Amazing how the same collection of whiners that hyperventilate about Abramoff never give the Bush Dept of Justice credit for going after, and sucessfully prosecuting, Abramoff. Funny how they just gloss over the reports that 2 of the top 5 lawmakers being targeted by DOJ are Democrat's Dorgan (D-ND) and Reid (D-Nv)
Let's ping Johnny Chung and see what he thinks....... Johnny?
Good question. So far all I have been able to figure out is that Abramoff admitted that he scammed his Indian tribe clients and committed criminal acts in his financing of his casino ships buy. So, he's a criminal. They gave him a plea deal ostensibly because they are going after bigger fish among elected representative, but that is only an assumption at this time. If he actually bribed a congresscritter to take certain action in his/her political position, that would be bad, but I haven't heard anyone actually charged with that yet. So far, the scandal is that Abramoff is a crook, and he's a Republican.
What is the technical difference between a "campaign contribution" and a "bribe.". Does not one support those candidates who will support the legislation one desires? Any legal types know?
Another take (and a good one).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566225/posts
Quite frankly, if Abramoff bought all the purported influence for a measly $1.7 mill handing it out in dribs and drabs, he should be hired immediately! Look at how Soros made out with all the money he spent ... he got John Kerry! Still, when it comes to bang-for-the-buck, the Swifties win hands-down. God Bless them.
The accusation is that Abramoff crossed the line from lobbying and flat-out bought the votes and/or influence of a number of politicians.
There is a fine line between accepting campaign contributions from organizations who support one's views, and selling one's office, influence, or vote.
A fine line- but not invisible. A good example would be a politician with a long record of opposing logging, who accepts a large donation from a timber company and then votes to open up National Forests to logging.
The usual legal standard is an obvious "quid pro quo"- it has to be clear that the politician was bought and paid for.
In the example above, it would be the politician's unusual vote.
In such a case, it's up to a grand jury to decide if there's enough evidence to indict on the charges, and a judge and jury to determine guilt if indicted.
Your asking the same questions I want to know...It looks to me like all Abromoff did is what any lobbyist would do except he cheated his clients out of their money
BEWARE!! BEWARE!! WE WANT TIHS PROBLEM TO GO AWAY, PERIOD! Trust me on this folks, it will NOT turn out to be as bad for the Rats as for us....
Posted without further comment: make of it what you will....
Dems Don’t Know Jack
A new analysis of Abramoff tribal money by a nonpartisan firm shows it’s a Republican scandal.
By Greg Sargent
Web Exclusive: 01.27.06
Print Friendly | Email Article
A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.
The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.
In the weeks since Abramoff confessed to defrauding tribes and enticing public officials with bribes, the question of whether Abramoff directed donations just to Republicans, or to the GOP and Democrats, has been central to efforts by both parties to distance themselves from the unfolding scandal. President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: “It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.”
Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”
But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.
The analysis includes a detailed look at seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients, and a comparison of their giving with that of approximately 170 other tribes. (Abramoff is often said to have had nine tribal clients. But Morris omitted two of the tribes – the Pueblo of Santa Clara, whose donations were virtually nonexistent, and the Tigua Indian Reservation, because it isn’t listed in Federal lobbying files as having a lobbyist and Abramoff worked on contingency. At any rate Santa Clara’s post-Abramoff donations to the GOP were overwhelmingly higher than to Dems, so including them would have added even more to the GOP side of the ledger.)
The analysis shows:
# in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
# five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
# four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
# Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.
“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.
Only thing I can figure is what Abramoff didn't donate directly he got his clients the tribal community to donate to. So every member in Congress is guilty.
Apparently, for the rats, it is DIFFERENT when you take money from Abramoff's MACHINE, as opposed to taking it from HIM...somewhere there is this difference, I guess.
There is no "scandal" here..just the usual bleating of the sheep.
Hell, Mike Espy took all the gifts (35k worth), as much as admitted he took all the gifts, tht DA proved he received all the gifts, but the jury found no "quid pro quo", so Mike Espy was not guilty.
America, what a country,