Breaking: No Democrats have taken money from Abramoff - None...

[kentuck]

This is a lie that Republicans have been attempting to plant in the national media for the last few days. However, Abramoff is the type of Republican that would not give a Democrat piss to take a pill with...All his donations went to Republicans as far as we can tell. We have not been able to find one Democrat that Abramoff personally contributed to.

But several Democrats do represent some Indian tribes in their constituency. And they have accepted contributions from these tribes. But, we have not been able to find even one Democrat that took the money to permit one tribe a gambling license over another. If someone can help us out here, we would appreciate it. And we know of no Democrats that went to Scotland with Tom Delay on his golf safaris?
If there is anyone that has any up-to-date information, please let us know. From what we can see up to this point, this is solely a Republican scandal, contrary to what the corporate media would have you beleive..

[MercutioATC]

1. Is there proof of a Dem wrongfully taking anything from Abramoff? No.

No Dems have been investigated.


Are there situations that Democrats have been in in regard to Abramoff that would have most here calling for an investigation had a Republican been involved? I certainly believe so.

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

[sandnsea]

6. Abramoff's been singing for a year

Do you seriously believe if a Democrat had been involved that he/she wouldn't have been the FIRST person Abramoff gave up. You seem desperate to find a guilty Democrat. Very weird.

[MercutioATC]

10. The Democrat involved has NOTHING to do with the issue.

(other than illustrating my point)

I'm not suggesting convicting anybody based on the scenario. I'm suggesting that:

1) While no Democrat received an FEC-registered personal contrubution from Abramoff, at least one Democrat HAS received "money" in the form of a service from Abramoff, and

2) Due to this fact, it seems disingenuous (and deceptive) to gloat "NO Democrat received ANY money from Abramoff" ESPECIALLY when the exact same behavior from a Republican would have some of those same people calling for an investigation.

I'm not looking for a Democrat to hang (especially not the one in this situation). I'm suggesting that the double standard is dangerous.

[kentuck]

11. Which Democrat received "service" from Abramoff?

I had not read that yet.

[MercutioATC]

13. That's the reason I posted it as a hypothetical.

The Democrat involved really DOES have no bearing. I posted the actual situation before, with the same misgivings about us claiming that "WE didn't take ANY money from Abramoff" and used the Senator's name. Immediately, supporters of that Senator accused me of attacking him.

ONCE AGAIN...the Senator has NOTHING to do with this. His particular situation just happens to illustrate my point very well. I'm NOT insinuating that he's guilty of ANYTHING in ANY way. Actual guilt or innocence isn't the issue. The issue is the wisdom of making a claim that is, for all intents, factually false. On top of it all, I like and respect the Senator involved and have no reason to doubt his honesty.

That said, The Senator is actually Harkin.

[sandnsea]

14. That is malarkey

Iowans in that thread explained that situation over and over again. Just like other cases that have been rebutted that you ignore. Every case I've seen so far has been Democrats representing traditional tribal interests.

There was an article yesterday that said Abramoff was facing 100 years in prison and his lawyer has been working with investigators for a year to reduce his sentence. If Abramoff could have turned up a Democrat over the last year, he'd have done that first and foremost. He's the one that said he wanted to destroy all liberals after all.

Like I already said, there is no doubt in my mind that Democrats are being investigated. Anybody who would believe otherwise has clearly got a head full of fluff. So I don't know why you keep suggesting double standards or lack of investigations. Everybody knows they've happened and will continue as we go along. Having read through much of the emails and other aspects of this case, Democrats have just not figured into this bribery and money laundering scandal at all. Sorry to disappoint you.

[MercutioATC]

15. Iowans defending a Senator aren't the issue...

...and I'm not ignoring anything.

The most interesting thing I've found is that 90% or respondents to the poll in the hypothetical I posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2353650&mesg_id=2356802

believe that the matter should be investigated. The post might have received more responses, but it was disrupted by a supporter of a certain Senator almost immediately after I posted it (the mods have graciously removed those posts).

If it IS the case that people here feel that a situation should be investigated when it's presented as a Republican issue, isn't it hypocritical to feel differently if it's a Democrat involved?

[sandnsea]

17. They ARE being investigated

That have been investigated. It's been going on for a year. The investigations are going to continue and lead where they will lead. Nobody has said anything different than that. After all of the investigation, there is nothing pointing to any Democrat.

I'm not surprised that there are people jumping on the bash a Democrat bandwagon, that's not unusual around here. It's sad that mods consider defending Democrats inflammatory, but such is often the case at DU.

[MercutioATC]

18. There's a difference between "defending Democrats" and

pulling a personal argument from thread to thread. I wouldn't presume to speak for the mods, but I believe that following a poster to a new thread and disrupting that thread (not dealing with the issue of the new thread, but carrying over issues from the last thread and questioning the OP'ers motivations) is against the rules.


That said, I haven't seen anybody here "jumping on the bash a Democrat bandwagon". I HAVE seen a couple of people who think it might be a good idea, on many levels, to hold Democrats to the same standard we demand of Republicans. As occasionally happens here, some people see that suggestion as "Democrat bashing".

[sandnsea]

19. Oh gee

So you can go from thread to thread and try to scare up antagonism against Democrats, but nobody can rebut you or you'll accuse them of breaking rules. Nice.

Let me say one more time, there IS an investigation going on and ALL members of Congress are probably considered possible suspects. Nobody is saying any different. Your double standard argument is just not true and really nothing more than a red herring.

[MercutioATC]

25. I can go to to the multitude of "We didn't take money" threads and

introduce an argument. I'm not free to follow another poster to another thread and question their motivations.

Again, my assertion is not based on an assumption of guilt, but that we DID take "money" (at the very least in the form of services) from Abramoff. It may have been both ethical and legal under the circumstances, but the statement that Dems didn't is patently false. (If you're a drug dealer who's being investigated and I borrow YOUR car from a friend, and later explain that I THOUGHT it was HIS car, I might not be guilty of anything. However, an investigation is still warranted. In fact, it should be welcomed (IMO) if I've done nothing wrong).

[sandnsea]

27. You have

You've been in almost every thread I've seen. I've responded to you, gee, TWICE. Oh the horror.

Again, there IS an investigation going on. What part of that don't you understand.

[MercutioATC]

28. Yes, I have, because nobody else seems to be saying it.

I don't have an issue with your posts. You're not the one who disrupted the other thread.


You admit that "there IS an investigation going on". That kinda implies that the results of that investigation aren't final yet. In the interim, isn't it premature to claim that the outcome is known?

[sandnsea]

31. If they know they're innocent

They should say so. They are. At this point, it's a smear campaign and nothing more. Since that's the case, I fight.

Might I add, this is exactly what happened around here last year with the Swift Boat Vets. Kerry needs to explain himself. Maybe he wasn't really wounded. Maybe he is lying. Where are his records. Bla bla bla. More people repeated the right's propaganda than the rebuttal the campaign put out. Now those same people want to say there was no fight at all. The only ones not fighting were weak-kneed Democrats who were too afraid to stand up for their party. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who can't stand up for Democrats now are in the same category. Don't call Washington Dems pink tutus if you put it on when they're under fire.

[MercutioATC]

34. That's an opinion.

Perhaps a well-founded one, but an opinion nonetheless. I'd ask you what I'd ask any Democrat in light of the events of the past 6 years: How's that been working for you?

Expressing opinions evidently isn't working. Where's the harm in having an investigation and exoneration of the Democrats who had ties beyond taking campaign contributions from tribes who happened to be Abramoff clients? Without those, we're no farther that we are now....we're just preaching to the choir.


The Swift Boat Vets are a separate issue. I didn't see anybody here suggesting that Kerry was lying. I DID see some people saying that investigating the matter and factually refuting the SBV's claims was the only way to deal with them. THOSE were the people who were really "stand(ing) up for their party" in my opinion. If we're going to demand transparency from Republicans, we sure as hell better make sure we set the same standard for Democrats.

[sandnsea]

36. oh my gawd

This IS an investigation going on. How many times does that have to be said before you let it freakin' go!!!! You are arguing over NOTHING.

And if you were one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people, then you were undoubtedly helping the smear campaign last year too. Congratulations, good job.

See ya.

[MercutioATC]

37. Then I'm sure you'll admit....

Since "This IS an investigation going on", the results of that investigation haven't been released. Your claim that all Dems are innocent may well be correct, but it's still just an opinion.

That aside, any claim that Dems haven't accepted ANY money from Abramoff is patently false as long as we see the value of services as "money". It might not have been illegal or unethical, but Dems DID take "money" from Abramoff in the form of services.




I really don't understand why you have to equate this with "where there's smoke, there's fire". I'm not stating, in any way, that there's fire. I'm just making the factual observation that there IS smoke.

[sandnsea]

38. Okay fine

They're all a bunch of crooks, why bother voting, who cares anyway, let's go to Walmart.

[MercutioATC]

39. Why do you insist on twisting my words?

I JUST SAID that I don't believe "They're all a bunch of crooks".

Why do you insist on making guilt part of the equation? It's not for me.

[sandnsea]

40. Guilt is the entire equation

If the right succeeds in convincing the public Democrats are guilty now, innocence proven by your investigation won't matter one bit.

Innocent until proven guilty. No Democrat has even been named as remotely complicit with Abramoff, therefore I reject the right wing smear campaign.

You do whatever you want.

[MercutioATC]

41. Truth is the entire equation

(if there IS such a thing as the "entire equation")

The TRUTH is that Dems DID receive things of value from Abramoff beyond the scope of getting contributions from tribes who happened to be Abramoff cliemts. It might not have been unethical. It might not have been illegal. There might not have been any wrongdoing on the part of the Democrats in question whatsoever.

However, it's deceptive to say that no Democrats got any money from Abramoff. If you're willing to admit that services have monetary value, it's not only deceptive, it's factually untrue.

[sandnsea]

42. Which means what?

There is no truth to be found in exploring who took what. The truth of this situation can only be found with intention to commit a crime, in other words, guilt. The truth, as we know it today, is that no Democrat took anything with the intention to commit a crime OR do anything unethical. That is the truth that people care about. You can obscure that truth by playing the right's smear games, or you can help direct people to that truth by pointing out the work Democrats do and have always done for tribes. That Democrats advocating for tribes equates to Republicans taking bribes is a lie. So if you're interested in the truth, stop with that lie.

[MercutioATC]

43. Then why say "NO Dems took ANY money from Abramoff"?

That's a patently false statement unless you're hooked on semantics. If the issue isn't who took what, but intent, why post over and over and over that Dems didn't take anything....a falsehood?

[sandnsea]

44. The semantics

are with you since you seem to believe a vote can be bought with a box seat to a football game, which is ludicrous on its face. This is about millions of dollars of Abramoff money, cold hard cash. If you haven't read Huffington, it's going to expand to Mariana money shortly. It may well spread to Tyco and Business Roundtable and other entities Abramof is reported to have lobbied for too. If/when a Democrat is named by Abramoff, then you've got something to go with. Until then, I can't understand any Democrat allowing another to be tarred with this Abramoff brush.

[MercutioATC]

45. There's no "tarring" involved. It's a simple FACT.

Hell, Harkin admits it.

It certainly doesn't make him guilty but it also definitively illustrates a Democrat who got something of value from Abramoff. I'm not arguing the man's innocence, I'm arguing your choice of "evidence" to prove that innocence.

[sandnsea]

48. Evidence to prove innocence??!!??

What the hell country do you live in??? Come on, you can do it, come on over to the left of center side, where innocent until proven guilty actually means something. Start from the point of presumed innocence as a Constitutional right, and work from there. Everybody is innocent except for those who have been charged or named in Abramoff documents, emails, etc. Democrats just ain't there.

[TankLV]

51. IT IS NOT A "FALSEHOOD". - IT IS A FACT!

NO.
DEMOCRATS.
TOOK.
ANY.
MONEY.
FROM.
ABRMHOFF.

THAT IS A FACT!

YOU must prove your slanderous LIES!, not us!

YOU go from thread to thread to spread this REPUKE crap, and you complain when we call you on it!

WE DEMOCRATS (we certainly don’t know what YOU are!) are not going to put up with disruptors or anybody who trys to play the REPUKE SWIFTBOAT game.

GET LOST!

WE are on to you!

[MercutioATC]

52. Did a Dem use Abramoff's skybox?

Just a yes or no. I know that a service isn't cash, but I'd argue that it does have value. Regardless of ANY other factors, a Dem DID use Abramoff's skybox.

[kentuck]

30. What type of "services" are you talking about??

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

32. Sorry, I guess I didn't make that clear (I'm responding to a LOT of posts,

as you might imagine).

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

At issue is the use of a skybox in Abramoff's name that was used twice by a Senator in 2002 and 2003 without reimbursement.

[kentuck]

33. Thanks...

I seriously doubt that Senator Harkin took any bribes. For it to be a bribe, there has to be a quid pro quo, is that correct?

[MercutioATC]

35. I agree, and you're correct.

I don't think Harkin is guilty of anything, but that's not the issue. The issue is that of the 12 Democratic respondents to this poll who expressed a preference, 11 of them wanted to see the matter investigated when it was presented as a Republican issue. I believe we HAVE to hold our people to the same standard.

If it's determined by the investigators that certain lawmakers don't meet the criteria, that's fine. I'd still rather see an investigation (and, hopefully, a subsequent exoneration) but at least it's been made clear that the official position is that they've done nothing wrong.

[Blue_Roses]

54. Oh, come on...

Abramoff can't stand Democrats. Do you think he would spend time talking to them the length of time it would take for them to believe his shit? :rofl: Especially when the house and senate is GOP dominated--to him.

Common sense speaks loud and clear on this one...

[LiberalEsto]

2. Will Pitt wrote excellent column about this on Jan. 5

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 05 January 2006


snip:
"According to campaign donation information gathered by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the following officeholders and candidates have received political donations from Abramoff since 2000:

Tom DeLay (R-Texas). John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). John Ensign (R-Nev.). Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Mark Foley (R-Fla.). Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Doug Ose (R-Calif.). Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.). George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.). Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Suzanne Terrell (R-La.). Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). Connie Morella (R-Md.). Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.). James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). James M. Talent (R-Mo.). John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). John Thune (R-SD). Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Bob Ney (R-Ohio). CL. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho). Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Heather Wilson (R-NM). J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). James V. Hansen (R-Utah). John Cornyn (R-Texas). Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii). Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Mike Ferguson (R-NJ). Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Ralph Regula (R-Ohio). Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). Tom Young (R-Ala.). Bill Janklow (R-SD). Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). William L. Gormley (R-NJ). Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). Bill Redmond (R-NM). Bob Riley (R-Ala.). Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif.). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo.). George Allen (R-Va.). Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC). Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Joe Pitts (R-PA). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Bob Ehrlich (R-Md.). Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa.). Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif.). Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). Mark Emerson (R-Utah). Tom Davis (R-Va.). Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).

Also:

Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Republican Majority Fund, Leadership PAC of Don Nickles (R-Okla.). Keep Our Majority PAC, Leadership PAC of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio). Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Friends of the Big Sky, Leadership PAC of Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). American Liberty PAC, Leadership PAC of Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Battle Born PAC, Leadership PAC of John Ensign (R-Nev.). Fund for a Free Market America, Leadership PAC of Phil Crane (R-Ill.). Team PAC, Leadership PAC of J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.). The Republican Party of New Jersey.

Also:

George W. Bush (R)."

snip:

"In extremis, Republicans have taken to bandying about the name of Byron Dorgan, Democratic Senator from North Dakota, as evidence that this Abramoff thing is a two-party scandal. Dorgan received $67,000 from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff - not from Abramoff himself - and has since returned the money. Furthermore, he got the money before the tribes had any dealings with Abramoff. In short, Dorgan's so-called involvement in the matter is a red herring."

[Poppyseedman]

3. I have tried to make this point several times to no avail

I'd try again. What the rethugs will look at is who took "individual" donations from individuals in the tribes. That is where the Pro Quid Quo accusations will be leveled. The rethugs know Abramoff didn't give money to any democrat, but they will make the case that individual donations should be looked at as "Pro Quid Quo" If they find one case that looks dirty, it will be used as evidence to claim dems are dirty too.

Donations are listed from: PAC, INDIV, LEAD PAC It's listed in opensecrets.org

[Double T]

4. The rethugs will continue to HAMMER AWAY that Democrats.........

are also involved in the Abramoff scandal and their mindless lemming followers will believe it is true. The relentless propaganda machine sales job will only stop when positive proof is submitted that the Democrats are 'clean', but the lemming rethug followers will continue to believe the Democrats are also guilty and take that idea to their graves.

[Igel]

5. But then the most outrageous claim

regarding * is that his campaign took $6k over a few years from Abramoff, and the enormity of Abramoff's corruption is a few hundred thousand $.

$6k out of how many scores of millions raised for *'s campaigning? And a few hundred thousand out of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised for all the various repub election campaigns? Exactly how much influence is *that* worth, and doesn't that limit the claims of corruption?

[kentuck]

7. Yeah, where did that $6000 refund come from ??

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

[uppityperson]

8. Could you put this really simply for me to pass on? Here's request...

No dems took money from Abramoff. Some dems got money from tribes. How are these connected with Abramoff? I understand that it is a 3rd cousin married to a distant relation sort of non-relationship, but could you put it really simply for me since I am easily confused and can then respond back to those more confused than I? Thank you so much.

[kentuck]

9. I hate repetition...

But I think this is one story where we will need to say it over and over...

[sandnsea]

16. Dems have gotten money from tribes for years and years

Dems represent tribes. In South Dakota, Dems wouldn't win elections "if it weren't for the tribes", doncha know. It's perfectly legal. Nobody took money from tribes in exchange for any particular vote or other action.

Abramoff set up a charity to money launder through. Abramoff helped Delay launder corporate money in the redistricting of Texas. Ralph Reed comes into the picture by getting the Christian Coalition to fight gaming in Alabama when his real agenda was to protect tribal gaming in Mississippi. There was a similar situation in Louisiana. They took millions of dollars of lobbying money from the tribes to promise access to Delay and Bush, votes and regulatory changes. Tribes also gave campaign contributions. Some of it is obviously bribes as evidenced by uncharacteristic votes. Or, as in the case of Conrad Burns, votes for tribes in other states when the tribes in their own state is left wanting. There's alot of shaking out to do still, but Democrats have always advocated for tribes and there is nothing to indicate any change based on contributions.

[monobrau]

23. The Abramoff connection:

As best I can tell, the connection to Abramoff is that Abramoff ripped them off. So somehow taking money from the victims of someone else's fraudulent activites (for which he has plead guilty to!) is supposed to make a 3rd party who came after the fact complicit in the ripoff. Interesting "logic", if you want to call it that.

[LynnTheDem]

46. I can donate to any Dem AND to any repub I feel like. That is LEGAL.

Some Indian tribes donated funds to some Dems (and have for years, long before Abramoff showed up) AND were scammed into donating funds to Abramoff.

It is LEGAL and PROPER for Indians to donate to Dems. Or to Repubs. Or to both, if they want to.

Abramoff acquired those funds from the tribes through FRAUD. Abramoff then used those funds for influence-peddling with some Republicans.

Abramoff NEVER gave a penny to any Dems.

Now apparently rightwingnuts don't know that it's LEGAL and PROPER for the Indians to give contributions to Dems AND to republicans AND to Santa Claus should they want.

ABRAMOFF scammed the tribes for funds and illegally used those funds to influence Republicans; rightwingnuts, being the stupidest MFers on the planet, think this means any Dems who received funds from these same tribes are guilty along with Abramoff.

So if I was indicted for fraud, YOU are guilty too, ya see...coz you're also a DUer. :eyes:

Hey, we don't call them the stupidest MFers on the planet for nuthin'.

[uppityperson]

55. Thank you. That helps a lot

Simple minds need simple explanations, thank you.

[KC21304]

12. See the video of Dean creaming Blitzer about this

on Atrios.

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to Dean shaves the beard. Hilarious. Hear Blitzer sigh at the end.

[deutsey]

20. To everything spin, spin, spin, spin

That's all the GOP knows how to do aside from steal elections and bankrupt the country.

[LSK]

21. www.fec.gov

Yes we know, now go challenge all the freepers do search "Abramoff" at the FEC website and find any democrats. They cant.

[Rex]

22. Wolfie tried it earlier on Howard Dean and got smacked down.

Hey lurking freepers...your side is evil and will be known throughout history as the wrong side. You've been warned.

[mucifer]

24. Question: what if the tribe wanted to give money to a dem?

Say Durbin who got $7,000 from tribes but NEVER met with Abramoff, never took money from Abramoff, never went golfing with Abramoff. What does that say about the tribes? Are people here saying they have no autonomy? That they cant decide they like Durbin and give him $1,000? What if the contributions have NOTHING to do with Abramoff?

[sandnsea]

26. They don't

That's the point. The contributions to Dorgan were before the one tribe in question had even hired Abramoff. So far, no Dem contributions have been found to be any different. It's Democrats supporting tribes, as Democrats have always done. The investigation continues and anything illegal will turn up. But if Abramoff could have turned over a Democrat, he would have done so first thing, don't you think?

[mucifer]

29. I know I just felt it had to be spelled out. People don't seem to be

getting it. I only wish Durbin didn't give the money back. My parents were confused about this. They like Durbin. I had to explain it to them. It makes me so angry. Yes, there are plenty of times dems take money from evil big business. I know they aren't always squeaky clean. But, in this issue they are.

[LynnTheDem]

47. The tribes can give money to Dems, to repubs AND to SANTA CLAUS

if they want to. As can we all. That is LEGAL.

The contributions from the Indian tribes to any Dems had NOTHING to do with Abramoff.

Abramoff committed fraud; he ripped off the tribes. THAT is illegal. THAT is one of the crimes he's been indicted for.

He then used those funds to influence-peddle (bribe) several Republicans. THAT is illegal. THAT is the other crime he's been indicted for.

NOTHING to do with the Indian tribes, they are the victims of Abramoff, and they are legally entitled to give money to Dems...and to Repubs...or to one or the other...or to both...or to neither. As can we all.

NOTHING to do with the Dems; Abramoff never gave any Dem or Dem org a penny.

As usual, the rightwingnuttery blame the victims.

[Rex_Goodheart]

49. Say...

Didn't Bush say on national TV that Abramoff was an equal opportunity giver, and that his donations went to both parties?

Help me out here.

[LynnTheDem]

50. Yep bush did indeed say that; the Q is, was bush LYING? Or just IGNORANT?

Always a tough call with bush, isn't it.

Either way, bush in fact was WRONG. Abramoff never gave one single cent to ANY Dem. Ever. And that's a fact.

But then bush isn't into facts.

[BuyingThyme]

53. kcik