40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!
Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.
Powerline carried this news earlier today from GOP Senators.com.
(click on pictures to enlarge)
Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.
Dorgan even held a fundraiser in an Abramoff Skybox:
The Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client that was a primary focus of the Senate hearings, sponsored a fundraiser on March 28, 2001, for Dorgan's political group, the Great Plains Leadership Fund. The event treated Dorgan and his donors to a bird's-eye view of a professional hockey game from a skybox Abramoff leased in Washington's MCI Center, while lobbyists got the chance to bend his ear.Dorgan says he will not step down from the investigating committee. (same article)
That oh, so popular, MCI Skybox...
Tom Harkin paid the tribe for use of its Skybox and he failed to account properly for two fundraisers he held in lobbyist Jack Abramoff's skybox at WashingtonÂs MCI Center in 2002 and 2003.
Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)
Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid's office confirmed.
Here is a Slide Show of the East Coast 13 (dems and republicans) who accepted contributions from Abramoff.
Capital Eye has the monstrous list of all of the recipients of Abramoff's funds.
Republican Vet has the Democratic Senators listed on his site with the totals they took from the Abramoff bunch.
I hope Howard Dean gets this information before he makes any more mistakes.
I look forward to his apology!
Ace notes the incongruity of Dean's comments and reality.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 1/08/2006 03:41:00 PM
41 Comments:
They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.
This sentence is misleading, as none of them actually took money from Abramoff (unlike Republicans, who did). They may have taken money from his clients. What is an Abramoff "associate"?
But if any of the Dems took money from Indian tribes in exchange for favors, they should be thrown out along with the dirty Republicans.
I hope you are starting to see the hpocricy of your party, Dave. It really is glaring and shameful.
If the sentence above is misleading then maybe maybe Democrats and the media are a bit misleading, too. You'll have to ask one of your democrat senators what an Abramoff "associate" is. Apparently, they know them well.
The MSM is still referring to the Abramoff situation as a "Republican scandal". Any bets on when this is likely to change?
All the more reasson to turn out all incumbents.
This is the "status quo" that turns my stomach.
Not the party affiliation so much - the graft, unnecessary politics, greed, hypocrisy.
They should all lose their jobs.
If the sentence above is misleading then maybe maybe Democrats and the media are a bit misleading, too. You'll have to ask one of your democrat senators what an Abramoff "associate" is. Apparently, they know them well.
I think the media have been falling all over themselves to point out the bipartisan nature of this scandal, even if it's not really that bipartisan. I don't have a problem acknowledging that a number of Democrats received contributions from Abramoff clients. But they didn't take cash from him directly. It's important to note that the Republicans took a lot more of his and his clients' money, and Republicans are the only ones that Abramoff gave money to directly.
But to be clear, I'm not defending anyone in my party who may have broken the law, as many Republicans seem to be doing.
Anyway, I was just saying that "associate" is an undefined term that could be construed in many ways. I could argue that Tom Delay and George W. Bush were associates of Abramoff. Delay said they were close friends, and Abramoff raised $100,000 for Bush.
Screw party affiliations. Take a bribe, you're out.
Zero tolerance. Get it?
"I think the media have been falling all over themselves to point out the bipartisan nature of this scandal..."
Well, I haven't seen everything the media has had to say about this, but as I recall from E. J. Dionne's editorial about this, the word Democrat didn't come up once.
When politicians control what is bought and sold the first thing bought and sold is politicians.
dave in nyc
You just don't get it do you?
"I don't have a problem acknowledging that a number of Democrats received contributions from Abramoff clients. But they didn't take cash from him directly"
"But to be clear, I'm not defending anyone in my party who may have broken the law, as many Republicans seem to be doing."
I do think you are very clear. You're real quick to defend the democrats and convict the republicans.
If the law was broken, they should be punished regardless of political affiliation. Do you agree?
So if Abramooff sent a friend or a secretary or a flunky with the brown paper bag, to a Democrat, it's somehow better than taking it directly? Dave, is just you, or are all Democrats morally blind?
Look, the problem is government power. That people in power get money for discretionary exercise of that power is expected. The money provided by Abramoff may be legal, or illegal, but his clients can not be expected to know that before the fact. The Senate pays well. The jobs are in high demand, with donors lied up to give money, no matter what side of any issue you are on.
Abramoff cheated his clients. He will be punished. We have to look beyond that, to why there is so much money being paid. There is too much power concentrated in DC. The money follows the power. Eliminate the power, and money will no longer matter.
Abramoff, Shabramoff.
There was some precedent and jsutification for taking money from a lobbyist.
Duke Cunningham wearing a wire at meetings and in the cloakroom?
Now, THAT'S a scandal...
I do think you are very clear. You're real quick to defend the democrats and convict the republicans.
No. I am merely interested in the objective facts. As in every thread I believe I've ever participated in on this site, all I am asking is for Gatewaypundit to get his facts straight.
If the law was broken, they should be punished regardless of political affiliation. Do you agree?
Of course. Where have I said anything that would imply differently?
Well, I haven't seen everything the media has had to say about this, but as I recall from E. J. Dionne's editorial about this, the word Democrat didn't come up once.
Dionne's column, as I recall, was specifically addressing the fallacy circulating in the mainstream media that Democrats had accepted money from Abramoff as well. They have accepted money from his clients, of course. Perhaps it's a fine line to draw, but I think it helps to be as precise as possible on this stuff.
So if Abramooff sent a friend or a secretary or a flunky with the brown paper bag, to a Democrat, it's somehow better than taking it directly? Dave, is just you, or are all Democrats morally blind?
No, but nobody is really talking about under-the-table contributions right now. I believe all of the contributions described by Gatewaypundit were properly documented. Is there a difference between accepting money directly from Abramoff, or accepting it from his clients? Unclear at this point--in the end, it depends on what was given in exchange for such contributions. Until we know, I don't see how it hurts to be precise about the distinctions.
Also, it is important to note who received money directly from Abramoff because it goes towards the point that Abramoff, himself, was a powerful Republican who raised a ton of money for the President and who had the ear of top Republicans. Even if he didn't bring down anyone else, that is still important.
Of course, it goes without saying that neither accepting campaign contributions from Abramoff's clients or even accepting them from the man himself is, in itself, illegal. Until we find out what Abramoff and the others who have pled guilty are telling investigators, we don't have a complete picture of which lawmakers are going to be hurt by this.
I agree with Dave. The title of this post is misleading. Democrats accepting money from clients of Abramoff does not equate to Democrats taking "Abramoff Money". Wouldn't that imply that all of these tribes were actually working for or colluding with Abramoff? Is that what you are really trying to say?
Political donors frequently donate to both parties to hedge their bets on getting what they want. That they apparently went through a lobbyist in one case and directly to the politicians in the other doesn't necessarily mean it is all linked.
If any real evidence proves contrary, then regardless of party, they should be punished....
The key question for each politician isn't whether the check was signed "Abramoff" or signed by an Abramoff client at Abramoff's behest. This is a distinction without legal or moral significance. The question is whether there was a quid pro quo. In the (likely) absence of documents saying, "here is a bribe for your vote," the only such evidence would be Abramoff's testimony (tainted by self interest due to plea-bargain), or relatively weak inferences which might be drawn. (In one case, a relatively strong inference, when Ney made speeches at Abramoff's behest.)
Only Republicans are under investigation for criminal violations.
And every single Republican who DOESN'T call for Bob Ney to be replaced as Chair of the House Administration Committee is one of two things:
a) A glaring hypocrite; or
b) Objectively pro-corruption
It seems the Dems are trying to argue,
Heck, we did not rob the bank the repubs did, we just drove the car."
Not exactly....
Sitting in the same car isn't proof they helped rob the bank.
This goes for both repubs and dems....
dave in nyc is right. GP's statement was very misleading, and I got it wrong too initially because I said the same thing.
Abramoff did not personally give any of his own money to ANY Dem from what the records show. You can find that information over at Capital Eye. Sure, his clients gave Dems money, but that's not the same as Abramoff giving them money directly, as was asserted.
As for the other allegiations, those will come out in due time. But don't jump down dave's throat simply because he correctly asserted that Abramoff didn't give any of his own money to Dems. Because that is a fact, and it's supported by the record.
OMFG ... No matter how much kool aid you drink, it's still a Republican scandal !!
Try again wrisky...
Per Flopping Ace
The Democratic spin is that no Democrat received Abramoff's personal political donations, and that he's personally a Republcian. Well, yeah, and? Those come in scary-huge sizes of $1000 or $2000 per election cycle. And so he supported, with his personal donations, candidates whose policies he agreed with.
But a lobbyist does not lobby -- or bribe -- Congressmen by passing out his own money. See, were that the case, lobbyists would be bankrupted in a relatively short period of time. And it wouldn't be a lucrative job-- quite the opposite.
Lobbyists funnel money from interested parties to politicians in order to advance their clients' business interests, not their own personal political preferences.
And Abramoff's money-- the money from his clients, from his lobbying firm's accounts, from the affiliated organizations he controlled -- went to Democrats in large amounts. The Democratic national senatorial committee, for example, received 97% of the money the Republican senatorial campaign committee did.
So, when Howard Dean trots out his talking point about no Democrats ever receiving Abramoff's money, bear in mind that is a small amount of Abramoff's personal funds he's talking about, not the millions that he took from Indian casino interests to buy off polticians in payments of $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or more at a shot.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/150368.php
What would be the POINT of Abramoff giving Democrats money? His goal was to create a Republican dominated congress, and an imperial (read business-friendly) presidency. And yet the Republican spin doctors are falling all over themselves saying that's what Abramoff actually did.
Some media people are buying right into this bullshit. Take a look at the way Wolf Blitzer tried to shove that "bipartisan scandal" bullshit down Howard Dean's throat. Dean punked him, not once, but three times, and it left Wolfie breathless. Then he sighed, like a little girl who got caught in a lie.
Pathetic.
Pathetic...is progressive dems is treating Native Americans as a money laundering service.
Just more racism from the party of Senator Robert KKK Byrd, Klan Recruiter ESQ.
No Democratic Senator took Abramoff money. The Republicans are dishonestly claiming that all donations from Abramoff's clients are "Abramoff money," even when Abramoff had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction. The Republicans must assume that Indian tribes are wholly owned and operated by Jack Abramoff. I don't think so.
To illustrate how absurd the Republican claim is: Mary Beth Williams of Wampum noted that she had purchased gas from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe last summer. Since the Saginaw Chippewas were Jack Abramoff clients, by Republican logic she and Wampum are now "tainted" by Abramoff money.
Corruption is perfectly happy to cross party lines, and plenty of Dems have been guilty of many dishonest things, but Jack Abrahmoff is the Republicans' boy. Stop disgracing yourself by trying to claim Dems were in on the Abramoff scandal, too. Admit the mistake and take your lumps like grown ups for a change.
Dems and sane Republicans--
There's no point in trying to convince these folks that this is a GOP scandal. There's no point because every republican could be frog-marched out of the House and they'd still point to a $2 tip Abramoff once received from Bernie Sanders at Signatures as proof that there was a quid pro quo.
For the record, no matter the party, corruption is intolerable. The democrats deserved kicking around in '94, and the GOP will deserve their kicking around in '06. When parties ignore corruption in their own ranks, they cease to retain the moral authority to lead.
Jeff Wrote: When parties ignore corruption in their own ranks, they cease to retain the moral authority to lead.
This is exactly why Dems are no longer the Majority and will remain the MINORITY for years to come.
Repubs see they have a problem and are starting to change but Dems refuse (Howard Dean and Dem posters on this site and other) to take any blame. Like Jeff said When parties ignore corruption in their own ranks, they cease to retain the moral authority to lead.
The idea that no Democrats took money directly from Abramoff is their latest spin. It started last week and reached a crescendo this weekend. It is crap! The Dems are grasping at straws trying to make this problem unique to Republicans.
"I don't have a problem acknowledging that a number of Democrats received contributions from Abramoff clients. But they didn't take cash from him directly"
Seems to me that Tom DeLay is fending off charges of just this type of thing. NO ONE has accused him taking any money directly.
There's a term for the way that most of the Democrats took their graft, it's called "money laundering" and it's a crime in and of it'self, so in a sense, those Rep. that allegedly took money directly are actually guilty of a lesser crime. The Dems compounded it by adding the crime of money laundering to the graft.
defltsman3: I don't see how getting a campaign contribution is "money laundering". One is legal, one isn't but you seem to have made the jump in your argument without poroof. Care to substantiate? Names and criminal activities, be specific, please.
Again, quid pro quo and bribery are the crimes most are accused of so far in this Republican scandal. Any Democrats been indicted yet? Call me when they are, otherwise get off your high horse and admit (even to yourself) that your heroes may be complete charlatans.
Scanlon and Abramoff: Pled guilty, Republican
Safavian and Kidan: Indicted/arrested, Republicans
Ney: Implicated in Abramoff plea, Republican
See a pattern here? And Dems plead guilty? being prosecuted? indicted? So, how is this NOT a Republican scandal? Oh, well innuendo and rumor has it that Dems will be implicated? Hasn't happen yet. Until then, calling it a Republican scanddal is entirely appropriate.
What is disgusting about this whole issue is that the Democrats and the MSM are so giddy and happy like a kid in the candy store because they THINK they see the light at the end of the tunnel and that the white horse is going to come swooping down and replace all the "corrupt" Republicans and instill the "righteous" Democrats and save the country (which, BTW will be Hillary's campaign platform, but that is another topic.) What the Democrats don't see is that everytime they tried to use this issue--namely, a "Bush bashing issue"--they loose. The Democrats have been talking for years about how Bush stole the election, the American people didn't buy it in 2002 and that continued to make them mad. So they tried the whole "Bush misled" us in the wrong war or the "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" in 2004 with the flip-flopping Kerry and even with the MSMs help Bush overturned a 10% margin and won the election. (The day of the election the MSM predicted that Kerry would win by 7% and Bush ended up winning by 3%.) Clearly, the American people don't buy the Dean-isms that he keeps thinking of, or well, NOT thinking of before he speaks. The Dems also aren't winning points with the "Bush lied, people died." Or the "NSA-not-but-the-Democrats-think-is-scandal" . Both issues aren't sticking and the American people would rather have a President who can clearly lead than people who use the topic of the day for their "supposed" politcal advantage, which, then turns out to be political ruin (as they lost in 2002 and 2004 and had a lower approval rating last fall than the President.)
I agree that those who are guilty should be gone. That is why I am a conservative. We stand for truth. We do what is right. You immediatly saw them giving back the money. Yet, not one of the Democrats has yet, instead they lie and say we don't have any Abramoff money and try to play semantics by defining the word "is." Based on all this evidence, I predict victory in 2006!!
This is amazing, someone show me where republicans recieved abe's personal money? Guess what, they got it the same way the dims did. He used the casino's to bribe everyone. He did not use his own money for the repubs to illegally support them but then use "legal" indian money to prop up the dims.
OMG can't you see how stupid this logic is. They dims donations he routed were clean but the pubs was dirty? Anyone who even tries to spout this premise is unfit to vote and needs some serious help!
Interesting. But the argument that 'Abramoff's a Republican and is giving money to Republicans so they keep power (pro-business, etc.), is a bit of a loser.
It implicitly states that Abramoff money given to Republicans was ideology-based, but that money given to Democrats was not: Ergo, money given to Democrats was to purchase something, or to pay for a quid pro quo. Money given to Republicans was to support his own personal/political beliefs.
Ain't nothin' to pay for, to someone who sees things your way from the git-go.
It implicitly states that Abramoff money given to Republicans was ideology-based, but that money given to Democrats was not: Ergo, money given to Democrats was to purchase something, or to pay for a quid pro quo.
I don't think you have been paying enough attention to this thread. Abramoff didn't give any personal money to Democrats. He only gave it to Republicans. (He also raised $100K for the Bush campaign).
Whether the money given to Republicans was ideology-based, I don't know. I agree that the scandal isn't just about the money he personally gave, but again, let's get our facts straight.
Ain't nothin' to pay for, to someone who sees things your way from the git-go.
Not all Republicans agree on everything.
I just wanted to say one thing, there's only 44 Democratic senators, not 45.
okay... it is not a repub scandal... so 42 repubs and 2 dems will go to prison... fair is fair...
Top Secret! MSA intercept transcript...
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/02/top-secret-msa-intercept-transcript.html
I have linked you twice to my latest post but couldn't find trackback information to let you know....
CLeaned of Spam 11-14-2006
The online casino is an improvement in convenience of the brick and mortar casino. Online Casinos Extreme today offer a complete software solution to all of gaming desires. You may download and intstall the casino software on your PC, but many online gambling sites also provide the player with the option very quick flash or java games.
NIKE NIKE运动鞋 NIKE跑鞋 妮可鞋岛 阿迪达斯
阿迪达斯
nikedao
nikedao.com
www.nikedao.com
NIKE
ADIDAS
PUMA
NIKE板鞋
运动鞋
NIKE跑鞋
ADIDAS板鞋
ADIDAS运动鞋
ADIDAS跑鞋
板鞋
运动鞋
耐克
NIKE板鞋
NIKE运动鞋
NIKE 跑鞋
ADIDAS板鞋
ADIDAS运动鞋
ADIDAS跑鞋
休闲鞋
PUMA运动鞋
妮可鞋岛
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home