Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Believe White House Should Disclose Contacts With Abramoff
By on Jan 27th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Believe White House Should Disclose Contacts With Abramoff
Yesterday President Bush said that White House contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, including photos of Bush with Abramoff, are “not relevant.” The American people disagree:
The [Washington Post-ABC News] survey found that three in four–76 percent–of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed.
Scott McClellan said that people who want the information are trying to “engage in partisan attacks.” That’s not true either:
Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll.
It’s day 22 of the White House stonewall. Time to come clean.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
NO BODY
NO CRIME
January 27th, 2006 at 9:38 amYesterday, someone (republican) accused me of lefty McCarthyism for wanting the White House to release the photos of Abramoff and the prez.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:41 amNY Times reports that head of DoJ’s Abramoff investigation nominated by WH to be a federal judge. Times claims “The White House had been poised to nominate Mr. Hillman for the bench last year.” They do not attribute this assertion to anyone or anything (like a press release). The sentence is just ‘out there’, very awkward. Read it.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:42 amThis is now, OFFICIALLY, a constitutional crisis. Anything short of a Fitzgerald-like special prosecutor means this investigation is tainted (look at the size of that taint!).
Bush let the cat out of the bag when he on that they really fear the pics in the november election, if Rove is this scared then things are really worse then the spin doctors want us to know.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:45 amThis administration has no record of, and no interest in, transparency. Why expect it now?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:46 amBefore too long, they’ll both be sewing garments in Saipan for ten cents an hour. Tom DeLay will join them.
That’s a picture that will be worth a thousand words.
Priceless, too.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:52 amAs we speak, the Democrats in the State of Texas are taking Governer Perry to task for using Cassidy and Associates as their lobby firm of choice. Comptroller Strayhorn is starting an investigation into the contract Texas has with Cassidy and Associates, an firm with relations with Abramoff and Rove.
That’s the State of Texas, folks.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:52 amBush says the pics aren’t relevant to the investigation. Well, not yet, at least.
Also, funny that he used the words “not relevant.” Did anyone else read the posting here on TP indicating that the company president of Reflections Photography, a studio that apparently shot some photos of Bush and Abramoff, deleted the photos because, in her words, they were “not relevant”? She said she did it, and that it was a business decision.
I wonder how many other photos they have that aren’t “relevant” yet continue to take up space in their database and on CDs in storage?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:54 amI’m sure the White House will play the “priveledged information” card when the next wave of hits come.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:58 amSo why does every one of those 18 out of a hundred post here? That’s my impression at least.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:59 amFeburary 6, 2006
PARLEMENT conveens and begins the Judiciary Commitee hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority.
I mean, if WE THE PEOPLE are ruled not by laws made by and of the people, but by men in high office, or in this case, a UNITARY EXECUTIVE, then WE THE PEOPLE no longer are a people of a Democratic America.
NO BODY
NO CRIME
NO HARM
January 27th, 2006 at 10:00 amNO FOUL
Yes Gus and comptroller Strayhorn also happens to be Scott McClellan’s mother and she left the republican party to run against Herr Perry for his office. Wonder how next Thanksgiving dinner at her house is going to go since another of her boys now runs the medicare part D program, not that there is any cronyism in the Bush Administration
January 27th, 2006 at 10:04 amkeep following the nixion line, deny, discredit, DISGRACED!
January 27th, 2006 at 10:07 amWC the photo’s that were deleated by the official repug photo source, were taken during the start-up bash for Ralph Reed’s then new lobbying firm, wonder what Bush was doing at a party for a new lobbying firm? One that Reed’s ole buddy Jack Abrarmoff attended, otherwise the photo couldn’t have been taken, circles in circles
January 27th, 2006 at 10:09 am#8 Of course it was a business decision.
The phone rang at Reflections, and the voice on the other end said that if they didn’t scrub the Abramoff photos, they were going out of business.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:17 amAmericans don’t need photos to know the relationship between Bush and Abramoff.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:19 am#16… yes but in this country it’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And those photos would be the begining of the proof.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:29 amIs the WaPo using that list of Donk contributors to conduct their polls again? Funny stuff.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:35 amI love the way Katie Couric made Howard Dean look like the ass that he is yesterday. The Dems took money too, people. All of these slimeballs, both Democrat and Republican, are guilty. So that means, of course, that nothing will come of this Abramoff scandel, because both sides are going to save their collective asses. Typical Washington politics.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:35 am“The Dems took money too, people” Not from Abramoff. New talking point please.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:38 amso, did katie “clarify that (her lie) for our viewers†this morning???
January 27th, 2006 at 10:40 amif so, i missed it…
but caught the end of this segment,with katie and matt, at 20 past the hour:
oprah’s 180 opinion of the writer’s ficionalizing his story “million little piecesâ€â€¦
said oprah to frey on her show, “the truth will set you freeâ€â€¦
uh huh…how ’bout that, katie? …the truth, that is…
The truth – that you refuse to acknowledge – is that the Dems did,in fact, receive money. The money did not go DIRECTLY to them, but to their campaigns, organizations, etc. If Dean and the rest of the idiot Dems in Congress want to hide behind this spin, they are more then welcome. Anyone with a brain can see through this smoke screen.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:45 amThis is possibly the most comprehensive argument to date:
“the pre-9/11 paradox”
Leaving aside the factiness of whether warrantless wiretaps could’ve prevented the attacks, this argument is also laughably illogical.
Consider: How could the executive branch have asserted a legal right to use wartime powers to avert the state of war under which they claim that authority?
If 9/11 had been prevented by the arrest of the plotters, their cases would’ve been handled as criminal prosecutions. How favorably would a judge look upon evidence gathered without a a warrant?
In the end, I welcome any & all chances for the White House to remind Americans how little they did in the months before 9/11/01 to keep Americans safe.
NO BODY
NO CRIME
NO HARM
NO FOUL
NO PHOTO
January 27th, 2006 at 10:51 amNO RELEVANCE
I heard Bush and Cheney Paid for those Photos? 140,000 Can anyone relate this?
January 27th, 2006 at 10:51 amThe list of Democrats taking money from Abramoff, courtesy of the FEC (that is the Federal Elections Committee, people)
* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700
Democratic National Cmte $65,720
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500
Democratic Party of Montana $5,000
Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250
Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500
Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Any questions?
January 27th, 2006 at 10:52 amYou can’t handle the truth! – You wouldn’t know what truth is unless someone spells it out for you in a book from large print media.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:53 amParadox Bush Cheney Spied on People before 911 so they can supposedly ‘SECURE’ the country, yet 911 still occured.
Doesnt that then mean that Bush/Cheney Spying was a Failure to National Security?
That these men perhaps should leave it up to those that do that for a Living?
That Bush and Cheney ignored the Able Danger Program, that Also helped National Security?
Man, these guys shouldnt have any toes left, they have shot them off one by one with no help from anyone.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:55 amwow – abramoff gave away ALL that money?
January 27th, 2006 at 10:56 amand to democrats, no less…
that’s very generous of him – but no wonder he’s
so broke that he’s shopping around those photos…
Any questions?
Comment by You can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Yes can you show me where those democrats were involved in Guns, and money to Terrorist Groups as Delay has?
And can you show me where these Democrats have confessed, as Abramoff has, to his crimes?
January 27th, 2006 at 10:57 amSo, Dean is on the box telling Katie Couric that no money went to Democrats. Who has had the time to resolve Mr Dean and Mr Can’t-handle-the-truth? He has a point to answer.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:59 amClearly, the measure of how corrupt someone is is not going to be determined by whether they got money from Abramoff. Rather I think it will be intimacy.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:01 amAny questions?
Comment by You can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Yes I DO, can you show Me a NON-Partisan, that means forget your PARTY BIAS and LIST those RELATED Directly to Abramoff?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:02 am#25 – Source? Link?
People with nothing to hide, hide nothing.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:05 amwhy do the trolls think that repeating bullshit gives them any credibility?
Try to talk to us without the crap. You might be surprised that we are capable of conversation.
btw – NO MONEY CAME DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF TO DEMOCRATS.
Got that troll?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:05 amgo for it, terry #30
January 27th, 2006 at 11:11 amlet’s see what YOU come up with…
To all of you:
My source, again, is the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMITTEE. You know, the guys that enforce election laws, and stuff? Are you actually going to try to refute that the Democrats took money from Abramoff? Look at the list. I’m not making this shit up. Think of your favorite Democrat, he is most likely on the list above. They are ALL guilty.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:12 amYou can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Please attach the link to the FEC.Gov page that specifically states that Democratic members of Congress received money directly from Jack Abramoff. Repeat: donations from Abramoff himself. Not Indian Tribes or other legal donors, but Abramoff himself.
Don’t bother linking to some list you found on a rightwing blog…we’re looking for a non-partisan government report saying that the money was given directly from Abramoff to Dems.
Can’t do it, can you?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:13 am#37-
Moron. Again, if you want to hide behind the smokescreen that just because no money went DIRECTLY from Abramoff to the Dems, go ahead. All that means is that the Dems are better at laundering the money then the Republicans. They learned well from Hillary and Bill, no doubt.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:19 amThis phony “truth” troll is engaging in a little misdirection. Yes, Democratic lawmakers did receive money from Indian tribes that were clients of Jack Abramoff. But merely asserting this as proof that these lawmakers are thus implicated in the Abramoff scandal misses two important points:
1) Contributions from Abramoff’s clients to Democrats declined after they became his clients. If they were basing their contributions on Abramoff’s advice, his advice was for them to give LESS to Democrats. Hardly the way to buy influence.
2) This scandal is NOT about legal campaign contributions. It is about illegal influence peddling in Congress. Thus far, the only lawmakers implicated (or even reportedly under investigation) are Republicans. “Truth” says that Democrats are “guilty” in this scandal with no evidence whatsoever to support his (or her) claim.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:21 am#35, I don’t have the time today to dig around. One of the main points that the media is picking up is that this is a bipartisan scandal. Well is it? Dean says no, Mr Cant-handle-the-truth says yes (without a link to his data, I grant you). Now Mr Dean at this point has a lot more gravitas than Mr CHTT, but still…
#37 Agreed Mr CTTT – the ball is in your court. Oh and listing Dems who had contributions from Tribes don’t count, sonny.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am#39-
Got any more hairs to split? Misdirection? Who is misleading who? You guys can rationalize this all you want. It doesn’t change the base truth that money changed hands between Abramoff and/or his clients and just about every Democrat in the Congress and many in state goverment.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am#40, so what I am hearing is that ‘Dems can handle the truth’ on this one…. Back to you Mr CHTT… If the Admin feels the same, then let’s have the disclosure, Chimpy. Mr CHTT – can YOU handle the truth?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:30 amAs we speak, the Democrats in the State of Texas are taking Governer Perry to task for using Cassidy and Associates as their lobby firm of choice. Comptroller Strayhorn is starting an investigation into the contract Texas has with Cassidy and Associates, a firm with relations with Abramoff and Rove.
Now, having repeated this, I’m not seeing this as a bipartisan problem when using the media as the barometer. It’s certainly not being conveyed this way in the conservative Dallas Morning News newspaper. This is portayed as a Republican scandal in Texas. We know better, trust us.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:31 am#41 – er no – cut the misdirection your self sonny and answer the question: did Abramoff give money directly to Democrats – yes or no? And produce the evidence or get st***ed.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:31 amFor example, I gave $35 dollars to Shell this morning (admittedly for a service which is now in my car’s tank), but does that mean I am directly responsible for paying off the security firms oppressing Nigerians in the Delta?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:33 amMoron. Again, if you want to hide behind the smokescreen that just because no money went DIRECTLY from Abramoff to the Dems, go ahead. All that means is that the Dems are better at laundering the money then the Republicans. They learned well from Hillary and Bill, no doubt.
Comment by You can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Link please. From the FEC.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:36 amPeople need to point out how Dubya has always been well known for his keen memory. He can shake your hand and remember your name three months later. Yet he suddenly can’t remember who he met.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:37 am#44-
The evidence is listed above, guy. Again, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. This smoke and mirrors defense by the Dems isn’t going to pass in the court of public opinion. And again, it doesn’t matter that the Dems didn’t get the money directly from Abramoff. The point is that money changed hands from Abramoff and his organizations, and went to Democrats and/or their organizations. The Dems are playing a dangerous game with their hypocritical accusations against the equally guilty Republicans. It is going to cost them dearly in ‘06, after all this dirty laundry is aired.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:37 amWhat sort of influence could be bought from a Dem. party which is out of power? That would not be money well spent.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:38 amYou’re normally stronger than this, Terry. Why are you fighting this guy? Leave it alone. Americans are aware that Bush is hiding this for a reason. Once again, the Bush White House is laying out for everyone to see how deceptive and secretive they are. But a hand full of people are playing the “Abramoff gave to Dems also” schtick. It ain’t sticking.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am“All that means is that the Dems are better at laundering the money then the Republicans.”
So being dumb at laundering is a positive attribute?
“I’m-a votin’ for the crim’nals that caint cover dere tracks!” -TruthBoy
January 27th, 2006 at 11:39 amBy a show of hands. What moron is unable to tell the difference between a fat Republican lobbyist and a large number of Indian Tribes?
I see one hand held by by You Cant Handle the Truth.
Ecellent.
-GSD
January 27th, 2006 at 11:40 amIf you release enough smoke and point the mirrors just right you can see a little money going into the hands of Democrats, even if it’s not Abramoff money you can say it is.
But if you look at things straight on, Abramoff was as Republican as Geroge W Bush himself.
Besides, the issue isn’t money, it’s bribery. Let’s see if both parties were bribed, or if only Republicans were taking bribes. It’s the bribery, stupid!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am“The evidence is listed above, guy.”
LINK PLEASE. FROM ABRAMOFF DIRECTLY TO DEMS.
If you can’t understand the distinction between the two, you haven’t spent any time on the FEC.gov site.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:41 am#41 Got any more hairs to split?
Nope. Didn’t have any before, either. Just pointing out the real issue. I realize that you don’t care, since you’re just a troll, but I figure others here might be interested.
Misdirection? Who is misleading who?
Um. You, at least, are trying to mislead anyone who might participate in this thread. Seems unlikely to work, though.
You guys can rationalize this all you want. It doesn’t change the base truth that money changed hands between Abramoff and/or his clients and just about every Democrat in the Congress and many in state goverment.
Heh. The truth is that no money went from Abramoff’s hand to a Democrat’s, and your ploy to qualify the false implication that it did with “and/or his clients” is transparent and pathetic. The truth is that this scandal revolves around the fact that Abramoff purchased the influence of lawmakers with campaign contributions, free meals, fancy gold trips and other perks, and thus far, the investigation into lawmakers who sold their influence has turned up only Republicans.
You can keep throwing out all the red herrings you like, but they won’t changed these facts. You may have better luck over at Free Republic or Lucianne.com selling your crap.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:41 amOK, I’m gonna dig up the post that came up last week listing all the FEC’s (on file) donations from Abramoff. When I’ve done that I’ll have nothing more to do with todays new troll.
Judd, do these guys have the same ISP or are we actually getting a new one every day?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am“Abramoff paid George Bush $100,000 to hide their chimpy love child.”
See? It’s written there right above this, so it must be true. The evidence is right up there where I typed it. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. You can try to hide from the Chimp-Love-Child truth (or maybe you can’t handle it!), but it’s right there on ‘the internets’ in black & white. Gotta be true.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:48 am“This smoke and mirrors defense by the Dems isn’t going to pass in the court of public opinion.” Well that’s the point isn’t it. If illegal contributions were made and influence peddled, the court of public opinion don’t matter one frick’n jot. Real courts matter, and if contributions to Dems by groups w/ ties to Jack are found to be legal than it seems to me that attempts to throw Dems under the wheels of this cluster fuck scandal are baseless, stupid and disingenuous. Three adjectives which could also be used to describe You can’t handle the Truth’s post here.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am‘Abramoff gave money to Dems too!’
“Lies, lies, lies, yeaaaahhhh!” (Picture the Thompson Twins song palying in the background.)
Try as they might, the ‘Phants’ and their sycophants just cannot find proof that Abramoff gave money to the Democrats.
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
Nope, not one Democrats name on the list.
Now that you’re ‘talking point’ has been completely discredited and your lies exposed to the light, what other line of calumny will the trolls trot out to get kicked by the Democrats? How about “Pres. Bush had sex!”?? That’s usually the line pulled out when the going gets tough for the ultra-radical right-wing lemmings.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amHere you go: it’s from Think Progress 1/18/06. Go down to post # 52.
My guess is that you HATE the thread that just came up that show’s you to be full of it.
Yuck Yuck.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:58 am#54 – JParker, they cannot find the evidence that Abramoff gave money to the Democrats because it doesn’t exist. Period. End of story. Buh-bye!
Too bad, so sad.
Come on, I’m waiting to hear a partisan hack bring it up: Pres. Clinton had sex, so it’s all his fault!
Your ’silver bullet’ argument is getting a bit tattered around the edges from the number of times this one is supposed to answer any critic of the current administration or Pres. Bush.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pmIt doesn’t change the base truth that money changed hands between Abramoff and/or his clients and just about every Democrat in the Congress
Just make sure you include the AND/OR in that statement, because without the AND/OR that statement would be a LIE.
(Actually you can properly just say OR, but AND/OR sounds more convincing doesn’t it?)
January 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pmMr CHTT – your failure to answer my question earns you a well-earned ‘get st***ed’. It seems you can’t handle the truth after all.
#50 not really fighting the troll, Gus, just exposing him. I adhere to seekers of the truth, not people who say they have the truth (Vaclav Havel)
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmThe proper line would be “…Abrarmoff and/or his clients that he plead guilty for defrauding…..,
January 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#60 – Kindness, that’s a WHOLE LOT of (R)’s on that list!
Interesting, I still cannot find a single (D) on that list, nor on the Open Secrets .org web site.
Now, since the Republicans are the so-called party of honesty and personal responsibility, it would be so completely unlike them (and their talking-head trolls) to try and tell an untruth, now wouldn’t it?
Well, I’m sure that since they’re the so-called party of “personal responsibility”, they’ll be more than happy to ask forgiveness for their lies, calumny, disingenuous arguments, and tortured logic to try and spin this news to include the Democrats. Since it’s been proven over, and over, and over again that this is a purely Republican scandal, they’ll HAVE to apologize!
Or prove to themselves and everyone on this site that they are just parroting more lies in support of the unsupportable corruption that their party has ushered into politics with the help of Abramoff.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#50 actually, with Katie Couric and Wolfy peddling the ‘bipartisan scandal’ BS, this is not hitting the streets other than a ‘Washington is corrupt, so what’. Looky here at how Pitt thinks this is panning out: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012206A.shtml
So shutting down the troll is important..
January 27th, 2006 at 12:09 pmIt is the topic of the thread so, I won’t be the first to say that Democrats didn’t get money from some companies & groups that also gave to repubs. They did.
And guess what? It’s LEGAL to take donations from groups.
The point of the whole Abramoff thing is that it has been shown that several PROMINENT republicans CHANGED THEIR VOTES after recieving money from Abramoff. DeLay, Ney, Burns. No Democrats have been shown to have changed their positions because of a contribution.
So, what we on the progressive side decry is the buying and selling of votes. That isn’t what a representative body is supposed to do. For a party to come to wield power under the mantle of honesty and integrity, this just shows us that there are individuals in the republican party who are louts and shouldn’t be in public office. they aren’t representing their districts.
That doesn’t mean that ALL republicans are bad apples. It also doesn’t mean that all democrats are virginal and pure. But to date, I haven’t seen a democrat’s name in headlines having been shown to have sold their vote to the highest bidder.
Now as far as virginal goes, it all depends…do you consider oral sex to be sex?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pmHey Bush, if you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to worry about!!!
Isn’t that what all you right wingers say? Ironically, Bush wants to be able to spy into every facet of regular American lives, but when it’s his right to keep Abramoff a secret.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:56 pmOnca again, Democrats only took money from Abramoffs clients, NOT ABRAMOFF. Moron.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pmWrong, until Abramoff’s clients are indicted or accused of crimes, the Democrats are still free and clear, because the money DID NOT COME FROM ABRMOFF. Idiot.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWrong again. Abramoff is the key and he is the one who was indicted and pleaded guilty. As soon as his clients are indicted, you got nothing. Stupid.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pmNope, never happened. Now you are straight up lying. LIAR.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#53 cynical ex hippie, put it best, very simple:
“IT’S THE BRIBERY, STUPID.
repeat often.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pmYou have posted evidence of nothing, but the fact that Abramoffs clients gave money to Dmeocrats. Nobody here disputes that, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATTER!
If you can’t “make this shit up” Post a god damn link. Zombie.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pmMy letter to the NY Times after DC bureau reporter hanged(hung?) on me:
To the Public Editor:
In today’s Times, PHILIP SHENON and ELISABETH BUMILLER write about Noel L. Hillman, chief prosecutor in the Abramoff investigation (Prosecutor Will Step Down From Lobbyist Case, Jan. 27, 2006). The following assertion is made:
“”The White House had been poised to nominate Mr. Hillman for the bench last year.” Top of paragraph 20, third from the bottom.
They do not attribute this assertion to anyone or anything (like a press release). The sentence is just ‘out there’, very awkward. Please read it http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html?pagewanted=print .
This led me to call Mr. Shenon, who had been very gracious a few weeks ago about a different question. When I asked him what the source of the assertion was he replied, “Other reporting, I think.” When I asked him to point me in the direction of a source he testily said, “It’s not my job to fact check with a reader, line by line.” I told him that I agreed with him that he needn’t fact check with a reader but that he should fact check. I asked if there might perhaps be some kind of White House announcement from last year (though why the White House would announce a potential nominee is beyond me). Mr. Shenon said something about ‘googling’ but failed to mention any keywords. So I just asked straight out if this assertion had been fact checked and he abruptly rang off.
The sentence is crucial in that it creates a distinct impression about the White House’s motives in nominating the subject of the article.
Thank you,
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 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 2:51 pmHey, what about SECRET SERVICE records? We know from the Clinton experience that executive privalege doesn’t cover it, and yu get a pretty clear picture of whom the President meets with, when, and for how long.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI watched the news conference without a translator (as the provacatuers at TP seem to need.) He said the photos were not relevant as he has a myriad of photos taken – he even noted “with some journalists” – even those you know he can’t stand. Your blatant misrepresentation in discussing the photos and the the wholly different topic of the poll question seems to confirm what some have long suspected. “Non-Partisan”????? Please…….
January 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pmMA those meet and greet photos are probably irrelevant except for fodder. But we know republicans would never take an innocuous photo and use it for political fodder, don’t we? The photo’s the white house fears are the candad shots, the one with the president and his people in less formal situations, ones that show a more intimate relationship than the preisdent is willing to admit.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#78 since he said so it must be so,
but I think that he’s really afraid of the one where they got a pic of Jeff Gannon doing the monica on him,
and he’s really afraid of pickles finding out cause she’s a real texan bride not one of those modern forgiving types and her frying pan is a whole lot bigger
January 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#78 its hard politics. A picture speaks a thousand words. Sure there are lots of photies, but like his relationship with Kenny-Boy Lay (Ken who?), pictures whicb show a closer relationship with Abramoff would be the equivalent of the stained dress (well maybe not quite that talismatic) with the public. This president controls his image like no other before him.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:09 pmMA, look at it this way, Many of us have created identities over at redstate to TALK to conservatives. Just about every one of us who had was quickly booted. I lasted a month.
So don’t come in here and yammer on about being holier than thou. Your bretheren WON’T let us in on their gig. But, bless his heart, Judd, let’s you lie and slander people here all the time.
Me, I’d a kicked your ass out a long time ago. I guess I’m not that far removed from your boys. Now that is something I don’t like about myself.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:38 pmAbramoff is a lobbyist. Abramoff clients are constituents. Dems accepted donations from their constituents. Dems did not accept money from the lobbyist Abramoff.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pmIt seems pretty clear and simple to me.
btw, Kindness, I’m pretty sure Can’t handle the truth = Innocent Lite
To all those who especially like to point the finger at Harry Reid; he is a Nevada Senator. 20,000 Native Americans live in Nevada. Ergo, Harry Reid has 20,000 Native American constituents. Constituents who make legal campaign contributions.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:42 pmHow long before we here: “The Abramoff photos are part of an ongoing terrorist ivestigation and have been classified.”
January 27th, 2006 at 9:42 pmNo one (Abrahamoff) working for republican lawmakers would help democtratic party lawmakers would they? That would be aiding and abetting the enemy. Any “rightie” trying to make an assertion that he (Abrahmoff) is, is only lying to make dems look bad. That’s their M.O. When they (repeat) these lies it’s not to convince dems – it’s to help convice their like-minded ditto-heads who are stupid and insane enough to go along with it. “Whatever” works.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:50 amkiana tom com
March 20th, 2008 at 9:59 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm