UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans
UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans
Yesterday, Today show anchor Katie Couric falsely claimed that “Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.” Challenged on her facts, Couric said she “would look into that and clarify that for our viewers.”
Returning to the topic this morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert both reiterated the right-wing talking point that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan.
LAUER: Katie pressed him [Howard Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?
RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal.
Matt Lauer doesn’t get it: Katie Couric’s claim was completely wrong. It simply isn’t true that Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff, and there is nothing “technical” about it.
Moreover, Tim Russert’s response to Lauer was misleading. Prominent Democrats haven’t denied that corruption is widespread in Washington. They acknowledge that ethical improprieties — such as the lobbyist-funded trips that Russert mentions — are a bipartisan problem. But they are right to get “raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal,” because the Abramoff scandal is not bipartisan. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the Democratic “point man” on lobbying reform, summed it up best:
None of us claim that Democrats have a monopoly on virtue. … Although Democrats are certainly not without sin, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, the K Street Project — those are Republican sins and Republican sins alone.
(HT: Galindo)
Full transcript below:
LAUER: And now let’s talk about the Abramoff scandal. Howard Dean was on this program yesterday and asserted basically that it is a Republican scandal. Let me play you a clip.
DEAN: It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.
LAUER: Katie pressed him on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?
RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they acccept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal. They’ll say it’s primarily Republican, but we’re willing to help clean it up.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Call me silly, but I believe Obama, and everything I’ve read and seen, before I believe Matt Lauer or Katie Couric.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amArghh! I can’t believe this nonsense. Abramoff is charged with a crime, not his clients.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amThe entire universe is stuck in neutral on this subject. The progs and Dems are splitting hairs and losing their message (again).
January 27th, 2006 at 11:47 amAbramoff is a Bush friend. More than a friend.
Abramoff is a criminal.
Bush is trying to hide his relationship with Abramoff.
Abramoff was a Republican Lobbyist > he never gave any money to Democrats! Some of the Indian Tribes that he swindled, on their own gave campaign donations to Democrats!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:48 amCouric and Lauer talk chicken recipes, shopping tips, parades and Lobby Reform in the span of 15 minutes.
Russert is clearly on the ratings campaign at the floundering NBC along with Matthews.
C’mon, TP! Stick to the message! Bush is hiding his relationship with Abramoff! Simple!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:50 amIs the MAD “dark side” Spy vs Spy, Abramoff’s fashion influence?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:51 amRight, Gus. And the media is muddying the message. That’s what we are trying to expose here.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:52 am“Tribal clients”
Who gives a crap.
Jack Abramoff != Native Amerians
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amBut it’s LEGAL to get money, trips and meals from lobbyists and their clients. The bribery and extortion is the scandal. Dems could be involved in “scandal”, but so far, not one has been indicted or even mentioned.
Saying that Dems are involved in the “scandal” is just conjecture and false objectivism.
All in all, its the Dems fault. Where the hell are they? Why can’t they just make a clear case.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amJack Abramoff himself said many times that he hated Democrats and wished them to be destroyed forever!
He and Rep. Tom Delay were a team in screwing over Indian Tribes for cash to be used to finance their attacks on Democrats!
They were like a MAFIA!!!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amAmericans, not Amerians
Silly typo
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am“Ahmurricanz” as Matthews would say.
Russert: http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2006/ 1/ 27/ 115338/ 945
January 27th, 2006 at 11:55 amTIME TO FILE SOME
SLANDER
AND
LIBEL
LAWSUITS
AGAINST KOURIC AND LAWLER!
NOW!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amAs for the message, who cares if Dems get caught up in the scandal? Will they not deserve it if they’re guity? The important issue the relationship between Bush and Abramoff.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:57 am#6, No I think Boris Badenoff of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame is his fashion influence
e is, I think!
PS I can’t take credit for that (another TP poster made the comparison on another thread awhile back)!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:58 amAS for Tim Russert: It has been proven that he is a PAID Bush defender and apologist!
Before he can claim any evidence of sleaze for Democrats, he must admit his own corruption working for the GOP!
His buddy at CNN Wolf Blitzer needs to admit his association with the GOP as a news hitman too!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm[…] Here’s that “clarification” we were promised by Perky Katie: […]
January 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHoward Dean has said timmy is his friend. I think he has to rethink that relationship. It’s pretty clear timmy is purposefully advancing rnc talking points.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pmThe chart is true. Also true is the following ascii graphic:
Abramoff + US citizens within 7 degrees of knowing Jack Abramoff
|||
|||
\ ||| /
\|||/
\|/
Russert + Lauer + Couric
Clearly then, our news media should be jailed for corruption as they are participating in this scandal too.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmwhere’s the troll truthyadayada now?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmUm, hello?
It’s not about who received money, it’s about what they did with that money.
It’s pretty clear Republicans pocketed the money without ever using it for the reasons it was given…
Y’know, like setting up a children’s charity that never pays a dime to children
…and that’s what this is really about.
Who gave money to whom and how much is a smokescreen.
Thanks
January 27th, 2006 at 12:03 pmAnd why is Tim Russert giving the “other side” on this little discussion? Rather than ask Dr. Dean or some other Democratic spokesperson on the air, Russert takes it upon himself to say what he thinks Democrats would say, as if that constitutes fairness and balance.
Sorry Mr. Russert; you don’t speak for the Democratic party. Please allow us the courtesy, at least, of speaking for ourselves.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pmIs the Angry Left being honest with some of the claims they make? I suspect there is a level of disingenuity here. At least I hope there is…
First: Abramoff. Bad guy. Politicians who took illegal money from him should go down. Yes, he probably only gave money to the GOP. Soros only gives to Dem efforts, and his stated goal was up-ending Bush, et. al. Both parties have a problem with lobbyists. I personally think “reform” will do little. They will just find other ways to line their pockets.
Second: “Domestic Survaillence.” Call it what you want, it’s a grey area. It’s a necessary program, and it’s probably run as cleanly as any gov’t program. But to suggest that they were spying on average Americans making phone calls to their mothers, the dry cleaners, etc is nuts. Really, to think that, you have really drunk the Kool-aid. They have much better things to do than listen to you ranting about how much you hate Bush to your homosexual hairstylist on your celly. Get over it.
Third: Alito. Did you watch the hearings? If he isn’t one of the most boring people to ever make it on TV, my boring threshold is too high. To me, it seems like every decision he has ever made is considered and thought out. But to even pretend that he’s “more outside the mainstream than Ginsburg” is also retarded. You may not share his conservative leaning, but a lot of people did not/do not agree with Ginsburg. Win an election and you get to nominate left leaners. It’s as simple as that. But when guys like Alito or Roberts, who are superior jurists in every regard are nominate, you should accept that as a reflection of the current political ideological climate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pm[…] - Sen. Barack Obama […]
January 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmTIMAAAAAAAAAAA………………………………………………………………….russert
January 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThankyou chase for being the Bush apologist on here > lol.
Only Bush lovers drink the kool-aid, not those who dislike him!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThank goodness for blogs…all network or cable news is Fox or Fox lite…and GOPnuts still whine about the “liberal press”….
January 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#23 Nope, we’re absolutely serious about this, thanks.
Now beat it.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm1. Soros hasn’t pleaded guilty to a crime.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm2. Wire-tapping requires a warrant. The President can’t claim the people he’s listening to are all al Qaeda without some impartial review AND claim he isn’t breaking the law. 3. It is evident that Alito is willing to defer to the Executive whenever he’s asked.
Jay: I’m definately not a Bush apologist. He’s made his fair share of mistakes and the GOP will pay for it. I really do question the sincerity of the arguments I hear the Angry Left making. Are you guys really this crazy? Do you really think Bush is listening to your every phone call? Do you really think Alito is a “radical”?
I’m not here to flame back and forth. This is a curiosity of mine.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pmTechnically speaking, Russert, Lauer, and Couric may have brains. But here’s what we found: Their collective inability to use logic and truth suggests that they don’t use those brains. So can they really be called human?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:13 pmOnly on NBC does the ACTUAL truth become the “technical” truth! So when Couric says, “come on, Abramoff gave money to Democrats too” it’s not an actual lie, only a “technical” lie. Therefore, Couric’s lie can be excused and Dean can be seen as playing word games.
Now, they compound the lie by saying that Abramoff’s clients gave money to Dems. While “technically” true, they say this without Dean being there to point out that there is not one scintilla of evidence that Abramoff directed “one single dime” to the Dems.
It’s time to put on more heat. Write NBC and tell them you are boycotting all of their networks, GE, and any subsidiaries since they have absolutely no interest in honoring their duty as a national broadcast network using the nation’s airwaves in a responsible manner. OK, you can tell them you’ll make an exception for Olbermann.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe graphic shown during the Lauer/Russert segment (and displayed on this post) further misrepresents by showing the money donated by “Abramoff + Tribal Clients”. Jeez, if they put up one that said “Abramoff + Tribal Clients + Red Cross”, they could claim the scandal includes hurricane Katrina victims, too.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pmDemocrats get raging mad
yeah Tim. It’s because of the 1000’s of lies and misrepresentations you allow on the air as DC Bureau Chief for NBC News.
Thanks for the slam.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pmWhat was the pattern of tribal donations before Abramoff, and what was the pattern since? Why can’t one of these big media types tell a sinkin’ intern to do 30 minutes of research on that?
My guess is that before Abramoff it was 75% Dem donations, and since it is 66% GOP. So Abramoff’s effect has been to reduce donations to Dems. QED. If he could have gotten it to zero, he would have.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:19 pmThe last line of Oscar Wilde’s Salome springs immediately to mind.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pmWell, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, George Bush’s grandfather was a Nazi supporter in some way and he is also connected to George Bush. Therefore, using media logic, since the two are connected in some way George Bush must be a Nazi supporter by association.
After all, it’s not like two totally different groups/people can act independantly of each other if they know each other.
*sigh* The media needs to be taken out back into the field and put down. They are lame and not longer working the way they were meant to. If the media can’t figure out for themselves that Abramoff “clients” were giving political donations LONG before they even heard of Abramoff, and that Abramoff encouraged them to give LESS MONEY to democrats, then they should be put down like a lame horse.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pmTell me where Soros has been implicated in criminal activity relating to his donations to political causes.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pmChase most of us don’t think bush is spying on everybody, just those americans who disagree with his political goals and are rather vocal when we disagree with those goals. And any supreme court judge who attempts to defend the unitary executive is too radical for me, not with syanding his always siding with a corporate entity, or governmental power… the courts are supposed to be our last resort and Alito would raise the bar so high that most cases that extend liberty would never be allowed in the courtroom, and that is radical.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#30, Chase stay on topic dude - this is the ‘wot librul media?’ thread. The Alito and wiretap threads are elsewhere.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pmNOt to mention the basic FACT, that the media is stretching further and further to try and find ways to connect Democrats to this scandal. First it was “Abramoff gave money to both”. Then it was “Abramoff made his clients give to both”. Then “Both Abramoff and his clients gave to both.”
Now the newest speaking point is “Abramoff gave only to Republicans….but Democrats are just as corrupt because they meet lobbyists too!”
What next? Democrats are just as guilty because they wear suits like the Republicans?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmChase I am NOT trying to pick a fight with you on here!
Some Democrats in DC are as sleazy as Republicans, like Lieberman and Ben Nelson!
Does the NSA listen to every call in America?
They are data-mining so in a way they do monitor all calls!
Do they listen to average Americans with no interest in politics? No > why should they!
Do they eavesdrop on Cindy Sheehan and anti-war protesters?
Most likely they do!
Do they snoop on thinkprogress threads?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmYes probably as we are typing > lol.
#23 - Chase,
First: The Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar after taking out a contract on America to supposedly ‘restore honorism and dignitude’ to the White House. Abramoff gave money to Republicans to influence the legislation system in ways that Republicans have always claimed the Democrats did. Hypocrisy, they party is Republican!
Second: The domestic spying had RULES and LAWS that should have been followed. Simple rules, simple laws, and a rubber stamp court that has only turned down less than 1 percent of one percent of the requests. Pres. Bush could have even asked for permission THREE DAYS AFTER HE SPIED ON CONVERSATIONS! How do we know it was just terrorists that he spied on? Take his word for it? After all the other lies he’s told, he’s telling the truth now? Wow! Dude, I’ve got a bridge to sell you, if you’ll fall for his crap over and over again! PRES. BUSH BROKE THE LAW! Simple case, simple solution: independent investigation, impeach if guilty. It was good enough for Pres. Clinton, so it’s good enough for Pres. Bush.
Three: Judge Alito is not stupid, he’s probably smarter than all the Congressmembers who were asking him question. Heck, it was a Republican that made his wife cry (on cue?)!!! What it boils down to is that the courts are the last place the common citizen can go request redress against big business and big government. Rich and powerful buy and sell Presidents and politicians, and not one of them will help out the little guy unless they are forced to BY THE COURTS! Judge Alito has sided with big business and big government over 90% of all his cases. He even said he’d recuse himself if he had to preside over a case where there was a conflict of interest, and he LIED ABOUT THAT TOO! Why do you want someone who’s going to tell you: Sorry, bug business and big government win out over you average citizen.
I hate to tell you this, but you’re drinking the kool-aid faster than you blame others for thinking for themselves.
Wake up and smell the Constitution being burned out from under you before we end up under King George.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI laughed all the way through.
True comedy at it’s finest.
They(sic) say that the best comedy comes at the expense of the author.
Well, the humorist in this joke line is the donnor, and special interists. And don’t ya think that big ‘ole NBC doesn’t hold some political clout?
oh my gosh, someone pass a tissue, my eyes are wattering soooo bag, and the laughter makes me have to peeeeeeeeeeee
January 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pmThis is the price “we the people pay” for abdicating our oversight of the public airwaves to corrupt corporate pirates, and our government to extremist right wing plutocrats…
Until we take back this government and the FCC, disband the corporate media monopoly, and make heads roll, we’re going to have the anchors on television shilling for their masters…
Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and Tim Russert work for GE, which is a major contributor to the criminal Bushite junta (and a defense contractor)…
Such is life in Republican-controlled America, where truth and reality are “created” daily…
January 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pmMary: 1. You are correct. I was making the comparsion with regard to their agendas, not their custody status. 2. There are competing statues here: FISA and AUMF. While FISA can be construed to restrict the executive wiretap authority, it does not necessarily question executive ability do tap international communications. Likewise, AUMF can be construed to authorize such wiretaps. But you must admit, it’s not cut and dried illegal. It may end up being so, but it’s not prima facie illegal. 3. Can you cite the cases where he deferred to executive power and why those cases make him likely to do so ‘whenever he’s asked’?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmChase misses the point.
1. Contributing to representatives whose views one supports (if done lawfully) is not a crime. Receiving contributions (if done lawfully) is not a crime. Taking bribes is a crime. Republicans did it in the Abramoff case; Democrats did not. Although some Democrats sometime might have done something wrong, they didn’t do it in this case, and it shouldn’t be reported as if they did. It’s like saying: “There’s a whole lot of theft in the world; therefore, we’re all guilty of theft.” Reporting the news means talking about specifics.
2. If Bush is spying illegally, I don’t care who he’s spying on or why. Chase obviously doesn’t understand the value of the Constitution and the danger of letting the government do things outside the law. Did Chase ever hear of the disappeared people in Argentina and Chile? Yep, they were “average” citizens.
3. Comparing Alito as a conservative version of a liberal Ginsburg is absurd if anyone knows anything about these justices. Ginsburg is not a liberal. She’s a middle of the roader, suggested to Bill Clinton by Orin Hatch. Alito is a right winger who apparently supports the idea that the President can do anything the President wants. That’s contrary to our entire constitutional history. So I don’t think the argument holds merit that just because Ginsburg, who was appointed by a sane Democrat, was confirmed by the Senate, Alito, who’s being appointed by an out-of-control Republican (so that the Republican can be even more out-of control), should be confirmed.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmJudd, TP’s position on this is downright asinine. So what TP is saying is that because democrats used nondirect routes to engage in the exact same behavior that they did not receive money in an inappropriate way.
Judd, despite your obvious agenda being dishonest should not be part of the strategy. Do you even realize how bs this is? There are many involved in it and in this case it appears more republicans than democrats. You guys keep it up because you are really looking ridiculous. Dean looks like a child trying to wiggle out of being in trouble over a technicality.
Judd, again you have proven that you are more than willing to be dishonest. This time it’s blatant and I am surprised. I am surprised because this one is not close. Think of it like this. When the democrats were getting money from third parties at the encouragement of Abramoff the third parties did not mention that Abramoff was involved in the contribution.? Abramoff does not make the encouragement unless he gets the credit. That would be pretty straight forward don’t you think?
Again, I am surprised by your willingness to be this dishonest.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmDo they listen to average Americans with no interest in politics? No > why should they!
Comment by Jay Randal #42
Jay my friend,
Your statement above implies that you think the government is justified listening to Americans WITH political interests…
Though I don’t believe you mean that, please clarify…
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmTruth no longer matters on cable news
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmI went down to the Today Show this morning with my “Katie Lied” placard ready to hoist and wave. I was not allowed into the pen of gushing, squealing admirers, because of the controversial nature of my message. Security was distinctly hostile, and aggressive, seemed prepared. I stood on the corner, watching the show and was aware I was being watched by security at several posts. When I hoisted my sign by the window on 49th St. behind where these dunderheads sit and read, I was beset by security who nearly ripped the thing out of my hand. I didn’t have the time, or probably the heart to take this any further, but it all feels so police state like. Help me. A government is widely known to have lied about everything its ever done - war, protecting citizens, setting public policy - and the only thing on the news last night was outrage that a drug addict lied in his bestselling memoir and what this means for the fortunes of Oprah Winfrey. Somebody wake me!!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmStrawman Ben, this is about Abramoff, not Dean. Try again
January 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pmBen, in this case the exact same behavior would be bribery and the K-Street Project. So far, only Republicans have been implicated. You are being intentionally dishonest if you insist that the real issue is campaign contributions or luncheons. If you want lobbying reform, that is another issue. The real issue here is bribery and corruption.
So address the real issue and stop misdirecting.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#51, good for you Frank, have you considered assault charges or civil rights?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#48 - I’m surprised by your unwillingness to hold similar standards to both parties and all Presidents.
Let me guess, it was bad for Pres. Clinton to break the ‘rule of law’ and lie about sex.
But it’s just hunky-dory for Pres. Bush to break the ‘rule of law’ and lie about the reasons for war, spying on Americans, balancing the budget, torturing prisoners, and which corrupt lobbyists with whom he has ‘close’ relations.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican! Oh, and ‘Ben’ too!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pmChase, see http://www.tnr.com/ doc.mhtml?i=20060130&s=rosen013006 for a good discussion by Jeffery rosen on how Alito might respond to overreaching by an executive. As an appellate court judge, he didn’t have many opportunities to opine on the issue straight on. His answers to questions are kind of frightening though.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJudd and thinkprogress are a hundred times more honest than Tim Russert, so Ben stop plugging for Bush on here please!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLOL!!! Good one gang! Talk to me next November after the GOP maintains control of Congress.
Keep an eye on NJ - I hear Cor-slime is already talking about raising taxes. That, coupled with the culture of corruption charge will give the GOP a pick up.
You people don’t get it - Dems took money from Abramoff’s clients. It is very powerful counter attack and will make all this bipartisan. I think you will hear Republicans saying “everybody does it” alot this year. Sound famaliar?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm“…it does not necessarily question executive ability do tap international communications. Likewise, AUMF can be construed to authorize such wiretaps.”
Comment by Chase #46
Chase,
Every senator that I’ve seen (from both sides of the aisle) to whom the question of whether or not the AUMF gave Bushiva the power for warrantless wiretaps has said NO!
What part of that don’t you people who keep trying to muddle our (thinking peoples’) brains with dead/settled arguments…
As for FISA, you people don’t want to believe tha Bushiva is breaking the law, but he is…
He has fifteen days (worst case scenario in wartime- which by the way can ONLY be declared by Congress and has NOT been done) to electronically surveille without a warrant…
The ONLY reason Bushiva is “CIRCUMVENTING” (i don’t give a da*n how HE spins it) FISA is because he’s hiding something illegal…
…like eavesdropping on his political enemies…
January 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pmJudd and thinkprogress are a hundred times more honest than Tim Russert, so Ben stop plugging for Bush on here please!
Comment by Jay Randal — January 27, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Well for Judd and TP this is not one of those moments.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#58, Day 4 for you Innocent Lite - are you servile, unpatriotic or morally treasonous, or some combo of all three….?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmRepublicans are being convicted of bribery. Democrats are not. “Everybody does it” did not help Democrats in ‘94, it won’t help Republicans now.
I think it would help us a lot if every Republican insists that bribery is the same as legal campaign contributions. That should make for a well-informed electorate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThat, coupled with the culture of corruption charge will give the GOP a pick up.
You people don’t get it - Dems took money from Abramoff’s clients. It is very powerful counter attack and will make all this bipartisan. I think you will hear Republicans saying “everybody does it†alot this year. Sound famaliar?
Comment by Innocent Lite #58
Indecent lowLife,
there’s onle ONE thing to be done with right wing Bushite inbreds like you….
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmWhy is it not libel for journalists to take it for granted that Abramoff’s clients used their own political donations to funnel money to corrupt politicians at his direction? Abramoff’s “donations” were criminal, and if people say that his clients’ money is as tainted as his own, then they are being accused of a crime.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmPost 49 big papa > I am just stating the obvious about NSA spying! Do I think it is right for them to spy on political activists like me and you? NO I think it is wrong and Hitlerian!
Bush bypasses the FISA court because he wants no record of who he is spying upon > it is a violation of the Constitution! Bush must be impeached for it!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pmWhy do they deep saying “associates” and clients? Because associates sounds like his cohorts. Do they ever name any names? I’ve never heard of any Abramoff associates giving money to Dems.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThe rightwing never fails to test my tolerance for stupidity.
Contributions to Democrats from the Indian tribes involved with Abramoff, both legal and historically greater than those to Republicans, actually decreased once Abripoff got involved. The notion that Abramoff and the K St. project did anything to assist Democrats is ridiculous.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pmBen,
Your argument is asinine yet also helps to illustrate Judd’s point. The issue here is that Abramoff is a criminal. The “clients†that Abramoff swindled are not criminals, they are victims. What needs to be determined and exposed is Abramoff’s associates and partners in crime in Washington. That’s it. If they are Democrats or Republicans, it does not matter and no one here would object to a Democrat with DIRECT ties to Abramoff being taken down.
Corruption is the issue. You, as an American, should be up in arms about this instead of trying at all costs to protect your party. This is the United States of America, not the US of Republicans or Democrats. It’s “We the Peopleâ€, not “We the Political Party who hold a majority in government.â€
What is it going to take for people such as yourself to see that what you are advocating is the destruction of our democracy? Is that really what you are after?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#62 - “everybody does it.” They do and we will slander your leaders the way you have slandered ours. The only difference - we’re saving up for when people actually pay attention. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans? Please stop it with the 1994 comparisons - Democrats were not as treasonous as they are now.
Big Papa - what should be done to me? Kill those who dissent?
AND your punishment for your hateful campaign to smear President Bush is Justice Samuel Alito. AND this is just the beginning.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#67 - everybody does it.
The left never fails to test my tolerance for stupidity. While you idiots are crying about some two bit scandal, Bush is packing the Court. Good job guys. Thanks for your help.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmYes, Innocent Lite, it’s all about winning right? I mean, screw the people and the issues. Forget about the corruption, the lies, the incompetence, the DEAD. According to you, all that matters is that your team win.
You are a sorry excuse for an informed citizen. I suggest you change your moniker to “Intelligence Lite” as it is much more appropriate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmOne of the nice things about living in the Chicago area is that we have the WGN Morning News, which is far more entertaining than Matt, Katie or any of the other network wankery. I haven’t watched the Today Show in years.
Not that they’re without fault; WGN is owned by the Tribune Company, of course. But it can be funny as hell and gets better ratings in the local market than Today.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#69, come on Innocent Lite answer the question…I’m leaning toward servile.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmShorter Timmeh, Lauer and Miss Colon 2006: Indians have no right to donate money. They should be happy living on their reservations.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pmBut to suggest that they were spying on average Americans making phone calls to their mothers, the dry cleaners, etc is nuts. Really, to think that, you have really drunk the Kool-aid. They have much better things to do than listen to you ranting about how much you hate Bush to your homosexual hairstylist on your celly. Get over it.
Comment by Chase — January 27, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pmBut virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 01/ 17/ politics/ 17spy.html?ex=1138510800&en=5803fed5119a90a9&ei=5070
#30, Chase,
Do I actually believe that Bush is listening to my phone calls? No, because Bush is too lazy to worry about it. Do I think the NSA is listening to my phone calls? Probably since I’ve made numerous overseas phone calls. Of course, I don’t believe for one minute Bush’s story that only phone calls from Al Qaida are intercepted. It would be very easy to get a warrant if that were the case. So one has to ask the question, why would they listen to calls without a warrant? The simple answer is that they’re listening to calls that have nothing to do with Al Qaida. Since it’s a secret program, and since the administration has not divulged the full scope of the program to anyone, including the FISA Court, how can anyone believe that they AREN’T listening to their phone calls?
As to Alito being a radical, yes he is. In his own writings he’s taken extremely radical positions. Read his dissent in the 10 year old strip search case where he takes the position that cops can search anyone without a warrant if they can simply come up with an after the fact rationalization. That’s radical. Myself, I prefer the Bill of Rights, when it comes to Bush violating the law or when Alito decides a case.
People should remember that the Constitution is written as a LIMIT on government power, not an endorsement. The Preamble states that The People, not the Government, establish the Constitution. The Bill of Rights in Amendment IX,which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; and Amendment X which states; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”;
makes clear that the power of the Government is limited by the Constitution and is secondary to the rights of the people.
Bush takes the position that the peoples’ rights are subserviant to his power as President. It is long past time that the people recognized that true patriotism lies in protecting the rights of the people. You’re either for the Constitution or you’re not. Bush and the Republican Congress have declared their position as being against the Constitution.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pmTotally off topic, sorry…
but I didn’t see a more appropriate thread where I could post this.
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/filibuster/
sign the petition for a filibuster.
Thanks.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#51
Frank, it is a huge understatement to say that the way you were treated was uncalled for.
Folks, anyone, especially the rightwing trolls, who has not taken at least a few minutes from their daily routines to consider the actions as described in Frank’s post need to get a clue. Here we have an honest citizen who just wanted to make a statement. He was no threat to anyone. Given this administration’s desire to quash dissent of any type, I could somewhat expect it (but nevertheless disagree) if Frank was trying to display a “Bush lied” sign at a public appearance by the president.
But come on, now. A comment directed at a morning show co-host and “reporter,” and an obviously poor one at that?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#73 - I support American values which means I have to stop Democrats from ever getting into power again.
#71 - I consider all the things you mentioned and vote Republican. Democrats are corrupt, they sympathize with our enemies and they seek to crush those who do not agree that it’s a constitutional right to kill babies.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pmForgive me everyone, I am as left as they come, very progressive, a daily supporter of Think Progress and I support Dean and everyone else… but you have to accept the reality that any broad statement that ALL Democrats are innocent in this case is False and Misleading and does the party more harm than good.
I hated to see Dean make that remark on the program, because it opens and unneccessary can of worms. Not all politicians are bad, but it is the nature of modern politics to accept contributions and favors from lobbying efforts on behalf of their clients. Thank goodness for the honest ones, but not all Democrats are honest.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#77 -lol! Kerry is pathetic. Interesting that he will be leading the charge to “swift boat” Sam Alito. Did he cut his ski trip short so he could come back to DC in time to slander Alito? Thank you again for your total stupidity.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#79, so you are for a one-party state? Fascism, I presume? Then looks like all three to me: servile, morally treasonous and unpatriotic.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pmSome one help me out with this - didn’t President Bush join the gaggle of politicians returning “Abramoff” money thought to be tainted? When he did so he only returned $6,000 of $100,000 because he claimed only that amount was directly from Abramoff and the rest was from Abramoff clients and therefore was not tainted. I think I remember that right. If true then the money donated to Dems by Abramoff “clients” is perfectly clean according to Bush himself! So the whole right-wing meme that Dems are implacated too is contradicted by their own liar in chief. Some one fact check me on this to be sure!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#82 - I am for a one party state if the other party includes people like yourself.
Your far-left radical ideology is scary and dangerous. The fact that you throw the word fascist around so lightly shows how unglued you are. You demean those who have truly suffered oppression. So yes, as long as the left has people like you on their side, you will be routed from power.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:02 pmIntelligence Lite,
You prove my point again. If you “consider all the things” but only vote for the party that you are affiliated with, instead of who is most competent and appropriate, then actually you consider nothing.
What a waste. You are throwing away your country and its values and you are too ignorant to see it. I pity you.
And to head off what is so obvious to be your next response, I have voted for republican and democratic and independent candidates for all levels of government.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pmYou’re not reading me Optimist - I vote Republican because national Democrats are a DISGRACE. Have I voted Democratic before - yes. But, not when the Democratic leadership and their far left base believe Bush is bigger threat than Bin Laden. NO WAY. So I consider all things, but Democrats and their terrorist sympathizing base will always come up short.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#84 and you sir, don’t understand fascism. If the brown shirt fits, then you should wear it. At the very least today, you have demonstrated that you are opposed to democracy and to civil discourse.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#87 - quite a contradiction, dontcha think.
If there is a party of Nazis in this country it would certainly be the left. They gas unwanted babies and lynch anyone who opposes that practice.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#88 oh dear, you just proved my point.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:10 pmLooks like I found it -
http://www.usatoday.com/ news/ washington/ 2006-01-04-bush-abramoff_x.htm
The claim was “individual donations” raised by Abramoff were not a problem, just his personal donations and one by one tribe. So again, the R’s want to split hairs over their contributions but paint with a broad brush on the D side to have the appearance of a bipartisan scandal. I’d like to point out that the Dems have plenty of corruption to answer for on their own but this appears to be a very one-sided scandal. Where is a viable third-party when you need one? Oh, yeah the two cash-cow parties of incompetence and corruption now run our system. We’re screwed.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#81: It appears you make no distinction between disagreeing with someone’s positions and lying about them. Thank you repeating the “Kerry is swiftboating” talking point like a good little lapdog.
And PS, it’s glaringly obvious from your comment that you both envy and worship the wealthy. Sad.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pmEural, you make a good point regarding Bush’s $6000 return of Abramoff money…and the remainder that he kept. I say investigate hard and prosecute all offenders of the law, GOP or Dem. Then we’ll see who’s got their hand in the cookie jar and how deeply they reached.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIntelligence Lite,
You only vote republican but you consider all things. If you cannot see the monumental logical flaw there then you have a serious problem with cognitive reasoning.
As for your generalization that all Democrats are a disgrace and terrorist sympathizers, you further expose your ignorance.
The real question for you is: Why do you hate America and its Constitution?
January 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmJay - Do we have proof that Russert has been PAID by the Bush people?
January 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWell, given the differences in these definitions…
Liberalism -
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Facism -
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
…I know which one I choose.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThis debate is also covered HERE
We, no doubt, will see a retraction come monday after Matt’s and Katie’s gruntsmen do their work and peruse the blog boards.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#95 WC - pretty concise WC. My last word on fascism on this thread which provides a relatively objective way of spotting the brownshirts (and no, I don’t use the term lightly) The 14 points of fascism
This page is occasionally updated with more examples.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#46. sorry. no cites, no facts, no essays. i’m practicing my short unsubstantiated smear techniques. i hope to get a job at the white house press office.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pmJust imagine if the news media covered Clinton’s indiscretions in this same manner.
The Lewinsky scandal would have been presented as an example of Washinton politicians infidelity (surely not a limited subject) and perhaps would have provoked a consideration on the state of marriage vows in general.
Whitewater would have been presented as an opportunity to point out that rich folk often benefit from connections and power to make even more money. It could have provoked a consideration of socioeconomic polarization in America.
Funny, I don’t remember either subject being presented like this.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#84
Throw the word “facsist” around so lightly? Did you even bother reading post #51? The man was at NBC’s studio to express the opinion that Katie Couric, “America’s sweetheart,” was not being truthful. Was his treatment necessary? Tell me how this does not define “suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.”
Same goes for reports that co-author of a book critical of Bush, James Moore, has been placed on the No Fly list. Word is that he can fly, but has to go to the airport several hours early for extra screening. He cannot find out why he is on the list, nor can he get off the list. The No Fly list, as I understand it, is designed to keep terrorists or would-be terrorists off the airliners. Again, tell me how this does not define “suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.”
January 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pmWe all have a wicked death wish, cause way deep down we have given up on our own personal struggles with our soul. Now’s acceptable time to unload all our unresolved internal conflicts an complexes en masse, on to the “other”, out there.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI always remember fondly those Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons where Elmer Fudd is hunting them and they try to evade him.
Eventually it leads to:
Daffy: “Shoot him now! Shoot him now!”
Bugs: “You keep out of this. He doesn’t have to shoot you now.”
Daffy: “Well, I say he does have to shoot me now, so shoot me now!” (BANG! Fudd shoots Daffy.)
In the ensuing analysis, Daffy discovers that there was “pronoun trouble.”
Daffy: “It’s not ‘He doesn’t have to shoot you now’, it’s ‘He doesn’t have to shoot me now’. Well I say he does have to shoot me now, so shoot me now!” (BANG! Fudd shoots Daffy.)
Anyway, this all reminds me of “pronoun trouble.” Russert is saying that the Dems are saying “it’s” a Republican scandal, and yet he then says that a lot of Dems take trips and accept gifts from lobbyists. He’s conflating two different “scandals”. Yes, the paid-for trips and gifts are a scandal, but the Jack Abramoff part of it is purely a Republican scandal. And that’s what the Dems mean when they say “it’s” a Republican scandal.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWC - so were John Kennedy, LBJ and the Democrats fascists in the 1960s because Democrats controlled everything? FDR in the 1930s?
What you two nimrods are describing is more of sour grapes than a fascist state. You can’t win elections so Bush is a fascist. Makes sense. I would argue that you can’t win elections when you accuse your ideological opponents of being fascist.
You also can’t win elections with a moron like John Kerry at the top of the ticket. An admitted war criminal, a liar and a repugnant human being. But hey, he served in Vietnam for four months!
January 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#102,
Spot on sir!!! However, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that we would be using Bugs Bunny skits to clarify political communications.
The Abramoff scandal is a REPUBLICAN scandal.
The Lobbyist problem is a WASHINGTON problem.
abidy abidy that’s all folks.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmI thought that, according to the right-wing lapdogs, “swiftboating” was “presenting all of the *facts* to expose the *unpleasant truths* about a person vying for public office.”
So, Innocent Lite, in wingnut logic, which is it? Either (a) or (b):
(a) Kerry is exposing nothing but truthful facts about Samuel Alito to point out Alito’s unfitness to be nominated to the Supreme Court; or
(b) “swiftboating” does not mean the above definition — in fact, it means “a slanderous, false attack on a public official’s character in the hopes of scoring political points” — in which case the swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was an unjustified attack.
Pick one.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmMy letter:
Today Show,
Matt Lauer’s statements defending Katie Couric only further called into question your show’s credibility.
No money, zero money, transacted from Abramoff to any Democrat. How difficult is it to understand? In spite of this, you insist on pushing a story that democrats are engaged in this scandal.
There is no democrat scandal.
Though Lauer acknowledged this fact, he did so while pressing the storyline that Democrats were in a scandal. By prefacing the fact with “technically,” you called into question the undeniable fact that Jack Abramoff gave no money, zero money, to democrats, as if there is some “non-technical” way to interpret it.
Lauer showed a graphic and let Russert talk about third parties that gave money to democrats without showing a causal connection with Abramoff. There is no logical or evidence-based reason to make such a connection. Now, it seems, that the Today Show is reporting by insinuation rather than fact.
Furthermore, when Lauer asked if democrats can “wash their hands of this” he implied that there was something that needed to be washed. Democrats hands are clean on this issue. There is nothing dirty on their hands, why would you insist they need to wash them?
I’m sorry if you don’t like reporting facts that don’t shine well on republicans. However, when a political party erupts in scandal, and the other does not, professionalism requires you to report it without injecting a faux sense of “balance” by creating a fabricated storyline. I’m sorry if you’re afraid of the talking heads that will call you the dirty word “liberal,” but that’s better than “dishonest.” To be sure, your reluctance to report the truth, and finally reporting the truth framed in a dirty-hands-democrats storyline, is dishonest.
X
January 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSee? This is because you grab them by the balls and squeeze until they tell the truth and you never apologize or back down, not for anything!
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#99 Comment by Gillete
If only it was as simple as the Clinton dayz,
When a blow job meant something.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWC - the no fly crock you are spewing, even if true, does not compare to some of the tactics Clinton’s cronies took against the women he sexually harrassed. Clinton also abused the IRS and his attorney turned up dead in a corn field. So, I would argue that Bush is on par with most politicians. OR Clinton was a fascist, too. Take your pick.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmAh, the familiar refrain from the side with no ideas, only talking points: “Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! He was a BAAAAAAAAAD MAAAAAAAAAAN!”
January 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#76 your post is dead on. The constitution is there to protect the citizenry fromt he government. Heck fear of an all powerful government led to the federalist essays being written and posted to various papers simply to stem the fears that this “constitution” was a grab at power.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#103, dude, you are not helping yourself with your shotgun mixture of strawmen, ad hominems and strange ideas. You prehaps should decide on a debating style that works for you instead of trying them all at once. Whereas I be happy to engage in a discussion with you about fascism and how close the US is and has been to it over the last 60 years, I really need you to bone up on the concept a little first.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:57 pmIntelligence Lite,
All slander and no facts = Libelous. Please ask your mother to look up that word and read the definition to you.
And that is the last morsel that I will feed that troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#105 considering Kerry’s sole platform was that he served in Vietnam, it was certainly an issue. AND there are ample evidence that he was trying to cover up radical positions he took in the 1970s. Views he still has, just lies about. Ever hear of The New Soldier?
As for Alito, I would say that woman killer Ted Kennedy’s tirade over Vangurad and Durbin implying that Alito is racist amounts to “swift boating.”
AND it is not a smear to call Ted Kennedy a murderer. He let a woman drown to save his own butt. That is a fact. He is the perfect spokesman for the left.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmAn aspect of this scandal which continues to be obscured is the tremendous power Ahbramoff , an Orthodox Jew, wields with Indian tribes. Knowing Mr. Abrhamoff’s penchant for hats, is it possible he has donned the feathered headress of tribal Super-chiefdom and is revered and implicitly obeyed by all Native Americans whithin the purview (and those who aren’t are of course purblind) of the Tribal Council?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmI suggest a sharp lookout be kept for un-explained mass conversions by Native Americans to Orthoxdox Judaism. This might well be an indicator of the tremendous influence and authourity Abrhammoff might have attained with the tribes.
Don’t even waste the ink to write to the simps at The Toady Show. I mean, what do you really expect from a network owned by GE?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmjesus this new troll is a tool.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm106 Comment by Five of Diamonds
Thank you, thank U, THANK EUW.
A good cut and paste letter.
I did.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm:)
You said *Kerry* was “swiftboating” Alito, so where did Durbin and Kennedy come from?
Oh wait, is that the right-wing tactic of “moving the goalposts”? Sorry, your response does not fit the question. Ah well, can’t even make a simple (a)/(b) decision. I call not only troll, but USELESS troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSorry, wasn’t paying attention - what troll? Oh no, he’s not a tool. If one of you has a herd of pigs and a nearby cliff handy, we can fix him up in a jiffy. Oh, and best of luck when the Rapture comes, everyone
January 27th, 2006 at 2:06 pm#103, you are correct they can not win with a buffoon like Kerry at the top of the ticket. They really need and intellectually vacant and moarally bankrupt individual at the top of the ticket to win. Someone like Bush perhaps.
Anyhow nice harping on Kerry’s service. I’m willing to bet that he spent more time in Vietnam than Bush, Cheaney & Rove combined. But still you get props for following the party line of loving the military while hating veterans.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pmMatt Lauer and Katie Couric are media lightweights, whom the fever swamp may attack with impunity. Tim Russert, on the other hand, is an 800-pound media gorilla. If the Left continues to attack him on this point, he will likely prove his point by highlighting Abramoff’s bipartisan influence.
I can’t wait for Harry Reid’s next appearance on “Meet the Press.” Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#114 is that like when Laura Bush ran her car into her boyfriends car while running a stopsignm
January 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pmHere is the problem: this is not about who gave to whom. It is not really even about lobbyists trying to corrupt politicians (which they are paid by their special interests to do). THIS IS ABOUT POLITICIANS CORRUPTING LOBBYISTS!!!!! … It’s about Republican politicians requiring lobbyists to pay politicians (through contributions from those lobbyists and their clients) and to hire Republican operatives (through the K street project) before the Republican controlled legislature will even deign to consider and/or pass legislation pushed by the lobbyists. This is a disgrace!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm“If the Left continues to attack him on this point, he will likely prove his point by highlighting Abramoff’s bipartisan influence.
I can’t wait for Harry Reid’s next appearance on “Meet the Press.†Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all.”
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @
No bi-partisan influence, and Reid’s money isn’t tainted.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pmbj holland, bingo!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pm“AND it is not a smear to call Ted Kennedy a murderer. He let a woman drown to save his own butt. That is a fact. He is the perfect spokesman for the left.”
Comment by Innocent Lite — January 27, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
And it is not a smear to call Reagan (and now Bush) treasonous scum who would make deals with terrorists (while proudly proclaiming just the opposite)for political gain, regardless of the consequences for the country. That is a fact. They are perfect spokesmen for the right.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pmI can’t wait for Harry Reid’s next appearance on “Meet the Press.†Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all.—
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @ “
Then Harry can have the opportunity to point out that these traditional contributors dried up, because Abramoff siphoned off the money as bribes to republicans. I agree, that this would be a good appearance.
Although I forgive you for only having a ‘partisan brain’, and not being able to reason through things. According to the latest scientific research the partisan types like yourself are acting on animal and emotional instincts, and not using their human brain centers. It’s why you generally come off as hateful, fearful and irrational - because you are when you discuss partisan issues. I’m sure you’re a very nice person, and that you don’t mean to come across as a lunatic. I forgive you for your inability to control your emotions - poor thing.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:22 pm^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BOGUS LIST above
January 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#23
1) Taking money for compaigning and taking money to vote a certain way or to call a right wing buddy and have him work to pass laws in his state to block rival tribes casinoes are two different things. One is taking money for campaigning the other is taking money as bribes.
2) There is NOTHING grey here. FISA was setups in the 1970s because of Nixonians abusing the NSA to spy on political opponents. To stop that from happening again FISA was created as a tool to make sure that if a president says he is spying on terrorists then he really is. If Bush can not let FISA know who he is spying on after he already spied then he IS NOT SPYING ON TERRORISTS.
3) Alito is a follower. He looks for ways to judge that will get him a pat on the back at the golf coarse. FAR different from Roberts who seems to be his own man.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#129,
HOLY SHIT! You mean that all the Native American Tribes have been indicted and convicted like Abramoff! Wow, this is breaking news.
You’re a moron and a liar. But, if you can get over your inferiority complex and resolve your sexual insecurities you may be able to finally see that TRUTH is what will set you free. Not the bag of BS that you are carrying around.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pmWow, John Kerry got $98,550? So that’s how he paid for that castle in Idaho! I wonder who paid for his trip to Davos!?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm“ALL of the politicians in Washington are corrupt, not just the GOP.”
Comment by You can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Thank you for acknowledging the the republicans are filthy with ill-gotten lucre - however your list has already been debunked. Thanks for playing, we encourage you to try again anytime.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#133 BSR,
January 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSir, you absorb the lies so quickly and readily. Geez, anyone with half a brain can identify a pile of sh*t like that. I would suggest that you stop sniffing glue in your mother’s basement and go back to school. Lord knows that you can use the additonal education.
“Wow, John Kerry got $98,550? So that’s how he paid for that castle in Idaho! I wonder who paid for his trip to Davos!?”
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Money from tribes is not money from Abramoff, silly man. Try again.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pm#129 That list you also posted on another thread is not true here any more that it was true there and you have been debunked there, sorry spreading the same falsehood won’t work here, but Karl and company must be paying by the word now.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThe fact that Dems got money from some Abrahamoff clients is not indication that they are corrupt. What is painfully obvious with Abrahamoff and this whole scandal and K Street project, is that is all about selling influence within congress.
The dems, since the republicans took power, have had no say whatsoever in how this country is being run. They can climb on board with republican projects etc… But they do not get any influence over those projects. To allow them any influence (which they lost when the thugs got control over both houses and the other two branches of the government) would cause the thugs to lose the “Democrats are a party of no ideas” talking point. Simply shutting them out of the process helps facilitate the talking point.
But in general the lobbying scandal is about buying and selling influence, and in order for the dems to be guilty of this there has to be some sort of influence to sell. If they are guilty there will be some cause and effect evidence to be displayed. The Cunningham case is great for this, as is the Abrahamoff case. He has plead guilty, no problem there. But you can see from following it that tribe A pays $x and two days later they get a meeting with congressman Y who the following day voted in favor of a tribes position etc… If the dems are guilty you can damn sure bet that republicans would be spreading the evidence trail all around the press.
This is not what is happening, not even close. Nope, any money the dems got from those people is at most a gratis gift or at worst a CYA ploy developed by the K Street bad boys to give themselves a case for plausible deniability.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pmMy list has been debunked? Wow, I had no idea. I guess I’ll just take your word that it has been debunked as the gospel truth, and forget that the FEC is the agency that released the list in the first place. Yeah, I’ll listen to a bunch of Bush haters instead of the Federal Election Commission, and just trust them when say the list is misleading. Sure. Seriously, wake up, man. It doesn’t matter HOW Abramoff routed the money to the Dems. It only matters that the origen was Abramoff, and the recipients were the Dems.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#139. Your handle should read”I CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!”.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 01/ 27/ politics/ 27judge.html?_r=1
Go to Original
Prosecutor Will Step Down from Lobbyist Case
By Philip Shenon and Elisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times
Friday 27 January 2006
Washington - The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department
The prosecutor, Noel L. Hillman, is chief of the department’s public integrity division, and the move ends his involvement in an inquiry that has reached into the administration as well as the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.
The administration said that the appointment was routine and that it would not affect the investigation, but Democrats swiftly questioned the timing of the move and called for a special prosecutor.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#129. So, you’re saying the GOP is corrupt.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThis is INSANE! They are basically saying it’s illegal to receive money from an Indian tribe! The Indian tribes are the victims here, folks! just because a Democrat received money from an Indian Tribe, that does not make him a crook. Liberal media my ass.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThe Indian Tribes always gave money to the Democrats. But when they got involved with Abramoff, they gave the Democrats much less money than they did before.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThe GOP spin machine media likes to portray the Democrats as being equally guilty of taking Indian Tribe money, but the fact is they got less BECAUSE of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
This is a very important point that is not being made.
Your list is debunked when you can not provide a source for it. It is debunked when you say that it is a list of Abrahamoff money, when in fact none of his money went to dems. His clients paid money to them sure, but how much? In what proportiosn did they pay to dems and what proportion did they pay to republicans? The other thing your list does nto cover is what the money got them. You knwo damned well that money given to the dems did not buy influence because they had no influence to sell.
Beyond that I don’t think the FEC has a list that says…this is money recived from Jack Abrahamoff clients.
The only thing you state that has any truth to it is that Washingotn in general is corrupt, though I’m only reading this into your posts as you seem to be harping on the dems, I’m simply assuming that you know as a fact the republicans are corrupt.
BTW wasn’t abrahamoff a Pioneer/Ranger? Big money winner for Bush and yet Bush seems to have no clue as to who he is or ever doing business with him.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#129,
Your list is bogus. Go to citizens for responsive politics and see it for yourself.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#139,
Until the Native American Tribes get indicted and convicted, all that counts IS Abramoff money.
If it is a guilt by association issue, then let’s play the game out shall we? Let’s see, Abramoff is a REPUBLICAN, Abramoff is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL, so, in your pitiful logic, all REPUBLICANS ARE CRIMINALS.
It seems that your moniker should read “I can’t identify the truth”.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI cant handle the Truth!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmBWAWAWAWAWAW,WHINEWHINEWHINEWHINE,CRYCRYCRYCRY.
IMABABYSPOILEDROTTENCRYBABY.
I will say his list is devoid of republicans, so maybe it is true only dems a guilty…not really.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#80 Dean wasnt BSing.
Abramoff was a middle man that setup bribes for the GOP. If you look back at the news after the GOP took over washington you will see they were setting up republican ONLY deals with lobbyists to further erode democratic power. Not by the power of their arguments but instead by the power of threats of exclusion and the offer of money. Thats the same way the mafia works.
Are there democrats that take bribes? Hell yes. Are there democrats that took bribes from Abramoff …hell no. No evidence I have seen yet shows that and the GOP had been throwing all kinds of info out there and none of it proves anything other than Abramoff hated democrats as a right winger and was willing to do ANYTHING to help the GOP.
Democrats are NOT tied to a right winger that hates democrats.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#140 - Of course, he can’t handle the truth!
It’s common knowledge (except for trolls that stick fingers in their ears and say ‘I can’t hear you!’) that Abramoff didn’t give money to the Democrats.
Let me repeat for the hearing impaired:
ABRAMOFF DIDN’T GIVE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS!!!!!
Don’t just take my word for it, research it for yourself from a non-partisan site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/ indivs/ search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N
Don’t spew the talking points from ultra-radical right-wing shills. Go to the source!
Unless you can’t handle the truth.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#145, the list was debunked this morning referring back to the 18th. Chekc this - post 52 Acknowledgements to kindness on this one.
Mr CHTT, you may have a problem with short-term memory loss. You were debunked as a fabricator this morning. I find if I write stuff down that I need to remember it helps me, but I’m sorry I can’t help you with your problem confusing facts and fantasy.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#129 Your list is debunked by the FEC because you state the origin was Abrarmoff but since this list is money that ORIGINATED with clients of Abrarmoff(who he plead guilty of defrauding), not Abrarmoff, your statement compared with the FEC site debunks your list as “Democrats taking money from Abrarmoff”
January 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#153 - I have this feeling that “I can’t handle the truth” drops his lie-bombs and then runs away before he’s proven to be a liar.
Some people just can’t handle the truth about themselves as “cut & run” cowards, or their lies as nothing but calumny.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm“I did not take money from that thief Jack Abramoff. I only took money from the folks who financed the heist.” OK - I understand - you were only an accessory…hmmmmm….
January 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#155, nope not getting it. The Tribes are the real culprits here? Is that what you are saying MA? Damn it where are those cholera-infected blankets, boys, there’s still two months of winter left!
January 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#155 - “I did not take money from that thief Jack Abramoff. I only took money from the people that he was bilking for millions of dollars.”
Piss off, troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmObviously that’s in reponse to #156, not #155…
January 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm