That statement has the same "ring" to it as "I never had sexual relations with that woman".
Exactly :-)!
|
Cycle
|
Total
|
Dems
|
Repubs
|
Abramoff
Only |
Indian Tribes
Only† |
SunCruz
Casinos Only |
|
2000
|
$393,763
|
$73,000
|
$319,763
|
$56,513
|
$309,500
|
$17,500
|
|
2002
|
$1,804,220
|
$427,730
|
$1,376,490
|
$81,740
|
$1,625,480
|
$25,500
|
|
2004
|
$1,499,438
|
$622,603
|
$876,835
|
$68,000
|
$1,347,588
|
$0
|
|
2006
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
|
Grand Total
|
$3,699,921
|
$1,123,333
|
$2,575,588
|
$206,253
|
$3,285,068
|
$43,000
|
*Data for the current election cycle were released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on October 31, 2005. Figures include contributions to federal candidates, PACs and party committees.
†Tribal clients of Jack Abramoff's firm include Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Tigua Indian Reservation.
That statement has the same "ring" to it as "I never had sexual relations with that woman".
Actually that Clinton statement was an outright lie. I think Dean is technically correct in that Abramoff never wrote any personal checks as campaign contributions to Democrats the way he did with Republican's campaigns.
But Democrats did accept the use of the sky boxes and other perks that his firm controlled. And they did take the money that Abramoff instructed his clients, particularly the Indian Tribes, to give to Democrats.
On the Clinton fraud meter this is closest to "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."