How Much Money Did Jack Abramoff Raise For Bush?
How Much Money Did Jack Abramoff Raise For Bush?
President Bush is donating $6,000 in campaign contributions linked to Abramoff to charity. He is donating money raised from Abramoff, his wife and a Native-American tribe he represented. But that’s a small fraction of the amount of money raised for Bush by Abramoff, which is at least $120,000 and potentially much more. From the 7/21/03 New York Times:
As President Bush’s re-election campaign races to accumulate the largest treasury in history, a similarly fierce contest has begun among his best-connected supporters. Raising $100,000 for the president is a bit passe in this competition; now loyalists must bring in $200,000 or more to be considered top-tier, and they had better come with sharp elbows and plenty of prosperous friends.
“Everyone in town is trying to be a Pioneer or Ranger,” said Jack Abramoff, a top Republican lobbyist here, using the campaign’s terms for the most elite levels of money collectors. “But the only way to do it is to have contacts outside of D.C., which fortunately I do. So far I’ve raised about $120,000, and I haven’t even really started making calls.”
The exact amount raised for Bush by Abramoff remains unknown. A spokesperson for the Bush/Cheney campaign, Tracey Schmitt, said “At this point, there is nothing to indicate that contributions from those individual donors represents anything other than enthusiastic support for the [Bush-Cheney] re-election campaign.” If that’s the case, President Bush shouldn’t have any problem disclosing the total.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
78 Responses to “How Much Money Did Jack Abramoff Raise For Bush?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Accountability? Not in America. Shame on TP for not realizing that we are a nation at war. All rules and laws are suspended.
Besides, the Lord told Dubya that he could keep the money. How dare we question that authority.
*tongue firmly in cheek*
January 5th, 2006 at 10:32 amI agree with you Str8Up. Accountability is for anyone without an ‘R’ indicating they are a member of the GOP (Greed, Oil & Power) party.
We can only hope that some of the Republicans who still have a shred of honor and honest ethical standards to ask the current administration to explain why they’re violating the rule-of-law with impunity.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:41 amKing Dumbya isn’t pleased by this thread.
Vee vill be vatching you…..
January 5th, 2006 at 10:41 amU R soo rong! Bush is GRATE
Libral sKum
(LOL)
January 5th, 2006 at 10:44 amthe last link in your post transfers to an error page…
didn’t the “top fund raisers” get special sitdowns with Bush? Thought I’d read that somewhere last year before the election, or maybe it was after he was installed the first time… when the media was slobbering all over themselves about what a fantastic money raising machine the Bush campaign was.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:55 am“He gave me Nothing Atoll, Atoll, i sez. I know that!”
~ GW Bush describing the Marianas Island atoll given to him and his family by Mr. Abramhoff…
January 5th, 2006 at 10:55 amPresidential Pardons a quid pro quo?
A few months ago I came across and list of W’s presidental pardons. I ran several of the names through the FEC database and found that there were several large donations from people who had the same surnames. I really don’t have the time to follow this us, but I thought that the blogosphere could dig a lot deeper. I belive that there are numerous quid pro quos.
Thanks,
BWard
January 5th, 2006 at 10:56 ammanaged to get the page linked by putting it through google, go figure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711523/site/newsweek/
January 5th, 2006 at 10:57 amhow much bush did Abramoff raise for money?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:11 amJust wondering, why is George Bush donating the money he recieved from Abramoff to charity instead of returning it to the original donor?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:13 am“Bringin’ in th’ thieves,
Bringin’ in th’ thieves,
We will all rejoice in
Bringin’ in th’ thieves…”
The curse is working!
January 5th, 2006 at 11:26 amWell … since we’re wildly guessing, I’m betting it’s around 2 dollars or so … makes as much sense as saying 2 million given the lack of information that currently exists.
And should we seperate the money from the Native Americans (legitimate) from the money from Abramoff (not)?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:28 am#2:
We can only hope that some of the Republicans who still have a shred of honor and honest ethical standards to ask the current administration to explain why they’re violating the rule-of-law with impunity.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 5, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Wouldn’t that be grand? But I won’t be holding my breath. I have to admit something DS. If I were a republican, it would be hard for me to take a stand at this point. Not only is the base of the party blindly clinging to lies, they are also more concerned with sticking it to the “damn tree hugging liberals” than holding government officials accountable. That is, unless said official is a democrat.
Someone asked on another thread for folks to make a list of the things the current administration has been good at. I could only come up with one….. marketing. They have cloaked themselves in the Lord and successfully painted themselves as tough bastards that aren’t afraid to kick ass for the good old USA. At the same time they have misinformed their base about nearly every issue. The dumbing down of the base is a key element to having their agenda succeed. Smart people ask questions and it’s clear that this administration doesn’t like to be held accountable.
Back to my earlier point. I’m not sure if many conservative congressmen will buck against the system. Those that have the backbone for it are already doing so. Trouble is, the base doesn’t see or hear it. All they see or hear are “the left”. Sad that they don’t see themselves as the pawns that they are. They rushed to vote for Bush in order to keep gays from marrying, women from getting abortions and because in their minds Dubya’s the only one who scares the terrorists enough to keep us safe. Where are those issues on the Bush radar now that the election is over? Gays can still marry, women can still choose to abort and we are no safer. What a great trade-off.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:30 amEnthusiastic support for Bush? I thought he was an “equal opportunity contributor?”
January 5th, 2006 at 11:40 am“If that’s the case, President Bush shouldn’t have any problem disclosing the total.”
Surely you jest, Judd. GW has trouble with being accountable to anyone for anything, even if it wouldn’t matter.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:45 amDemocratics like to dance with lobbists…as well as Republicans. EVERYONE better run and hide!
http://www.politicaltruth.squarespace.com/ journal/ 2005/ 12/ 17/ abramoff-scandal-democrats-throw-their-own-under-the-bus.html
January 5th, 2006 at 11:45 amIn depth money distribution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ graphic/ 2005/ 12/ 12/ GR2005121200286.html
January 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amwhy did Bush wait for him to plead guilty, as soon as a contributor is questioned/indicted (at least to the extent Abramoff was) he should be distancing himself…A president needs to be held to the highest standard (as was the case 7-8 years ago) and waiting for guilty plea to absolve yourself is TOO LITTLE TOO LATE…what a greedy immoral faithless whimpy hypocrite…IMPEACH THE PUNK BITCH
January 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amEvery Representative and Senator in DC who willingly accepted funds from Abramoff should RESIGN from public service in humiliation, because they have disgraced our nation, by accepting his bribes!
President George W. Bush himself is one of those who received dirty money from Abramoff, so another reason for his resignation or impeachment!
January 5th, 2006 at 11:59 amOne of my Senators, Dole, gave back money today. It certainly seems disingenuous to wait until Abramoff has one foot in jail and the other foot on Congress’s neck before shedding themselves of the dirty funds. Just another indication of the arrogance and disdain for the public that is rampant in the Congress.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmPAC money will this country down. What a shame.
#19:
I don’t see that happening. The GOP is playing this as the “criminalization of politics as usual”. This is the same tactic they used when confronted about the CIA leak. This stuff happens all the time. We all play hardball politics in Washington. So, even though this stuff is illegal, it’s ok because we say it’s ok.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmPresident George W. Bush himself is one of those who received dirty money from Abramoff, so another reason for his resignation or impeachment!
Comment by Jay Randal
Jay #19
heheheheheheh!!!!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pmIn depth money distribution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ graphic/ 2005/ 12/ 12/ GR2005121200286.html
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2006 @ 11:47 am
In depth lyin’.
Abramoffs’ clients’ contributions were LEGAL you dolt. His bribes weren’t. Try harder, little troll!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pmwhen politicians break the law - any law - they become criminals, there is no criminalization of politics (well, maybe that whole Texas re-districting), only politicizing criminals!!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:55 pmBush Is A Nazi please look at my link
January 5th, 2006 at 1:28 pm#23
The appearance of impropritory among U.S. Democratic and Republican representatives doesn’t mean anything to you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/ national/ 20051213-111244-2879r.htm
“His bribes weren’t.”
Which members of Congress took his bribes? Do you know for a fact the no Democrats took bribes?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#23
The appearance of impropritory among U.S. Democratic and Republican representatives doesn’t mean anything to you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/ national/ 20051213-111244-2879r.htm
“His bribes weren’t.â€
Which members of Congress took his bribes? Do you know for a fact the no Democrats took bribes?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:46 pmTracy,
Abramoff only gave to republicans, the washington times is a ‘rag’ and a ‘biased propaganda site’. You really should get better resources. Look at the thread posted yesterday, it breaks out who Abramoff gave to, and he only gave to republicans.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pmAnd Tracy,
I’m willing to support a few democrats going down, if it takes the ~60 Republicans that Abramoff says he can name. See unlike you, I want corrupt politicians of all stripes to be removed - don’t you? Apparently not.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhat’s missing so far is THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ABRAMOV AND NOE OF OHIO.
That’s the other major money launderer in the ringer. And yet no links have ‘appeared.’
When will America get some real reporters? We need to open up immigration to anyone who will actually seek the truth.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#28 and #29
“Look at the thread posted yesterday, it breaks out who Abramoff gave to, and he only gave to republicans.”
Are you referring to who received political contributions or bribes? There is a huge list of Democrats who have received money from Abramhoff. Bribes?…only Republicans so far…from what the newspapers know and are reporting. Time will tell after his trial starts.
“See unlike you, I want corrupt politicians of all stripes to be removed - don’t you?”
I also want ALL who are guilty of wrong doing to be taken down, but apparently you, I, and only few others in this blog are willing to look at BOTH parties and demand justice. This genisis of this thread, however, was to focus attention on Bush and the Republicans and to completely disregard anything that the Democrats did or have done.
BTW do you know for a fact that no Democrats have taken bribes from Abramhoff? I asked this question earlier but no one can seem to give a “yes” answer.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:52 pmI’m not as worried about old George getting a few bucks from some Jewish fundraiser as I am the DONK practice of getting it from THE RED CHINESE ARMY as Bill Clinton and Al Gore have done. When we have time I think we should check every Donk’s pocket for fortune cookies before we allow him to run for public office. There is absolutely no telling how deep treason runs through the Democratic Party. They’ve already taken bribes from our greatest enemy, made nice with every tyrant on the planet and put our boys in harms way in Iraq for the sake of a few polling points. Hell, I think it ought to be against the law to be a Democrat.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThis is OT, but important news:
Heads up, California Activists!
RECALL SCHWARZENEGGER UPDATE:
“January 4, 2005 Hurrah!!!!!!!!!!
OPEN THE CHAMPAIGN!!!!!!!
“I am very pleased to tell you that we just received the approval from the Secretary of State to print our petitions, in all seven languages!
“We are taking steps to allow you to print the petition off our website. Those steps may be complete within 24 hours.
“We have 160 days to gather over a million valid signatures.” –Dr. Matsumura
http://www.savecalnow.com/newpage21.htm
We WILL put the Gov. Meathead RECALL on the already-scheduled July ballot.
Gov. Meathead also received Abramov (and Noe) money. He is the product of rightwing money. As of 12/15/05, he has taken $75 million in special interest money.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#28
January 5th, 2006 at 3:16 pmSo you don’t like the message, you debunk the source. If the Wash Times is a rag, just what the hell are the Post and the NYT? I believe the source and great post Tracy. If there are 40 dems and the WSJ is saying 60 in total, that means a 2 to 1 margin. Who is the party of corruption now? I don’t like or approve of corruption from either party and if anyone has committed crimes, they should be dealt with. I just think its crazy, arrogant and stupid for you to think that only Republicans are involved, but what else is new?
Is Ney Small Fry?
The Halls of Congress are tension filled as house members and their staff consider their fate as former lobbyist Jack Abramoff gets set to spill his guts.
But for my money, the more interesting question is what are they talking about over vodka rocks at the White House?
Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio may be in for a beating. Already, the Republican National Congressional Committee has thrown him overboard, with spokesman Carl Forti telling the New York Times “â€seeing that only one person was named, there’s got to be a little bit of relief out there.”
But my guess is that Ney is just the small fry. The bigger story may be what Abramoff has to say about his ties to the Bush White House.
The Bush team moved quickly to distance themselves from Abramoff with that fount of credibility Scott McClellan telling reporters “What he is reportedly acknowledging doing is unacceptable and outrageous. If laws were broken, he must be held to account and punished for what he did.”
But the Bush White House ties to Abramoff have long roots and little Scotty saying it isn’t so doesn’t make it true.
Back in May of last year, the Associated Press, in an article published in USA Today
and elsewhere, reported that Abramoff had “close contact†with the Bush team, meeting nearly 200 times with contacts within the new administration, including policy advisors to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles. And an article in the Texas observer reports that Abramoff worked on the Bush-Cheney 2000 Transition effort as an advisor to the Department of the Interior.
Campaign finance records also show that Abramoff and his wife also each gave $5,000 to the Bush 2000 recount fund, and made the maximum contribution of $1,000 to the Bush 2000 campaign. Abramoff was also a “Bush pioneer†raising more than $100,000 in contributions in both the 2000 and 2004 Bush-Cheney campaigns.
According to the Texas Observer Article , Abramoff was able to capitalize on his connections, arranging a White House lunch meeting with President Bush in May 2001 for two of his Indian Tribe clients, the same clients he and his partner Michael Scanlon would go on rip off to the tune of $82 million.
While the Abramoff investigation may focus for now on corruption within Congress, given the connections between Abramoff and the Bush White House, one would think that journalists would begin to ask some hard questions about the relationship between Abramoff and members of the Bush administration.
One place to start would be the Department of Interior. Records obtained by the Senate Indian Affairs committee show that Funds from the Coushatta Indian Tribe given to the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) at the suggestion of lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid for a public opinion survey provided to U.S. Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and others at the Department
Additional documents obtained from the Justice Department by the National Resources Defense Council as part of their effort to gain information about the energy policy taskforce conducted by Vice president Cheney show that CREA provided the Interior Department with public opinion research (dated 5/16/01) suggesting how to talk about energy issues and emphasizing using rising gas prices to promote increased drilling and open the Alaskan National Wilderness Area (ANWR) to oil exploration.
Secretary Norton and others at the Department of Interior have denied any wrongdoing. But journalists might want to take a close look at whether or not the Department of Interior made any favorable rulings on behalf of Jack Abramoff’s clients while accepting outside funding for a public opinion survey provided to the Department that somehow made its way into the office of the Vice President.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:43 pmI-RIGHT-I
I thought osama was our greatest enemy, and wasn’t it the republicans who helped him come to power? And before him, I thought saddam was our greatest enemy, and wasn’t it republicans who brought him to power? And wasn’t it Nixon who normalized relations with China?
How is it that you guys keep perpetrating what you refer to as ‘treason’, and yet you imply everyone else is guilty of this offense? Republicans sure have to tie themselves in a knot to explain their flip flops don’t they?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:44 pm“So you don’t like the message, you debunk the source. If the Wash Times is a rag, just what the hell are the Post and the NYT?” .
They’re newspapers, and not ‘moonie machines’. I suggest you actually look at the FEC data itself, instead of this bogus and clearly propaganda source.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ washington_political_donations/ Jack_Abramoff.php
This site has all of the donations of Abramoff, and you’ll notice they’re ALL republicans.
See the difference between the NYT and the Washington Times is that when you go to validate the stories, the ones from moonie town never correspond to the ’source’ facts. It’s a common problem with republican stories, whether they be about Schiavo, Creationism or Corruption.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pm“The Sky is Falling” ….(hooray!!) “The Sky is Falling”… I just hope it doean’t squish the Dem Congressional Re-election Funds as well as other paragons of virtue in the Dem Party.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pmLets get civility, integrity, ethics, and honest debate and work toward the betterment of our citiznens. Happy 2006, last heard republicans, and democrats alike has been caught up in this mess. Let’s try to find a way to clean up this mess instead of blaming the other party!
January 5th, 2006 at 4:09 pmThank you cleve! Its about time we put aside petty politics and work toward a better America. I hate corruption as much as the next guy and am willing to admit that neither side is totally clean. We need to throw out all of the bad apples. Unfortunately, some on this site are either so arrogant or stupid to think that democrats are involved, when it will be proven that they are.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:23 pmThank you, Cleve - I agree with you - but your solution is a grown up response and many here will be confused. I haven’t seen one thread here at TP about the Dem’s who took $$ from Quick Hand Jack - but remember, this is the same group who excuse union thugs and mobsters…
January 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#32
Then how come you are not concerned that we have borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese to fund the illegal war in Iraq?
January 5th, 2006 at 4:47 pm#41
How come when this story first came out you said it was complete bullshit and now you call him Quick Hand Jack. You guys sure do turn rather quickly. It could almost be called flip flopping?
January 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm“This site has all of the donations of Abramoff, and you’ll notice they’re ALL republicans.”
Your site that you cite is incomplete…to say the least. LOL!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 12/ 04/ AR2005120401158.html
January 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pmFrom the article
[Dem Lawmakers] ” were among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff’s associates and clients.”
no contributions from Abramoff
I am all for getting the corp greed out washington (and the us) but if georgie won’t recognize it, why should anyone else have to (besides their moral obligation which does excuse the president)
January 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pmDemocrats would have had to receive dollars from Abramoff in order for there to be coverage.
This listing includes money both from Abramoff, and clients of Abramoff, which aren’t necessarily related. Abramoff only gave to republicans, and your claims to the contrary are utter dishonesty.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:20 pmDemocrats got money from Abramoff’s clients.
Republicans got money from Abramoff and his clients.
It is very easy to figure out. Nothing difficult. Until Abramoff’s clients are indicted, that money doesn’t matter.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#47
Are you suggesting that the Democrats that received the money were not aware where/who the money was coming from? LOL! BTW untill Abramhoff testifies in his own trial we won’t know which if any Democrats accepted bribes directly OR indirectly from him.
“Until Abramoff’s clients are indicted, that money doesn’t matter.”
Why then why have some Democrats started giving back the money they received?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#46
“Abramoff only gave to republicans, and your claims to the contrary are utter dishonesty.”
As far as we know…wait till the trial starts.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:52 pm#43 - “How come when this story first came out you said it was complete bullshit and now you call him Quick Hand Jack. You guys sure do turn rather quickly. It could almost be called flip flopping?” Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 5, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pm***** Spudge-Man -I have NEVER said this story was “complete bull$hit” - you might be confusing me with less than honest progressives who lack much imagination - they often “feel” the need to hijack other’s names. No, I am against crooks of either party - unlike those Dem stalWARTS who insisit this is a purely Repub “problem”. I’m so disgusted with the entitlement mentality of too many in the gov’t - I’m changing my mind on federal term limits. I support no more than TWO terms for Senators and FOUR terms for the House. Maybe this is something we can agree on - unless you flip flop and don’t really support honest government leadership.
Why then why have some Democrats started giving back the money they received? Tracy
Democrats are giving back money from ‘clients’ of Abramoff, even though there’s not requirement or reason to. And why? Because unlike republicans who only gave back Abramoff money when he became indicted, they care about the appearance of wrongdoing. Republicans appear to only care about getting caught doing wrong, and most of them like you readily give them a free pass even when they’re caught.
“As far as we know…wait till the trial starts. Tracy”
While belief entirely on ‘faith’ is typical of fundamentalists and those who live in a fantasy world, at this point you’re just in the ranks of the tin-foil conspiracy nuts who still accuse Clinton of misdeeds that were never backed up by facts.
At this point we KNOW republicans were crooked, whereas you only HOPE that democrats were. That’s delusional, albeit hopeful and optimistic in that delusion.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm“No, I am against crooks of either party - unlike those Dem stalWARTS who insisit this is a purely Repub “problemâ€. ” mighty aphrodite
And yet Abramoff only donated to Republicans, which in this particular case DOES make it purely a republican problem. If they indict the Abramoff clients, and they flip like Abramoff did, then we can talk about a ‘democrat’ problem. Until then, you’re living with wishful thinking.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pm“Abramoff only gave to republicans, and your claims to the contrary are utter dishonesty.â€
As far as we know…wait till the trial starts.
No need to wait. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. Abramoff was president of the College Republicans. He’s not a Dem, he’s not even in the middle. He’s a Republican all the way.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:11 pm“Campaign contributions are a matter of public record.”
Uh, bribes aren’t a matter of public record. LOL! As far as campaign contributions are concerned the Democrats AND Republicans received money from Abramhoff in one way or another.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pmUh, bribes aren’t a matter of public record. LOL! As far as campaign contributions are concerned the Democrats AND Republicans received money from Abramhoff in one way or another. Tracy
Tracy, I thought of an old poem when I read your post. Oh what a web we weave, when at first we deceive.
First of all, bribes ARE a matter of public record in this case, because Abramoff admitted they were. Abramoff traded FEC recorded ‘contributions’ for votes on legislation. See that’s why it was a bribe, not so hard to understand is it?
As for off the record bribes, well those apparently are republican oriented as well, as the trip to Scotland by Delay demostrates. See Abramoff didn’t like Democrats much, so he didn’t seem to spend much effort to ‘bribe’ them.
If there’s evidence that Abramoff bribed Democrats, then heck, they deserve to go. But only a Republican Apologist who can’t read simple english would claim that any such evidence is apparent or even likely given the complete animosity that Abramoff showed to Democrats. After all, what ‘lobbyist’ doesn’t give money to both parties unless he really hates them? It’s atypical and clearly the result of someone who’s a party thug, and criminal personality.
Keep dreaming, maybe santa clause will bring you Thor’s hammer for next Christmas as well.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm“Because unlike republicans who only gave back Abramoff money when he became indicted, they care about the appearance of wrongdoing.”
The Democrats started giving back the money when Abramhoff was indicted just like most of the Republicans did! If there was no wrong doing on the Democrats part, there was and is no reason to give back the money. LOL!
“Republicans appear to only care about getting caught doing wrong, and most of them like you readily give them a free pass even when they’re caught.”
“…at this point you’re just in the ranks of the tin-foil conspiracy nuts who still accuse Clinton of misdeeds that were never backed up by facts”
Oh, just like the Democrats gave Clinton a pass for getting caught by lying to a grand jury and to the American people on camera no less. You are aware that Clinton lied to a grand jury, aren’t you? You are aware that he was impeached, aren’t you? LOL!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ events/ clinton_under_fire/ latest_news/ 238784.stm
“At this point we KNOW republicans were crooked, whereas you only HOPE that democrats were.”
The genesis of this entire thread is based on the liberal hope that the Bush administration did something illegal. LOL!
January 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm#48
“BTW untill Abramhoff testifies in his own trial we won’t know which if any Democrats accepted bribes directly OR indirectly from him.”
Why would Abramhoff be on trial, he pled guilty? Only until others are indicted and plead “not guilty” will we get to see someone testify in open court. I’m sure the prosecutors are hoping for a lot of folks to start making deals. This is just the beginning.
We don’t have any other indictments. Can anyone see trials starting before long after the Novemeber elections? Such delays of justice will provide cover for those not yet tainted. They can claim “It’s just a few bad apples and the other party’s doing it, too.”
January 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pm“The Democrats started giving back the money when Abramhoff was indicted just like most of the Republicans did! If there was no wrong doing on the Democrats part, there was and is no reason to give back the money. LOL!” Tracy
The difference is that only a tiny handful of Republicans gave Abramoff money back until they day he was indicted, as most still have not. These are the same republicans who directly received money from Abramoff. No democrats were in that position of direct receipt of funds, and yet they gave money back from indirect sources.
Clearly your ‘defense’ of these corrupt republicans is desperate and sad.
As for your Clinton claims, yeah I can see how lying about sex in one’s private life is the same as selling votes by a public official. And you do realize that impeachment is an ‘indictment’, like the one Tom Delay currently faces, and not a conviction don’t you? And you do realize that the Senate CLEARED him of the Impeachment - right? Have republicans always been this twisted, or has the insanity only happened in recent times is what I want to know.
“The genesis of this entire thread is based on the liberal hope that the Bush administration did something illegal. LOL!” Tracy
Actually both Scanlon and Abramoff have admitted to the crime, no one has to hope, the whold world knows it’s true (well apparently everyone but you). The two parties involved with buying the votes have both admitted to their crimes. All that’s left is for them to start naming names on who sold them.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:26 pm“BTW untill Abramhoff testifies in his own trial we won’t know which if any Democrats accepted bribes directly OR indirectly from him.” Tracy
Ah, ignorance of the law, no wonder you’re so wierd on this topic. There isn’t going to be a trial, just a sentencing after he helps the authorities with their case. Trials happen when there’s a question as to quilt, but Abramoff has already accepted guilt - so no trial.
Did you grow up this country? If you’re a republican, surely you should know about criminal trials, you guys go through them all the time. Maybe you were too busy playing your gameboy to know how this works?
January 5th, 2006 at 7:31 pm“No democrats were in that position of direct receipt of funds, and yet they gave money back from indirect sources.”
That don’t mean crap they knew where the money was comming from.
“Clearly your ‘defense’ of these corrupt republicans is desperate and sad.”
I am not defending them, you are trying to defend the Democrats who are no saints themselves…in the least.
“As for your Clinton claims, yeah I can see how lying about sex in one’s private life is the same as selling votes by a public official.”
The litte asshole had sex in the Oval Office, i.e. in YOURS and MY house, lied to us about it and then admitted to it! I would say it’s on the same level and probably a notch or two lower.
“And you do realize that the Senate CLEARED him of the Impeachment - right?”
That’s just formality, he like Abramhoff admitted to committing a crime. You do know that lying to a grand jury is a crime…don’t you? What it’s about is irrelevant. I hope you are not suggesting the even though bubba confessed to his wrong doing and in the process committed purgery that it’s not any different than what Abramhoff did. BTW, Delay hasn’t admitted or confessed to ANYTHING illegal.
“Actually both Scanlon and Abramoff have admitted to the crime, no one has to hope, the whold world knows it’s true”
What does that have to do with this thread trying to implicate the Bush administration in some way?
#59
“There isn’t going to be a trial, just a sentencing after he helps the authorities with their case.”
OK after sentencing he is going to spill the beans on a bunch of crooked politicians democrat AND republican.
“If you’re a republican, surely you should know about criminal trials, you guys go through them all the time.”
So do democrats. LOL! Trafficant ring a bell?
January 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pmSo do democrats. LOL! Trafficant ring a bell?
Comment by Tracy
T’crazy”#60
Trafficant was no Democrat!
He was a hairpiece from red state Ohio…
January 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pmHell, I think it ought to be against the law to be a Democrat.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
I-Triflintresonousbushitebuttsucker-I #32,
I pray we keep the Patriot Act so that after we Progressives take back the government we can use it to hunt your scummy, treasonous, right wing, barnyard animal raping, inbred a** down, and either deport or imprison you forever!
January 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIt’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.’’
This applies to “human rights also” and the abolition of Death Penalties in Europe
To protect us from evil goverments
January 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pm[…] How Much Money Did Jack Abramoff Raise For Bush? President Bush is donating $6,000 in campaign contributions linked to Abramoff to charity. He is donating money raised from Abramoff, his wife and a Native-American tribe he represented. But that’s a small fraction of the amount of money raised for Bush (tags: Bush Cheney Abramoff Fraud Politics GOP RNC Scandalous Scandal DeLay) […]
January 8th, 2006 at 8:31 pm[…] A SYSTEM MADE FOR ABRAMOFF: Jack Abramoff was “closely associated with the K Street Project.†In fact, the system was a perfect fit for Abramoff, given his stated desire to shun low-paying political activist work in favor of striking it rich. “I wanted to make money,†he said. A former chairman of the College Republican National Committee, Abramoff decided that his connections in the conservative movement could help him at a time when Republicans were rising to power in Washington. Abramoff developed a motley crew of right-wing allies, including anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, Christian right-wing leader Ralph Reed, and a host of conservative lawmakers. “He is someone on our side,’’ said DeLay chief of staff Ed Buckham. “He has access to DeLay.†And Abramoff played the game as DeLay wanted it played. By securing clients with deep pockets and federal legislative interests, Abramoff was able to contribute heavily to Republican leaders (raising at least $120,000 for the 2004 Bush campaign). What eventually brought Abramoff down was how audaciously he worked the system. He now concedes that he illegally “offered and provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for official acts and influence and agreements to provide official action and influence.†In return for legislative and personal favors, the things of value he provided to lawmakers included “foreign and domestic travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, election support for candidates for government office, employment for relatives of officials and campaign contributions.†[…]
January 13th, 2006 at 2:32 pm[…] Abramoff raises over $120,000 for Bush, but Bush says he’ll only return $6,000 of that tainted campaign money. Republican Party officials said yesterday that President Bush will give up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, joining an expansive list of politicians who have shed more than half a million dollars in tainted campaign cash… […]
January 15th, 2006 at 4:04 amThere is nothing at all shocking about a man who apparently has been trading on the family name and connections to get where he is today, emperor-in-waiting. It’s only to be expected that anyone wanting to lap dance with the shrub must pay tribute. And why would anyone expect him to give anything back? It’s just not done in the circles he travels in. Can’t you tell that by the way he talks down to us like he’s speaking to some extremely dense children for the umteenth time about why whatever he does has been vetted by some supreme being and given only to him and his self righteous cadre of fools.
January 17th, 2006 at 4:33 pmFood for Thought … The Senate Leader for the Dems.
Abramoff Team and Reid’s Office Had Frequent Contact, Records Show
By John Solomon and Sharon Theimer
Associated Press
Friday, February 10, 2006; A08
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and Reid’s staff had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist’s team about legislation.
The activities — detailed in previously unreported billing records and correspondence — occurred over three years as Reid (D-Nev.) collected nearly $68,000 in political donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients.
Reid’s office yesterday acknowledged having “routine contacts” with Abramoff’s lobbying partners. Reid intervened on government matters in ways that Abramoff’s tribal clients might have deemed helpful, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.
Abramoff’s firm also hired one of Reid’s top legislative aides as a lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff’s firm that raised money from several of Abramoff’s lobbying partners.
A Reid spokesman said none of the senator’s actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff. “All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long-held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents,” spokesman Jim Manley said.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery and is helping prosecutors investigate the conduct of lawmakers, congressional aides and administration officials his team used to lobby.
Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid contacts.
Reid has assailed Republicans’ ties to Abramoff while refusing to return any of his own donations. He argues there is no need to return the money. “Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to fail,” Manley said.
Although Abramoff never donated personally to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Louisiana Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. Reid was Democratic whip at the time.
Abramoff sent a list to the tribe titled “Coushatta Requests” recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers. Alongside Reid’s name, Abramoff wrote, “5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip.”
About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show. His March 5, 2002, letter pressed the agency to reject a casino proposed by a potential rival to the Coushattas, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) also signed the letter.
Reid also officially opposed new tribal casinos in California and Michigan, where Abramoff had tribal clients with casinos.
Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas’s gambling establishments.
“As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States,” Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and he has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.
Abramoff’s group had earlier contacts with Reid’s office over the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and one of Abramoff’s highest paying clients. In 2001, records show, Abramoff’s lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid’s office, mostly to discuss Democratic legislation that would have gradually applied the U.S. minimum wage to the islands. Republicans wanted to keep the islands exempt.
Reid, along with his Senate counsel, Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, “to discuss timing on minimum wage bill,” according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff’s firm, sent the Marianas. Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig’s political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid’s Senate reelection committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.
Manley said Reid’s official calendar does not list a meeting on June 5, 2001, with Platt, but he also said he could not say for sure the contact did not occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid’s office, calling them part of the “routine checking in” by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.
As for the timing of donations, Manley said, “There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising.”
Platt and a fellow lobbyist also reported a contact on May 30, 2001, with Edward P. Ayoob, Reid’s legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid’s office to work for Abramoff’s firm, registering to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid’s office.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:19 pm© 2006 The Washington Post Company
[…] One could write an entire library about the connections between Bush and Abramoff. But even an entire library wouldn’t have the same effect that one or two photos would have on public opinion. It’s obvious to the non-brainwashed that Bush and Abramoff knew each other well. After all, Abramoff was a top-ranked fundraiser in Bush’s 2004 re-selection campaign. […]
February 18th, 2006 at 4:11 amcampaign direct marketing uk
March 15th, 2008 at 12:07 amWebsite Raise Money
Extremely interesting post. A little bit different from my point of view but neverless an interesting opinion.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:34 amquick ways to raise money
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:17 amsex contacts
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:15 amAdSense Money Maker
Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 7:55 pmGregory
I think you hit the nail on the head with this.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:08 amGet Money
Debt Consolidate
April 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pmCar Loan
Browse bad credit auto loans to have an option to earn a cool Nissan tomorrow by working with a dominant company.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm