Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006* (Good Website)
Captial Eye ^ | 1/4/06

Posted on 01/04/2006 11:57:21 AM PST by areafiftyone

Edited on 01/04/2006 12:07:25 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

Yep, "Everybody does it" won't fly. Pubbies or Rats, they all need to go.


61 posted on 01/05/2006 5:57:05 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: soccer8
Like others have said, this will likely yield a new era of bipartisanship (for the cover up).

The word 'bipartisan' means some larger than usual deception is being carried out - George Carlin

62 posted on 01/05/2006 5:59:01 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Oh, since you have said my statement is 'certainly incorrect,' perhaps you should go to the FEC site and look at Jack's contributions. Please come back here and state the Dims you find on his contribution list. See if you can find one.

Also, since the allegations against Jack seem to be about giving money for favors, can you cite to a single instance of Jack taking Dims on golfing trips to Scotland, or hiring their staffers for lucrative jobs, or giving them expensive event tickets, etc.? Just one?

63 posted on 01/05/2006 6:01:39 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530514/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528909/posts


64 posted on 01/05/2006 6:31:50 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Wow, Peach - you are always handy with the links. Did you look behind them to see what the information in them was based on?

Go to your first one. The oft-published list of donations to Dims by "Abramoff and clients." Cue up "Detail by donor." Look under "Jack and Pamela Abramoff" and tell me how much they gave to Dims.

As I said - Not. One. Dime.

So, since you have said my assertion is "certainly incorrect," I'd ask that you simply look at your own sources and retract your statement.

What your sources show is that some Indian tribes gave money to Congressional candidates. Period. Now, some may want to contend that every dime of political donations from tribal sources is somehow tied to Abramoff. But that would be a bit disingenuous, and I'm sure you know that. Some of that money may be tied to Abramoff, but it will take a bit more than the links you've posted to show that.

Though, I must say, I'm somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm with which the "they did it, too" defense is embraced around these parts.

65 posted on 01/05/2006 6:55:20 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: soccer8

Go to the source. Look at "Detail by donor" and see if you can find those "individual contributions" to Dims. Good luck, 'cuz you won't find them.


66 posted on 01/05/2006 7:01:01 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Are you trying to say it's illegal for an individual to give money to political candidates? Because that's what the list you sent to me shows. What's your point?


67 posted on 01/05/2006 7:04:37 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I'm rather bemused that Hillary just took a big hit for not reporting campaign money and there is no media hysteria.

And, btw, it seems you didn't read the second link I provided.


68 posted on 01/05/2006 7:08:23 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Bots are blinder than Clintonites.


69 posted on 01/05/2006 7:13:15 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Um, I didn't send you any list. You sent me the list.

My point is exactly the one you said is "certainly incorrect." Jack Abramoff didn't give ANY money to Dims. Some Indian tribes that were clients of Abramoff's gave money to Dims.

I posted that earlier on this thread. You said it was "certainly incorrect." I asked for backup to your assertion, and you provided links which show exactly what I stated.

But I think you already figured that out, so you made up some ridiculous assertion I haven't even hinted at to ascribe to me.

As far as what is illegal, I'll just leave that to the actual crimes to which Mr. Abramoff has pled guilty, and accepted a penalty of several million dollars and ten years in prison. As far as what is stated in the information, those crimes did not involve Dims. If you've got some other info indicating that they did, bring it.

70 posted on 01/05/2006 7:15:39 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

You asked for information that Abramson gave to Dims and/or influence buying. Nice that you've conveniently ignored the link I sent about Dorgan.


71 posted on 01/05/2006 7:19:01 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Wow. More of "someone else did it."

When someone pleads guilty to bribing Hillary for political favors, maybe you can assert some equivalence there. But it is still a lame defense.

Providing money, trips, skybox seats, free dinners, etc. in exchange for political favors is wrong. And illegal. And that is the case whether it is a Dim or someone who is on "your side." This man just admitted to doing this with a number of GOP persons, that we know of. Those who accepted his largess and gave favor in return deserve scorn. He deserves scorn for using such largess to pervert our political system. Period. Those who defend him or those who participated in his schemes are defending institutionalized corruption. Period.

72 posted on 01/05/2006 7:21:05 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I agree. "Everybody does it" is no excuse.


73 posted on 01/05/2006 7:22:21 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Peach
No, I asked for information to back up your assertion that my statement was "certainly incorrect." The information you provided plainly shows that my assertion was "certainly CORRECT." No matter how much you try to misdirect. I would've thought you were big enough to admit that, but I guess not.

As for the Dorgan link, I'm not ignoring it - IT DOESN'T SAY that Abramoff gave money to Dorgan. It says a tribe did. If that is linked to some favor, Dorgan should go down, along with the rest.

The basic dispute here is that I stated that Abramoff didn't give money to Dims, but some tribes he represented did. You said my assertion was "certainly incorrect." I request backup, and your posted backup supports the assertion that you tagged as "certainly incorrect." And you won't admit it.

74 posted on 01/05/2006 7:25:55 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul; botsnack; Ol' Dan Tucker
I took a look at it and you are correct. I would like to know what "From Individual" is defined as in the first table. The other question is why this table shows small contributions Abramoff has given to the Dems vs. other tables showing much larger amounts. As Ol' Dan Tucker mentioned, Abramoff may have also been a big Dem fund raiser prior to 1999.

Ironically, last night I was thinking about the individual contributions (before looking at the table you reference) and thought 'who cares about what Abramoff personally gave'. Here's why I don't care:
1. Abramoff can only give $2000 personally. OK he may have done so for Republicans he personally supported (unfortunately not all political donors are decent people and no one can change that). When campaigns run in the millions, 2K isn't going to get you any influence.
2. So what buys influence? The PACs etc. If I were Abramoff, I wouldn't say 'gee Congressman, I gave you $2000'. I would say 'Sen. X, remember me, I'm the guy who had my interests run $98000 into your war chest'. Screw the $2000. It just doesn't matter.

As such, the Democrats are in it just as bad as the Republicans whether or not Abramoff gave them any money personally. Will the MSM/Dems spin to only focus on the $2000 contributions? You bet. Will investigators focus on the personal contributions, I hope not - if so the investigation will be a complete waste and no progress will be made.

That being said, we can't loose focus on cleaning house when it comes to the crooks, Republican and Democrat.

75 posted on 01/05/2006 7:26:46 AM PST by batter ("Never let the enemy pick the battle site." - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Peach

See post# 75 re: individual contributions.


76 posted on 01/05/2006 7:30:06 AM PST by batter ("Never let the enemy pick the battle site." - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I'll admit that Abramoff personally only gave money to the Republicans the minute you admit that your assertion that Judge Posner (that brilliant legal mind you so admire) did not, as you asserted, disagree with the NSA spying program or think it was illegal. How's that?


77 posted on 01/05/2006 7:33:22 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: soccer8

I'd love to see someone go back to Clinton era day and see what Abramoff personally gave in the 90's. I'll bet he's an equal opportunity personal donator, depending on who is in power.


78 posted on 01/05/2006 7:34:47 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I agree that Posner supports the program, but I thought he pretty plainly said it was outside the existing legal authorization. It is hard to read his piece and not reach that conclusion.

But it is sad to see that your admission of an obvious fact supported by your own linked sources is conditioned on some kind of deal. How Abramoffian.

79 posted on 01/05/2006 7:39:11 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I agree that Posner supports the program, but I thought he pretty plainly said it was outside the existing legal authorization. It is hard to read his piece and not reach that conclusion.

Then you need to read it again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053_pf.html

80 posted on 01/05/2006 7:44:08 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson