Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers

[jlmadyson]

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

The sources also said that at least two legislative directors and other lobbyists are under investigation in the preliminary round of inquiry. The probe is expected to widen and could ensnare "a minimum" of 20 members of Congress, they said.

Text

Interesting to see how the chips will fall in the next year. Of course, Reid has stated he has had nothing to do with it and it's a "Republican" problem.

 

[conjur]

Well, it *is* a Republican problem. Even the right is finally admitting it:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/04936/1304

Well, it was a hugely busy news day. So here's the stuff I had saved for blogging but ran out of time and space to use.

* Tony Blankey admits that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican one.

* The National Reviews Rich Lowry says the same -- it's a Republican scandal. Although he's perplexed why Democrats didn't want to turn out Clinton because he got a blowjob. Well, because it was insignificant. And we can thank Bush for driving that point home.

* Lowry also urges Republicans to retake the mantle of "reformers" they wore in 1994. As Digby notes, that dog won't hunt.

* Tammy Duckworth in IL-06 just got the AFL-CIO endorsement.

* This, dealing with the No Child Left Behind test, would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

* Patrick Fitzgerald thinks Russert is full of ******.

* Sam Brownback, humble servant of the people. Dances with angels.

* Dana Rohrbach is rushing to Abramoff's defense. Interesting strategy... Although to be honest, Rohrbach is showing more integrity standing by his sugar daddy friend than the legion of Republicans suddenly struck with amnesia about their dealings with Abramoff.

* Rasmussen polls the Texas governor's race, and it's a big free for all. Its poll of the Vermont governor's race gives Dems some bad news.

* NSA whistleblower tells ABC News that the NSA eavesdropped illegally on millions, and will share his knowledge with Congress. I don't know if the guy is credible, but Congress needs to give the guy a listen.

Embedded links at the site.

 

[Genx87]

I think the democrats have a chance of this blowing up in their face as Reid is apparently part of this.

I wonder however if anybody will really see any jail time out of this. My guess is no.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Funny how that article never really said anything that hasn't been said before...

Reid and Dorgan took money from Indian tribes. LOCK'EM UP!

Not one single, solitary democrat received money from Jack Abramoff.



Not one!

Indian tribes have a right to donate to campaigns. Abramoff gave money to Republicans in order to sway opinion.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the democrats have a chance of this blowing up in their face as Reid is apparently part of this.

I wonder however if anybody will really see any jail time out of this. My guess is no.

Sorry, even that article says nothing.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the democrats have a chance of this blowing up in their face as Reid is apparently part of this.

I wonder however if anybody will really see any jail time out of this. My guess is no.

It probably depends on how "deep" Reid's involvement. Regardless, the day to day face on this turd is GOP . . . and it's a serious case of diarrhea.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Funny how that article never really said anything that hasn't been said before...

Reid and Dorgan took money from Indian tribes. LOCK'EM UP!

Not one single, solitary democrat received money from Jack Abramoff.



Not one!

Indian tribes have a right to donate to campaigns. Abramoff gave money to Republicans in order to sway opinion.

Dean schooled ol' Wolf Blitzer with that the other day!

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, it *is* a Republican problem. Even the right is finally admitting it:

Well, if the aforementioned Democratic Senators or any other Democrat member of Congress gets indicted what then? Guess it will become a Democrat problem as well eh.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the democrats have a chance of this blowing up in their face as Reid is apparently part of this.

I wonder however if anybody will really see any jail time out of this. My guess is no.

Sorry, even that article says nothing.

Dont be sorry

The scuttle butt I have read regarding these donations was they were in return for him to nix opposing Indian Casino's being built.

I wouldnt count old Reid out just yet. The money trail wont lie and the investigation will indict or exonerate him in due time.

 

[conjur]

If that's the case then Reid should step down as minority leader if he knows it was some quid pro quo. Otherwise, we'll see how this investigation goes. Besides, that article is rather weak on the claims against Reid:

The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.

Thought? Thought by whom? The GOP?

Just another one of those Murdoch/Ailes specials a la "some say".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
If that's the case then Reid should step down as minority leader if he knows it was some quid pro quo. Otherwise, we'll see how this investigation goes. Besides, that article is rather weak on the claims against Reid:

The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.

Thought? Thought by whom? The GOP?

Just another one of those Murdoch/Ailes specials a la "some say".

Dont they have to declare where each donation is from?
This is what I was saying in the other thread. It is quite easy to take the cash and give the wink but how do you prove a donation is a bribe?

I think the same thing will happen for all of these guys including guys who got direct contributions from Abramhoff.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
If that's the case then Reid should step down as minority leader if he knows it was some quid pro quo. Otherwise, we'll see how this investigation goes. Besides, that article is rather weak on the claims against Reid:

The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.

Thought? Thought by whom? The GOP?

Just another one of those Murdoch/Ailes specials a la "some say".

Dont they have to declare where each donation is from?
This is what I was saying in the other thread. It is quite easy to take the cash and give the wink but how do you prove a donation is a bribe?

I think the same thing will happen for all of these guys including guys who got direct contributions from Abramhoff.

180 degree turns that benefits a particular donor shortly before or after a large contribution.

 

[conjur]

I think if enough circumstantial evidence *could* be provided that would be enough to shame someone (such as Reid) enough to where they'd have to step down their position or even resign in disgrace.

But, as it is, not one single Democrat received donations from Abramoff.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
If that's the case then Reid should step down as minority leader if he knows it was some quid pro quo. Otherwise, we'll see how this investigation goes. Besides, that article is rather weak on the claims against Reid:

The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.

Thought? Thought by whom? The GOP?

Just another one of those Murdoch/Ailes specials a la "some say".

Dont they have to declare where each donation is from?
This is what I was saying in the other thread. It is quite easy to take the cash and give the wink but how do you prove a donation is a bribe?

I think the same thing will happen for all of these guys including guys who got direct contributions from Abramhoff.

180 degree turns that benefits a particular donor shortly before or after a large contribution.

This will get interesting for reid if what I heard is true using your above litmus test.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Remember, Abramoff played both sides of the fence in this way...

He would "represent" both rival tribes and scam one of them.

He took money that was thought to be lawful lobbying and use it to bribe Congressmen against them.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
If that's the case then Reid should step down as minority leader if he knows it was some quid pro quo. Otherwise, we'll see how this investigation goes. Besides, that article is rather weak on the claims against Reid:

The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.

Thought? Thought by whom? The GOP?

Just another one of those Murdoch/Ailes specials a la "some say".

Dont they have to declare where each donation is from?
This is what I was saying in the other thread. It is quite easy to take the cash and give the wink but how do you prove a donation is a bribe?

I think the same thing will happen for all of these guys including guys who got direct contributions from Abramhoff.

180 degree turns that benefits a particular donor shortly before or after a large contribution.

This will get interesting for reid if what I heard is true using your above litmus test.

Not a "litmus test". Just a thought on your question... "... how do you prove a donation is a bribe?"

It's not conclusive proof, but a start.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think if enough circumstantial evidence *could* be provided that would be enough to shame someone (such as Reid) enough to where they'd have to step down their position or even resign in disgrace.

But, as it is, not one single Democrat received donations from Abramoff.

That's an awefully brazen statement to make... afterall, a couple Democrats did receive donations, they just don't think they need to give them back. Several other articles I found named at least 3 Democrats which received contributions. Granted, you'd have to look at each case (Republicans included) to determine the legitimacy of each donation, but to say that corruption in this matter is one sided is a bit of a mis-statement.

For reference, here is one of the articles I found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study.

Just making the point that corruption is not limited to political sidings.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
I think if enough circumstantial evidence *could* be provided that would be enough to shame someone (such as Reid) enough to where they'd have to step down their position or even resign in disgrace.

But, as it is, not one single Democrat received donations from Abramoff.

That's an awefully brazen statement to make... afterall, a couple Democrats did receive donations, they just don't think they need to give them back. Several other articles I found named at least 3 Democrats which received contributions. Granted, you'd have to look at each case (Republicans included) to determine the legitimacy of each donation, but to say that corruption in this matter is one sided is a bit of a mis-statement.

For reference, here is one of the articles I found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study.

Just making the point that corruption is not limited to political sidings.

Uh oh, 1st post a reply to conjur. Don't get sucked into the blackhole otherwise known as anandtech P/N.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
I think if enough circumstantial evidence *could* be provided that would be enough to shame someone (such as Reid) enough to where they'd have to step down their position or even resign in disgrace.

But, as it is, not one single Democrat received donations from Abramoff.

That's an awefully brazen statement to make... afterall, a couple Democrats did receive donations, they just don't think they need to give them back. Several other articles I found named at least 3 Democrats which received contributions. Granted, you'd have to look at each case (Republicans included) to determine the legitimacy of each donation, but to say that corruption in this matter is one sided is a bit of a mis-statement.

For reference, here is one of the articles I found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study.

Just making the point that corruption is not limited to political sidings.

I have a link to Abramoff direct contibutions...

Number of dollars to Democrats: Zero.

So that part of this controversy is 100% clear.

The only people that Democrats took money from were from Indian tribes and right now, there is ZERO evidence that there were any improprities in said contributions.

I understand your point that corruption is not limited to poltical sidings. And if there's a dirty Democrat (Trafficant), then I say buh-bye to him/her. But, sometimes things aren't 50/50 and this is one of those cases.

 

[conjur]

A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

 

[jrenz]

I've been reading many threads for some time now after linked here by a friend of mine, so I am aware of the political agendas of some of the more prominent members I just thought I would try to bring a more balanced and fair viewpoint, as it seems that's a lacking feature here sometimes

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've been reading many threads for some time now after linked here by a friend of mine, so I am aware of the political agendas of some of the more prominent members I just thought I would try to bring a more balanced and fair viewpoint, as it seems that's a lacking feature here sometimes

Oh, so you're the Executive Producer from Fox News? Wow, nice to meet you.

 

[conjur]

Balanced? By posting BS? You call that balance? Puh-leeze. Tell palehorse or WyteWatt or whatever other Freeper pointed you here they did you a disservice. We don't put up with BS here.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've been reading many threads for some time now after linked here by a friend of mine, so I am aware of the political agendas of some of the more prominent members I just thought I would try to bring a more balanced and fair viewpoint, as it seems that's a lacking feature here sometimes

There has never really been a balance here, but it is fun to stoke the flames every once and awhile.

 

[conjur]

This scandal (along with DeLay) puts to shame the railroading of the Democrats by the Republicans in the early 90s re: the House Bank. That was pretty much a non-event but the Republicans spun it that the Democrats were evil and vile and took over the Congress.

In less than a dozen years the GOP took the scandal trophy in a BIG way.