Oh...Montana Senator Burns...never mind.
Posted on 01/10/2006 11:48:16 AM PST by balch3
HELENA - Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said Monday his political enemies are behind newspaper reports linking him to confessed felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Burns, who is on a media tour of Montana this week, also said he has no intentions of dropping out of the 2006 U.S. Senate race, quashing a rumor that has floated around both Helena and Washington, D.C.
“Write it down, real quick: I've never had more enthusiasm or higher energy for a campaign in my life than I got right now, OK? End of story,” Burns told the Lee Newspapers State Bureau reporters in an interview. “I never had this much enthusiasm in 1988. Take it to the bank. Make book on it.”
Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported Monday that speculation is swirling that Burns may drop out of the race.
The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have reported Burns is among four lawmakers caught up in an ongoing Justice Department investigation into influence peddling surrounding Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon.
Both men have made plea agreements with federal prosecutors, paving the way for their cooperation in a broader probe possibly looking at lawmakers.
Burns faulted Montana reporters for consistently repeating the Journal and Post reports, which are based on anonymous sources. Burns said the stories were based on “half-truths and innuendos.” He said it is impossible for him to prove that he's not under investigation, thus making it impossible for him to clear his name.
As is its practice, the Justice Department refuses to comment on ongoing investigations.
“Until I am or I am not (charged), what makes it a story?” Burns said. “Just your opponents. You take the word of one opponent and you know it's all a bunch of garbage. It's not what you throw against the barn door, it's what sticks.”
Said Burns: “The Democrats said they were going to run a smear campaign and they're doing it.”
Burns also said that as far as he knows, he is not under investigation.
Burns has taken just under $150,000 in donations from Abramoff, his clients and associates, more than any other lawmaker, according to a Washington Post tally. Burns has since said he will refund the money or give it to charity.
Two Burns staffers quit his staff to take jobs with Abramoff. One of those aides, former chief of staff Will Brooke, also attended the 2001 Super Bowl at Abramoff's invitation. That trip was cited in Abramoff's recent plea deal as the kind of favor the lobbyist would pay for lawmakers in exchange for legislative favors.
Burns was not named in the agreement.
Asked about the trip, Burns said he never asked Brooke, then his chief of staff, about it. He said Brooke was told the trip was paid for by Abramoff's tribal clients.
“They were lied to on that,” Burns said.
As for Abramoff, the senator said to the best of his knowledge he's met him once.
“Abramoff was one bad apple in a bushel,” Burns said. “We use lobbyists. I can't run an airline. I can't run a power company. There's a lot of things that I don't know very much about.”
Lobbyists, and any other citizen, have a right to petition their government, he said. The key for lawmakers, he said, is not keeping lobbyists out of their offices, but having the steadiness to know their own philosophy and not be swayed by special interests.
“If you're not solid in your philosophy, then I think you would have a pretty hard time delineating what's good and what's bad,” he said. “I vote philosophy first.”
Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the Montana Democratic Party, said Democrats are not trying to smear the senator.
“We are attempting to tell the story of what happened with Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff,” McKenna said. “The sooner Conrad Burns stops misleading Montanans about that story, the sooner we can move on to talk about the issues.”
bttt
Senator, I don't think it is the word of your "opponent" that is the problem. It is the word of your patron that will be the problem.
If you take money, you are corrupt regardless of what your opponents say.
I am sorry but this is bull and a non-story until we know who has been bribed.
Has it come out yet who actually changed the way he or she would have voted on anything because he or she received Abramoff's money? Until we know who they are going to prosecute for bribery this is just democrat propaganda mouthed by the MSM.
As for giving the money to charity, my question is why? If you did nothing wrong it is just money from one more lobbiest.
Every politician in Washington has to take money to run for office. Checking out who they are taking that money from is not high on the list.
The problem only comes in if they take the money and change their stance on how they would normally vote on something.
Oh...Montana Senator Burns...never mind.
Apologies for the bad spelling. The boss walked in as I finished the post.
No, this just can't be. Well what republican (s) have the b@ll$ to nab the crats on their connection? I am not holding my breath.
You know that is a very cute and snappy comment, but it does not change the fact that lobbyist give this type of money to politicians, and unless he has been caught changing his vote for the money there is no crime and until the justice department comes out and says they are prosecuting him you are doing exactly what the msm wants.
I will be the first to say he must go if he took a bribe . Until then I will not be a stooge for msm propaganda and the agenda it carries and will hope you are right and Abramoff just loved his and all of those other politicians hair.
All of our Congressman take donations to their campaigns. So did President Bush and what's-his-name Kerry. It's not illegal except under certain specific conditions.
So far Burns hasn't even been indicted. He's guilty of nothing until he's found guilty at trial.
Every politician accepts campaign donations. Does that make every one corrupt? If I donate $100 to a politician, does that make him corrupt?
Don't be an ass.
This innocent to proven guilty is so outdated...
And he's right. Abramoff is guilty of financial shenanegans. I don't know that he's pled guilty to bribery. Maybe he did. But well over 80% of Congress received money from Abramoff or one of his clients (which is really equivalent to his giving the money, the way his org. worked, plus he was severely limited in his personal donations anyway, they were a pittance). But just receiving money from Abramoff doesn't prove a thing, it doesn't even suggest anything.
The money given was legal campaign donations. These same donations were given to democrats as well. Many are given the money back or to charity. Not because they are necessarily dirty, but to distance themselves from Abramoff. Do you have any source that Burns took bribes?
I didn't think so.
I don't like lobbyists making campaign donations, but it happens and it is legal.
Funny how the ONLY people being held to this standard are Republicans. Funny how urgent some Freepers find it to hold Republicans to vastly higher standards then they hold Democrats to when it comes to fund raising.
LOL!
You may be right.
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.