What was that about Abramoff giving money to Democrats?

[GOPS Worst Fear]

What was that about Abramoff giving money to Democrats?

Here is the list of who Abramoff gave money to, per Michael Petrelis' research:
$172,933 - Republican
$88,985 - special interest
total: $261,918
That's 229 donations and not a DIME to Democrats.

The list of donations is long, but it makes a great visual, so I'm posting it anyway. Next time you hear someone say that this is a bipartisan scandal, whip out this list and laugh.

This comes from Newsmeat.com, they have all the FEC data. I just counted, and I think this list of GOP donors and organizations is around 15 feet long. Someone on our side REALLY needs to print out this list and get in front of a camera. Hell, every single one of our pundits should have this list with them on TV and just roll it out on the table.

[ClassWarrior]

1. None of the ILLEGAL donations went to Dems. None.

NGU.

[IndyOp]

11. No donations at all - legal or illegal - from Abramoff to Dems, NONE -

None. Indian Tribes donated to Dems, but not Abramoff, not Abramoff-organizations, Abramoff did not direct anyone to give any money to Dems - NOT ONE DIME.

I hire a lawyer to help me write my will and I pay him.
My lawyer donates to the Rethugs. Did I just donate to the Rethugs? No.

I donate to the Dems. Did my lawyer direct me to donate to Dems. No.

Entirely separate actions.

[ruggerson]

12. KICK

[xchrom]

2. i don't think i've ever loved a list sooo much.

[WCGreen]

3. The MSM is looking at this scandal because of the

Native American PAC's involved. That is what originally prompted the probe by the Justice Department.

So, the tribes give money, lot's of money to the Democrats. Naturally, the MSM looks at what is causing the criminal probe to begin with. It is the tribal stuff.....

So, what the MSM is missing in all of this is that the tribes have historically favored the Dem's over the Rep's. What a true journalist should do is look at the difference in contributions made prior to Jack's take over the tribal lobby and see if there is any major shift in contributions.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Please don't call them "the MSM." There's nothing "mainstream"...

...about their sick agenda of greed and manipulation. Please call them what they are, the Corporate Media.

NGU.

[eve_was_framed]

5. aka: media whores ;)

[ClassWarrior]

7. That works too.

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

6. K & R!!!!!! Hugh1 Series111111

Wonder what the "little brains" would think about this list over at Freeperville?

In all seriousness, this thread needs traction to stay current.

The Wrongstream Media's meme of "they all took his money" simply must be beaten back!

[AndyTiedye]

8. Kicketee/Recomendee

:kick: those crooks out of office.

[oldtime dfl_er]

9. Kicked and recommended

I'm printing out that list so I have it available at all times!


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

[OneTwentyoNine]

10. Sam Brownback Kansas Senator got almost $45,000...list shows $500

Incomplete list?

[GOPS Worst Fear]

13. This came to me last night in an email

This list. I think it's pretty thorough, although I think there has to be more,now that you mentioned it.I did a check myself this morning on another website.So far the thing about no Dem being on the list is true.Lastly, If this thing is about illegal conributions, how will we ever get the truth since most of this may have been done under the table?

[MercutioATC]

14. That's just a list of Abramoff's PERSONAL contributions. It's incomplete.

The claim isn't that Abramoff PERSONALLY contributed to Democrats, it's that some Dems got money or services THROUGH Abramoff.

..and that's true.


Perhaps it was perfectly legitimate, but (IMO) we sound either ignorant or shrill when we keep claiming "NO Dems got money from Abramoff".

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Guess you didn't see Dr. Dean this morning?

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/DeanAbramoffDemocrats.asx

Of course, since you won't take the written facts seriously, you probably won't listen to the truth either.

I don't care how many thousands of posts you have.... If you aren't the biggest FUCKING FREEPER PLANT to ever pollute this site, then I'm Jack Abramoff.



(MODS: feel free to delete this post - but only AFTER you tombstone this lying bastard. I'm not the only one who sees through his shit. Not by a long shot.)

[MercutioATC]

16. I'm a huge Dean supporter, but he and I occasionally disagree.

This is one of those times.

I think we do ourselves an incredible disservice by not holding OUR lawmakers to the same standard we hold Republicans. As I said, there very well may be no wrongdoing by any Dems. However, the exact same actions performed by a Republican would have most here calling for an investigation. It's my opinion that the double standard applied by a lot of people here is dangerous.

I'm not gonna alert this. I think your reaction to the facts in this case speaks VOLUMES about how dangerous this "It was THEM, not US" zealotry can be.

[orleans]

29. OMG! thank you so much for that link

dean kicking ass again--

and i'm still laughing at that 3 or 4 second long pause with blitzer at the end--wolfie sighs! -- he's speechless! that was hysterical!!!

thanks again.

[stillcool]

17. If I represent you...

and you give money to your brother....does that mean I gave your brother money?

[MercutioATC]

18. Of course not.

However, if my brother takes free services from you, even unintentionally, that DOES mean that you gave my brother "money". Perhaps there was no ethical or legal violation, but you DID provide something of value to my brother.

[stillcool]

20. What services did Abramoff provide...

to what Democrats?

[MercutioATC]

21. Here's a hypothetical based on a real situation:

(the Senator listed in the hypothetical is a Republican, but the situation is one involving a current Dem Senator (in exact detail):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353650

[stillcool]

23. and from that scenario....

the fact that he received free 'gifts' should be 'investigated'. That is a connection between Abramoff and the politician. If the politician is only connected to Abramoff through one of Abramoffs clients...there is no there there.

[MercutioATC]

24. I completely agree.

It doesn't prove guilt. It doesn't mean that any or all Democrats are involved.

It does, however, mean that a free gift was made (that was later reimbursed) and it is a connection between that lawmaker and Abramoff. That's not proof of guilt, but it's worthy of investigation (IMO).


The actual Senator involved in the situation in the hypothetical is a Democrat. All I changed was the name of the Senator (aside from the name, that's a real USA Today article). That's precisely why I take issue with the "Abramoff gave NO money to Dems" statement. There may have been absolutely no wrongdoing, but Abramoff HAS given "money" (in the form of a service) to at least one Democrat.

[stillcool]

26. A free gift was made...that was later reimbursed?

How is that a free gift? And, why would you be so earnestly trying to proove the exception?

[MercutioATC]

28. It was reimbursed in October 2005. When did Abramoff start talking?

How many posts here have claimed that Republicans are only giving Abramoff-linked money to charity AFTER he's been talking in an attempt to erase the apparent link?


I'm presenting the case for the reason I've stated. I think it's dangerous to scream for the blood of Republicans and gloat that "WE didn't take ANY money" when situations like this exist. Guilt isn't the issue...it's the principle. "We" DID take something of value from Abramoff, whatever the circumstance. "We" shouldn't have a problem with that being looked into, if only to remove any semblance of impropriety.

...and "we" should probably stop shouting that "WE didn't take any money from Abramoff". There may very well be no guilt on "our" part, but "we" did.

[ClassWarrior]

22. The Dems took LEGAL contributions from Jack's clients. The Cons did too...

...but Jack also stole from those clients, laundered the money to avoid finance laws, and pumped it out to politicians (after taking a hefty cut for himself, of course). Now what idiot would go to all that trouble just to "spread it around" to both parties??

Jack was a money pipeline for the Corrupt Republicon Party.

NGU.

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm not denying most of that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353650


In this situation, would you feel that "Voinovich" had received something of value from Abramoff (even though there may have been nothing unethical or illegal about the transaction)?

[ClassWarrior]

27. Dead end. The real scandal here isn't quid pro quo. That's wayyy...

...too hard to prove. The real scandal is a pipeline of stolen, laundered money. A Republicon pipeline.

NGU.

[MercutioATC]

31. Well, the issue IS quid pro quo.....

...I realize it's difficult to prove, but that's what's got people paying attention. THAT'S the issue we're really dealing with.

[ClassWarrior]

32. We'll see.

It's pretty obvious the Cons want to MAKE it about that.

NGU.

[MercutioATC]

33. I hope they do.

I really don't think they'll find any quid pro quo issues with Dems. I'm sure they will with at least a few Republicans.

[nomatrix]

19. Priceless.

From David Brooks NYT
"That's a great GOP talking point:
Some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us."

Ship of fools.

[orleans]

30. if you put together the first and last pages that equals one full

page so there are a total of 16 pages
X 11" per page =176
divide that by 12" in a foot and you get

14.6666

hum.....

those 666 numbers ring a bell. (maybe it's a sign!) :evilgrin: