Abramoff Pleads Guilty, Will Cooperate (20 Congressmembers Under Investigation!)

Breitbart.com ^ | 2.02.06 | Mark Sherman

[buckeyesailor]

thats right. I didnt take anything and by the way I am returning it all. Its alredy started.

[Eva]

What is the difference between Abramoff and Soros?

[Wormwood]

I expect only a few indictments and at most, only one conviction of an actual lawmaker. But, that still would be big.

Not to mention a good start.

[summer]

Absolutely correct!

[Howlin]

If they are dirty, regardless of party affiliation, try them and fry them.

Amen. Get 'em all.

[rwfromkansas]

Most who get in trouble with this will be congressional staffers I think. It is easier to get the small fish.

[Howlin]

Nothing to me.

[true_blue_texican]

I believe that the ammendment changing *HOW* Senators were elected is the worst one out there (next to income tax ... but, heh ) I am for a "Constitutional Restoration act of 20.." to make Sentators accountable to State Legislatures!!!! Then I can go down the street and gripe to my local state congresswoman (well, I used-to-could; she quit a few years ago, but she only lives a block away!!!) about our Senator (I don't have any gripes, right now, this is a hypothetical.... but if I lived in PA.......) and our Senator would hear about our collective gripes much more accurately than they do now.

[mystery-ak]

thats right. I didnt take anything and by the way I am returning it all. Its alredy started.


Hastert announced today that he is giving the money to charity...I imagine a lot of charities to recieve windfalls in the coming weeks....

[alnick]

Well, I'm sure that merely being a recipient of his donations doesn't implicate the person with being a part of his crimes.

I doubt he had something illegal going on with each and every recipient.

I'm sure we'll never hear of some of the democrat criminals he was in cahoots with.

And the Republicans will all be painted as being crooked if Abramoff ever donated a dime to any of their campaigns.

[oldbrowser]

For what it is worth, here is the Abramoff Top 20 regardless of party. Interesting that the WaPo provided this Top 20 list and this thread suggests that 20 are under investigation. No connection is implied.

The money is pretty well spread on both sides, there will be no blood.

[mystery-ak]

Thanks for posting that graph...I didn't know that we could post it since it was from the Wash Post...

[Jim Noble]

what did he get for these contributions?

Too soon to tell.

[CarlEOlsoniii]

Yes I completely agree that this is a much bigger deal than people are making it out to be. Mr. Abramoff funneled tens of millions of dollars illegally from the Indians. He will have his testimony and the testimony, most likely of aides, of others. He probably has countless emails, and he will bring them all out. I see multiple convictions if he can give hard enough evidence, and he will now try.

[oceanview]

we agree.

that's why I liked ABSCAM - all nice and neat on video tape.

look at the stuff they had on Toricelli - they still couldn't indict him.

[dead]

It will only be a big deal for those politicians for whom some knowledge of the illegality of the contribution's source can be shown, or where a provable quid pro quo exists.

Might be a all of them, might be some, might be none.

Most likely a handful of them. Good riddance to them.

[airborne]

Look who took the most - Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550

[kcvl]

As for Abramoff, he is now the needy client. Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abbe Lowell of Chadbourne & Parke, a law firm that Abramoff now employs.

Abbe Lowell, DEMOCRAT, of the Clinton IMPEACHMENT fame and kidnapping of Elian Gonzales.

[Wolfstar]

I chose this variation of the circulating Abramoff articles because it reinforces the fact that 20 members of congress are under investigation.

Careful. The article does not say 20 members are, in fact, under investigation. It says, "...investigation that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides."

"Is believed" -- by whom? The reporter?

"As many as" -- that's the top figure this reporter is giving. It could be fewer.

"20 members...and aides" -- is the figure of (as many as) 20 a mix of members and aides, or (as many as) 20 members plus an unspecified number of aides?

Reporters always like to hedge their bets with weasel words, especially when they are stating something not attributed at all, not even to anonymous sources, which is the case here.