your connections are ridiculously thin threads.
As for the charity, yeah, collecting for one charitable purpose and then spending money on other projects is bad, but how many leaps and bounds of reasoning do you expect people to countenance in order to swallow these theories you’re apparently implying?[/quote]
Ridiculously thin threads? Devout Muslims, including ringleader Atta, (remember Able Danger?) partying on a gambling boat owned by a corrupt GOP super lobbyist just a week before 9/11.
Remember in the beginning it was – we could never have predicted hijackers using planes as weapons?
Eventually it evolved into Bush with a memo in his grubby little hands a month before 9/11 saying “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”.
Then it was FAA received 52 hijack warnings in the 6 months leading up to 9/11.
Then came Able Danger - oh yeah, we knew all about Atta before 9/11.
Now we’re up to, 9/11 mastermind Atta and a few of his minions were on Jack Abramoff’s gambling boat a week prior to 9/11. A boat who’s previous owner happens to get ‘wacked’ just months later BTW.
Such a thin thread…
Now if only we could just tie in how defense contractors might have possibly benefitted from 9/11 and the majority GOP control of the government?
Oh look, a picture of Atta playing quarters with GWB. So, what does that prove? Lots of people played quarters with Bush…
I’m not a big fan of big government, but I have to wonder if this would ever have happened if we were to have publicly financed campaigns in this country. And for that matter, how much less luxury polititians would live in if we were to just draw and quarter all the lobyists, or if they were to spontaneously disappear.
Boston,
I can’t believe you are trying to rally around this too. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue in any case.
Look, there is a big difference between talking to members of congress about something you care about and sticking fifty grand in a representatives compaign coffers or pocket.
Or perhaps in bizarro world “petition” means “paying off”?
When you can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong perhaps you should change the polarization on your blinders… before you get led astray.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Grab some popcorn and enjoy the GOP flame out.
Disgraced Congressman ‘Wore a Wire’
Jan. 06, 2006
Sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1146700,00.html
What makes you think this is connected? Cunningham plead guilty to essentially taking improper payments from defense contractors. Unless there’s some connection here of which I’m unaware, this is completely unrelated to the Abramoff fiasco.
Ultimately it will come out that there were a lot of ‘phony’ defense contractors that were used as front companies to launder taxpayer money into the GOP coffers. Wilkes Corp will be the common thread.
Wilkes companies leave little trace in cyberspace
Group W Advisors is part of Wilkes Corp., an umbrella company that encompasses at least 13 other firms, including ADCS and Group W Transportation which, over the years, has flown several members of Congress to privately funded events.
Group W Advisors is registered as a defense and intelligence consulting firm specializing in defense appropriations and budget issues, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
Among other companies, Group W has represented ADCS, Perfect Wave Technologies, MailSafe, Pure Aqua Technologies, Archer Defense, Al Dust Properties, Group W Holdings and Mirror Labs, all part of Wilkes Corp.
Wilkes has been named “co-conspirator No. 1” by Justice Department officials in the criminal investigation into the Cunningham bribery scandal. Wilkes is suspected of giving more than $630,000 in cash and favors to Cunningham in exchange for landing lucrative appropriations earmarks and federal contracts.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/120605_wilkes.html
[/quote]
More:
House Members Worried over Cunningham Wire Report
The undercover operation, according to senior Justice and federal law enforcement, is part of a broadening investigation into the Jack Abramoff bribes-for-favors scandal now roiling Washington.
“Cunningham wore a wire on the Hill during meetings with, and meetings set up with, other lawmakers Abramoff was interested in talking to or meeting,” a high level federal law enforcement source said without elaborating party affiliations of the targeted lawmakers.
It could not be immediately determined whether Abramoff or others were or are part of the undercover eavesdropping operation involving Cunningham.
“You can assume any private meeting Cunningham had with legislators pertaining to Abramoff were recorded,” the high-level federal law enforcement source said. “It does not mean [these lawmakers] are under investigation. But some are. There will be repercussions”
“This will go up the food chain,” the source added ominously, implying Cunningham’s wire may have ensnared Congressional leaders.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
“You can assume any private meeting Cunningham had with legislators pertaining to Abramoff were recorded,” the high-level federal law enforcement source said. “It does not mean [these lawmakers] are under investigation. But some are. There will be repercussions”
“This will go up the food chain,” the source added ominously, implying Cunningham’s wire may have ensnared Congressional leaders.
[/quote]
I’m looking forward to the reports of mass Seppuku on Capitol Hill over the next week or so. But alas, I think it will be mostly finger pointing and proclamations of total ignorance instead.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Actually this post/or at least it’s RNC derived info is deliberately misleading as I’m sure bigflamer knows. For those who don’t know and for those just pretending to not know, Abramoff did not give a single cent to democrats, all of his own donations went to republicans. What the the RNC, lying right-wing blogs, lying right-wing think tanks are doing here is misleading their sheepish base by confusing totally legal contribution from clients with illegal contributions republicans recieved in exchange for official actions (bribes). I guess the new low is saying some dems are so greedy that they are almost as bad as us.
Correctly phrased: It doesn’t appear that any dems have dirty hands here. That’s not such a great headline for newsmax.com though… [/quote]
Listen 100m, I’m not saying that republicans are clean in this matter. I’m not even saying that republicans are any cleaner than the dems. What I’m saying is your position that the dems are perfectly clean in this matter is bullshit.
Just because Abromof himself didn’t drive over to their office, have a nice lunch meeting, and hand the check over, doesn’t mean they weren’t aware where the money was coming from. There’s shit flying everywhere in this one and lots of folks are scared.
This ridiculas defense of yours, that these dems did absolutely nothig wrong in accepting this money, isn’t gonna hold an ounce of water. “We’re clean!”, “Their dirty!”, “We’re perfectly innocent!”, “Bush lied!”, Cheney’s evil!", “nana nana bla bla bla!”(sticks fingers in ears and slams eyes shut)
This is nothing but leftist chearleeding at it’s finest.
http://www.nrsc.org/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1362
Democrats Don’t Know Jack???
?It?s very odd that Democrats at the national and state levels have sought to exploit the Abramoff matter for political gain, while in the process throwing countless congressional Democrats under the bus,? said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).?[/b] (Charles Hurt, ?Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,? The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)
An NRSC Report Shows That Nearly 90 Percent Of Senate ?Democrats Have Taken Abramoff-Related Money.? ?The NRSC has begun circulating among fellow Republicans new reports showing that all but five of the chamber?s 44 Democrats have taken Abramoff-related money.
In addition, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have taken more than $1.2 million, according to records provided to The Washington Times.? (Charles Hurt, ?Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,? The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)
?The NRSC Report Is Part Of A New Counteroffensive By Republicans To Neutralize An Issue That Democrats See As Central To Electoral Gains In 2006.? (Charles Hurt, ?Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,? The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)
?If The Democrats Are Alleging That Republicans Are Guilty Of Any Wrongdoing, They?re Sitting In The Same Boat.? ?Democrats have run two television advertisements in Montana, castigating Burns for his activities on behalf of Abramoff, but as the lobbyist?s taint spreads, its political impact may dissipate, said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
If the Democrats are alleging that Republicans are guilty of any wrongdoing, they?re sitting in the same boat,? he said. ?It just becomes a nonstarter.?? (Jonathan Weisman and Derek Willis ?Democrat On Panel Probing Abramoff To Return Tribal Donations,? The Washington Post, December 14, 2005)
Tribal Clients And Associates Of Jack Abramoff Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, [i]
www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com[/i], Accessed December 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 2005)
National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, [i]
www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com[/i], Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
[b]The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over ? $430,000
The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over ? $629,000
The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over ? $177,000
Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*.[/b] (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Listen 100m, I’m not saying that republicans are clean in this matter. I’m not even saying that republicans are any cleaner than the dems. What I’m saying is your position that the dems are perfectly clean in this matter is bullshit.
Just because Abromof himself didn’t drive over to their office, have a nice lunch meeting, and hand the check over, doesn’t mean they weren’t aware where the money was coming from. There’s shit flying everywhere in this one and lots of folks are scared.
This ridiculas defense of yours, that these dems did absolutely nothig wrong in accepting this money, isn’t gonna hold an ounce of water. “We’re clean!”, “Their dirty!”, “We’re perfectly innocent!”, “Bush lied!”, Cheney’s evil!", “nana nana bla bla bla!”(sticks fingers in ears and slams eyes shut)
This is nothing but leftist chearleeding at it’s finest.
[/quote]
Your previous (and current unfortunately) post falsely suggests that democrats are equally implicated by the Abramoff scandal. They are not.
Again, not one dime from Abramoff to democrats. Again the difference that’s obvious to most is that it is totally legal and proper to recieve contributions from lobbying groups. It IS NOT LEGAL to receive them in exchange for official actions, which is what the four known congressmen involved in the scandal appear to have done.
Ney (R)
Delay (R)
Doolittle (R)
Burns (R)
So again at this point in time it “appears” that Dems are not invovled in this scandal (not one has been implicated in the investigation). The rest of your post contains the same deliberate distortion of information put out by the lying RNC etc. that is deliberately designed to mislead their own sheepish base.
Again, it is totally proper, and completely and utterly legal to recieve contributions from lobbying groups, and totally illegal to receive bribes in exchange for official actions, of which only republicans thus far have been accused of.
To make your post appear more accurate it should just be simply ammended to say the following democrats received money properly and most importantly, legally from lobbyists and clients associated with Abramoff.
If you still think this is not accurate you could check house and senate rules to confirm that such contributions are totally legal— or “clean” as you put it.
I think what you are missing, 100M, is not that anyone taking money is implicated in this. I don’t think that is what anyone is saying.
But The press has gone out of their way to show how the Bush campaign took the same type of money from Abramof, and to try and paint him as being as crooked as the real alleged offenders.
Bush has said that he will return any donations made to his campaign by Abramof. I think the real question is will the Dems do the same? That is where the hypocrisy watch will be for me.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Washington lobbying community goes back a long way. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
vroom wrote:
Boston,
I can’t believe you are trying to rally around this too. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue in any case.
Look, there is a big difference between talking to members of congress about something you care about and sticking fifty grand in a representatives compaign coffers or pocket.
Or perhaps in bizarro world “petition” means “paying off”?
When you can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong perhaps you should change the polarization on your blinders… before you get led astray.[/quote]
It’s not a partisan issue. The point was you’re not going to “clean up” anything because it’s too difficult to draw a legal line between bribery, on the one hand, and legitimate political contributions and political action on the other. Without an email, a recording, or some other admission that you had a quid pro quo, it’s a very difficult matter to prove. On top of that, you have 1st Amendment issues with campaign finance, which is essentially political speech (though it is already somewhat regulated, it’s only in relation to amounts, not in being able to make contributions).
As I said, anyone who actually took bribes for taking legislative action deserves to be thrown under the bus. But what you’ll see from this is that it’s a pretty tough case to prove. There is only one person, Rep. Ney, who looks to have current trouble with this. Everything else is wistful (or wishfull, depending on your political leanings) speculation.
I have a feeling this is going to go down in history like the BCCI – a tempest in a teacup.
However, if this sort of thing is bothersome to you, then the solution is to limit the power of government, not to limit the citizenry.
The fever swamps of the conspiracy sites have obviously done a little too much for your imagination…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think what you are missing, 100M, is not that anyone taking money is implicated in this. I don’t think that is what anyone is saying.
But The press has gone out of their way to show how the Bush campaign took the same type of money from Abramof, and to try and paint him as being as crooked as the real alleged offenders.
Bush has said that he will return any donations made to his campaign by Abramof. I think the real question is will the Dems do the same? That is where the hypocrisy watch will be for me. [/quote]
I’m referring to the RNC’s deliberate misrepresentation of contributions to democratic canidates. They are well aware of course that these contributions are totally legal and proper, but their aim is to cloud the issue in the minds of their base. Dems have received no money from Abramoff. None. But to ill-informed sheepish RNC supporters such a misrepresentation is enough to say “everybody does it.” Of course this is an artform with the RNC and they do it very well and and their base is trained very well to swallow such lies, and repeat the lies to others. What’s interesting is how he (bigflamer) said it appears that alot of dems have dirty hands as well. It’s hilarious because it factually DOES NOT APPEAR that way at all. In fact, thus far it ONLY involves republicans and lots of them as predicted.
A note on hypocrisy. President Bush only said he would return 6,000 dollars directly given by Abramoff. He will be keeping the 100,000 dollar plus that Abramoff gave him in bundled donations earning him “Pioneer” honors amongs President Bush’s donors, as reported by the WP:
[quote]100meters wrote:
I’m referring to the RNC’s deliberate misrepresentation of contributions to democratic canidates. They are well aware of course that these contributions are totally legal and proper, but their aim is to cloud the issue in the minds of their base. …[/quote]
The problem with this whole scandal is that, right now, the only thing we know is that there were seemingly legal contributions, either in dollars or in kind. Without the quid pro quo evidence, there’s not much to go on.
The closest thing anyone has to a claim so far is whether internal ethics rules were violated, depending on how one parses the purpose of some trips that DeLay took, which he claims he was told were funded by a think tank (the only name I can remember hearing for this is DeLay’s).
Of course, Ney looks guilty from the circumstances, and they may very well find some quid pro quo evidence from him, but I haven’t seen any yet.
There may well be more that comes to light, but right now, all the speculation on “Biggest scandal ever” is just pie-in-the-sky hopes from the Democratic Underground, much like “Fitzmas.”
Abramof gave to both sides. His contributions to BOTH sides were distributed through various channels. The statment that Democrats recieved no money from Abramof is a thinly vieled lie to mislead someone who isn’t willing to read any deeper. It is the core issue of Dean and the Deaniacs for the past week.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/40-0f-45-democratic-senators-took.html
40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!
Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.
Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.
Dorgan even held a fundraiser in an Abramoff Skybox:
The Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client that was a primary focus of the Senate hearings, sponsored a fundraiser on March 28, 2001, for Dorgan’s political group, the Great Plains Leadership Fund. The event treated Dorgan and his donors to a bird’s-eye view of a professional hockey game from a skybox Abramoff leased in Washington’s MCI Center, while lobbyists got the chance to bend his ear.
Dorgan says he will not step down from the investigating committee. (same article)
That oh, so popular, MCI Skybox…
Tom Harkin paid the tribe for use of its Skybox and he failed to account properly for two fundraisers he held in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s skybox at Washington?’s MCI Center in 2002 and 2003.
Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)
Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.
Capital Eye has the monstrous list of all of the recipients of Abramoff’s funds.
I hope Howard Dean gets this information before he makes any more mistakes.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Abramof gave to both sides. His contributions to BOTH sides were distributed through various channels. The statment that Democrats recieved no money from Abramof is a thinly vieled lie to mislead someone who isn’t willing to read any deeper. It is the core issue of Dean and the Deaniacs for the past week.
[/quote]
So what could possibly have been his goal? Abramoff was a rabid life long Republican who had a history of using radical and controversial tactics.
His contributions to Dems was certainly not intended to help their cause… it was enough however to spread the guilt and create confusion in the event this exact scenerio went down.
We know they aren’t STUPID criminals – to NOT have spread some dirt money to the Dems would have seemed pretty damned amateurish for professional criminals.
That said, I’m sure there are some guilty Dems. The bigger scandal will be the millions of taxpayer dollars laundered through phony defense contractors that were used to fund the record 2004 GOP election campaign.
Bush Campaign Sets Spending Record
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main618872.shtml