Burns says Democrats behind Abramoff scandal

Missoulian ^ | Jan 10, 2006 | Jennifer McKee

[balch3]

Finally a Republican fighting back!

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[Long Distance Rider]

"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."

Abramoff could not vote for Burns so he bribed him. No difference from what he did to Reid, Pelosi et al. Corruption is corruption regardless of which side of the isle you are on.

"Burns has since said he will refund the money or give it to charity."

That make everything OK.

[lugsoul]

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.

[One Proud Dad]

If you take money, you are corrupt regardless of what your opponents say.

[Lady Heron]

Abramoff could not vote for Burns so he bribed him. No difference from what he did to Reid, Pelosi et al. Corruption is corruption regardless of which side of the isle you are on.

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.

[Lady Heron]

If you take money, you are corrupt regardless of what your opponents say.

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.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Why wold the richest man in Springfiled be TAKING bribes?

Oh...Montana Senator Burns...never mind.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Apologies for the bad spelling. The boss walked in as I finished the post.

[Long Distance Rider]

You are right of course. Abramoff gave Burns just under $150,000 because he liked the way he wore his hair. I am sure it is just a little bitty clerical error.

However as for as my congress critters are concerned, if they took money, I will work as hard as I can to defeat them.

[gathersnomoss]

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.

[Lady Heron]

You are right of course. Abramoff gave Burns just under $150,000 because he liked the way he wore his hair.

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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If you take money, you are corrupt regardless of what your opponents say.

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.

[JohnnyZ]

If you take money, you are corrupt

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.

[KevinDavis]

This innocent to proven guilty is so outdated...

[AmishDude]

The headline is misleading to boot. He's not saying the whole Abramoff thing was a Democrat plant, he's saying that linking him to Abramoff is his enemies' doing.

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.

[Bear_Slayer]

That make everything OK.

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.

[Bear_Slayer]

I don't like lobbyists making campaign donations, but it happens and it is legal.

[MNJohnnie]

No difference from what he did to Reid, Pelosi et al. Corruption is corruption regardless of which side of the isle you are on

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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

You may be right.