Posted on 01/04/2006 11:57:21 AM PST by areafiftyone
Edited on 01/04/2006 12:07:25 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff used to be the toast of Washington. Now he has plead guilty to fraud, public corruption and tax evasion in connection with dealings related to his American Indian clients, of whom he and former associate Michael Scanlon are accused of defrauding millions in fees. Scanlon was charged in November by the Justice Department with conspiracy to corrupt a U.S. lawmaker and is now cooperating with federal investigators. Abramoff, in exchange for his plea, could face up to ten years in prison while also setting the stage for investigators to use him as a witness against his former colleagues and political allies.
Many in Washington have turned on Abramoff, who used his connections to influence legislation by enticing lawmakers with golf trips, sporting events or fancy meals at his Washington restaurant. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who once described Abramoff as a friend, now denies having been tied to him.
But Abramoff's troubles don't just end with the tribes. He has also agreed to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with his 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos, a casino boat company that he had formerly represented. Adam Kidan, a SunCruz business partner, was also indicted. Kidan agreed in December to plead guilty.
Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999 *Click source link above*
Yep, "Everybody does it" won't fly. Pubbies or Rats, they all need to go.
The word 'bipartisan' means some larger than usual deception is being carried out - George Carlin
Also, since the allegations against Jack seem to be about giving money for favors, can you cite to a single instance of Jack taking Dims on golfing trips to Scotland, or hiring their staffers for lucrative jobs, or giving them expensive event tickets, etc.? Just one?
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530514/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528909/posts
Go to your first one. The oft-published list of donations to Dims by "Abramoff and clients." Cue up "Detail by donor." Look under "Jack and Pamela Abramoff" and tell me how much they gave to Dims.
As I said - Not. One. Dime.
So, since you have said my assertion is "certainly incorrect," I'd ask that you simply look at your own sources and retract your statement.
What your sources show is that some Indian tribes gave money to Congressional candidates. Period. Now, some may want to contend that every dime of political donations from tribal sources is somehow tied to Abramoff. But that would be a bit disingenuous, and I'm sure you know that. Some of that money may be tied to Abramoff, but it will take a bit more than the links you've posted to show that.
Though, I must say, I'm somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm with which the "they did it, too" defense is embraced around these parts.
Go to the source. Look at "Detail by donor" and see if you can find those "individual contributions" to Dims. Good luck, 'cuz you won't find them.
Are you trying to say it's illegal for an individual to give money to political candidates? Because that's what the list you sent to me shows. What's your point?
I'm rather bemused that Hillary just took a big hit for not reporting campaign money and there is no media hysteria.
And, btw, it seems you didn't read the second link I provided.
Bots are blinder than Clintonites.
My point is exactly the one you said is "certainly incorrect." Jack Abramoff didn't give ANY money to Dims. Some Indian tribes that were clients of Abramoff's gave money to Dims.
I posted that earlier on this thread. You said it was "certainly incorrect." I asked for backup to your assertion, and you provided links which show exactly what I stated.
But I think you already figured that out, so you made up some ridiculous assertion I haven't even hinted at to ascribe to me.
As far as what is illegal, I'll just leave that to the actual crimes to which Mr. Abramoff has pled guilty, and accepted a penalty of several million dollars and ten years in prison. As far as what is stated in the information, those crimes did not involve Dims. If you've got some other info indicating that they did, bring it.
You asked for information that Abramson gave to Dims and/or influence buying. Nice that you've conveniently ignored the link I sent about Dorgan.
When someone pleads guilty to bribing Hillary for political favors, maybe you can assert some equivalence there. But it is still a lame defense.
Providing money, trips, skybox seats, free dinners, etc. in exchange for political favors is wrong. And illegal. And that is the case whether it is a Dim or someone who is on "your side." This man just admitted to doing this with a number of GOP persons, that we know of. Those who accepted his largess and gave favor in return deserve scorn. He deserves scorn for using such largess to pervert our political system. Period. Those who defend him or those who participated in his schemes are defending institutionalized corruption. Period.
I agree. "Everybody does it" is no excuse.
As for the Dorgan link, I'm not ignoring it - IT DOESN'T SAY that Abramoff gave money to Dorgan. It says a tribe did. If that is linked to some favor, Dorgan should go down, along with the rest.
The basic dispute here is that I stated that Abramoff didn't give money to Dims, but some tribes he represented did. You said my assertion was "certainly incorrect." I request backup, and your posted backup supports the assertion that you tagged as "certainly incorrect." And you won't admit it.
Ironically, last night I was thinking about the individual contributions (before looking at the table you reference) and thought 'who cares about what Abramoff personally gave'. Here's why I don't care:
1. Abramoff can only give $2000 personally. OK he may have done so for Republicans he personally supported (unfortunately not all political donors are decent people and no one can change that). When campaigns run in the millions, 2K isn't going to get you any influence.
2. So what buys influence? The PACs etc. If I were Abramoff, I wouldn't say 'gee Congressman, I gave you $2000'. I would say 'Sen. X, remember me, I'm the guy who had my interests run $98000 into your war chest'. Screw the $2000. It just doesn't matter.
As such, the Democrats are in it just as bad as the Republicans whether or not Abramoff gave them any money personally. Will the MSM/Dems spin to only focus on the $2000 contributions? You bet. Will investigators focus on the personal contributions, I hope not - if so the investigation will be a complete waste and no progress will be made.
That being said, we can't loose focus on cleaning house when it comes to the crooks, Republican and Democrat.
See post# 75 re: individual contributions.
I'll admit that Abramoff personally only gave money to the Republicans the minute you admit that your assertion that Judge Posner (that brilliant legal mind you so admire) did not, as you asserted, disagree with the NSA spying program or think it was illegal. How's that?
I'd love to see someone go back to Clinton era day and see what Abramoff personally gave in the 90's. I'll bet he's an equal opportunity personal donator, depending on who is in power.
But it is sad to see that your admission of an obvious fact supported by your own linked sources is conditioned on some kind of deal. How Abramoffian.
Then you need to read it again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053_pf.html
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.