Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: 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.

The verdict is coming and justice will decide that .

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

You're pushing that point pretty hard, because if taken explicitly, it's true. But is there that big of a difference between direct donations and donations directed by Abramoff, or from Abramoff's associates? I'm not saying that the Democrats who received money are just as guilty as some of the Republicans, but to present the matter as black & white is simply ignorant.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: 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.

The verdict is coming and justice will decide that .

Exactly. Relying on news articles to report scandals such as this in an accurate is simply a waste of time in many cases.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh? Bouncing checks when the govt cant pay their bills is now a non-event?

Keep that in mind when whining about deficit spending please.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

You're pushing that point pretty hard, because if taken explicitly, it's true. But is there that big of a difference between direct donations and donations directed by Abramoff, or from Abramoff's associates? I'm not saying that the Democrats who received money are just as guilty as some of the Republicans, but to present the matter as black & white is simply ignorant.

Maybe you missed my post above...

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.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

You're pushing that point pretty hard, because if taken explicitly, it's true. But is there that big of a difference between direct donations and donations directed by Abramoff, or from Abramoff's associates? I'm not saying that the Democrats who received money are just as guilty as some of the Republicans, but to present the matter as black & white is simply ignorant.

Maybe you missed my post above...

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.

If you're not going to read what I wrote, or what several articles point out, I won't bother replying any more.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

You're pushing that point pretty hard, because if taken explicitly, it's true. But is there that big of a difference between direct donations and donations directed by Abramoff, or from Abramoff's associates? I'm not saying that the Democrats who received money are just as guilty as some of the Republicans, but to present the matter as black & white is simply ignorant.

Maybe you missed my post above...

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.

If you're not going to read what I wrote, or what several articles point out, I won't bother replying any more.

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

I understand that, I was merely pointing out that the money taken from Indian tribes by the Dems was still linked to Abramoff in that he directed it. Guilty by association is a rather strong term, but as far as most people should be concerned, any money at all linked to Abramoff should be considered tainted.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

I understand that, I was merely pointing out that the money taken from Indian tribes by the Dems was still linked to Abramoff in that he directed it. Guilty by association is a rather strong term, but as far as most people should be concerned, any money at all linked to Abramoff should be considered tainted.

Linked to Abramoff? In what way? Indian tribes give to Lobbying Firm, same Indian tribes also give to Dems, Abramoff gives to Republicans.

Sounds like "Guilt by 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon".

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh? Bouncing checks when the govt cant pay their bills is now a non-event?

Keep that in mind when whining about deficit spending please.

Hunh? The House Bank was notorious for not posting deposits on time. The whole thing was a mess but hardly any sort of crime. Now, Abramoff, DeLay, Libby, NSA, Noe, Cunningham, Ney, ....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
A n00b, WWYBYWB, trying post right-wing talking points? :roll:


NO DEMOCRAT TOOK DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF!


NONE

You're pushing that point pretty hard, because if taken explicitly, it's true. But is there that big of a difference between direct donations and donations directed by Abramoff, or from Abramoff's associates? I'm not saying that the Democrats who received money are just as guilty as some of the Republicans, but to present the matter as black & white is simply ignorant.

You're going off a pretty big assumption that the Democrats were supposed to know that the money was being directed by Abramoff to the Democrats (a thought that is highly unlikely given Abramoff's statements re: his feelings of Democrats and esp. giving money to them.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

I understand that, I was merely pointing out that the money taken from Indian tribes by the Dems was still linked to Abramoff in that he directed it. Guilty by association is a rather strong term, but as far as most people should be concerned, any money at all linked to Abramoff should be considered tainted.

Linked to Abramoff? In what way? Indian tribes give to Lobbying Firm, same Indian tribes also give to Dems, Abramoff gives to Republicans.

Sounds like "Guilt by 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon".

What you are painting is the dems were smart enough to deal directly with the source instead of the proxy and thus giving reasonable doubt.

I guess hats off to Dems know how to work corruption better than Repubs?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

I understand that, I was merely pointing out that the money taken from Indian tribes by the Dems was still linked to Abramoff in that he directed it. Guilty by association is a rather strong term, but as far as most people should be concerned, any money at all linked to Abramoff should be considered tainted.

Linked to Abramoff? In what way? Indian tribes give to Lobbying Firm, same Indian tribes also give to Dems, Abramoff gives to Republicans.

Sounds like "Guilt by 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon".

What you are painting is the dems were smart enough to deal directly with the source instead of the proxy and thus giving reasonable doubt.

I guess hats off to Dems know how to work corruption better than Repubs?

So Indian tribes that give campaign money to Dems is somehow illegal? Or is it the fact that they had the nerve to support Dems? Or maybe you're insulted with the fact that Indians had money to give? Your question is completely off-base.

 

[Lemon law]

As I have said in some previous posts on other similar threads, this Abramoff scandal has a huge
potential to expose the way business is really done in the nations capital. Various perps are already ensnared and now slaves to the prosecutors whims, the stench of a huge scandal is in the air, and only the prosecutors are legally empowered to pursue the matter.

When one stops to think for a few milliseconds, one has to wonder if a possibly partisan republican
justice department can use the scandal to suit their own agenda?----not saying they will yet, but the temtation has to be huge. So the real question is and remains who watches the watch dogs in the justice department?----insuring they will be fair and honest.-----right now the press is somewhat hamstrung.-----and detailed knowledge of what the prosecutor knows is required to allege a disconnect between what the prosecutor knows and does.

As actual details emerge, probably first with someone they have overwelming evidence against, will probably get the scandal frontpage headlines.---------following named indivuals will find the taint of even association so damning that many will have their careers destroyed and reputations ruined. I will reserve my judgement on how careful the prosecutor is in also protecting the possibly innocent.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Linked to Abramoff? In what way? Indian tribes give to Lobbying Firm, same Indian tribes also give to Dems, Abramoff gives to Republicans.

Sounds like "Guilt by 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon".

What you are painting is the dems were smart enough to deal directly with the source instead of the proxy and thus giving reasonable doubt.

I guess hats off to Dems know how to work corruption better than Repubs?

You stretched so far on that one that you ripped your pants!

 

[runzwithsizorz]

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I've read it, but all it says, just like the countless others I've read is that Dems took money from indian tribes, but nothing that concludes that any improprities were committed.

Indian tribes throw out a lot of money to a lot of different people. Abramoff bilked a lot of them out of millions of dollars in which he used to bribe Congressmen regarding other matters other than Indian casinos and such.

I understand that, I was merely pointing out that the money taken from Indian tribes by the Dems was still linked to Abramoff in that he directed it. Guilty by association is a rather strong term, but as far as most people should be concerned, any money at all linked to Abramoff should be considered tainted.

Linked to Abramoff? In what way? Indian tribes give to Lobbying Firm, same Indian tribes also give to Dems, Abramoff gives to Republicans.

Sounds like "Guilt by 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon".

What you are painting is the dems were smart enough to deal directly with the source instead of the proxy and thus giving reasonable doubt.

I guess hats off to Dems know how to work corruption better than Repubs?

So Indian tribes that give campaign money to Dems is somehow illegal? Or is it the fact that they had the nerve to support Dems? Or maybe you're insulted with the fact that Indians had money to give? Your question is completely off-base.

Not really

You argue that donations from Indian tribes arranged by Abramhoff dont mean guilt while a direct donation from Abramhoff does.

That is splitting hairs.

 

[dahunan]

Take the names of every lobbyist in Washington

Kick all of them out and bar them from ever setting foot on the capital

then start investigating every one of them and prosecute them and any politicians who have ever done illegal business together.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not really

You argue that donations from Indian tribes arranged by Abramhoff dont mean guilt while a direct donation from Abramhoff does.

That is splitting hairs.

No, you're creating problems where none may not exist. We *know* Abramoff is a criminal. We *don't* know he directed any clients to give money to Dems. And, judging from his statements where he's been quoted, it's actually rather safe to say he didn't do anything like that.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not really

You argue that donations from Indian tribes arranged by Abramhoff dont mean guilt while a direct donation from Abramhoff does.

That is splitting hairs.

No, you're creating problems where none may not exist. We *know* Abramoff is a criminal. We *don't* know he directed any clients to give money to Dems. And, judging from his statements where he's been quoted, it's actually rather safe to say he didn't do anything like that.

Really no different than saying anybody who got a donation from him is guilty.
Like I said earlier this investigation will be interesting. But I doubt Reid would be tied into this is the Indian money he recieved was completely clean.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not really

You argue that donations from Indian tribes arranged by Abramhoff dont mean guilt while a direct donation from Abramhoff does.

That is splitting hairs.

No, you're creating problems where none may not exist. We *know* Abramoff is a criminal. We *don't* know he directed any clients to give money to Dems. And, judging from his statements where he's been quoted, it's actually rather safe to say he didn't do anything like that.

Really no different than saying anybody who got a donation from him is guilty.
Like I said earlier this investigation will be interesting. But I doubt Reid would be tied into this is the Indian money he recieved was completely clean.

It's completely different! The evidence shows that Abramoff was an influence peddler. Those who received direct donations were being requested to offer something in return.

HUGE difference.


Even the right-wing NRO says so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Scuze me while I whip this out:
Nearly ninety percent of Senate Democrats took money linked to disgraced "Republican" lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a list compiled by the Republican National Committee.
Though reporters continue to insist that the Abramoff imbroglio is "a Republican scandal," 2008 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton took more than $12,000 in tainted cash.
Compared to the party's 2004 standard bearer, however, she's a piker. John Kerry raked in nearly $100,000 in Abramoff-linked donations.
In fact, 40 of the party's 45 U.S. senators made the Jack Abramoff dishonor roll, including:
? Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who received at least $22,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), who received at least $6,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who received at least $20,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who received at least $21,765 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who received at least $12,950 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), who received at least $8,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), who received at least $14,792 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who received at least $79,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who received at least $14,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who received at least $45,750 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who received at least $9,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who received at least $14,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who received at least $3,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who received at least $98,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who received at least $28,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who received at least $6,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who received at least $29,830 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who received at least $10,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who received at least $78,991 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who received at least $20,168 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), who received at least $2,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), who received at least $3,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who received at least $68,941 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), who received at least $4,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), who received at least $4,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who received at least $29,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
? Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Soooo; Republicans get a grand here,a couple of grand there. Judging by the figures above,Abramoff knew who could be bought and who couldn't and invested accordantly.
AND THEY WERE ALL DEMS!!!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not really

You argue that donations from Indian tribes arranged by Abramhoff dont mean guilt while a direct donation from Abramhoff does.

That is splitting hairs.

No, you're creating problems where none may not exist. We *know* Abramoff is a criminal. We *don't* know he directed any clients to give money to Dems. And, judging from his statements where he's been quoted, it's actually rather safe to say he didn't do anything like that.

Really no different than saying anybody who got a donation from him is guilty.
Like I said earlier this investigation will be interesting. But I doubt Reid would be tied into this is the Indian money he recieved was completely clean.

It's completely different! The evidence shows that Abramoff was an influence peddler. Those who received direct donations were being requested to offer something in return.

HUGE difference.


Even the right-wing NRO says so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

You cant honestly think donations to senators from clients of Abramhoff in return for favors is any different than from direct donations?

He could have easily arranged direct payment as much as make a payment himself.
I would wait to see what comes of this before getting too riled up about it. I am interested in seeing who is going down.

 

[conjur]

You're assuming the tribes were placing ALL of their bets with Abramoff. That's highly doubtful.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
You're assuming the tribes were placing ALL of their bets with Abramoff. That's highly doubtful.

Actually I am assuming they were placing all their bets with the dear senators.