Democrats Benefited from Abramoff Contributions, Too

CNS News ^ | January 5, 2006 | Melanie Hunter

[mugs99]

Dorgan is among the lawmakers who have already returned campaign donations or given those donations to charity.

Lol...
If the cops find out you robbed a bank just donate the money to charity and you're off the hook!
.

[88keys]

Yes...the Justice Department may currently be theoretically under the direction of the Bush administration, but the vast majority of personnel are those famous "career civil servants", many of whom are people of great integrity who serve honorably, but a fair share of whom are previous political appointees who absolutely oppose the current policies and/or any reforms..they may still be "honorably serving", but they are promoting the "old agenda" of the Reno/Gorelick/Clinton era, and at least a few of them are not the least honorable in using any means to achieve their end "ideal"...

[gondramB]

"All bribes are called donations."

When it's a big donation people usually expect something in return, if only to be seen together.

But the President apparently took money from Abramoff so we need to get used to the idea that he gave money far and wide and it's only when he traded that money for something improper that it's a problem. Heck, some of his clients are fabulously wealthy Indian tribes who give to half the senate on general principles.

[jamese777]

In the case of Jack Abramoff, a Bush appointee--Deputy Attorney General Alice S. Fisher, head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department is heading the investigation and she negotiated the Abramoff guilty plea.
This is a big enough case that the Attorney General himself will be directly involved.

[jamese777]

"Lol...
If the cops find out you robbed a bank just donate the money to charity and you're off the hook!"

The President of the United States George W. Bush donated some Abramoff money to the American Heart Association yesterday. Are you suggesting that the President is trying to get off the hook?

[88keys]

You're right...thanks! A quick Google (am I allowed to write that?) search is quite reassuring on Fisher's background, etc...and all we want here is the real news, and real integrity from our "public servants" without regard to political "leanings"...I feel much better now! ;)

[mugs99]

The President of the United States George W. Bush donated some Abramoff money to the American Heart Association yesterday. Are you suggesting that the President is trying to get off the hook?

How can that be?
If it was a campaign contribution, it would be illegal to use it for another purpose.
If it was a gift...why did he accept it?
Would that not be a bribe?
So yes, it does look like he's trying to get off the hook...if he knew the score, which I doubt.
If he did not know, heads should roll.
. .

[jamese777]

"How can that be?
If it was a campaign contribution, it would be illegal to use it for another purpose.
If it was a gift...why did he accept it?
Would that not be a bribe?
So yes, it does look like he's trying to get off the hook...if he knew the score, which I doubt.
If he did not know, heads should roll."

Abramoff is a "Bush Pioneer" having raised $100,000 for the President's reelection campaign and personally donating an additional $173,688 to the Republican Party since 2000.
Its impossible for any candidate or politician to know everything about every person who donates to their campaign or their party.
The money that some politicians including the President are returning is the "dirty" money that was raised or given illegally.

[cgbg]

bribery charge difficult to prove

In the Abramoff situation it may not be as difficult as many think.

Today lobbyists communicate with politician's staff members by email.

Abramoff's MO was contribution before favor, then favor delivered, then another contribution after favor.

The timing of the contributions will be an important part of a prosecutor's case.

In one sense the prosecutor does not have to "prove" what was in the politician's mind. They just have to convince a jury that it would be unreasonable for the politician to have done what they did unless they were bribed to do so.

In Ney's case, for example, it makes no sense for him to stand up in Congress and start blabbering about Florida casinos on two separate occasions when he is a Congressman from Ohio and nobody else is even discussing the topic. Then when you learn he was given large contributions before and after the speeches and if there are emails from the lobbyist to his staff member as well as oral testimony from witnesses you probably have enough there to persuade a jury that bribery was committed.

Democrats like Kennedy (RI) are trying to argue that they always supported Indian tribes. Whether they were bribed in a specific case depends on when they received contributions, what actions they took after receiving them, whether such actions were ones they would have taken regardless (based on their history), and whether "thank you" contributions were paid afterwards.

Abramoff has supposedly claimed he can nail sixty congressman and senators.

Perhaps he can--stay tuned!

[mugs99]

The money that some politicians including the President are returning is the "dirty" money that was raised or given illegally

Lol...
So, you get $100,000 in dirty money and a $6,000 contribution to a charity evens the score?
Don't get me wrong, I voted for Bush twice and I do know the score.

All politicians take bribes. That's how business is done. Abramoff not only paid bribes, he screwed over the people who gave him the money to pay those bribes. Giving some of the money to charity does not pay back those who the money was stolen from.
.