1
   

The Abramoff scandal investigation

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 02:13 pm
Hey guys. Do try to get the legal/ethical issue here. Money donated is not the problem. It is money donated in exchange for legislative favors.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 05:32 pm
you're right blatham.

Now,please show us EVIDENCE,verifiable,ironclad evidence that any favors that might have been done were directly connected to money donated.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 05:37 pm
Would you be satisfied with anything less than a cancelled check with the words "purchase of legislation" written in the memo?
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 05:39 pm
blatham wrote:
Hey guys. Do try to get the legal/ethical issue here. Money donated is not the problem. It is money donated in exchange for legislative favors.


Blathem,

You and I agree...but up to this point, there is only one congressman implicated but is, as yet, uncharged for accepting money in exchange for legislative favors..

Now there are a host of both Democrats and Republicans that have accepted money from Abramoff. It remains to be seen if any of them have taken money in exchange for legislative favors. There are too many folks on this board that seem to automatically indict the Republicans for accepting Abramoffs money, and in the same breath excuse the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 05:53 pm
blatham wrote:
The problem is not, of course, merely cases of accepting money from a donor but rather where such donations are or appear to be related to subsequent legistlative favors delivered in exchange for those donations.


Quote:
WASHINGTON -- This week's guilty plea by lobbyist Jack Abramoff could renew scrutiny of a letter by House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to block an Indian casino opposed by rival tribes represented by Abramoff.

Hastert's letter was sent just one week after Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for the Illinois Republican's political action committee...

<<<<snip>>>>>
link

The claim that this scandal involves both parties equally is false which you guys would appreciate if you actually studied the matter rather than merely sought to be apologists for the administration.

The claim it involves just one person (abramoff) is pretty silly if only from the perspective that three have now pleaded guilty with (so far) another indicted. All are Republicans (including a high level Bush administrator) and three have previously worked with or for Tom DeLay. More will be coming.

The claim that there's nothing unusual in such corruption is not matched by McCain's perspective nor that of the other members of his committee.


Blatham, your bias is blatant...

AP News Service wrote:
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Abramoff.

Most wrote letters that pressed a reluctant Bush administration to renew a program that provided tribes federal money for building schools. Others worked the congressional budget process to ensure it happened, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

And most received donations, ranging from $1,000 to more than $74,000, in the weeks just before or after their intervention. One used Abramoff's restaurant for a fund-raiser a month after a letter.

As a group, they collected more than $440,000 from Abramoff, his firm or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, when Abramoff represented the tribes.


Source

Now are you willing to concede that both Democrats and Republicans could get stung in this scandal?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 06:06 pm
I don't think he was saying that Democrats didn't take money from Abramoff. He's saying that they are not implicated equally. When someone says "both parties are implicated" it says that just as many Democrats as Republicans were involved, which is false.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 06:44 pm
Freeduck,

It remains to be seen if just as many Democrats as Republicans are involved.

Knowing the history of these type scandals (remember Secretary Babbitt and the Hudson Casino scandal?), I predict a lot of public money being spent, a lot of words written, and a lot of inquiry, and two years from now we'll have a 500-page report saying Abramoff did wrong, Ney (maybe) did wrong, but no conclusive evidence that anyone else did anything wrong.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 07:14 pm
Maybe so. But clearly so far the people most closely connected with Abramoff have been Republicans. They are the party in power. If there is a corruption issue they need to address it. Trying to mitigate it by saying it involves both parties is just a way to avoid admitting there's a problem. When the Democrats were in power, they were corrupt. Now we can see that Republicans are not any better. The Democrats did it too defense is wanting.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 07:30 pm
Good post...can't argue with you there.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 08:33 pm
What does anybody know for sure about this? Not much more than Zilch. Until Abramoff talks under oath, probably as part of some plea deal, we know little or nothing about who is implicated. It could be all Republicans, a mixture of Democrats and Republicans, or even mostly Demcrats. Before this happens, who knows?

Besides, this whole hullabaloo now about Abramoff makes me wonder, why now? And why only him? He is one of countless, or at least dozens of examples. There is nothing new here. Virtually every congressman is guilty. If you want to clean it up, lets clean it up, but I am willing to wager that the press won't take an objective look at whats been going on for a long long time.

http://www.fecinfo.com/
I posted the above, but one could google the subject for hours and bury you all with mountains of information about political favors, trips, you name it.

Furthermore, what about all these huge organizations, I will point one out as a glaring example, the National Education Organization, supposedly to represent teachers regardless of politics, and it receives all kinds of special tax status because of it. Guess what. You guessed it. The NEA is so glaringly partisan, it is unbelievable. They have a virtually 100% liberal Democrat agenda. Does it represent its members in a balanced way? The answer is obviously not. I think that indicates a mountain of corruption. How do they get away with it? And they will continue to do so because the press does not care and the Democrats don't care. If a Republican raises a stink, he would be labeled a right-wing extremist that hates all children, and would be hung in the press, and hounded and investigated until they found some tiny thing in his past.

If you think I'm fed up with liberal Democrats, you are correct.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 08:50 pm
Quote:

If you think I'm fed up with liberal Democrats, you are correct.


I am fed up with people who deny reality.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:07 pm
I thought this was a debate forum whereby you acknowledge the arguments presented by your opponent and try to present actual evidence in opposition if you can? I guess I was mistaken.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 04:32 am
mysteryman wrote:
you're right blatham.

Now,please show us EVIDENCE,verifiable,ironclad evidence that any favors that might have been done were directly connected to money donated.


Not my task, you nincompoop. That's the role of the on-going Senate investigation and the numerous grand jury investigations. You now have four guilty pleas in the works and more to come.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 04:41 am
And now you have Newt (of all people) giving Republicans lectures on ethics and advising deep house cleaning (he's right on this, at least) and you have the party turning on DeLay (duh).
Quote:
GOP coalition launches drive to replace DeLay
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 7, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of conservative and moderate Republicans launched a formal bid yesterday to replace Representative Tom DeLay of Texas as House majority leader, as lawmakers scramble to cope with the fallout of a widening ethics scandal on Capitol Hill.

But some GOP leaders fear DeLay may be criminally charged in the Abramoff investigation.

link
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 06:45 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Maybe so. But clearly so far the people most closely connected with Abramoff have been Republicans. They are the party in power. If there is a corruption issue they need to address it. Trying to mitigate it by saying it involves both parties is just a way to avoid admitting there's a problem. When the Democrats were in power, they were corrupt. Now we can see that Republicans are not any better. The Democrats did it too defense is wanting.


But you will admit that the Dems are as guilty?

Quote:
Those casinos have made many tribes rich, and some, like the Coushatta Tribe, have used their money to try to buy clout to squelch any potential competitors. As their gambling revenue grew, the tribes began to make political contributions, targeting mostly Democratic lawmakers. But when Abramoff came calling, it was not hard for him to persuade the tribes to start spreading the wealth to Republicans.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10743996/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 08:11 am
Now here's a fun little bit of useless knowledge (though pointing to the incestuous nature of the present crowd)...

Quote:
We only have Abramoff on the hook today because his partner, Michael Scanlon, rolled on him. And, as Raw Story reported today, we may only know about Michael Scanlon because of a jilted former lover, Emily Miller, who avenged herself after Scanlon took up with a manicurist by going to the FBI and dropping the proverbial dime. You may remember Miller from the time she famously attempted to prematurely end a Meet The Press interview with Colin Powell.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/abramoffukkah/bang-the-manicurist-slowly-146280.php

And Scanlon and Miller met while working for DeLay.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 08:58 am
mysteryman wrote:
But you will admit that the Dems are as guilty?


That remains to be seen in this case. I'm not sure why you would want such an admission since just a few posts ago you were questioning whether there was any wrongdoing at all. Now you want me to admit that the Dems are equally guilty of having done nothing wrong. Perplexing.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 04:28 am
http://www.cagle.com/working/060106/wright.gif
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:25 pm
Bush Abruptly Ended Abramoff Investigation in 2002! Obstruction of Justice? (must-see!!)
by Sherlock Google
Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 08:31:45 AM PDT

Don't forget that Jack Abramoff's own secretary, Susan Ralston, became Karl Rove's Personal Assistant, and that Abramoff said he contacted Rove personally on relieving his client Tyco from having to pay some taxes and still be able to get federal contracts. Abramoff said "he had contact with Mr. Karl Rove" on Tyco.


But that's not the half of it! It was only revealed this August that in 2002 Bush himself fired a prosecutor, Frederick Black, investigating Abramoff over a scandal in Guam. Rove recommended the replacement and the inquiry of Abramoff ended! ""The demotion of ... Black looks political and should be investigated," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said in a press release." It would be Obstruction of Justice by Bush if true.

PLUS Bush never repaid Abramoff's firm, Greenberg, $314,000 in bills for the 2000 Recount, making it in effect a HUGE in-kind contribution to Bush! SO BUSH OWES ABRAMOFF BIG-TIME. And Abramoff himself was a "Pioneer", raising over $100,000 for Bush in 2004.

My investigation on the flip, Jack!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/2/103145/544
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 01:43 pm
A British law firm has been linked to the ongoing investigation into the illegal activities of former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
A former partner at London-based James & Sarch, now defunct, allegedly channeled $1 million from Russian oil executives to the public advocacy group US Family Network, also now defunct, largely funded by Abramoff-associated groups. The payment, made in a single check, was the largest payment recorded on the Network's books.
According to the former president of the fund, the executives contributed money in 1998 to influence Republican Congressman Tom DeLay's vote on legislation that would bail out the then-collapsing Russian economy. DeLay and Abramoff met with the Russian executives before and after the payment, but DeLay has insisted that he took decisions on appropriate grounds. Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud charges last week, and has negotiated a plea agreement with federal prosecutors to reduce his punishment in exchange for favorable testimony in future corruption case against members of Congress.

Telegraph (London) report: British lawyers linked to $1m payment for favours at US Congress
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 04:29:55