The Abramoff scandal investigation

The scandal requires quid pro quo

1. there is no evidence of Dodd getting anything
2. there is no evidence of Dodd doing something in return for getting anything.
3. The evidence points to the exact opposite. Nothing recieved and nothing done.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Dodd was so firmly in their pocket that he didn't do what was suggested? Rather a skimpy charge there. Dodd didn't return what money?

No...you misunderstood me...Shackleford did not return any money....I never intended to imply that Dodd took money or that he was influenced in this particular instance. I am amused that Dodd's reasons for not adding the rider were the complications with casinos in CT, not a higher sense of ethics or insight that something illegal was going on. It's too bad for Ney that he didn't have complications with casinos in OH.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
No offense, but the Weekly Standard is a right wing mouthpiece.

And those claiming this is "just a Republican Scandal" are left-wing mouthpieces.

I keep hearing this, but I haven't heard anyone say it is "just" a Republican scandal. Clearly, the bulk of the responsibility is on the Republican leadership.

Quote:

Attempting to influence Congress by buying "persuaders" close to the Congressman is a technique commonly used by both parties. The Dems are aiming for trouble by claiming they've never done it or no longer do it.

On an individual basis, any Democrat who claims he has never done it but has is aiming for trouble, true. But nobody is claiming that no Dems have ever done it. It's a strawman.

Quote:

Did you read the full article? It pulls no punches either left or right...plus it comes with specifics and testimony from Dodd and others on the scandal. It does not excuse what Abramhoff and Scanlon did, simply points out that the Democratic parsing of words may backfire on them. It's the best article I've seen to date that lays out the facts on the non-Republican side of the scandal.

Ok, but when will a right-wing paper come out with the facts on the Republican side of the scandal? Or any paper, for that matter?

The fact is that the Republican leadership, since the 90's, has taken this game to a whole new level by placing Republican congressional aids in top positions at lobbying firms, and restricting access to those firms that don't employ their people, thereby essentially lobbying themselves. I've never liked the wink-wink nod-nod between government and lobbyists, but before there was at least a balance of power. With the current environment, the Republicans have the executive and legislative branches, and also the lobbyists.

0 Replies

Freeduck wrote:

I keep hearing this, but I haven't heard anyone say it is "just" a Republican scandal. Clearly, the bulk of the responsibility is on the Republican leadership.

I concur that the bulk of persons implicated so far are Republican but I've heard no indications from Justice that Republican leadership is being implicated.

I'm curious how you would interpret these words from the Senate Minority Leader?

Harry Reid wrote:

Republicans are desperate to have Americans to believe that Democrats are also implicated in the Abramoff scandal. It's simply not true and the facts are clear. Jack Abramoff - a Bush pioneer and Tom DeLay's "closest friend" - showered Republican officials with gifts and entered into "quid pro quo" arrangements on behalf of special interests with Republican members of Congress. It is Republicans who were referenced in the plea agreement and it will be Republicans who will continue to be implicated by Abramoff.

Source

I see no leeway in Reid's statement for Democrats to be implicated.

0 Replies

Keep holding your breath; I doubt you will see any dems implicated (though one or two may be, and if they delt with Abramoff illegally, they should be) for the simple fact that Abramoff didn't do business with them 1/10th as much as he did Republicans; the guy was a huge Republican supporter after all, president of College Republicans, ran K street...

You'd better pray that more connections between Abramoff and Bush don't come out...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Freeduck wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I haven't heard anyone say it is "just" a Republican scandal. Clearly, the bulk of the responsibility is on the Republican leadership.

I concur that the bulk of persons implicated so far are Republican but I've heard no indications from Justice that Republican leadership is being implicated.

Coincidentally, I've heard no indications from Justice that any Democrats are being implicated. The only one implicated by the Abramoff indictment is Bob Ney -- a Republican and I have no way of knowing all of the people who are being investigated, though I'm sure it includes some Democrats.

Quote:

I see no leeway in Reid's statement for Democrats to be implicated.

So then if the DOJ announces they are indicting any Democrats in this investigation, you can wag your finger at him. He's speaking specifically of this investigation and Abramoff. I'm sure he would have to change his language if you were to ask him about corruption in general.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

parados wrote:
Dodd was so firmly in their pocket that he didn't do what was suggested? Rather a skimpy charge there. Dodd didn't return what money?

No...you misunderstood me...Shackleford did not return any money....I never intended to imply that Dodd took money or that he was influenced in this particular instance. I am amused that Dodd's reasons for not adding the rider were the complications with casinos in CT, not a higher sense of ethics or insight that something illegal was going on. It's too bad for Ney that he didn't have complications with casinos in OH.

Shackleford is a lobbyist. Lobbyists get paid. The crime is in a lobbyist giving money in some form to a congressman in return for a favor. Ney DID a favor in return for an obvious donation. This story is nothing more than a lobbyist who happens to be a democrat got paid to do his job. There is no crime there or even a hint of a crime. The only thing is Abramoff was somehow related. Simply being related to Abramoff doesn't make it the crime. The quid pro quo does.

Ney appears to have done quid pro quo. A favor for a donation. No such allegation with Dodd or Shackleford.

This doesn't mean that every little contact with Abramoff may or may not end up tainting perceptions but it doesn't make it a crime or prosecutable. This route from Abramoff to Dodd is so circuitous that it would make Abramoff's contributions directly to Bush seem like a smoking gun.

0 Replies

Freeduck,

If you are sure the Abramhoff investigation includes some Democrats, and agree that I can wag my finger at Reid when the DoJ indicts a democrat, don't you think Reid should be more careful in his statements? Reid is placing all his eggs in the basket that the investigation will clear all Democrats of wrong-doing. He may be right, but I think there is way too much Abramhoff money in both Democratic and Republican coffers to make such sweeping statements this early in the investigation.

Cycloptichorn urges me to "pray that more connections between Abramoff and Bush don't come out..." I'm not worried too much about that but I'll take his advice. Meanwhile, Democrats better pray even harder that any Abramhoff-related investigation of Democrats do not come before the Grand Jury and result in indictments.

If even one Democrat (including democratic congresmen, staffers, and lobbyists) is indicted, Reid's statement has opened the opportunity for Republicans to counter with honest cries like "Reid lied...", "Dems are hypocrites...", etc.

I'm afraid (not really :wink: ) that this whole "holier than thou" attitude of Reid, Dean and others in the DNC will blow up in their faces right about election time.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Freeduck,

If you are sure the Abramhoff investigation includes some Democrats, and agree that I can wag my finger at Reid when the DoJ indicts a democrat, don't you think Reid should be more careful in his statements?

Well, he didn't ask my advice, but it could be that he knows more about this than I do. Just a thought.

Quote:

Reid is placing all his eggs in the basket that the investigation will clear all Democrats of wrong-doing. He may be right, but I think there is way too much Abramhoff money in both Democratic and Republican coffers to make such sweeping statements this early in the investigation.

Cycloptichorn urges me to "pray that more connections between Abramoff and Bush don't come out..." I'm not worried too much about that but I'll take his advice. Meanwhile, Democrats better pray even harder that any Abramhoff-related investigation of Democrats do not come before the Grand Jury and result in indictments.

If even one Democrat (including democratic congresmen, staffers, and lobbyists) is indicted, Reid's statement has opened the opportunity for Republicans to counter with honest cries like "Reid lied...", "Dems are hypocrites...", etc.

I'm afraid (not really :wink: ) that this whole "holier than thou" attitude of Reid, Dean and others in the DNC will blow up in their faces right about election time.

I don't know if it will compare to the hypocrisy of the "more righteous than thou" attitude of the Republican party in general, who said they were reformers and came to Washington to supposedly restore honor and integrity to government. If it's a massive scandal with 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats, do you think that people will be focused on the Democrats or the Republicans?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ney appears to have done quid pro quo. A favor for a donation. No such allegation with Dodd or Shackleford.

I'm glad you finally got around to point out that Ney "appears to have done quid pro quo". Abramhoff has admitted that some "quid" was provided to influence Ney, but seems to me that the prosecutor still has a considerable challenge. He must somehow connect (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Ney (and any other Congressman or staffer implicated) knew that the golf trip, campaign contributions, staffer's wife payments, meals, tickets, etc. were the "quo" paid for by Abramhoff's "quid". An extremely difficult task...

0 Replies

Not so difficult. If he can show that the "quid" was unrelated to his constituency, what jury would believe that he didn't do it in return for the money?

0 Replies

freeduck wrote:

If it's a massive scandal with 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats, do you think that people will be focused on the Democrats or the Republicans?

I don't know...probably voters would be mad at both. I do think that if Democrats put up a "wait and see" attitude until the investigation was complete, they'd be better off. Then when no Democrats were convicted (or even if only 2 were convicted) the Democrats could justly say how more honorable they were. Now that Reid has set the bar so high, one or two Democrat convictions will explode on the scene (and be exploited by the Republicans) so that the final effect may very well be "they're all crooks, both republicans and democrats".

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

. . . "they're all crooks, both republicans and democrats".

Whereas i don't believe in tests for the franchise--anyone who doesn't think this way already really ought not to be voting . . .

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Not so difficult. If he can show that the "quid" was unrelated to his constituency, what jury would believe that he didn't do it in return for the money?

But Abramhoff's guilty plea says the money was paid "in exchange for a series of official acts and influence and agreements to provide official action and influence". Every day, a Congressman is required to take positions on any number of things unrelated to his constituency. How do you prove that the position he took (or the influence he wielded to get others to agree to his position) was a direct result of a payment made to his campaign chest, for example?

But if you're right, then you've just proven my point...Democrats are equally vulnerable to indictment because they took money from Abramhoff. After all, if the prosecutor "can show that the "quid" was unrelated to his constituency, what jury would believe that [the democrat] didn't do it in return for the money?"

Recently I've been looking into Grand Juries because I have to serve on one for the next 6-18 months. I was surprised to find that 99.9% of defendants brought before a GJ are indicted. If all the Prosecutor must do to get Ney indicted is show that the "quid" was unrelated to Ney's consitutency, then Ney will be indicted. And I would submit that, under this low level of proof, many other Congressman (both Republican and Democratic) that have received Abramhoff money will be indicted. Of course, its a far cry from indicting someone to convicting them...a conviction is much harder to obtain.

0 Replies

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

Where do you keep all your straw MM? You must have thousands of acres of it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

The funny part of that quote is a google search for "Democratic" & "public-spirited philanthopist" only comes up wth 147 hits and 123 of the hits seem to be sites that attribute that EXACT quote to Ronald Reagan.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

The funny part of that quote is a google search for "Democratic" & "public-spirited philanthopist" only comes up wth 147 hits and 123 of the hits seem to be sites that attribute that EXACT quote to Ronald Reagan.

Thats because it is his quote.
I didnt intend for anyone to think it was from me.
I thought I copied the attribution also,and didnt look after I posted it.
That was my fault,for not double checking.

0 Replies

How come this story isn't as interesting to the press as Abramoff?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180374,00.html

We spent 22 million on this. How come we can't even find out what we spent it on? One of the things in the report is the use of the IRS by Bill Clinton to intimidate his political opponents into silence. Sounds like the Gestapo to me. Now, the Democrats have used underhanded means to have portions of the report redacted.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

How come this story isn't as interesting to the press as Abramoff?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180374,00.html

We spent 22 million on this. How come we can't even find out what we spent it on? One of the things in the report is the use of the IRS by Bill Clinton to intimidate his political opponents into silence. Sounds like the Gestapo to me. Now, the Democrats have used underhanded means to have portions of the report redacted.

Say what Okie? This has to be some of the wierdest facts you have come up with yet.

Don't you and Fox news realise that the Dems don't control Congress? The GOP does.

Maybe you should read the rest of the story..

Quote:

But Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., an appropriations subcommittee chairman who sat in on the House-Senate conference that produced the legislation on the report's release, defended the negotiators' decision.

," said Knollenberg in a recent statement. He added that the legislation simply directs the court to follow existing law that protects individuals' rights and not to interfere with pending prosecution.

0 Replies

The Abramoff scandal investigation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know