Posted on 01/10/2006 5:56:26 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper
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 Gazette State Bureau. "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.
"The Democrats said they were going to run a smear campaign and they're doing it," Burns said.
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 he's met him once, to the best of his knowledge.
"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."
Pings
If Burns is unable to clear himself, he has an obligation to step aside. In any event, when he first ran in 1988, he promised to serve only two terms.
Yep. I remember that too. In fact 1988 was the first year I become eligible to register to vote.
You are as bad as the Rats, Clear himself from what?
From corruption charges. He's accused of using his office to benefit a client of Jack Abramoff in exchange for campaign contributions.
Maybe he should not run, and let Rep Denny Rehberg run for the seat. I think he would be a strong candidate. Unfortunately that might not leave anyone to take on Max Baucus next time. You think former Gov Racicot might run?
I have no idea. Which means that if Rehberg does run, it's important to find a good candidate to succeed him.
just because he's got a lot of high energy and enthusiasm for a campaign doesn't mean he's not guilty of taking 150,000 dollars.....what's a campaign? against truth?
just because he's got a lot of high energy and enthusiasm for a campaign doesn't mean he's not guilty of taking 150,000 dollars.....what's a campaign? against truth?
If the Republicans had stones, they would insist that the Barrett report be fully released before the Abramoff report. But we know the answer to this question.
Help me out here.
Has Burns been charged with a crime? OR has he been accused of a crime?
If accused, by whom? Justice Dept.?
He's been implicated in a bribery investigation. Charges may be forthcoming.
I'm having trouble understanding this mess.:(
No charges have been filed or made, except in the newspapers and/or the Rats. Gee, lets at least not hang Burns before the trial.
"If Burns is unable to clear himself"
oh please... innuendo and guilt-by-association is what the Democrats are running on here. Burns is returning the money and not a single quid-pro-quo has been cited.
"Is anyone and everyone that Abramoff gave money to guilty of bribery or was some just campaign donations?"
It's lobbyist campaign donations for the most part.
ABRAMOFF IS A MAN WHO BROKE A LAW TOTALLY UNRELATED TO HIS LOBBYING ... He lied on a loan application to buy a business. He basically committed fraud and pretended to have assets he didnt have, in buying a casino. It blew up within a year.
The Democrats are successfully using that fact to smear anyone tainted by association with Abramoff, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE OTHER PEOPLE DID ANYTHING WRONG.
"
I understand what constitutes a bribe but surely all of these congresscritters that got money from Abramoff didn't act on this crooks wants & wishes.
"
That's the point that those hyping this want you to miss.
The Democrats will shout 'corruption' and will fail to tell you that from a lobbying perspective, Abramoff was not much different from the other lobbying players. If some of it looks sleazy, well, some of it is.
The RAT smear campaign is working. Rasmussen reports today that Burns has lost his double digit lead over both RAT challengers and is in a statistical tie. At least he's started fighting back so there's still hope.
Also, if you remember clearly, Burns promised in 1988 that he would limit himself to two terms, but in 2000 he went back on his word. This doesn't reflect well on him.
Another thing to remember, Burns is 71 y/o. That's another reason he should consider retiring. Too many of these Senators spend most of their adult lives in Congress.
Thanks WOSG.
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.