Is Harry Reid going down in the Abramoff scandal? nt

[LeftNYC]

[stop the bleeding]

1. Repeat after me: Anyone who committed a crime should do the time

no matter what party affiliation they serve.

[Carni]

7. I agree

If he didn't do a quid pro quo then there is no reason he should go down, but if he did then he should get the boot as well.

I tend to think the freeper hoopla about Reid is just BS but time will tell.

[papau]

14. I agree - but how many times do we repeat -Abramoff gave not one cent

to any elected Democratic Party Member.

The reports the GOP are using are of companies or of associates in law firms where the connection to the scandal is less than misty.

[Carni]

21. I see what you mean

I wasn't aware of that...in fact I was totally out of the loop on this whole Abramoff thing until last night when I did a crash course.

I don't think the GOP is going to teflon itself out this time because this is just too sleazy a case, but I have been let down before so who knows!

[Arkana]

28. Exactly.

Reid, if he did get anything at all, got money from tribes that were CLIENTS of Abramoff's, and the donations themselves were most likely independent of Abramoff's directives. I could be wrong, but let's let time tell, hmmm?

Do not allow the media to turn this into a referendum on the Democrats. Like Harry Reid said, this is a Republican scandal.

[dalloway]

39. there seem to be a lot of "let's turn on Reid" threads today...

wonder who's been stirring them up?

I, for one, am behind Reid all the way. And it has already been shown that he didn't get ANY money from Abramoff.

[papau]

48. I agree - perhaps we show them the chart below

[sendero]

41. Exactly...

... first of all, moral principles are moral principles. Graft and corruption can't be tolerated, period.

I'm sure there is, for every 10 Republicans involved in this unbelievable mess, a Dem involved too.

Let the whole damn bunch of them go to jail. Nothing would make me happier, and nothing would clean up Washington faster than a few congresspersons getting to live in the prison system they created.

[napi21]

2. I doubt it. Remember, taking $$ is legal!

It only becomes illegal is you don't report it, or if you do quid-pro-quo actions in return for the $$.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what info comes out.

[Imagevision]

58. REid hasn't eve decided wheter to give back the cash yet, but after today

I think he'll be contibuting to his local Heart charity ASAP...!

[AngryAmish]

3. He is a Democrat

Their motives are pure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I very much doubt it

Accepting donations from the wrong source can be embarrassing, sure, but it happens all the time in politics because politics is a full time money machine. Party leaders in particular are expected to raise large amounts of money so they can support other members of their party, and people with money want to give it to Party leaders to at least keep a line open with them.

Reid was a prosecutor once, a good one. I think he knows where the hard lines get drawn and would not step over one.

[wtmusic]

18. After campaigning for Harry

I can categorically say no, unless it was a setup.

[mzmolly]

30. Indeed, giving money to the top Dem in the Senate is a recipe for

coverup in this case. It was an effort to appear credible and take down a Dem or two if they got busted.

[blm]

5. If the media has its way. They use his name, but never have actual charges

that he did anything - typical RW spin.

[LeftNYC]

6. looking over the thinkprogress.org factoids that they put up...

it looks like its going to be a big mess for the GOP. I am just concerned that media whores will spin it as a bipartisan issue when it really isnt.

[Zodiak]

8. They sure are trying

and with their 95% success rate at catapulting the propaganda, I fear they will succeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Indictments Speak Louder Than Words

The media will muddy this as much as they can with spin, but in the end if 5 or 10 Republicans get indicted for every one Democrat spinning ain't gonna cut it. That won't stop them from trying of course, mostly so Republicans can limit defections from their base of true believers who desperately will want to believe that "both sides do it" to not have to accept the truth that their Party once again has betrayed them.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. It's too easy for the public

To just say, well, Repubs and Dems are all equally dirty. That way, they don't have to bother themselves with silly things like facts.

But if the public is lazy, the media allow them to be. Details are boring and wonkish. But more importantly, the talking heads and corporate suits think they can run a way from the dreaded "liberal media" label if they present their stories as being equally tough on both sides. Regardless of whether each side is equally guilty, which of course in this case, they are not.

Reminds me of a mediamatters.org look at the '04 presidential debates. If I remember correctly, there were three or four, maybe a half-dozen at most, misstatements of fact on Kerry's part, but several dozen by Bush, some of them outright lies. But the "analysis" in the mainstream/corporate media, both network and cable, in each case listed an equal number by both with no judgment of the degree of falsehood. Their idea of "fair and balanced," I suppose. BS is what I'd call it.

[LiviaOlivia]

9. Read this

The airwaves are full of the obedient and the credulous this morning trying to tar the Democrats with Jack Abramoff's filthy lucre, so let's set the record straight for those too busy sucking down hairspray fumes to pay full attention. As Media Matters noted when the NYT's Anne Kornblut pimped this crap on Hardball:

Appearing on the December 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Kornblut falsely claimed that Abramoff had given contributions to Democrats. Yet a Media Matters for America search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats or Democratic leadership political action committees.

Although Kornblut amended her statement to claim that Abramoff "had his clients donate to Democrats," her comment falsely suggests that Republicans and Democrats are equally enmeshed in the scandal surrounding Abramoff. In fact, while Democrats have received contributions from Abramoff's lobbying groups and his clients, Kornblut's statement ignores the difference between accepting contributions from groups linked to Abramoff, which is legal and proper, and taking contributions in exchange for official actions, which is illegal, and which is at the heart of the ongoing investigations.

Bloomberg:

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

Enough with the docile repetition of "well you know Democrats are implicated in this too." They're not. The shameless perpetuation of GOP talking points in the guise of news by major media outlets is a creeping coup.

~snip~

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113631635821774149

[LeftNYC]

17. THANK YOU!!! nt

[LittleClarkie]

38. Good point, considering Kerry, Barney Franks, Barbara Boxer

and others are also on the list of people who've gotten money.

[Roland99]

40. Then what's this? >>>>>

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

[LiviaOlivia]

43. Crap?

You tell me. I don't gotta prove shit.

[mzmolly]

44. Good question.

I know that the tribal contributions to Democrats would not be unusual?

[Roland99]

47. Not sure if Reid promised something or if it was just a "cover" donation?

[Rainscents]

55. That is freeper list! I've seen this shit posted here all day by freepers!

[LSK]

60. that would be a big NO

[Botany]

10. the # of dems who took money directly from Aramoff is zero,

zip, nada, zilch, less then nothing, and the sum of 100 - 100.

Some took money from 2nd & 3rd parties who were associated with Abramoff.

Democratic involvement with Abramoff is a republican talking point.

[gordianot]

32. I think you are right and that is an important distinction.

Some Democrats got money from tribes that were clients of Aramoff. Republicans got money from Ararmoff that was paid to Aramoff (for services rendered).

[stepnw1f]

12. That's the Rumour

still no evidence... we'll see.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

13. I sent this to Ed Henry who said it again on CNN today on Kagan's show

He was the first one I heard a few weeks ago claim Democrats were also involved:

"To: Ed Henry

Would you please clarify the following when you report on the air about the Abramoff scandal?
You keep saying that both Republicans and Democrats received money from Abramoff.
Here is what some of us have discovered by researching on the internet:
Democrats did NOT receive funds DIRECTLY from Abramoff.
Below is the url to a story that attests to that:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us
Some did receive funds from some of the same tribes Abramoff was dealing with.
More links to stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_5.html
Another
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/dec/20/519848441.html
Another:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00911FF3C540C7A8DDDAB0994DD404482"

[papau]

15. Excellent! :-)

:-)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

51. I watched him today. He did better.

He described it as primarily a Republican scandal.

And added that Republicans hoped to tie some Dems in as well.

Something like that.

Really a huge improvement!

[savemefromdumbya]

16. Answer: No he is not

[havocmom]

19. Let us get this thread a bigger audience. The evidence is there

Taking a contribution is legal. Taking a bribe is not. Helping launder $$ is bad.

Taking $$ from someone who turns out to be a crook is embarrassing, but NOT illegal.

Do not buy the panic spin of the neo-crooks. They ALWAYS point to others when caught red handed themselves.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

20. Agreed, recommended for greatest. n/t

[underpants]

22. After reading post #9 I am amazed

I am amazed that I even considered that this could be near the actual truth for even half a second. I KNEW this was spin and guess what? It was.

[EC]

23. No, they donated to Reid way before Abramoff

was around...I think it was in 94 or 95. And he reported it.

[youngred]

24. If it was a crime sure

but there is a difference between taking money and working with influence peddling. Abramoff was a smart enough lobbyist to give money to Dems who could help his causes. But everyone knows where his loyalties lay.

[Straight Shooter]

29. Abramoff gave NO MONEY to Dems

His clients gave money to Dems, as well as to Republicans. His clients were the tribes; they are going to contribute to campaigns, period.

Abramoff gave NO MONEY to Dems. It cannot be any clearer than that.

[Jayhawk Lib]

25. Not Harry Reid

Harry Reid is much to ethical to be involved in anything like that. I am sure the talk about him in Freeper land is just wishful thinking on their part.

[havocmom]

27. Can we get some more recommendations? The spin needs to be countered

and there is some good info for that here.

And a good :kick: for the night shift

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. .

[inchhigh]

33. Harry should have taken money from the tribes

Their concern in most cases was protecting their local monopolies on gambling. As a Senator from Nevada Reid would have been thir ally in seing that laws did not change to allow an increase in non-reservation gambling outside of Nevada. His interestes were their interests and they should have been supporting him. Most of the Repukes who took tribal money have no inherent interest in gambling at all and in some cases they took tribal money when their interests were probably counter to that of the tribes.

[acmavm]

34. No, no, no, no, no. I don't believe it. People are getting our Reid

confused with the scum-sucking little babyfaced weasel Ralph Reed.

[gordianot]

37. Harry Reed did take up to $65,000 from tribes which Abramoff represented.

see link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060103/cm_thenation/146591;_ylt=A0SOwmoA_LpDZDwBtwL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

The extent to which the Abramoff scandal is of political significance in 2006 will depend on just how many of those members who accepted contributions from the lobbyist and his associates and clients are implicated in the Justice Department investigation. If the numbers move into the double digits, this scandal could pose a genuine threat to GOP control of the House. But it is important to remember that there are Democrats who have Abramoff problems, as well, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who appears to have collected more than $65,000 in Abramoff-linked contributions between 2001 and 2004.

[ieoeja]

49. And before Abramoff...

Those same tribes gave money to Harry Reid BEFORE they hired Abramoff. After hiring Abramoff, they did not stop giving money to Democrats, but did begin giving money to Republicans for the first time. Several Republican congressmen assisted these tribes in various ways at Abramoff's request. ZERO Democrats assisted these tribes at Abramoff's request. In fact, Abramoff did not even REQUEST any assistance from any Democrats.

Minority groups and Democrats have been allied for quite some time. Everyone seems to forget that Tribes are among those minority groups.

[gordianot]

50. That is the key point to all of this.

I wonder if Abramoff and his GOP cronies chose carefully a minority (Native American) to bilk knowing they would have ties to Democrats and there would possibly be some competition among tribes for Gaming Licenses. That is the problem with gambling attracting organized crime (such as the GOP) try to extort profits and favors.

[annabanana]

54. lol, I think you've got it!. . . . n/t

[eleny]

35. Ralph Reid - NOT Harry

[Cocoa]

36. no

[newspeak]

42. let's not confuse

Sen. Harry Reid with Christian Coalition hypocrite, Ralph Reed.

[Emit]

45. Here's an article that points out how Harry Reid is involved.

It doesn't answer your question, but it sheds some light on the claims being made against Reid.

Sen. Harry Reid: Nevada Democrat, Senate Minority Leader. Sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton in March 2002 to urge her to reject a casino of the Jena band of Choctaw that would have competed with an Abramoff client. The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004. Abramoff also hired as a lobbyist a former Reid legislative aide, Edward Ayoob. Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at the offices of Abramoff's firm, Greenberg Traurig.

http://www.alternet.org/story/29827/

[newblewtoo]

52. If true,

That's gonna leave a mark. Quid pro quo? Sure looks like it in this case.

[Emit]

57. We'll see. Here's some analysis on the matter...

Was Reid wrong? Did he perform an official favor for Abramoff, who was frantically seeking congressional support to bar the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians from opening a casino in Louisiana that was opposed by the Louisiana Coushattas and the Mississippi Choctaw tribes, both of which operate casinos that would have competed with the Jena operation? (In all, 33 lawmakers -- including U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. -- wrote letters to Norton opposing the Jena plan, and shared in an estimated $830,000 awarded by clients of Abramoff.)

Some answers:

* Reid and Ensign raised a legitimate point in their letter: Although some congressional letters to Norton complained about the vice of gambling, Reid's letter raised a legitimate issue. The Jena tribe wanted to build a casino on land in Vinton, La., that wasn't tribal property. And under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, casinos can only operate on land owned by a tribe on or before July 25, 1990. The land targeted by the Jena tribe wasn't owned on July 25, 1990, and wasn't even part of an Indian reservation, the letter says.

"In conclusion, the Jena Band Compact establishes a dangerous precedent for location of tribal casinos virtually anywhere in any state where gaming is legal," Reid and Ensign wrote.

It's not the first time Reid has taken that stance, either. When U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., inserted language into an Interior Department bill in 2001 that would allow the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to build a Nevada-style casino on 9.5 acres of non-reservation land near San Francisco, Reid was one of the voices in dissent.

More:

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/12/02/local_news/news02.txt

[Free the Press]

46. Abramoff will sandbag Democrats, while the judge exonerates Republicans.

Upon completion, * will pardon Abramoff so he can get back to work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474_pf.html

"Fisher, offering the Justice Department's first public comments on an inquiry that began in spring 2004, said that the Abramoff case is "very active and ongoing." She said the department is committed to making sure that people know "government is not for sale.""

Will she demonstrate that the "government is not for sale" by simply overlooking every Republicans' involvement whilst turning the full weight of the Justice Department upon any and all Democrats that can be pulled into this scam in order to persecute them until the public is convinced.

It is starting to make sense to me why Senator Ney hasn't even started sweating yet.

Were the deliberations on this deal about crime and punishment or about politics and maintaining political control of all three branches of government?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuaneBidoux]

56. Is DeLay at risk here?

I remember hearing that he was involved with Abramoff at some point.

[Acryliccalico]

59. If a person does wrong then

they must accept the consequences of their actions.:kick: