40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money

[RightinNYC]

That's not the title of this misleading thread:

You're insinuating that 40 out of 45 Senators took money from Abramoff. They didn't. Dean's statement is right on the money.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand the concept? It doesn't matter in the slightest who got money from Abramoff PERSONALLY. The only thing that matters is who got money from these funds in return for illegal actions. Dean simply threw that red herring out there in order to try to catch some people. Looks like you got caught.

If the GOP strategy is to try to bring Dems into the picture. Fine. It's all going to come out in the wash anyway. When the investigation unfolds we'll see names like Bob Ney, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Doug Bandow and Peter Ferrara from the CATO Institute.

Really? That's interesting. I didn't know you were privy to these secret facts. I'll be sure to come to you next time for the behind the scenes info.

We're not talking about legal campaign contributions: we're talking about bribery and quid pro quo.

So why are you still talking about how only republicans got the LEGAL contributions? And by quid pro quo and bribery, you mean like Durkin did?

Another point I'd like to make is Newt Gingrich's supposed "outrage" over the whole scandal. In actuality he is the architect of the culture of corruption and the one that set up the whole K-Street project. The corporate media's failing to provide the context for Gingrich's statements is laughable.

Any other completely off topic and unsupported arguments to make?

 

[RightinNYC]

It's about time you complimented me, you red-headed b astard! LOL :2wave:

Seriously, I think if everyone said, "Oh, let's let the experts play this out," the discussion wouldn't be half as interesting. Don't 'cha think?

In this area (lobbying), I am not one who has any understanding of what is legal and what is not. Also, my knowledge of the specific facts involved stink.

:mrgreen:

Only problem is that you can find half a dozen experts who will support every statement and position under the sun...

 

[aps]

Only problem is that you can find half a dozen experts who will support every statement and position under the sun...

Right, and that's where assessing credibility and probative value come into play.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Really? That's interesting. I didn't know you were privy to these secret facts. I'll be sure to come to you next time for the behind the scenes info.

So why are you still talking about how only republicans got the LEGAL contributions? And by quid pro quo and bribery, you mean like Durkin did?

Any other completely off topic and unsupported arguments to make?

These fact's aren't secret to anyone who has been following the Abramoff story. The names that I mentioned and the story itself has been around for years.

What's a Durkin?

 

[shuamort]

I agree. Anyone who has taken money illegally is ousted. It's time we clean slate up there anyways.

 

[RightinNYC]

These fact's aren't secret to anyone who has been following the Abramoff story. The names that I mentioned and the story itself has been around for years.

What's a Durkin?

*Dorgan, sorry about that.

 

[aquapub]

I think Dean's an idiot for making a staement such as he did. I have a feeling there will be several Dems caught up in this BS. The majority are going to be GOP, but they're in power. Who ya gonna bride? The guys in power that"s who.

I was watching a little of the Sunday morning blab fest shows and every GOP backer I saw was repeatedly pointing out "Dems took money too!" Like a broken record. So? Round them bastards up to. But just because some on the other side of the fence are guilty of this BS in no way releases those of yur own party.

I agree with virtually every statement made in this post. It is important to note that Democrats have done far worse things than what is being alleged against these Senators (when they were in power, and just in Election 2004 alone).

Republicans are running things, so of course the scandals are mostly going to be theirs, but using this to paint Republicans as having cornered the market on corruption would be an absolute and outrageously backwards lie.

But it also, in no way excuses any wrong-doing of any Republicans. Round them ALL up and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Stinger]

:spin:

Look how that statement is worded. The use of the word "and" .
Taking money from Indian Clients is not the same as taking money from Abramoff. It's like saying that anyone who ever donated to the GOP or the Dems gave money to the KKK since David Duke and Robert Byrd were members. Hogwash! :spin:

Dean rightly claimed that NO Dem took money from Abramoff. This story does not disprove this, it is only out there to try to muddy the waters.

Also where is the story in this link http://republicanvet.blogspot.com/ ? I don't see it.

Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers

By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 11, 2006

A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
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. ........................

You partisan Democrats are once again speaking too soon and too loudly.

 

[Stinger]

Excuse me, who said anything about the skybox? The lavish trips taken by DeLay and Ney are very unique--wouldn't you say? DeLay had a plane chartered for him by Abramoff.

On Capital Hill? No.

 

[ludahai]

A pox on both your houses! BOTH major parties are corrupt and will remain corrupt. It doesn't matter which one is worse, they are both lining up their pockets at the expense of the rest of us Americans.

Vote for a third party. Vote Constitution, Libertarian, Green, whatever! Send these guys a message. No more of this!

 

[akyron]

A pox on both your houses! BOTH major parties are corrupt and will remain corrupt. It doesn't matter which one is worse, they are both lining up their pockets at the expense of the rest of us Americans.

Vote for a third party. Vote Constitution, Libertarian, Green, whatever! Send these guys a message. No more of this!

Shockingly I find myself with a small urge to agree with you .

 

[Pacridge]

A pox on both your houses! BOTH major parties are corrupt and will remain corrupt. It doesn't matter which one is worse, they are both lining up their pockets at the expense of the rest of us Americans.

Vote for a third party. Vote Constitution, Libertarian, Green, whatever! Send these guys a message. No more of this!

I agree. This "well my guys aren't as bad as your guys" is getting beyond old.

 

[SixStringHero]

A pox on both your houses! BOTH major parties are corrupt and will remain corrupt. It doesn't matter which one is worse, they are both lining up their pockets at the expense of the rest of us Americans.

Vote for a third party. Vote Constitution, Libertarian, Green, whatever! Send these guys a message. No more of this!

I agree with this sentiment completely.

However, I think both parties suck equally.

By the way, wasn't that a Romeo and Juliet reference?

 

[Stinger]

A pox on both your houses! BOTH major parties are corrupt and will remain corrupt. It doesn't matter which one is worse, they are both lining up their pockets at the expense of the rest of us Americans.

Vote for a third party. Vote Constitution, Libertarian, Green, whatever! Send these guys a message. No more of this!

The AARP doesn't want the SS laws changed. So they donate money to a candidate who promises them not to change the SS laws and get him relected and he votes the way they want. Is he corrupt?

How about the teachers unions who oppose vouchers so they give money to politicians who then vote that way. Is the NEA bribing someone, is the congressman corrupt?

 

[Stinger]

I think there's one big difference in the democrats involved...for example-

Prove Dorgan knowingly took money from Abramoff to push the lobbying requests of this man.

Besides...Dorgan has already given back the money.

Prove a Republican did. Reid hasn't.

 

[Mikkel]

ABRAMOFF SCANDAL. It turns out the NRSC's spin that "Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff" (a line from the GOPSenators.com site we recognized just yesterday) is simply false. It turns out Abramoff has never given a penny of his money to Dems. An NRSC spokesman called the line a typo, saying they meant to say from Abramoff's associates and clients. According to the National Journal, even this is a major stretch. To get to the "40 of 45" figure, the NRSC included contributions from the Greenberg Traurig law firm's PAC -- as that is where Abramoff once worked -- even though GT is one of the largest law firms in the nation. Even some conservative Republicans are starting to play the Abramoff card in their campaigns.

-Politics1.com
(Jan 5, 2006)

I don't know if this has been posted yet, because I haven't read the entire thread, but I just thought you should know that not everything you read on republican websites is true (if anything at all).

 

[Pacridge]

ABRAMOFF SCANDAL. It turns out the NRSC's spin that "Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff" (a line from the GOPSenators.com site we recognized just yesterday) is simply false. It turns out Abramoff has never given a penny of his money to Dems. An NRSC spokesman called the line a typo, saying they meant to say from Abramoff's associates and clients. According to the National Journal, even this is a major stretch. To get to the "40 of 45" figure, the NRSC included contributions from the Greenberg Traurig law firm's PAC -- as that is where Abramoff once worked -- even though GT is one of the largest law firms in the nation. Even some conservative Republicans are starting to play the Abramoff card in their campaigns.

-Politics1.com
(Jan 5, 2006)

I don't know if this has been posted yet, because I haven't read the entire thread, but I just thought you should know that not everything you read on republican websites is true (if anything at all).

Got a link to this article?

 

[Mikkel]

http://www.politics1.com/blog-0106.htm

You have to scroll down a bit to Ron's posts from Jan 5, about 2/3 to 3/4 down the page. I think it's really interesting because a day before he recognized GOPsenators.com as the site of the day, and the next day finds a factual error on their main page. Let me know if you can't find it.

 

[Mikkel]

Here's the national journal article he refers to in his post:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/abramoff_money.html

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here's the national journal article he refers to in his post:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/abramoff_money.html

Hmm, so it sounds like this is just a Republican scandal.

 

[RightinNYC]

Hmm, so it sounds like this is just a Republican scandal.

Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers

By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 11, 2006

A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
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.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

how is this only republicans again?

 

[Pacridge]

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

how is this only republicans again?

Well "Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing" doesn't exactly say these people took money from that guy. Plus the list has been updated since it was first put out. Since that was first published 21 Democratic and 6 Republican's have been removed. Unless I'm reading this wrong:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_faq.asp


I believe there's every chance there will be Dems caught up in this. But I also believe the final totals going to be very heavy on the GOP side. Just doesn't make sense to me to buy votes from those not in power.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well "Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing" doesn't exactly say these people took money from that guy. Plus the list has been updated since it was first put out. Since that was first published 21 Democratic and 6 Republican's have been removed. Unless I'm reading this wrong:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_faq.asp


I believe there's every chance there will be Dems caught up in this. But I also believe the final totals going to be very heavy on the GOP side. Just doesn't make sense to me to buy votes from those not in power.

I still counted 89 D lawmakers on that list. While that number is about half of the number of the Republicans, it's not insignificant.

And I mean, when it comes down to it, a vote is a vote. If you're trying to get 13 votes in a Senate committee to give an indian gaming tribe special rights, I don't think it matters if those 13 votes come from all Reps, half reps and half dems, or mostly dems. It seems like they'd try to sway whatever lawmakers appeared to be most amenable to making a deal. Since Abramoff was a well known Rep, I'd assume his personal influence meant more to the reps who are involved, resulting in the disproportionate number of reps involved.

Doesn't by any means clear anyone involved, but then again, no lawmaker has been proved guilty of anything yet (and even money says no lawmaker ever will)

 

[BWG]

If you go to the link provided by RightatNYU


http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R


Now click on arrow in the dropdown box 'Display'

One of the options is 'Detail By Donor', select that

Another box will be displayed with donors names

Select: Abramoff, Jack A. & Pamela or
Scanlon, Michael P. or
SunCruz Casinos

I saw one Democrats name under SunCruz Casinos (Peter Deutsch D-Fla)


The rest of the donors names are Indian tribes. As far as I know the tribes are not under any investigation. As a matter of fact they are victims of Jack Abramoff's corruption machine.

Trying to shift the burden from the Republicans back onto someone else is just not flying at this time. However, all that get caught up in this net should be subject to any and all punishments/sanctions that may come their way.

 

[Stinger]

It turns out Abramoff has never given a penny of his money to Dems.

It's not his personal money that is the subject of the investigation. His personal reported donations were legal. It's the money he spread out from clients that is the subject of inquiery. You have fallen for the Democrats spin to try and get out of their own involvement in this. Yes Dems took the money just as easily as Rep did. Now whether anyone broke the law in doing so is another question and one that is very hard to prove.

The NEA gives money to candidates who vote the way they want issues to go, are they breaking the law? Have they bribed someone? How about the AARP and all the donations they gave to Democrats who fought against SS reform, were those bribes too?