I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

You 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.

“IT’S THE BRIBERY, STUPID.

repeat often.

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.

Nope, never happened. Now you are straight up lying. LIAR.

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.

Wrong 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.

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.

Comment by You can’t handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 11:12 am

Wrong, 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.

The list of Democrats taking money from Abramoff, courtesy of the FEC (that is the Federal Elections Committee, people)

Onca again, Democrats only took money from Abramoffs clients, NOT ABRAMOFF. Moron.