DFU SONG: Running Bear (well, well.....Harry Reid has his own little Abramoff Indian scandal)

Harry Reid, a lying weasel...talks of scandal all of the time
This man blames the GOPers...saying they're involved in crime
Would you find it so suprising...that he's told you lots of lies
Jack Abramoff gave him some wampum...but the truth he still defies

Harry, what is in your peacepipe...tell us what you've had to smoke
Harry, what is in your peacepipe...legislators shouldn't toke

Howard Dean, that famous screamer...covered Harry's most worthless butt
Are there some who would believe him...Howard is a proven nut
Harry's right...there should be charges...let it be if he insists
If it is time for some indicting...Harry, you are on the list

Harry, what is in your peacepipe...tell us what you've had to smoke
Harry, what is in your peacepipe...legislators shouldn't toke

Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show
Feb 09 4:17 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long- held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid, D-Nev., has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show.

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.

Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying partners.

And Reid's longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has gripped the Capitol.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case and is now helping prosecutors investigate the conduct of lawmakers, congressional aides and administration officials his team used to lobby.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid contacts.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return the money.

"Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to fail," Manley said. "Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done anything impermissible."

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax- exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."

The Marianas, U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean, were one of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their textile industry exempt from most U.S. laws on immigration, labor and pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3.05 an hour, and were exempt from the U.S. minimum of $5.15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption. Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U.S. minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the Marianas. The legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an initial break by setting its minimum at just $3.55 _ nearly $3 lower than any other territory or state _ and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the Marianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering specifically to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates. But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate ethics officials, was underwritten by the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly registered to lobby for the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff. "My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

Reid intervened on other matters.

On March 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000 check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

___

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this story.

Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff
Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | February 3, 2006 | Tony Batt Stephens

Posted on 02/09/2006 1:50:14 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada began receiving campaign contributions from at least four American Indian tribes only after they hired Jack Abramoff, Republicans charged this week in an effort to tie the Senate Democratic leader to the disgraced lobbyist.

On Thursday, Reid shrugged off questions about money he received from tribal clients of Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last month to three felonies after being accused of exchanging meals, travel and gifts for political favors.

"I've said that I received money from Indians in the past and will continue to do so," Reid said.

Asked what he would say about tribes who did not give him money until after hiring Abramoff, Reid said, "What I've said all along."

The National Republican Senatorial Committee this week revived a charge that Reid received more than $50,000 from four tribes with gaming interests between 2001 and 2004 after they hired Abramoff. The Nevadan had received no money from those tribes before then, Republicans said.

The donations included:

• $19,500 from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California.

• $5,000 from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

• $7,000 from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

• $19,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

"Harry Reid's ties to Jack Abramoff are too substantial for him to dismiss with Washington, D.C., denial and hypocritical accusations," Republican spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

Reid has acknowledged receiving $61,000 from tribal clients and lobbying colleagues of Abramoff. He has said the money was legally raised, that he has done nothing improper and does not plan to refund the donations.

An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign watchdog group, shows that Indian gaming tribes as a general proposition increased their political donations substantially since the late 1990s, spreading money wider and deeper among members of Congress.

In the 1998 election cycle, tribes donated $1.5 million. In the 2004 cycle donations had increased to $7.2 million, the center found.

Gaming tribes "didn't break $2 million until 2000, and then it started going up," said center spokesman Massie Ritsch. "How much was due to Abramoff's influence, I don't know, He did not represent all the tribes."

The American Prospect, a self-described liberal publication, commissioned a study of donations by Indian tribes that Abramoff represented compared to tribes who were not clients.

The study, performed by campaign finance specialists Dwight L. Morris and Associates, suggests "it's likely that Abramoff had little impact on giving to Democrats," the publication said in a Jan. 27 report.

Rush has had this on his sign-0n page
for over 2 weeks. Guess all the MSM
and Dems hoped it would just fade away.

Fat chance.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9348

THen there's this one:

RUSH: Jim in Raleigh, North Carolina, glad you called, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. I thought it was an interesting lead-in your "train running to the truth," because yesterday on Brit Hume's news program, Major Garrett interviewed Harry Reid and asked him what I thought was a couple of really interesting questions. Of course, the Jack Abramoff thing was part of it. But the questions that really interested me the most was Major Garrett said, "Well, who in the Democratic Party is leading or deciding or...?" Forgive me. I forget the exact wording, but the Democrat domestic policy, and Harry Reid said, "Well, I'm not going to answer that," and then Major Garrett followed up with a, "Well, okay, who is the leader of the party who is setting the agenda?" and Harry Reid turned around and said, "Well, that's just not a fair question and I'm not going to answer that," and I thought, "Well, it's a very fair question." I mean, who in the Democratic Party is setting your agenda? Who is leading the party? Who is speaking for the party, and, you know, the minority leader, the Democrat Senate leader turned around and said, "Well, that's just not a fair question. I don't feel like answering that," and I thought to myself, "That's just a fifth-grade answer."

RUSH: Well --

CALLER: That's ridiculous.

RUSH: I have two or three observations. Number one: the question is sort of irrelevant, because there is no agenda, so Harry Reid can't identify who's leading it because there isn't one. I mean, there is, but I know there's no policy initiative agenda. All it is, is: "Impeach Bush! Criticize Bush! Rip Bush! Join sides with terrorists and the wrong side of the war in Iraq and the war on terror!" You know: just scream, shout, yell, moan, complain, say "No!" That's their agenda. They don't have anything they can say they're for. They do; they just won't. The second thing is, the reason why Dingy Harry didn't say who is because they don't know. They don't know who's running this show. I think you've got a bunch of independent contractors. They're listening to these different groups. They're listening to the unions tell them one thing. They're listening to Daily Kos and the blogosphere tell them another. They're listening to Ralph Neas tell them another.

They're listening to Nan Aron from the Alliance of Justice tell them another. They're listening to Jesse Jackson tell them this. Al Sharpton tells them that. Cindy Sheehan tells them something. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela tells them to do something and they do it. There is no central figure leading this program because they are an amalgamation of a whole bunch of different coalitions, and all these special interest groups? One of the problems with the Democrats today is these special interest groups are single issue-types and none of them are happy, none of them are happy. It used to be this way. The way it worked was the Democratic Party was led by some powerful figures who defined the terms and determined who was going to sit at the table and have a seat at that table of power. The way it worked was Jesse Jackson would get a seat at the table if he delivered.

Jesse would be given access to money and power and influence, as long as the black vote came in. Same thing with the union people: they'd get their seats at the Democratic table of power, as long as their groups delivered. Then the civil rights coalitions -- the Ralph Neases and the Nan Arons -- as long as they did their jobs, they got a seat at the Democratic Party's table of power. It's now the other way around. These groups have the table of power, and they're telling the Democrats, "You aren't going to be in our table anymore unless you vote the way we want you to vote." They have been emasculated in a sense, and what happens when you have a bunch of single-issue groups that you allow to get powerful... Because the tables have turned on the Democrats, and in one way of speaking, the Democrats don't have a seat anymore at their own table of power.

They're henpecked! These groups literally are henpecking them to death, and that's why when the New York Times tells them to do something, John Kerry drops everything at Davos, gets off the ski slopes, comes back and embarrasses the whole party. Because the New York Times demands it! This is just incredible to watch. In terms of their agenda, make no mistake, folks: They do as liberals have very clear-cut things they believe in. They just know that they are losers at this point in time; they don't have the guts to be honest about it. They don't have the guts to actually say what they're for -- and that's the third reason why Dingy Harry avoided the question. He doesn't want to get into the agenda, so he doesn't want to get into who's putting it together and who's leading it, but it is a pretty good observation on your part.

Forget the whole question. You know, the question is, "Well, who's assembling the agenda? Who's leading the agenda of the Democratic Party? Who's leading the Democratic Party?" Who would you say, Mr. Snerdley, is the leader of the Democratic Party today? Could you identify one? I mean, it's not a trick question. Who is the leader of the Democratic Party? You're really not going to have a presidential candidate is by default the leader of the party, but that won't happen 'til 2008, during the primaries. So who is the leader of the Democratic Party? I mean, you can't say it's Howard Dean. They're just in a total mess. We have a couple sound bites, by the way, from this interview, not the questions that Jim referred to, but one of them is about Abramoff. Well, they're both about Jack Abramoff, and it's fascinating here. Here's Major Garrett saying Dingy Harry last night on Brit Hume's Fox program: "Reid wrote a letter on March 5th, 2002 to Interior Secretary Gail Norton on behalf of a Louisiana Indian tribe, the Coushattas, who were trying to block federal approval of a casino sought by a rival tribe. The next day, a Reed political fund, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, received a $5,000 from the Coushattas, an Abramoff client," and here's how Harry Reid responded to that.

REID: I have, uh, been representing Indians all my adult life. We have 22 different tribal organizations in Nevada, and so any letter I've written, they're public, anyone can look at it [if] they want. Uhh, I have no regret having written a letter on behalf of Native Americans.

RUSH: So Major Garrett then says to Dingy Harry, "When the chairman of your party says, 'Any Democrat who wrote a letter is in trouble,' do you agree with that?"

REID I didn't see what he said --

GARRETT: That's what he said.

REID: -- and I don't know who he is referring to. Certainly I'm not in trouble for anything dealing with the Abramoff scandal.

GARRETT: Because you have sent letters in your legislative context.

REID: I send letters all the time.

GARRETT: On behalf clients that had engaged in --

REID: Native Americans. I have been involved with Native Americans and some were represented by that thousand-member law firm. Jack Abramoff gave a quarter of a million dollars to Republicans. Not a single penny to a Democrat. [sic] This is a Republican scandal. I have never met Jack Abramoff, never have seen him. As far as I know, I have never been in the same building he has been in.

RUSH: (laughing) I love this because they're just digging a hole to go in. Now, any other PAC leader, any other type of guy like Abramoff, it's going to be okay. Abramoff, though, is the only bad guy here, and this is going to be a "Republican scandal," and the bottom line is that for every Abramoff there's five or six others that do the same thing, and they cross the line and deal with both parties. Now, the American Spectator. I want to expand a little bit here on Major Garrett's question to Dingy Harry about Howard Dean saying that anybody wrote a letter like Dingy Harry did is in trouble. "It appears that the Democratic Party," this according to the American Spectator, "are closer to imploding than the Republicans. How else to explain the ongoing attempts by Howard Dean to destroy Harry Reid?

"According to knowledgeable DNC sources, Dean about ten days ago was shown opposition research documents generated by the Republican National Committee more than three years ago, which laid out facts regarding Reid and his family's lobbying and ethical conflicts. Dean, according to the sources, was fascinated by the details," in the Republican opposition research, "and asked that his staff research and independently confirm everything on the documents. 'Basically he oppo'd a member of his own party,' says a DNC source loyal to Dean. 'Basically, we were looking at three- or four-page documents that made Jack Abramoff's lobbying work look like that of a rank amateur,' says the DNC source. 'Between the minority leader's past in Nevada and here in Washington, and the activities of his sons and son-in-law,'" which we have documented for you over the course of many weeks; the LA Times did the research on that. ( article | graphic ) There probably isn't anybody in this town with more conflicts than Dingy Harry. "'The Reid family is the symbol of what's wrong with Washington; it's their behavior that enabled the culture that spawned people like Abramoff.' Dean then went public over the weekend, saying that Democrats with an Abramoff problem would be in trouble, not only with voters, but with the Democrat Party. But why attack a senior member of his own party?"

Why would Howard Dean do this? "Well, according to Democratic Party watchers and DNC staff, Dean has grown increasingly frustrated at how he's treated by the likes of Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel. 'They treat him like a lackey, not as an equal. Just last week they were all bad-mouthing highs fund-raising activities when truly he's done a good job. What this comes down to is the fight for the soul of our party, and if the chairman has to draw a long knife on a few of his colleagues, he's more than willing to do so,'" and that's a DNC employee allowing him or herself to be quoted to the American Spectator. So Dean apparently got an enemies list out here, and the Republicans -- the interesting thing about this is that the RNC -- apparently getting ready for whatever the Abramoff scandal has in store for everybody is ready to unload on Dingy Harry and his own conflicts and his own ethical lapses, and that's what Howard Dean saw, and his eyes widened!

His lips moistened, and he got all excited because, make no bones: Howard Dean is everything that he is, but I understand him not enjoying being treated like a lackey by these guys, and the chance to get even with them? I mean, human nature is human nature, party politics. They're already in a bunch of disarray. They can't have much more dissension in the ranks than they already do. Why not go for broke? So we'll keep a sharp eye on this, folks, but you are living in historic times, a seminal moment. The actual implosion and self-destruction of what once was a major, dominating, political influence in this country: the Democratic Party.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We have the sound bite from Major Garrett and Dingy Harry that our caller from Raleigh referred to a moment ago. Major Garrett says to Dingy Harry last night, "Who is the leader of the Democratic Party today?"

REID: Well, I think someone else will have to make that decision.

GARRETT: How about domestic policy? Who's the leader?

REID: I think that's really an unfair question.

RUSH: (Laughing.) It's an unfair question! I don't know, folks. Look, I'll give you a caveat here: Anything can change overnight in politics. I've said this. I'm just telling you that the state theory at that they're in right now -- especially when you contrast with just seven or eight weeks ago? They thought that it was over for the Republicans. They thought that had already won the House back in '06 and the Senate maybe and then the White House for sure, and just look at where they are.

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.