The Abramoff scandal investigation

$300,000?
Abramoff is required to pay over $27 million in restitution on the over $82 million he took just from Indian tribes as part of his plea deal. That doesn't include his lobbying for foreign governments or other industries.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Charlie Trie had picture taken with CLinton. Trie was a large fundraiser for Clinton. Trie was convicted of 2 misdemeanors for his political fundraising activities. Trie was alleged to have been paid for arranging a meeting in the White House of client and Clinton. Clinton denied he knew Trie had committed crimes

Jack Abramoff had picture taken with Bush. Abramoff was a large fundraiser for Bush. Abramoff was convicted of 3 felonies for his political lobbying activities. Abramoff was allegedly paid for arranging a meeting in the White House of a client and Bush. Bush denied he knew Abramoff or Abramoff's crimes.

Sounds to me like you were comparing Abramoff / Bush with the Clintons China connection. I think you are comparing apples and oranges, obviously.

I thought I read about the $300,000 or so in personal campaign donations. I am not defending Abramoff, so don't try to twist it that way. I am merely pointing out he is one of thousands of lobbyists throwing money into Washington.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Charlie Trie had picture taken with CLinton. Trie was a large fundraiser for Clinton. Trie was convicted of 2 misdemeanors for his political fundraising activities. Trie was alleged to have been paid for arranging a meeting in the White House of client and Clinton. Clinton denied he knew Trie had committed crimes

Jack Abramoff had picture taken with Bush. Abramoff was a large fundraiser for Bush. Abramoff was convicted of 3 felonies for his political lobbying activities. Abramoff was allegedly paid for arranging a meeting in the White House of a client and Bush. Bush denied he knew Abramoff or Abramoff's crimes.

Sounds to me like you were comparing Abramoff / Bush with the Clintons China connection. I think you are comparing apples and oranges, obviously.

I thought I read about the $300,000 or so in personal campaign donations. I am not defending Abramoff, so don't try to twist it that way. I am merely pointing out he is one of thousands of lobbyists throwing money into Washington.

Show me the apple and then show me the orange. I was very specific about each instance and made sure they were the same thing. Either point to a fact I got wrong or explain how the 2 comparisons are in no way related. I will not hold my breath.

0 Replies

Where did I twist it that you were defending Abramoff?

Are you that incapable of reading words okie? Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.

This is your sentence okie. Nowhere does it mention contributions. It does mention lobbying work which is what Abramoff was paid tens if not hundreds of millions to do.

Quote:

Compared to Abramoff involving what, $300,000 or something, correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm sure somebody will, lobbying groups involve hundreds of millions, billions of dollars.

You certainly couldn't have been talking about campaign contributions since there are not BILLIONS of contributions to campaigns by lobbyists.

By the way.. where is that orange and apple that shows I was defending Clinton?

0 Replies

You are correct, I used the wrong comparison with Abramoff. Question, has congressman been proven to have committed a crime in this scandal yet? I'm not saying there won't be. Update me here.

Charlie Trie was involved with foreign campaign contributions was he not? Seems different than Abramoff and his Indian tribes here in the U.S.

0 Replies

In case you didn't realize it okie. Indian Tribes are actually sovereign nations.

Charlie Trie was involved with foreign contributions but there is no evidence that Clinton was aware of his crimes. Trie was only convicted of 2 misdemeanors. There was no evidence of any quid pro quo. Abramoff has so far been convicted of 3 felonies. I think you are well aware of the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

Both Trie and Abramoff were convicted of crimes involving dealings with politicians. Both were paid to get someone into the WH to meet the President. Both made contributions to a party in response to that meeting.

If you want to prove the point that we should be very concerned about Abramoff's dealings with Bush then go ahead down this road.

0 Replies

okie,

I am still waiting for that apples vs oranges. Please provide some evidence to back up your statement using my quotes.

0 Replies

This may surprise you, but if corruption exists, including Bush, lets face the music. We are a long way from that. My contention is lets have some balance, some context here. I am very tired of Democrats calling the Republicans the party of corruption, but when the shoe fits them, they aren't willing to wear it. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. It rings very hollow and its transparently phoney.

I am not dumb enough to believe Clinton had no clue where these Chinese guys were from or about. Chinese money represents apples. Indian tribes in this country are oranges.

0 Replies

apples and oranges... point them out okie...

Your changing the subject doesn't support your claim.

0 Replies

I just did point out the apples and oranges. And don't try the argument that indian tribes are foreign nations. I don't think that will fly. And seriously if you think Clinton was ignorant about Charlie Trie and the other guys concerning the source of the money, you must be more naive than I thought. I don't think that dog hunts very good either.

0 Replies

I never mentioned the Chinese or Indian tribes. You did. You said I compared apples to oranges in my statement. Please provide where in my statement there were apples and where there were oranges. Creating your own apples and oranges to argue about doesn't count in any statements of mine. I thought I was clear on facts and making the comparison fair. Point out where I was off base in my statements.

You aren't dumb enough to believe Clinton didn't know where some of the dollars of a single fundraiser came from. But you don't think Bush even knew who Abarmoff was? A man that was one of 220 Pioneers that raised more than $100,000 in 2004. A man that was one of 550 Pioneers that raised more than $100,000 in 2000. A man that went to the WH more than 5 times. A man that had his picture taken with Bush perhaps 10 times at the WH. And you aren't dumb enough to think Bush might possible know Abramoff. No way in hell Bush could possibly know who Abramoff was. That would just be downright stupid to expect that. Why would Bush know any of his major fund raisers? Clinton not only knew them but also knew where every dollar came from for each fund raiser. Damn, that Clinton is an amazing guy. Mind like a steel trap. Bush must be a moron compared to Clinton.

Never mind the courtroom testimony we should believe your tale instead of what was investigated completely.

No one can accuse you of being dumb. We don't have to. Hell, the dog is dumb, blind, dead and buried at this point.

0 Replies

okie

okie wrote:

I am not dumb enough to believe Clinton had no clue where these Chinese guys were from or about. Chinese money represents apples. Indian tribes in this country are oranges.

You have consistently demonstrated that you are dumb enough to believe anything from the Bush administration.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB
Legal status of Indian Tribes within the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I never mentioned the Chinese or Indian tribes. You did. You said I compared apples to oranges in my statement. Please provide where in my statement there were apples and where there were oranges. Creating your own apples and oranges to argue about doesn't count in any statements of mine. I thought I was clear on facts and making the comparison fair. Point out where I was off base in my statements.

You mentioned Charlie Trie, which had connections to Chinese, and you mentioned Abramoff, alot of the stink here with him concerning Indian Tribes. For you to claim not mentioning Chinese when you mentioned Charlie Trie is a little like mentioning six and then claiming you did not say a half dozen. Charlie Trie goes back to Arkansas, as did some of the other shady figues, such as Johnny Chung. You didn't mention it, but I will, Indonesian, Moctar Riady, who was perhaps involved with Chinese espionage, gave Clinton one check for $450,000. Chung had been to the White House no fewer than 50 times. Key here is the Whitehouse had been warned about the Chinese attempting to do their thing. Clinton claiming ignorance on this does not fly, Parados. Abramoff I think is fundamentally different. He represented domestic lobbying efforts, which are fully legal and above board. Clearly apples and oranges.

Quote:

You aren't dumb enough to believe Clinton didn't know where some of the dollars of a single fundraiser came from. But you don't think Bush even knew who Abarmoff was? A man that was one of 220 Pioneers that raised more than $100,000 in 2004. A man that was one of 550 Pioneers that raised more than $100,000 in 2000. A man that went to the WH more than 5 times. A man that had his picture taken with Bush perhaps 10 times at the WH. And you aren't dumb enough to think Bush might possible know Abramoff. No way in hell Bush could possibly know who Abramoff was. That would just be downright stupid to expect that. Why would Bush know any of his major fund raisers? Clinton not only knew them but also knew where every dollar came from for each fund raiser. Damn, that Clinton is an amazing guy. Mind like a steel trap. Bush must be a moron compared to Clinton.

Yes, I think Bush probably did know who Abramoff was, I don't think they knew each other very well at all, but probably figured he was one of countless other Republican supporters. Clinton was not only a moron, but the biggest crook in the White House ever. His supporters exhibit the same mindset, blind loyalty to corruption, and apparently that includes you.

Quote:

Never mind the courtroom testimony we should believe your tale instead of what was investigated completely.

No one can accuse you of being dumb. We don't have to. Hell, the dog is dumb, blind, dead and buried at this point.

A few slick lawyers, yes thats all it takes to skate.

Now, you are resorting to calling me a dog. Real character there, Parados. I'm not very impressed to say the least. I present evidence, then you turn around and say I haven't presented any. You have your template and nothing is going to deter you from your apparently deeply held Leftist mindset. Right wingers are stupid and crooked. Leftists are always right, always the most brilliant, and the end justifies the means. I've already said if corruption exists wherever it is, lets find out. I don't see the same standard on the left. Nothing even close.

0 Replies

Sorry, this thread isn't about perceived problems with Clinton. It is apparent that you would rather bash 'leftists' than discuss the actual topic, though....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If Abramoff's lobbying efforts were clearly legal and above board then why did he plead guilty to 3 felonies? Why did the prosecutor say this about him

Quote:

Second, Abramoff admitted today to his participation in an extensive corruption scheme. Abramoff gave things of value to public officials, including foreign and domestic trips, campaign contributions, excessive meals and entertainment, and other things of value, all with the intent and at times with the understanding that the public official would act to benefit Abramoff or his client.

The things of value Abramoff provided to government officials included an all-expense paid trip to Scotland to play golf on a world- famous course, tickets and travel to the Superbowl in Florida, tickets for concerts and other events in Washington, repeated and regular meals at his upscale restaurant, and campaign contributions.

Quote:

Yes, I think Bush probably did know who Abramoff was, I don't think they knew each other very well at all, but probably figured he was one of countless other Republican supporters.

It seems the only one blindly following is you okie.. There is your statement. Here is the WH statement about Bush knowing Abramoff.

Quote:

"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said.

Lets compare your statement to the WH statement. Don't you find it a bit odd that Bush would claim he doesn't know one of his 300 largest fundraisers that he has meet several times at the White House. Wouldn't it seem odd that a Jewish Pioneer that raised $200,000 for Bush in 2 campaigns wouldn't stand out at a Hannukah party at the White house? How many fundraisers of that level do you think were at those 2 different parties? I can understand Bush denying knowledge of Abramoff's crime but to deny knowing or even remembering having met him seems a bit far fetched. Even you seem to agree with that one.

You brought up the dog. I only explained why he doesn't hunt in this case of Bush denying he even knows who Abramoff is.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, this thread isn't about perceived problems with Clinton. It is apparent that you would rather bash 'leftists' than discuss the actual topic, though....

Cycloptichorn

I think the subjects are obviously related. If leftists typically defended Clinton's corruption, then when they accuse Republicans as the party of corruption, then some reminders of context of motive is in order, thats all. You are using the word, "bash." I did not use that word. I am simply pointing out some context in today's news, as it relates to this topic, which I think grants more insight into the motives and accuracy of the arguments surrounding the Abramoff case.

0 Replies

No, I don't think it does grant more insight to the Abramoff case. It has nothing to do with it. Instead, it gives you the ability to forward an argument on ground you are comfortable and familiar with: bashing liberals and Clinton.

Try playing some defense for once; show how Abramoff didn't do anything wrong, how Ney and Noe and Burns aren't going to get kicked out of office, that DeLay is a saint. Instead of just attacking the other guy all the time in typical Rovian fashion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I don't think it does grant more insight to the Abramoff case. It has nothing to do with it. Instead, it gives you the ability to forward an argument on ground you are comfortable and familiar with: bashing liberals and Clinton.

Try playing some defense for once; show how Abramoff didn't do anything wrong, how Ney and Noe and Burns aren't going to get kicked out of office, that DeLay is a saint. Instead of just attacking the other guy all the time in typical Rovian fashion.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to play defense on crimes. Thats what the Democrats did with Clinton, but thats not the correct way to play the game, if thats the way you view it here apparently. Looks like Abramoff may be corrupt, but let the wheels of justice turn. Democrats defended Clinton, but I'm not going to do it. Supposedly much of the Clinton corruption was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am simply pointing out that there was little or no curiosity by Democrats to pursue the evidence, thats all. I don't know yet if Ney and the others committed any crimes. That will be determined. I don't know about DeLay for sure either. Just because a lobbysist gave them money does not indicate a crime. All people in Congress have taken money from lobbyists, etc. You need to prove that a crime has been committed here. I think theres some smoke here, but I see almost a religious fervor by Democrats now to make every Republican a felon. If evidence shows any Republican knowingly committed crimes, lets get rid of them. But more than that, I am simply saying I want all crooks kicked out, not just Republican crooks.

0 Replies

The problem with your argument is, it isn't the Democrats that are pursuing Abramoff and his various bought officials; it is the US Justice Department, who will continue to do so.

I assure you that they will go after Democrats as well as Republicans; but don't expect too much of that, as Abramoff - a lifetime Conservative Republican supporter, head of the Republican party, close associate of Tom DeLay - didn't have much of anything to do with Democrats. Why would he? They were the enemy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Abramoff scandal investigation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know