The Abramoff scandal investigation

parados wrote:

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.

The real problem is that they spent 22 Million and found nothing!!

Anon

0 Replies

How do you know they found nothing?
The report has not been released yet,according to the article.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How do you know they found nothing?
The report has not been released yet,according to the article.

Good point MM.. How does okie (and Fox news) know that the report says anything about Clinton using the IRS to silence political opponents since the report hasn't been released yet? (You seem to have missed that one in your search for the truth.)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How do you know they found nothing?
The report has not been released yet,according to the article.

Quote:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

How does okie (and Fox news) know that the report says anything about Clinton using the IRS to silence political opponents since the report hasn't been released yet?

Read my previously posted link, in which you will find this:
"As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said."

My whole point is that if parts of the report are being redacted, how can we see for ourselves what is in the report? We can't say for sure until we see the report, but the "sources" give us a hint as to what is in it. I read what the Republican Senator said about nothing important being eliminated. Well, to be honest, I don't believe him. Its our tax money. Alot of it. We should be able to see whats in the report. This report has been bubbling under the radar screen of news for a long time, and I'm sure Democrats would love to keep it being ignored. If the allegations hold any water, I would like to see somebody answer for it so that activities like that do not happen again. Thats the type of stuff that I thought only happens in 3rd world countries.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thats the type of stuff that I thought only happens in 3rd world countries.

Whereas i wholeheartedly agree that we the taxpayers ought to have access to information of that kind, i think the statment quoted above is rather naive--deception and corruption have been evident in national and state goverment for over two hundred years--since the day one.

0 Replies

I agree, but do all of us actually appreciate how honest our society is? I've heard plenty of stories throughout my life, including from the old corporation I used to work for about operations in other countries. It is a way of life in many where the officials throughout government required bribes to get absolutely anything done. The problem was serious and it infected the entire societies in those countries. Not quite the same here, thankfully. Yes, theres always been corruption, but nowhere near on the same scale.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How do you know they found nothing?
The report has not been released yet,according to the article.

Hey, I'm all for the release of the information! If you read the post though, it hints at the fqact that they didn't. The writer/investigator wants it published so that it will "show that he used due diligence". Due diligence?? If he found all kinds of stuff on the hated Clinton Administration, why would he need to show "due diligence". It would be obvious by the damning information found.

You as usual, are in your usual "if it's a Democrat, the Demos don't care mode". That kind thinking is idiotic and moronic. Only a fool makes a sweeping statement like that! I definitely want ANY corruption prosecuted, not just some of it. Grow up!!

Anon

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
How do you know they found nothing?
The report has not been released yet,according to the article.

Hey, I'm all for the release of the information! If you read the post though, it hints at the fqact that they didn't. The writer/investigator wants it published so that it will "show that he used due diligence". Due diligence?? If he found all kinds of stuff on the hated Clinton Administration, why would he need to show "due diligence". It would be obvious by the damning information found.

You as usual, are in your usual "if it's a Democrat, the Demos don't care mode". That kind thinking is idiotic and moronic. Only a fool makes a sweeping statement like that! I definitely want ANY corruption prosecuted, not just some of it. Grow up!!

Anon

I am not saying anything of the kind.
This is the first time I have even heard of the report.

All I was responding to was your statement...

Quote:

The real problem is that they spent 22 Million and found nothing!!

Anon

Thats the only thing I was responding to,nothing more.

0 Replies

The GOP controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Conference committee. The claim that the Dems are suppressing this report is ludicrous. I am all for seeing it, but to blame the Dems for trying to hide it is absolute crap. The Dems don't have the power to do any such thing. The GOP has the majority and this was NOT filibustered. You can't filibuster to get something INTO a law.

If anything this was done by the GOP because the report probably doesn't have anything in it and they can now trumpet this grand Democratic conspiracy that in now way can exist in reality.

My God okie. The GOP is not a victim here. They are the perpetrators.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

This is the first time I have even heard of the report.

I am going to use your statement, mysteryman, to point something out, which is always relevant every day. The reason you never heard of it is because the MSM does not include it. If it was a Republican scandal, such as Abramoff tends to be more weighted toward Republicans, at least so far, we would have been reminded of the investigation every day for the last however long its been going on, probably months or years.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I agree, but do all of us actually appreciate how honest our society is? I've heard plenty of stories throughout my life, including from the old corporation I used to work for about operations in other countries. It is a way of life in many where the officials throughout government required bribes to get absolutely anything done. The problem was serious and it infected the entire societies in those countries. Not quite the same here, thankfully. Yes, theres always been corruption, but nowhere near on the same scale.

That is probably true with regard to the Federal government. It is not necessarily true on the state level, and especially not on the municipal level, either in the past or now. Only a vigilant press can prevent this, and even with a vigilant press, it can only be curtailed by a considerably less than apathetic electorate.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
This is the first time I have even heard of the report.

I am going to use your statement, mysteryman, to point something out, which is always relevant every day. The reason you never heard of it is because the MSM does not include it. If it was a Republican scandal, such as Abramoff tends to be more weighted toward Republicans, at least so far, we would have been reminded of the investigation every day for the last however long its been going on, probably months or years.

This of course, is nonsense. Abrahoff is a big story, with "legs." This is "ancient history" as far as news media are concerned. Were there no Abramoff story to distract, this story would get a good deal more attention.

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to peddle that old "liberal media" shibboleth.

0 Replies

Hey, we agreed on something, not your last post, but the one before that! Time to celebrate! I do think things are more iffy now than 50 years ago, most definitely. Simply look at all the internet scams, and apparently nobody doing anything about them. Its every man for himself in terms of not being fooled by some phony email or something, which is common on a daily basis here on my computer. And I have a suspicion that some of us would be shocked if we knew everything about some higher officials and some international dealings.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This of course, is nonsense. Abrahoff is a big story, with "legs." This is "ancient history" as far as news media are concerned. Were there no Abramoff story to distract, this story would get a good deal more attention.

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to peddle that old "liberal media" shibboleth.

A story has "legs" because the media believes it does. How long did we tolerate Dan Rather and his phony stories trying to give "legs" to phony news? He still thinks his stuff has "legs." All in the eye of the beholder whether something has legs or not. Abramoff probably has legs, but its something thats been going on for a long, long time. You are not going to convince me that Abramoff invented this. As far as legs, I thought Clinton taking campaign money from the Chinese should have had big, very stout, tough "legs," but nobody apparently cared. So he skated again for the umpteenth time. Sorry to bring up Clinton, but it all serves as a backdrop for comparison sake.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Sorry to bring up Clinton, but it all serves as a backdrop for comparison sake.

I really would feel lost, if Clinton wouldn't come up any second or third post from the conservative posters. :wink:

0 Replies

Glad I can help keep you from feeling lost.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
This is the first time I have even heard of the report.

I am going to use your statement, mysteryman, to point something out, which is always relevant every day. The reason you never heard of it is because the MSM does not include it. If it was a Republican scandal, such as Abramoff tends to be more weighted toward Republicans, at least so far, we would have been reminded of the investigation every day for the last however long its been going on, probably months or years.

Scandals tend to be relevent when they spend time near or in a court room.
Abramoff pled guilty and is actively cooperating with prosecutors hence it is timely.

Barret hasn't been near a court room since 1999 according to the documents posted on his website. The last official documents cited on his web site are the pardons of Cisneros and Linda Jones 1/2/01.
http://barrett.oic.gov/indictments/index.htm

Barret's IC appointment was only to investigate whether Cisneros lied to the FBI in his background investigation. There was no court decision allowing him to investigate Clinton's use of the IRS. He never even requested it. Such an investigation would have required him to get court approval like Starr did to investigate Lewinsky. It would be illegal for Barret to investigate Clinton without court approval so how can anything about Clinton's use of the IRS even be in the report?

I can't figure out why it has taken Barret 6 1/2 years from the plea bargain of Cisneros to complete his investigation. No wonder there is no media with Barret. There is no news there.

0 Replies

I am glad that Parados has pointed out the judicial nature of the anatomy of media "legs." It had appeared that those were a part of the anatomy with which our conservative members were not familiar.

0 Replies

The media coverage of Delay has been up and down over the last several months. Most of it related directly to when Delay was near a courtroom or his associates were. It is really quite easy to track in the Delay thread, the posts pick up when the media reports on courtroom actions.

0 Replies

The Abramoff scandal investigation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know