I Better Not Hear People Defending Dems Associated With Abramoff.

[DistressedAmerican]

What I expect to hear is a bunch of people making excuses for the dems and calling for jail for repugs. Let's hope I am wrong.

If we do not demand ours are held accountable, we have no room to say that they should hold theirs accountable. ANYONE connected to Abramoff MUST go and most should go to jail. Regardless of their party affiliation.

DA has spoken.

[pdefalla]

1. We need to consider our ultimate goal

Which is to have a responsible, corruption-free government, not simply a Democratic government. (Although both would be good)

[DistressedAmerican]

2. Hear, Hear! Welcome To DU pdefalla!

Good to see you!:toast:

[emulatorloo]

3. read this before you make a lot of assumptions based on Bush quotes

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122905Q.shtml

<snip>

Lobbyist Abramoff's 'Equal Money' Went Mostly to Republicans
By Kristin Jensen and Jonathan D. Salant
Bloomberg.com

Wednesday 21 December 2005

Washington - US President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the US to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a "culture of corruption" to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that "Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans," said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

<snip>

[DistressedAmerican]

6. More Repugs Are Involved.

But by all acounts several Dems are as well. This is reporting from numerous sources. Some Dems will go down over this and I for one hope DU does not try to rally behind their corrupt asses. We need clean and transparent leadership. I would never condise this "equal money". But, there certainly are some on our side of the aisle that took money and gifts. We need to be ready for that. The trial starts on the 9th.

[blm]

11. Don't confuse regular donations with payola, though. Did you believe when

Murdoch made a donation to Gore and then Kerry's campaign that he was supporting them for real?

It was pure show to distract from his network being used against them both 24/7.

GOPs do this for appearances sake only.

[ray of light]

82. Good point.

And the difference between payola and donations:

1. Donation...give money to this person. Write off on the taxes (maybe).

2. Payola=BRIBE=donor gives money to Congressman in exchange for favorable laws or votes.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Exactly

To show he isn't "biased" which is purely nonsense.

[emulatorloo]

16. agreed, we need transparent leadership - but I don't trust the GOP to

tell the truth. They will do anything to muddy the water.

If dems are accepting payola knowingly, out with them.

If Kenny Mehlman/Bushboy are making claims I know that their history of lying demands skepticism.

PS The source I cited was bloomberg, hardly a partisan Dem source.

[MADem]

30. Well gee, $127K to the GOP, and NADA to the DEMS????

I'd say anyone who supported a Dem who supported Jackie Boy was an idiot to the second power!

No quid, no pro, no quo!

Not that I've heard ANYONE say they'd cover anyone--regardless of party--involved with that scumbag, anyway.

[Cha]

68. And bush should be believed..

..because?

"Washington - US President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties."

[emulatorloo]

92. I wouldn't believe Bush if his tongue came notarized

(with a tip of the hat to Judge Marilyn Milian, The People's Court)

:toast:

[Cha]

94. And a tip of the

mug..:toast:

[marylanddem]

4. You won't hear that from Marylanddem

Let the chips of justice fall where they may.

[acmejack]

5. C'mon DA, can't talk about the Dems in anything other than glowing terms!

There are people watching every post closely for any transgressions in the "all Dems are wonderful & we must support them, irregardless of how often they screw the People" dictum.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. I Guess I Am Not A Good Party Guy.

Although I keep waiting to see someone make the remark you just made but, in seriousness. You know there are the "we have to pull together no matter what". I expct to be seeing them soon.

[wake.up.america]

10. An appropriate attitude. From the get go, it has been an attempt...

at clean government.

[kliljedahl]

41. And we know who those people are don't we?

Never fear they'll be here soon.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Media_Lies_Daily]

77. Actually, most of here just want to know if DA's telling the truth....

...or blowing hot air up our collective skirts.

[hang a left]

8. And if Reid it dirty....

so be it. I, for one, would like to start over from scratch.

[dpbrown]

9. No Democrats took money from Abramoff

So this sort of a threat is meaningless.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. You Are About To Be Proven Wrong Beginning Jan 9th.

But, by all means cling to that notion until you get more details. If it comforts you that is.

[dpbrown]

21. Yeah, as relevant as Nixon passing the Clean Air Act

The focus is on the most corrupt and secretive ciminal administration in the history of the United States. Our very own Nero fiddling while the world burns and slaves suffer in mega-corporate hell and Armageddon approaches on horsemen he saddled smirks at us on a daily basis. Whether or not a Democrat goes down the drain with Abramoff is meaningless against the backdrop of a potential chink in the armor surrounding the mafia family that is the BFEE.

But you just go ahead and salivate in your shadenfreude over the potential of a Democrat being implicated.

If it comforts you that is.

[Walt Starr]

22. None took money directly form Abramoff

but I believe many took money from Abramoff's clients.

[TahitiNut]

51. The question is whether donations were quid-pro-quo for 'service'

Abramoff was peddling influence ... acting as a broker selling legislative 'service' for donations. All that need be shown is that a legislator promulgated some entitlement, benefit, or other entitlement that a "reasonable person" would conclude was due to payola.

[johnaries]

52. You've summed it up perfectly.

Abramoff did not contribute to any Dems directly. His clients contributed both to Rep's and Dem's. But the question is not how gave money to whom, the question is WHY. If any Dem's did provide quid pro quo "services", then they should be prosecuted. Right now, there is no reason to assume that they did, and there is no reason to assume they did not.

I pray they did not, but if so they should go down along with the Rep's.

[MADem]

33. What information do you have that we need to be cognizant of???

Who? And if not money--What? When?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. If you can point to something that clearly states the Dems took money....

...from Abramoff, please post it.

If it comforts you to do so.

[Zen Democrat]

13. Hey, DA, did you miss Kos's story?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/1655/0100

All the money sent directly from Abramoff went to Republicans, exclusively. The Dems that have been mentioned (Dorgin, Reid) received money from the Native American PACs controlled by Abramoff, but this was probably done simply to show the Indians that they were "non-partisan". Dorgin and Reid are politicians with Native American constituencies at home.

But the money contributed to politicians and PACS directly from Abramoff went to Republicans ONLY.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. It Is Still Illegal To Take The Money They Did.

Abramoff directly or through his clients the action was the same. I do not care if he personally handed them the money. It is all part of the same big ball of corruption and bribery. Does it really matter who handed them the bribes?

[emulatorloo]

17. if Abramoff gives me a bribe and I buy one of your t-shirts with it

are you guilty of a crime?

You may have a moral obligation to give the money back/to charity, but I am not sure you should be painted with the same brush as abramoff

I doubt any at DU would defend a corrupt dem. But repugs are going to try to blur and distort. so I am wary of what they say.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. A PAC Controlled By Abramoff Is Just As Illegal As Him As An Individual.

You analogy does not hold at all. Abramoff was not bribing the PAC. They did not spend the money on perfectly legal things. He funneled the money through the PAC. Some would call that money laundering except that money coming from the PAC was not clean money. It was still used to buy favors and influence. That is just as illegal for the recipient. There would be nothing illegal about me taking your dirty money for a perfectly legal shirt. If you give me that money to by influence as a politician I would still be guilty whether I got the money from you or whoever bribed you. What you are describing is two bribes.

[emulatorloo]

25. I just do not trust Bush to characterize or describe anything.

We all agree that corrupt politicians gotta go. I am hoping that you will agree with me to take Bush and Rove/Mehlman GOP with the scepticism that they have earned. They will do anything to project thier guilt on to others.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. This Info Is Not Coming From Bush/Mehlman.

The most recent info was reporting of a conversation between Abramoff's laywer and Alan Simpson. You should be skeptical of the pugs on this. But, this info is appearing in many sources many of which are not pug friendly. Are Bushco lying sacks? Sure. But, this info is coming from a lot of sources that are not them.

[MADem]

36. I'd hardly call Jackie's lawyer and Alan fucking Simpson nonpartisan

sources. Old Alan is always trotted out as a GOP "voice of reason" when they are in hot water, but he is a shill of the highest order. No one carries GOP water better...

[ray of light]

83. I agree with your points. looks like dis.A is smearing dems w/o proof

and while his point, "We need to hold all of them accountable" would be valid IF he has proof of wrongdoing, his smearing them prior to having that proof is questionable.

And I've read this whole thread and have seen nothing even close to proof that Dems have taken money in exchange for votes. I've seen no proof that Republicans have either. All we know are two basics: Abramhoff and Delay had a pay to play thing going and that Abramhoff donated almost exclusively to Republicans.

The day a democrat is named and indicted, then sure pull up dis.A's rant, but until that day, disA is just continueing the smear campaign against Democrats.

[blm]

23. Campaign donations are legal, payola is not legal.

Don't smear if you don't understand the distinction - wait till you are certain before you fall for GOP mediaspin, please.

[seaglass]

27. Show the evidence. I want to see the evidence that

Democrats took illegal donations and voted against their record because of a payoff from Abramoff.

[DistressedAmerican]

35. Wait For The Trials.

Clearly I do not have their evidence at hand. All I can comment on is what has been widely reported which is that several dems are involved. That is twice today that someone has demanded I prove something that is clearly not provable with the info we have.

Now I will ask you to disprove it. It is being widely reported. If you are so sure all of these sources are wrong, I would like to know why.

[Touchdown]

61. What are you, pre-emptive brow-beating?

You must get to the Dem enablers before the ultimate proof appears...in the form of a mushroom cloud of payola and quid pro quo?

Get off your high horse. Bush already tried that, and I didn't buy it then.

[seaglass]

70. Did the sources say that they took money to vote for

legislation that was inconsistent with their voting record? Link please.

[MrBenchley]

38. Wow....

Since when is it illegal to take money from a lobbyist?

Guess you really have no clue as to what the actual scandal is about.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. Well, Why Don't You Fill Me In Then.

I have read extensively on the scandal and I know full well what it is about. If you think I am missing something fill me in. This snarky crap enlightnes no one.

[MrBenchley]

40. You evidently haven't read enough....

"I know full well what it is about"
And yet you tried to claim it was illegal to take money from a lobbyist.

[DistressedAmerican]

58. Never Did. Please Show Me Where I Said It Was Illegal To Take Money

from a lobbiest. It is illegal when it buys favors and influence. You have added nothing to my understanding of the case. But, thanks for the condecending and snarky replies just the same.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. You evidently never took a charm course, did you?

[MrBenchley]

87. Fuck THAT shit

Want to bash Democrats? Go do it elsewhere.

[DistressedAmerican]

88. So Sorry To Suggest That Any Powerful Democrat May Not Be All That.

I'll be posting on whatever I choose thanks. Don't want to hear it? Put me on ignore and pretend I do not exist.

I think I will be doing the same for you.

Have a nice one.

[MrBenchley]

90. Especially when you haven't anything to back your claims up

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. Oh, great. Abuse from the peanut gallery.

[Zen Democrat]

42. And you know they were bribes because ......?

Don't be so quick to throw around the B word. They were campaign contributions from Native American political action groups and Abramoff's name wasn't on that money. That's not illegal. Taking money for votes is another thing.

When unions give money to Democrats does that constitute a bribe or simply supporting one's best interest?

[onenote]

29. Defending money that is funnelled rather than directly paid

Sounds too much like a defense of what Delay did for my comfort level. I think we need to wait to see what comes out, but we better be careful about how we draw distinctions.

onenote

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. There's plenty of money corrupting both parties.

Abramoff is just one of many that bribe the politicians with "campaign contributions". I'll be glad to see any politician who makes deals for dough get bounced out of office and (hopefully) into jail.

[Greyhound]

32. Then both houses will sit empty. Our politiwhores selling us out would

be a little more acceptable if they didn't sell us out so cheaply. I mean the corporations only have to 'donate' a hundred million or so to get legislation that reaps them tens of billions, c'mon a tiny fraction of 1%? That's like 2 bj's for a quarter!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. But, many people still believe that we live in a "democracy".

Rather than the oligarchy that prevails.

[oregonindy]

18. Corrupt is corrupt....fire anybody and everybody that abramoff touched

and then change the law permanetly to never allow this to happen again.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Hear, hear.

It's wrong no matter who does it. If a few Dems were too cozy with Abramoff and get caught up in the net, so be it. It's the Bushazoids who've been arguing vis-a-vis Bush's wiretapping that it's OK because Carter and Clinton did it. (As it turns out, what Clinton and Carter did was legal, but if it hadn't been legal it would have been wrong -- but impeaching Clinton over a BJ was more fun, anyway, wasn't it, freeps?)

[lonestarnot]

20. Not from me you won't! I want anyone connected with this shit out now!

[jackster]

28. Amen!

In the end EVERYONE taking dirty money knowingly will have a lot of 'splain' to do and is just as guilty and should pay the price. I don't care if they're dem, repub, or polka-dotted. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[Walt Starr]

31. any Democrat involved is a traitor, bot to the party AND to the nation.n/t

[mzmolly]

37. Perhaps giving legit campaign contributions to Democrats was the perfect

cover-up? I need evidence that people were bribed, and not USED KWIM?

[Zen Democrat]

43. I agree, MzMolly.

Some people KNOW where the money comes from and what's expected. Others are used for cover to appear "non-partisan". Check out Abramoff's bio -- he goes back to the College Republicans that Rove used to run. No way he supported any Democrat -- no matter how DINO.

[mzmolly]

49. Exactly!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

34. What Dems are you talking about?

Do we know of any who have been bribed?

[Oilwellian]

44. You have yet to answer to the fact that....

not one dime of Abramoff's money went to a Dem. What say you?

[Noisy Democrat]

80. This Republican plant won't answer anything

He's here to spread confusion and disinformation -- hoping Democrats are such fools that they'll confuse legitimate donations from Abramoff *clients* with payola from Abramoff himself. And sad to say, he gets plenty of takers for the BS he's peddling. But if you want proof that there's more to it than just BS -- don't hold your breath. This person isn't here to provide facts, he's here to sell spin to the gullible.

[LWolf]

45. Since you asked, here ya go:

You have to stand by the party. They are DEMOCRATS, damnit, and this is the DEMOCRATIC underground, didn't you hear? Our own reps don't have to prove anything to us, the point is to hold the opposition accountable. If you aren't going to support Democrats, why don't you go start up the GREEN underground? Oh, because they can't win. <snicker> You 'progressive purists' are so clueless. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :sarcasm:

How'd I do?

To be honest, I don't even know who Abramoff is, or why dems, or anyone else, would be associated with him. I can only keep up with so many scandals or crises at one time.

I just couldn't resist. It's that rebel impulse. If someone says, "I'd better not hear..." I'm going to say it. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, if you are calling for some integrity on the part of the Democratic Party, I'm right there with ya.

[Clara T]

47. How Jack Abramoff Spread the Wealth

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. my question is

have we found any? I mean Dems are persona non grata at K Street DA

[flyarm]

59. read this thread on du it answers alot..read all the links..comments about

the charts posted above!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5702459



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/1655/0100

Tue Dec 27, 2005

Just take a look at his listed donations on Open Secrets
here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=...

and here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=ab...

snip:

There isn't a Democrat on the list.

It is true that some employees of the large lobbying firms he worked at and some of his clients gave to Democrats as well the GOP. These are the Abramoff-connected donations that we read about in the press. They are always separated from Jack by two or more degrees and most often the connection is a single thread.

The same is not true for the GOP.


snip:
The GOP Talking Points are out: Everybody does it and Abramoff gave equally to both parties. Hell, even George W. Bush himself has been trained to repeat them, but Bloomberg (and many others) have looked at the facts:


U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff ``an equal money dispenser'' who helped politicians of both parties Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.

[DistressedAmerican]

60. That Is Pre-Abramoff Thinking.

One of Abramoff's best business moves was to hire a number of staffers from Democratic congresspeople and bring them right on down to K street. You should take a look at the long article just out in the Washington post. Covers that change in some detail. I'll look for a link for you...

Here it is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10621077 /

[FlaGranny]

50. I'm all for anyone dirty to go down, but

it seems several here will be absolutely thrilled if Democrats are implicated. Hmmmmm. That "third" party must still be around here somewhere.

[Raksha]

53. I don't think you need to worry about this.

The Republicans tainted by Abramoff's money outnumber the Democrats by a long way. As I understand it, some Democrats received money from Abramoff's clients, but none from Abramoff himself. Speaking for myself, I don't feel bad about sacrificing a few Democrats in the interest of clean government.

[LoZoccolo]

54. Or you'll do what? n/t

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

65. Do not accuse me of being one of them. n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

89. Never accused you of being one of them. We know you are a dem.

A zell miller, Joe lieberman dem. Just noting that is the kind of dem they love over there.

[tx_dem41]

55. Pigs are flying again DA.

Hell freezing over and cats are sleeping with dogs. :)

We agree.

[ieoeja]

56. To whom did his clients give money BEFORE Abramoff?

Just went to opensecrets.org and checked out his top three clients among the tribes. The biggest doner gave substantially more to Democrats than to Republicans before hiring Abramoff. The other two gave pretty much the same to both parties prior to meeting Abramoff.

For that matter you will notice in the Washington Post graphic that the gap between donations to the two parties widened during election years in the Abramoff years while closing up during non-election years.

So a little more digging shows that they were Democratic doners before the casino project came along. However, they did increase donorship to both parties during the casino project. Just much more dramatically in their giving to Republicans.

[flyarm]

63. the indians were always more democratic donors prior to abramoff!!

a little hisotrical checking is all thats needed..

i know i am married to a Calif American Indian..they have historically been democratic..until Abramoff told some they could get a little quid pro quo..
and get there casino's..and then he played one tribe against another with a little help of the religious right and the rethuglicans!..

they were played for fools ..they were tricked and raped of their tribal money...for the greedy son of a bitches attached to this admin and these rethuglican greedy bastards!

it takes a little research though to know the historical facts...

fly

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. I want them ALL out of MY government!

Every damn one of them. If they're crooks...NAIL THEIR DAMN ASSES TO THE WALL. I've had with corrupt politicians.....if they happen to be Democrats too, OH FUCKING WELL! Buh Bye!

[Orangepeel]

62. ANYONE who committed a crime should go to jail

taking a campaign contribution from a criminal is not necessarily a crime.

[ToeBot]

66. So can we expect more Fatwas or will this be your last pontification? n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

71. Sorry It Bothers You That I Would Suggest We Should Not Defend

Dems that are involved in this case while going after repugs (clear hypocrisy). Does that kind of fair and equal treatment under the law offend you somehow?

[seabeyond]

73. you go full force without facts..... then you say if they

received donation from a tribe totally oblivious to abramoffs and repugs deal, they are as guilty as the repugs who are being bought and paid for their vote, letters and all abound stating the fact repugs are smack in it.

you dont want to listen to reason, you just want all dems who's name comes up to be trashed.

then you demand all the rest of us not be reasonable, and blindly follow you without thought.

wait and see what happens. if any democrat broke the law, everyone on this board will be on their ass, not to mention all of media, and all the repugs, rest assured. further, it will probably be the single dem that goes to jail while all the repugs get off.

[ray of light]

84. Hear Hear!

That's right. Doesn't it make you wonder why disA always does that? I've seen it many times. And not once in this whole thread was evidence of payola given. Just a whole "down with Dems" that eventually led back to "down with both parties" then reverted back to "down with dems."

No links. No proof. Nothing but a pre-emptive smear job and a blindly follow me, "You're with us or against us" bogus line.

[seabeyond]

91. well, i put "always" in my post, then edited it out. lol lol

but yes i have seen it more than once. i am quite sure he is a hard working dem wanting the best for the party and america, just knee jerk reactionist.

[Vinca]

67. What has to be distinguished is who got a legitimate campaign

donation from a tribe and who got cash, gifts, trips, etc. in exchange for a particular action. I'm curious about the huge amount of money to Patrick Kennedy in the posted graphic. He can't be in cahoots with this bunch . . . can he?? I agree any Democrats who have stooped to the level of Delay should pack their duds and go home.

[boobooday]

69. You won't hear that from me

All the corrupt ones must go, democrat or republican.

This is obviously going to affect more GOP than Dems, but the Dems who are playing that filthy game must go, along with all the sleazy repubs.

[Catherine Vincent]

72. You left something out....

"or I'm goanna cut me a switch!"

[laureloak]

74. That depends on HOW they are connected. n/t

[donheld]

75. Democrats must be held accountable just as Republicans

I will call for no special treatment of anyone.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. I won't defend them, but I'll leave the attacking to the GOP

The republicans are going to spend plenty of time attacking any democrats that may have taken Abramoff's money and I have no intention of defending those democrats.

However, as a partisan democrat I have a personal agenda and that is to see the democratic party take back congress. Therefore I don't intend to attack any of the democrats involved just the republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

86. thank you

Although I will remain thoroughly po'd if any Dems are caught up in this ugliness. I'm just sick and tired of the GOP's superior ability to go for the jugular.

[Mutley]

85. Oh hell no!

ANYONE involved in that shit needs to go down; I don't care what letter comes after their name.

[spanone]

93. Nail ALL of their asses to the wall. Dems and Thugs.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. I thought there weren't any??

:shrug: From what I've read Abramoff didn't give himself directly to democrats. Other people he gave to gave to democrats apparently. :shrug: It's all so confusing, but yes, anyone who broke the law should have the proper punishment according to that law.