| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2523
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:44 am: | 
|
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=166155
I need an abacus! I can't keep track.
TOLEDO -- Thomas W. Noe, the coin dealer and prominent Republican contributor whose $50 million state coin investment sparked one of the biggest scandals in Ohio state government history, was indicted today on 53 felonies, including theft of more than $1 million....
Besides the state charges unsealed today, Noe also faces federal charges of illegally funneling $45,400 to President Bush's re-election campaign by giving money to friends and associates to contribute in their names. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5169
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
Save your abacus. You can count the republican indictments easily -- take your shoes off if you run out of fingers.
If you want to make it a bipartisan count -- say just adding Chicago and NJ -- that's another story. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4350
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hey, why not go back to the founding of the republic while you're at it. That way we can pull in Watergate, Teapot Dome and the Grant administration, too.
Forget it, this isn't a bipartisan scandal. It's the Republicans. Period. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5173
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Funny. That's just what Reid is trying to say, but there are too many connections from his office to Abramoff clients.
You can still dream though. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2526
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 3:13 pm: |
|
"Too many" for what? That's just a lot of vague talk.
Nice of you to offer to share your feverish activist criminal, but Abramoff is your guy, with deep connections to the K Street project and every nationaly important Republican.
The only Reed going down is prominent GOP intellectual and spiritual leader Ralph Reed. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5176
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
$68K is pretty specific. Or the $67K that Byron Dorgan received from 'clients.' Durbin got $11K.
And let's not forget William Jefferson, D-LA who got a special Nat. Guard escort to his New Orleans home to retrieve some 'records.' |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2529
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
"Dorgan responded by asserting that he has never personally met Jack Abramoff, nor has he ever received money from Abramoff. Dorgan did acknowledge receiving money from Abramoff's clients, but the donations began prior to their involvement with Abramoff. Dorgan's statement went on to say that he has supported the programs that benefited Abramoff's clients years prior to the contribution."
Oh my gosh! The vice-Chair of the Indian Affairs Committee got donations from Indian tribes! Stop the presses! CJC's maidenhead just broke! |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Okay Abramoff is our guy. You got us. He only helped bankroll us for years and years and it worked like a charm. Now they got him. Oh no. He won't give up any big fish and will be pardoned. All in all, not a bad trade off. You guys get your current scandal and we have firm control of Congress (and we still have a ton of his money hidden away for later this year). Luckily, we were smart enough to have Jacky boy throw some money towards the Dems. Just enough to make it look good. Maybe Libby and Jack will sing on the same day. Would you Dems be able to hide your excitment? |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 90
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Don't confuse money from Abramoff himself (which obviously went only to Republicans, he being a major Rep himself) with money from his clients, mainly American Indian tribes, which obviously would go to congressmen on the relevant committees no matter who their lobbyist was, to money from A's slush fund. That last is the one that's going to get a lot of people in trouble.
Reid was clearly lobbied by A. No evidence that the lobbying was successful has been uncovered. See this page for more on that. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4351
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
The clients are indian tribes, and it's no crime to be one. There's already plenty of hard proof that once these tribes got involved with Abramoff their contributions to democrats went DOWN in comparison to their contributions to republicans -- by a LOT.
The smart organization with lobbying needs contributes to both sides, because you want everybody to vote for you that you can get. The proof isn't that dems got contributions, the proof is they got less. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 94
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Again, Abramoff, now a convicted criminal, ran a slush fund that he filled up, in part, with money from his tribal clients. The money that he and they gave over the table isn't the real story here. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2536
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
"Luckily, we were smart enough to have Jacky boy throw some money towards the Dems."
No such thing happened. That is a daydream.
The slush fund, and the way it was laundered and pumped into politics will be the real story. Just wait. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5177
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Reid's support of Indians as a rationale for there being nothing to be worried about is flimsy at best. He was against casinos that weren't on reservation lands. So, he worked against casinos ON reservation lands in LA because a rival tribe with a casino on their lands gave him money. Same in MI.
Why didn't Reid just say he was against competition generally. As a liberal, that would make sense. No -- just some competition depending on who gave him money.
And if the money isn't tainted, why did Dorgan give the money back?
And your aim of saying the 1-2K of hard money that Abramoff personally gave Republicans is the reason they voted the way they did in a quid pro quo? No one believes that Senate action can be bought with a $1K donation.
Dems first problem is that some Dem pols are giving away Abramoff-linked money, and now you're saying "Well....he gave Republicans more than he used to and we're getting less of that (suspicious) money." Sorry, that exploding ink pack is on Dems clothes and hands as well.
This is why the "Culture of Corruption" won't work as a theme in 2006. Just ask William Jefferson, D-LA. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2542
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
"And if the money isn't tainted, why did Dorgan give the money back? "
That's the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument. Out of an abundance of caution.
"No one believes that Senate action can be bought with a $1K donation. " Um, I do.
"he gave Republicans more than he used to and we're getting less of that (suspicious) money." If "he" is Abramoff, he gave Dems no money. I don't understand.
Yo basically have no argument that can possibly link democrats to criminal mastermind republican Jack Abramoff. It's like watching someone have a stroke, seeing the shattered connections you try to pull together. Let me hip you to something - one party rule looks like this: crooked as hell. That's why it is receding. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5181
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
By 'he' I mean Abramoff and the clients whose political contributions he was directing to known champions of all-things-Indian like Charles Rangel. AP was the one that detailed and landed the punches on Reid.
If you think $1K can get an earmark, you're nuts.
Corruption is a loser of an issue for you because your own side is dirty too. I encourage you to run on it. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2547
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
I will not be running.
I will make you a bet, like the one that banished Janay, that not one Democrat will be indicted on the Abramoff matter. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5182
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
That may or may not be be the case, and really isn't the focus of my argument. If you get Congressman Ney, one or two others and some staffers -- fine. What I'm saying is this issue doesn't have nearly the impact as the House Bank or House Post Office did leading up to the 1994 elections combined with Hillarycare that delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. The reason is both sides are 'tainted' by lobbyist money and the public knows it. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2548
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
"If you get Congressman Ney, one or two others and some staffers -- fine."
Works for me. So three GOP congressmen and staff get indicted, and in your book, that isn't a problem. I guess you guys are never disappointed with your party because you don't believe in failure. Just move the goalposts. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5183
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
 |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2550
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:54 pm: |
|
 |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3036
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
What was the bet that banished Janay? That must have gone down during a week when I was busy at the office. I do remember some proclamations from him about no indictments resulting from the Plame affair... |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2551
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
He's hiding from me. Had to do with Delay. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4355
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:08 pm: |
|
The fact that money came from the tribes does not make it "abramoff-linked" money. It's just money from the tribes. Let me spell this out abstractly:
Linda, a lobbyist, has been giving Denny, a senator, $100 a year.
Linda meets Abe, an operative for the other party (not Denny's). Abe says to Linda, you should be giving money to Ralph instead, a different senator.
Linda starts giving $75 a year to Ralph, but since she wants to stay on Denny's good side she continues to give him $25.
Denny was getting $100. Now he gets $25.
Abe is:
a) Helpful to Denny
b) Harmful to Denny
c) has no effect on Denny
Denny is
a) Abe's love slave
b) Abe's victim
c) unaffected by Abe
The fact that Denny still gets some money from Linda means what about his relationship with Abe:
a) He's in bed with Abe
b) He's working for Abe
c) He has no relationship with Abe, he has a relationship with Linda. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5189
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Abramoff instructs a tribe that hasn't given money before to give Reid and Dorgan some cash -- they then vote for legislation favorable to that tribe -- and then the tribe gives them even more money a week after that.
Have the Democrat Senators been influenced by new tribal money given to them at the direction of Abramoff?
Answer -- Bush sucks. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4358
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
which tribe is that? How much did they give Reid and Dorgan compared to how much they gave Republicans after? How do you know it was Abramoff's idea to give to Dems? How would it have looked if they only gave money to Republicans?
But most importantly, how much went to each party. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Because clearly, only the party that received the most money is the dishonest one.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4359
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:31 pm: |
|
There's nothing illegal about accepting money. Which is why you can't claim Dem corruption simply because they got money from Abramoff clients. And you can't pretend Abramoff's some kind of benefactor to the dems, either. It's just slinging mud. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2555
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0213nj1.htm |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5198
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
tom -- you're 'buying' access and votes is the thinking, remember? Fraud and bribery is something else entirely -- and something that might nab Ney and some others (like Jefferson, but he has no Abramoff links).
Money to Democrats for votes -- OK. Money for Republicans for votes -- not OK. Hiring former Reid staffers at the Abramoff law firm -- SOP.
Here's a couple tribes that had new-found love for Harry that never had it before Abramoff:
THE REAL REID RECORD:
From 1991-2000, Reid Received No Contributions From The Following Non-Nevada Tribes, But While The Tribes Were Clients Of Abramoff, Reid Received Over $50,000 From Them:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California) contributed $19,500 to Reid between 2001 and 2004
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana contributed $5,000 to Reid 2001 between 2001 and 2004
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians contributed $7,000 to Reid between 2001 and 2004
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan contributed $19,000 to Reid between 2001 and 2004
(Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed January 12, 2006)
https://www.gopsenators.com/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1572
And this from the DC Post via AP:
.....Although Abramoff never donated personally to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Louisiana Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. Reid was Democratic whip at the time.
Abramoff sent a list to the tribe titled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."
About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show. His March 5, 2002, letter pressed the agency to reject a casino proposed by a potential rival to the Coushattas, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) also signed the letter.
Reid also officially opposed new tribal casinos in California and Michigan, where Abramoff had tribal clients with casinos.
Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas's gambling establishments.
"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and he has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.
Abramoff's group had earlier contacts with Reid's office over the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and one of Abramoff's highest paying clients. In 2001, records show, Abramoff's lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office, mostly to discuss Democratic legislation that would have gradually applied the U.S. minimum wage to the islands. Republicans wanted to keep the islands exempt.
Reid, along with his Senate counsel, Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill," according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas. Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate reelection committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.
Manley said Reid's official calendar does not list a meeting on June 5, 2001, with Platt, but he also said he could not say for sure the contact did not occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.
As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."
Platt and a fellow lobbyist also reported a contact on May 30, 2001, with Edward P. Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901208_ pf.html
Seems that Ensign and Reid were all on thet same page there. One is said to be corrupt, the other isn't.
The voting public will not make that distinction, which is why democrats are looking for another theme in place of ideas to run against the Republicans with in '06. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page