Tracing the case (Jack Abramoff's kickbacks, in a NYT graphic)

The NYT ^ | Jan 4, 2006 | Anne E. Kornblut

[summer]

Fine, that happens everyday to lots of people.

No, I don't think it's "fine" -- I think it stinks that someone this corrupt, committing criminal acts, is so close to lawmakers and other elected policymakers in this country. STINKOs.

[oceanview]

I am not questioning the financial crimes at all - I believe them.

I am only interested in the political aspect of this.

[I'm ALL Right!]

I saw a list yesterday stating that John Kerry took over $90,000. Where is he on the list here????

[oceanview]

I am not saying "fine" because I excuse them - I am just noting that financial crimes like this are commonplace.

[summer]

In other words, if he hasn't offered up any hard evidence of criminal behavior on the part of the politicians,

Yes, it is still an open question what others did or did not do, but I doubt the DOJ intends to get "rolled" on this. I suspect we do not know what he told the DOJ; we do not know if it is true; but most of all, we do not know the evidence yet. I think that's why they keep mentioning his emails in the press. Perhaps there are some written surprises coming down the pipe.

[summer]

But, regardless, he is still a creep-o and what he DID do does STINK-O!

[JamesA]

Good God, where do we go from here. Look like our whole political reps. are in the web. Heads should roll!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I would be happy with some honest candidates, and term limits. I wish we didn't have to have term limits, but I think we do need them.

By establishing term limits we put more power in the hands of unelected people. A Congressman or Senator needs a couple of terms to get a grip on the procedures and flow of the political machinary in Washington. It is the professional staffers that show them the ropes.

Force term limits on members of Congress and you hand control over to the staffers. If you think voting out 535 members of Congress and the Senate would be hard, imagine trying to get rid of between 15,000 to 20,000 staffers.

Vote out those of the elected elite class who are not doing their job, don't give power to the unelected elite class just to get rid of all the elected ones.

[McGavin999]

I think that we may see the emergence of a third, or even fourth, party,

You think it's bad now with two parties? Just wait and see the kind of corruption you get with multi-parties.

[Red Badger]

If my name was Jack Abramoff, and I was going to be in prison, I think I'd change my name..........

[I'm ALL Right!]

What's up with THIS list posted yesterday? Many more RATS involved than these other reports are letting on. If this is correct, Kerry took over $98,000...but he didn't even make the list.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I know, I know. I'm just frustrating to see these same old, same old,,,,,,
I used to be able to think of at least a couple Democrats that I respected, not anymore. I just want to see things change, and I guess I'm getting a bit careless due to my frustration! I don't want to see multiple parties, I dont really want term limits. But what has been going on is so disgusting! My Dad used to tell me, "Johhny, they're all crooks!"

[drjimmy]

Problem with your "graphic" (other then be suspect because it is coming from a Rabidly Leftist Political activist website) is it does NOT include 3/4's of the donations to DEMOCRATS including the largest donations to State Democrat Parties and Congressional Democrat Comittees.

Though not a Democrat, I can still explain the graphic. The bottom line is that Jack Abramoff himself has not donated a single cent to a Democrat. Quoting an article from Bloomberg News:
"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."

If you look at the NYT graphic in post #56, you will see that the darker bar is donations from Abramoff and his wife, while the lighter bar is donations from nine Indian tribes and SunCruz Casinos. In the listing of Democrats, none has gotten a donation from Abramoff and his wife, only from the tribes and the casino.

Going to the link you provided for the Center for Responsive Politics, you can actually see specific donations to specific politicians and political committees. Sort the list to display "Detail by Recipient--Donor order." You will see that Jack and Pamela Abramoff gave to 112 individual Republicans or Republican PACs, and no Democrats or Democrat PACS. You can then see that the Indian tribes and SunCruz Casinos gave to both parties, though to Republicans by a substantial margin.

[Paul Ross]

I pray that is right.

Especially regarding J.D. Hayworth, (R-AZ)

They can have the rest...but we really need him badly to stay clean.

[Palladin]

That's a great graphic. Thanks to all.

DeLay is TOAST.

[Palladin]

I have my own rule of thumb for figuring out who was in Abramoff's pocket. Look at which Congresscitters have really packed on the weight in the last two years, from eating gratis at Abramoff's restaurant. The staff was told that ALL meals were to be comped (free) for Abramoff's greedy slimeball congressmen.

Hayworth is carrying about 50 extra pounds, as are Schumer and Hillary.

Warning: my method is very unscientific.

And to the fat greedy Congresscritters: There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH!

[oceanview]

I see they pulled your other thread.

I still say this guy has traded innuendo for a plea deal. he is a crook, he's made alot of campaign donations, and he is using the revelation of these otherwise legal campaign contributions as providing evidence of "corruption", to cut a deal for himself.

He's got hard evidence that 60 lawmakers promised him votes for cash? or took illegal personal gifts that are traceable? no way. 60 is a big number.

[summer]

I still say this guy has traded innuendo for a plea deal. he is a crook, he's made alot of campaign donations, and he is using the revelation of these otherwise legal campaign contributions as providing evidence of "corruption", to cut a deal for himself.

You may be right about that. Because he IS a crook; on that point, you and I agree. But, again, we'll have to wait to see what evidence exists that convinced the DOJ to go with his accusations.

Also, someone did freepmail me the link to that other article, but it reverts to a registration page for the WSJ.

[summer]

Here's the pulled article, reposted with a link: CLICK HERE.

[mac_truck]

bookmark