Posted on 01/28/2006 1:02:04 PM PST by TitansAFC
Okay, I've had it.
Perhaps I can try and look at the issue through DNC glasses. Abramoff money to Dems does not count because, unlike the couple of thousand dollar checks directly written by his hand to Republicans, the money associated with Jack and given to Democrats does not come directly from his checkbook. An interesting new standard to abide by, yes. I would say it's even quite ridiculous.
But using the Dem argument, I run into a few questions that make no sense to me. For example:
Did the White House practice corruption by taking $2,000 from Abramoff directly in the 2004 campaign - that same White House which raised well over $200,000,000, that is? For that matter, is just taking the contribution illegal in any way? What can you purchase for $1,000 donations from a GOP swimming in hundreds of millions of dollars?
Did or did not Howard Dean claim that no Democrat had EVER received Jack Abramoff money on Katie Couric's show? Is that not patently untrue, even when counting only checks directly from Jack himself?
And my biggest questions:
What, exactly, is the proof of wrongdoing, corruption, or illegality that currently exists that would allow Dean to claim that the GOP is corrupt and solely corrupt in all of this? What is it, exactly, that the Dems accuse the GOP of having done?
I need a clarification, really. What is the central charge aginst Republicans in all of this that is illegal????? What is the standing proof that Republicans did anything wrong?
Freepers, I need your help. Somebody please explain it to me! I have not yet been able to determine what illegal act has been proven against any GOPer in this Abramoff case.
Amazing how the same collection of whiners that hyperventilate about Abramoff never give the Bush Dept of Justice credit for going after, and sucessfully prosecuting, Abramoff. Funny how they just gloss over the reports that 2 of the top 5 lawmakers being targeted by DOJ are Democrat's Dorgan (D-ND) and Reid (D-Nv)
Let's ping Johnny Chung and see what he thinks....... Johnny?
It's the same old same old double standard.
Because the dems did not receive any money DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMHOFF'S CHECKING ACCOUNT .. they are trying to make the public believe the money from Abramoff's clients doesn't count.
So when Dean says, "no dem received any money from Abramoff", he's partly correct in that no personal money from Abramoff was paid directly to dems - however, I agree with MNJohnnie that this is disingenuous because the DOJ is investigating several high level dems - and only 1 repub for illegal activities.
The dems believe they have a scandal with which they can regain their power in the govt in 2006 - but the public is not surprised by this activitity - and several polls have shown that this IS NOT ANY KIND OF GAIN FOR DEMS.
And .. as they always do .. the dems will over-reach and end up exposing themselves. Like the NSA - which will expose the NYT - the Abramoff investigation will expose Reid and Durbin for the liars they are.
Good question. So far all I have been able to figure out is that Abramoff admitted that he scammed his Indian tribe clients and committed criminal acts in his financing of his casino ships buy. So, he's a criminal. They gave him a plea deal ostensibly because they are going after bigger fish among elected representative, but that is only an assumption at this time. If he actually bribed a congresscritter to take certain action in his/her political position, that would be bad, but I haven't heard anyone actually charged with that yet. So far, the scandal is that Abramoff is a crook, and he's a Republican.
Kind of interesting insight into Democrats "thinking" Limited by law $2000 personal Contribution from Jack-"Proof of a Republican Culture of corruption" $10 OF THOUSANDS distributed by Abramoff via his direction of various PACs ""Good Money in Politics"
Just another example of the Democrats Culture of Hypocrisy
What is the technical difference between a "campaign contribution" and a "bribe.". Does not one support those candidates who will support the legislation one desires? Any legal types know?
Another take (and a good one).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566225/posts
Yep, the DEMS have cherry picked these legal personal contributions which any other american can make. The ISSUE is purchasing quid pro quos with the $millions these lobbiest control.
I always thought the most heinous example of this was when the Gore Commission Airline Security report got shelved for contibutions in 1996. Remedies from that report could have prevented 9/11.
Guess which rich and powerful DEM Senator's wife was a lobbiest for the airlines? He was deeply saddened in 2004.
Quite frankly, if Abramoff bought all the purported influence for a measly $1.7 mill handing it out in dribs and drabs, he should be hired immediately! Look at how Soros made out with all the money he spent ... he got John Kerry! Still, when it comes to bang-for-the-buck, the Swifties win hands-down. God Bless them.
Insanity meets desparation.
The accusation is that Abramoff crossed the line from lobbying and flat-out bought the votes and/or influence of a number of politicians.
There is a fine line between accepting campaign contributions from organizations who support one's views, and selling one's office, influence, or vote.
A fine line- but not invisible. A good example would be a politician with a long record of opposing logging, who accepts a large donation from a timber company and then votes to open up National Forests to logging.
The usual legal standard is an obvious "quid pro quo"- it has to be clear that the politician was bought and paid for.
In the example above, it would be the politician's unusual vote.
In such a case, it's up to a grand jury to decide if there's enough evidence to indict on the charges, and a judge and jury to determine guilt if indicted.
Your asking the same questions I want to know...It looks to me like all Abromoff did is what any lobbyist would do except he cheated his clients out of their money
Agreed! I have written about this several times. I think the number turned out to be a $611,000 buyoff.
Why this is not thrown in Gore's puffy, fat face every time he opens his yap about corruption in the Republician party, I can't fathom.
And, can you, or anyone else, tell me why this little scam was not looked into by the highly lauded 9/11 Commission on Terrorism. Answer below...
Jamie Gorelick is the Clinton/Gore administrations "White House Plumber".
BEWARE!! BEWARE!! WE WANT TIHS PROBLEM TO GO AWAY, PERIOD! Trust me on this folks, it will NOT turn out to be as bad for the Rats as for us....
Posted without further comment: make of it what you will....
Dems Don’t Know Jack
A new analysis of Abramoff tribal money by a nonpartisan firm shows it’s a Republican scandal.
By Greg Sargent
Web Exclusive: 01.27.06
Print Friendly | Email Article
A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.
The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.
In the weeks since Abramoff confessed to defrauding tribes and enticing public officials with bribes, the question of whether Abramoff directed donations just to Republicans, or to the GOP and Democrats, has been central to efforts by both parties to distance themselves from the unfolding scandal. President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: “It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.”
Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”
But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.
The analysis includes a detailed look at seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients, and a comparison of their giving with that of approximately 170 other tribes. (Abramoff is often said to have had nine tribal clients. But Morris omitted two of the tribes – the Pueblo of Santa Clara, whose donations were virtually nonexistent, and the Tigua Indian Reservation, because it isn’t listed in Federal lobbying files as having a lobbyist and Abramoff worked on contingency. At any rate Santa Clara’s post-Abramoff donations to the GOP were overwhelmingly higher than to Dems, so including them would have added even more to the GOP side of the ledger.)
The analysis shows:
# in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
# five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
# four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
# Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.
“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.
Only thing I can figure is what Abramoff didn't donate directly he got his clients the tribal community to donate to. So every member in Congress is guilty.
The milquetoasts at the RNC have decided it was better to left Bush take the blame for 9/11 and have Republican mean "corruption" than to get dirty fighting the Dems.
I agree. But the issue won't play out of the beltway. I think this was 5th or 6th (single digits I believe)on a list of issues that were important to Americans.
People expect politicans to be like this and it'll only affect the guys that are directly involved if any indictments are handed down at all.
Apparently, for the rats, it is DIFFERENT when you take money from Abramoff's MACHINE, as opposed to taking it from HIM...somewhere there is this difference, I guess.
There is no "scandal" here..just the usual bleating of the sheep.
Hell, Mike Espy took all the gifts (35k worth), as much as admitted he took all the gifts, tht DA proved he received all the gifts, but the jury found no "quid pro quo", so Mike Espy was not guilty.
America, what a country,
I found this googling...
Federal campaign laws limit the size of a donation an individual can make directly to a federal campaign (presidential, Congressional, Senatorial) to $1,000 prior to the party's nomination and $1,000 after the nomination.
This isn't a big problem for incumbents. They get enormous free publicity, so they need less money for advertising. And special-interest groups are glad to fund-raise on their behalf, presenting incumbents with $50,000 or more in $1,000 donations they've bundled from their members.
The contribution limits are even less of a hurdle for Senators and Congressmen who chair committees — people like, not surprisingly, Senator John McCain. Political Action Committees, corporations, and individuals line up to contribute or provide in-kind help in order to obtain access to a committee chairman, in the hope of passing pet legislation or warding off bills that are dangerous to their own interests.
Federal Election Committee Citizens' Guide
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Beware! Beware! of anything with the byline:
By Greg Sargent
Greg never wrote of a democrat he doesn't love. His adoration of Hillary is widely know. He is an avowed Bush hater and has never wrote a complimentary word of him.
Giving money to Republicans is NOT a crime. Unless a deal was made - money in exchange for votes - there is no there there! The Democrats are trying to make it sound like lots Republicans are in trouble because they took lobby money. Some might have taken "gifts" for clear and voiced promises of votes. That would have to be proven in a court of law. Dems might have as well.
They are trying to make Bush look guilty because he talks to lobbyists when they work to support leglislation he wants passed. The lobbyists' repesenting me - handing out campaign money to conservative politicans and talking to them are pro-life and small government/low tax lobbyists.
Dems are trying to criminalize the system that gives Republicans more money than they get. They want to ban for profit companies and corps from lobbying. Ofcourse, they don't mind their non-profit and union groups doing it.
“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect."
Former editor for the LA Times, and this is a "non-partisan" outfit? Sorry...but I don't buy it.
Unless there are some indictments on Republicans for taking bribes or skimming money (like this guy did) I don't see how it will go far EXCEPT to galvanize those who already hate Republicans
Well, your friend's silly "non-partisan" analysis is cute, but wrong. Thanks for trying, but you don't have any actual facts to back that nonsense do you?
You newbies have much to learn. Boston Republican put up a "summary" of a "non-partisan" "analysis". BWAHAHAHAHA.
Here, on FR, we prefer facts. You agree with him, right? Do you have any verifiable FACTS on which you base your feelings of agreement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.