ABRAMOFF SCANDAL: Reid criticized by Porter/GOP lawmaker sees 'study in hy

[NVMojo]

GOP lawmaker sees 'study in hypocrisy'

January 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The controversy surrounding Jack Abramoff grew to new proportions in Nevada on Friday when Republican Rep. Jon Porter demanded the state's Democratic lawmakers give back campaign contributions tied to the discredited lobbyist.

Porter inserted himself into the ethics debate, directly criticizing Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader who Republicans have been trying to tie into the Abramoff scandal.

The criticism extended to Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who also received donations from sources connected to the Republican lobbyist.

Although Republicans received more money and perks from Abramoff such as expensive golf trips, Porter insisted Democrats are not blameless and should share responsibility for restoring public faith in Congress.

more...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-07-Sat-2006/news/5253723.html

[Erika]

1. What a laugh

The only reason the Dems were given one-third of the amount given to the GOP was to try to make donations look legit. Democrats should keep every cent.

[NVMojo]

2. I agree, Erika, I've been saying that all along. Too bad these smart Dems

didn't see it coming. I know it costs a fortune to run a Senatorial campaign ...but ...somethings can bite us in the ass later ...

[WCGreen]

6. It's not even that...

The Dem's continued to recieve support from the Native American PAC's since they always have. The NAPAC's have always favored the Dem's over the Republicans and the history of their donations prove it....

The only difference between now and then is honest Abe persuaded the NAPAC's to send some of that cash over to his side of the aisle

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. I also doubt that any of the money to the Democrats came directly....

...from Abramoff, as did the money that was given to the GOP.

As far as I know, only the Indian PACs gave money to the Dems...which is perfectly legal.

[Dr.Phool]

15. You don't have to doubt- it's been documented

Not one single Democrat received one single cent from Abramoff. The 'pukes keep trying to say "Abramoff's clients" to confuse the issue.

The tribes have always given money to Dems. Abramoff, Reed (Ralph) and the rest just elevated the shakedown to an art form.

[anitar1]

18. First thing I did was laugh. Those sorry excuses for

human beings are desperate to blame someone else--anyone, but not a Pug. Don't think their pitiful ploy will fly .

[Miss Marmelstein]

3. What an ass...

They will stop at nothing to connect the dems to their corruption. :grr:

[shraby]

4. Any dirt on Porter?

[NVMojo]

5. I'm looking ...I know he is a Dem hater. Met him just after the Prezident

stole the White House a second time and he was at our local Chamber slamming Berkley, Reid and the Dems for being negative and not supporting Bush. He was slamming them in front of a bi-partisan audience. Not impressive at all.

[Up2Late]

7. Here's something to look into...

...His bio at Project Vote Smart says he was "...Director, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority Trustee and Chairman, Las Vegas Events."

<http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS020501>

Most likely, he received a LOT of money from Abramoff and GOP lobbyists in that job.

Usually, the GOP strategy is to accuse the Democrats of the crime that you, yourself (the ReThug) did while you had the opportunity.

[NVMojo]

8. eeeuuuwwww!!! So he was part of the "what happens here, stays here" gang

will see what I can find. Thanks!!!

[aquart]

17. So who funds him?

[Up2Late]

9. Here's something else in addition to what I responded to NVMojo

He's on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, who are probably the MOST to blame for the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina and the massively bloated 2006 Highway bill. There are a lot of VERY dirty ReThugs on that committee.

Check out the first ten of this very bloated committee: <http://www.vote-smart.org/committee.php?comm_id=21>

JURISDICTION

1. Coast Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, and the Coast Guard Academy.
2. Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.
3. Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors.
4. Inland waterways.
5. Inspection of merchant marine vessels, lights and signals, lifesaving equipment, and fire protection on such vessels.
6. Navigation and the laws relating thereto, including pilotage.
7. Registering and licensing of vessels and small boats.
8. Rules and international arrangements to prevent collisions at sea.
9. The Capitol Building and the Senate and House Office buildings.
10. Construction or maintenance of roads and post roads (other than appropriations therefor).

Plus, check out some of the scum he works with on his subcommittees too.

This guy has a LOT of blood on his hands and should be held accountable, this is a good opportunity.

[Sydnie]

10. Typical Repug stance on the issues

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Jon_Porter_HouseMatch.htm

[Sydnie]

11. Here's a bit

CityLife can't be accused of bias by noting Porter votes with House leadership 94 percent of the time. (That was reported by Congressional Quarterly.) We can't be accused of bias for noting that Porter originally voted in favor of a $1,500 military bonus for troops serving in Iraq, but then changed his vote at the request of House leaders, becoming the swing vote that literally killed the bill. (That was reported in the Review-Journal, which by the way is owned by the same company that owns CityLife.)

<snip>

After some negotiation, Porter's office did send a statement. "I believe that any and every member of the House of Representatives who is suspected of violating House ethical standards should be fully investigated, whether that member is the majority leader, the minority leader, or the most junior elected official," it says. "Unfortunately, despite enormous House-wide support, including my own, to investigate the allegations against Mr. DeLay, the Democrats on the committee have refused to meet to begin any investigation. Majority Leader DeLay has said all along that he wants to appear before the ethics committee to address the recent accusations. The Democrats, however, would prefer to attack his character for political purposes rather than officially investigate these allegations."

But that raises more questions. For example, when the ethics committee did fully investigate DeLay -- and admonish him three times in a single year for missteps -- House leaders summarily yanked the committee chairman, U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., and replaced him with U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. Then, they changed the rules. Can you really blame the Democrats for holding out to return to the old rules?

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/04/28/local_news/news02.txt"

And -

Take today, for example, when the Review-Journal's Steve Tetreault asked Porter if he's going to return the $25,000 he's taken from indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Porter responded by saying DeLay is innocent until proven guilty, and that if DeLay is convicted, Porter promised to return the cash.

Fair enough; DeLay, as Porter said, is entitled to his day in court, and if Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle can't make his case, DeLay's entitled to go free. (It's unclear what will happen to him politically, since under House rules, he was forced to step down as majority leader after the indictment was handed up.)

<snip>

See that? He's proud of his record, which nobody has questioned, so we shouldn't ask about his ties to DeLay, which plenty of people have questioned, including the Nevada State Democratic Party.

In addition to the usual knocks against Porter — that he's taken $25,000 from DeLay and his PAC; that he donated $5,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund; that he votes 94 percent of the time in lockstep with DeLay and other House leaders — let's not forget a few other things.

http://www.valleyblogs.com/sebelius/2005-09-29/id_246

[Up2Late]

12. Here's something else: $1,105,859 from PACs in 2004 and so far...

...in 2005-2006 he's up to over 48% from PACs at $438,681 Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, October 31, 2005.

<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00012560>

2003-2004 PAC Contributions: $1,105,859
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, May 16, 2005.

This guy has no business calling out any Democrat.

[Judi Lynn]

13. The article NVMojo posted says he took money from Duke Cunningham

Oh, ha ha ha:

Last month, Porter gave $11,000 to Goodwill of Southern Nevada that he had received from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham resigned from Congress after pleading guilty to taking bribes from a defense contractor.

Porter continues to be criticized by Democrats for maintaining financial ties to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas., who faces trial on campaign finance charges.

Porter accepted more than $25,000 from DeLay's political action committee, Americans For a Republican Majority, and thousands more as a result of "Retain Our Majority" fundraising events organized by ARMPAC where he was connected to donors.

Porter has pledged to divest the ARMPAC donations if DeLay is convicted.
(snip)

Looks like he's attempting to divert scrutiny of his own actions.

[Up2Late]

16. You want to see something! In 2004, he got $11,852 from "US Dept of State"

Now that's weird! Why is the State Department giving money to a Nevada House Rep?

<http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.asp?ID=NV03&cycle=2004&special=N>

"US Dept of State $11,852"

And check out all the Casino money he took too!

Dirty, dirty, dirty........Clean! :think:

[karynnj]

21. people work for the Department of State

There contributions how up on those types of reports aggregated to the employer. (This is why the report shows FOX News gave Kerry a non-zero amount of money in 2004 - it wasn't a corporate gift.)

[Kokonoe]

19. Rats squeak louder when close to drowning on sinking ship.

[David Dunham]

20. To look tototally clean, Reed should give this money back.

[karynnj]

22. If the money came from the tribes

and if it were genuinely clean, why give it back. I think Rep Kennedy did the right thing by having a press conference and discussing his work for native Americans, and showing he has gotten money throughout his career from them - long before Abramoff was involves.

I would be insulted if my contribution was returned or donated AS IF IT WERE TAINTED when it wasn't. Also, it makes it look like something is wrong when it isn't. (I assume if there was quid por quo, returning or donating the money will not make it go away.)

[M155Y_A1CH]

24. Yes, exactly n/t

[Rex]

23. Shattered, public faith is shattered.

And those asshole GOPers did IT ALL. Keep twisting in the wind, loser GOPers...your time before a judge is coming and SOON! Once again we see the GOPers trying to lie about who took money, not a SINGLE DEM took money from Crooked Jack. He didn't OFFER Dems money, he hates the Democratic Party!