Posted on 01/28/2010 11:13:45 AM PST by Maelstorm
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington that monitors the influence of money in politics, Mr. Hayworth was the largest single Congressional recipient of donations from Mr. Abramoff and his family, his associates, his Indian tribe clients and a gambling cruise ship line that he owned, with more than $101,000 going to Mr. Hayworth and his political action committee since 1999. Mr. Hayworth was also a frequent guest in sports skyboxes controlled by Mr. Abramoff and his clients, and at Signatures, a Washington restaurant owned by the lobbyist.
Mr. Mitchell said Mr. Hayworth needed to return donations linked to Mr. Abramoff if he wanted to prove that he was not involved in "all the corruption that's been going on in Washington." In the meantime, Mr. Mitchell said, the party was looking for a strong candidate to challenge Mr. Hayworth in a race that, he said, would now focus in large part on the incumbent's ties to Mr. Abramoff.
Mr. Hayworth's chief of staff, Joe Eule, said in a statement that he did not take Mr. Mitchell's threats seriously and that the congressman had no intention of returning the money.
He said that Mr. Hayworth, co-chairman of the House Native American Caucus, "has been a hero to tribes nationwide" and that it was not surprising that "tribes, including a few formerly affiliated with Mr. Abramoff, have been generous in supporting Mr. Hayworth's political efforts."
The research by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that of the top 25 Congressional recipients of political money linked to Mr. Abramoff, 19 are Republicans and 6 are Democrats. The second largest recipient was listed as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, with $69,000 in donations.
(Excerpt) Read more at aznews.us ...
Isn’t it neat that the same McCain who kissed obama’s ass all through his pretend campaign for president has no problem getting in the gutter to kill off Hayworth’s chances? I guess he only fights against conservatives.
This must be part of that “scorched earth” thing mccain was talking about a couple of days ago.
If JD is smart, he would go to the charity(ies) he donated the money and admit the Abramoff donation and show the people what he did with the money the moment he found out. Then ask McCain why he doesn’t hold Obama to the same standard mentioning the AIG stuff while simultaneously showing the clip where McCain says Obama is no danger to the country in the background.
Your one-man anti-Hayworth vendetta is very suspicious.
(Politico)- Among the many juicy, anonymously-sourced passages in Game Change is one that could stir some trouble for John McCain in his upcoming primary.
The scene takes place toward the beginning of McCain's bid for the White House: [McCain aides John] Weaver and [Mark] Salter begged McCain to ease up... Now he was becoming the face of what opponents called “amnesty.” Just tone down the rhetoric, his advisers pleaded.
McCain refused. He was disgusted by republicans in Congress and talk radio gasbags such as rush Limbaugh who bashed immigrants. “They’re going to destroy the f*cking party,” he would say.
As McCain’s town hall meetings devolved into shouting matches over immigration, the candidate let his frustration show through. He called Lindsey Graham in despair. Listen to these people, McCain said. Why would I want to be the leader of a party of such a**holes?
Another nitwit for McCain heard from.
If you guys want a clean candidate for this Arizona Senate seat you need to keep looking.
JD’s response to the Abramoff Scandal.
http://www.fittrust.org/
Worth posting in it’s entirety.
Yes, the truth will make you free. But sometimes it’s very, very expensive.
My name is J. D. Hayworth, and I represented Arizona as a United States Congressman from 1995-2007. To this day, journalists and bloggers inaccurately refer to my “ties” to Jack Abramoff. Here’s what really happened, and why it’s important for you to know the truth.
After the 2006 election was history, my staff and I were packing up the D.C. office to return to Arizona. As this was happening, an attorney from the Department of Justice called and told us “Don’t throw away anything!” This attorney, his curiousity piqued by press accounts attempting to link me with the criminal Jack Abramoff, had decided to look into these allegations.
Prior to the 2006 campaign, some of my opponents and their allies created a very clever scheme: Link Abramoff to their political targets using a ‘bridge’ of Indian tribes who contributed to people like me.
It’s a simple and very devastating attack strategy: Make a claim through some intermediaries, or off the record, that Abramoff is directing the Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to their opponents. Then force the opponents to waste money, time, and energy fighting that battle instead of the one they should be fighting: for their constituents. As an added bonus, if they can stir the pot enough, they can get official investigators interested in the issue under the guise of “If there’s this much smoke, there must be a fire around here somewhere”. This causes even more distraction, more wasted money, and more wasted time.
Ethical? No.
Effective? Very.
Here are the simple facts:
1. Abramoff contributed a grand total of $2,250 dollars to my political efforts. ($250 in 1996, $1,000 in 1998, and $1,000 to our leadership political action committee, TEAMPAC, in 1999.)
2. I never met with Abramoff concerning any legislation.
3. He never came to my office.
4. He never lobbied me directly on any issue.
Once Abramoff’s troubling activities were revealed, we donated that money to charity (Hurricane Katrina relief). Simply put, we didn’t want it.
Please understand, the Indian tribes were the true targets of Abramoff, I was simply collateral damage. The tribes were his clients and they were defrauded of tens of millions of dollars. Our office offered to return their contributions to them, but tribal officials stepped up to the plate and stated for the record that they themselves had made their own determinations about who they would support with political donations.
In the meantime, we cooperated fully with the Department of Justice, and hopefully our efforts helped in the indictment and conviction of Abramoff. Of course, we will never know that for certain. What we do know is that he is currently incarcerated for defrauding the Indian tribes, conspiracy, and corruption of public officials.
These days, ‘cooperation’ is expensive. Very expensive. In our case, it involved retaining a K Street Law Firm to pore over twelve years worth of my congressional records and correspondance. Twelve years of household records is bad enough, but Congress runs on paper and e-mails, and it was literally thousands of pages and hundreds of computer records that had to be examined, evaluated, and sometimes redacted for security reasons. Then you can add the administrative costs, phone calls, and ‘face time’ the attorneys spent with the DOJ. When all was said and done, the legal bill was over a half a million dollars. And that was to ‘cooperate’ with the DOJ!
In the end, we were completely vindicated. In a letter from our attorneys, they informed us that the Department of Justice had advised us that we “are not now the target, subject or focus [of] any DOJ investigation, case or other proceeding.” Essentially, it was a complete and total vindication that we had done nothing wrong at all - which is exactly what we had been saying all along.
We used all of what was left in the campaign account to partially pay the legal bills, but came up $285,000 short. Recently, the law firm proposed to us that they could accept half the outstanding debt as payment, so we now owe $142,500. But, there’s a catch (there always is one). It has to be paid before January 31, 2010.
So, we established the Freedom In Truth Trust solely to help retire this outstanding bill. It’s not a political thing, so there’s no limit on what you could contribute. On the downside, it’s not tax-deductible either.
I have always tried to be honest and aboveboard in my dealings in private as well as publicly in Congress. As you can see from the above, even being cooperative, honest, and truthful can be twisted against you. So, I am asking for your financial help in getting the legal debt resolved. After that is done, other important decisions can be made with a clear field ahead. As is often said: One step at a time
Thank you, sir.
Soros has yet to be nailed by the FBI but how much has McCain received from this little fascist?
“Thats nothing, John McCain tried to legalize an invasion of his people for personal gain,....talk about a scumbag.”
EXACTLY!!
and a LIAR!
See post 29. Don’t believe the McCain propaganda!
“It is of little use to point out the facts of the matter AuntB, “
Well, someone better start doing it, or we’ll wind up with millions of idoit voters like these, just like last time.
Ignorance brought us McCain. We need to get smarter...FAST.
Poll after the 2008 election:
Voters Unaware of Candidates’ Immigration Positions; McCain Supporters Farthest Off the Mark
# Only 34 percent of McCain voters, 42 percent of Clinton voters, and 52 percent of Obama voters correctly identified their candidate as favoring eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements.
# Of McCain voters, 35 percent mistakenly thought he favored enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, another 10 percent thought he wanted mass deportations, and 21 percent didn’t know his position.
# Voters often held different positions from the candidate they supported. Only 31 percent of McCain voters had the same immigration position as he does[snip]
Do you two work in the same office or just in the same head???
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.