Reuters, MSNBC Report Abramoff Email
By on Feb 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Reuters, MSNBC Report Abramoff Email
Reuters has published a story on the Abramoff email, “Abramoff Says Bush Met, Even Joked, With Him.” The report is headlining MSNBC.com:
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
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
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
The question really is: How much money did Bush demand and accept for whatever it was that Jack Aoff was selling?
February 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pmWell, we know that Bush got at least 25,000 dollars. I have seen a print of the check that was given, it has been distributed on the net so the question is what else?
February 9th, 2006 at 7:46 pmI jusst watched the first half hour of Blitzers 7:00 PM Situation Room and am happy to report that the whole half hour was devoted to the wrongdoings of your preznit.
THE LA PLOT
The preznit gloated today about his uncovering of a 1002 plot to hit a building in LA. They interviewed a young woman who worked at the bank. She stated that this was old news, they heaard about it at the time and went on to say “this is nothing but politics of dear in operation”, or words to that effect.
JACK ABRAMOFF
Wolf interviewed a guy from the Washingtonian magazine who has been in contact with Abramoff and has gotten some e-mails from him. He says there is no way the preznit can deny that he knows Jackie boy. After all his name is the first one on the Pioneer list. Abramoff tells the magazine that he met with the Shrub at several different venues, etc.
SCOOTER LIBBY
The report left little doubt in my mind who the “superiod” is that told Libby to release classified information to the press. He had only one in the VPs office, and that was the VP himselft. Of course, the other possibility is the preznit.
Things are really shaky around the preznit at this point in time and the campaign against the preznit and the pukes must be kept up.
Full bore ahead, go team go.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:50 pmIf I were Bush I’d deny, too. Nothing wrong with that.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIsn’t it all heresay, anyway? “Abramamoff” posturing for plea bargains or special treatment?
If Bush’s supporters are proven wrong, can we have our $2 trillion back?
February 9th, 2006 at 7:58 pm#5 – cynical ex-hippie,
February 9th, 2006 at 8:00 pmI’m more concerned about the next 2 trillion.
WaltTheMan,
True that.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:09 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261035/
???
Someone care to explain?
February 9th, 2006 at 8:13 pm#8 – this explanation helps.
http://mydd.com/story/2006/2/9/163540/9804
February 9th, 2006 at 8:23 pmEverything that needs to be said was said by Feingold (D) on Feb. 7 during the debate on the asbestos bill. Oh you missed it? Well so did everyone else.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:24 pmAbramoff is just a ranting fool who is trying to sink Bush out of spite
February 9th, 2006 at 8:26 pm#12. That’s weak. Got any evidence?
February 9th, 2006 at 8:28 pmSomeone care to explain?
Comment by Marc — February 9, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Sure, I will. Nowhere in that story does it mention any wrongdoing or illegal activity on the part of Harry Reid. All it says is that his staffers met with Abramoff’s staffers about common interests.
Moreover, despite all the efforts of Abramoff’s lobbying, Ried voting against the issues Abramoff was lobbying for. So, there’s no “there” there.
Look, if Reid’s involved in any wrongdoing, he should go down. But at least he admits he met with them, which is more than Bush is willing to do.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pmMarc, click here and all will be revealed:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007647.php
Of course the water carriers have to try and diffuse the Bush/Abramoff connection by falsely implicating a Democrat. It won’t work and it’s going to backfire on them, but they’re going to try like hell anyway.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:34 pmy’know ruppert – you may be on to something (tho it’s a sure thing you are just repeating “talkin points”) …but abramoff sure seems to be acting like a jilted lover…ahh, that “feeling of frustration”…
February 9th, 2006 at 8:36 pmQuoted from Feigold “The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king’s court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.
That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here – to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.
We need answers. Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. And I think that’s because they can’t explain it.
Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.
In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.”
February 9th, 2006 at 8:36 pmIt wouldn’t stun me if the liberals at the AP were throwing out something so blatantly wrong in order to shield Reid from factual criticism.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:38 pmOkay I see the arguements.
However, if your arguements are applied to the Republicans who were involved with Abramoff. Logically, this means most of the Republicans in Congress involved with him as “innocent” as Reid. ???
Sidenote: I’m being a devil’s advocate just for the sake of arguement because this is kind of confusing
February 9th, 2006 at 8:40 pmSee complete statement HERE
February 9th, 2006 at 8:42 pmI think the obsession with Abramoff will be dangerous for the Dems. In other words, I am all for it.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:49 pmYes, most would be. But there are a lot of republican Congressman. Lots!
So you don’t need to keep playing devil’s advocate, because we have plenty of the real fvcking deal here:
THERE ARE 60 REPUBLICANS THAT TOOK MONEY DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF. THE REST OF THEM, LIKE HARRY REID ONLY TOOK MONEY FROM ABRAMOFF’S CLIENTS.
PRESIDENT BUSH ALSO TOOK MONEY DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:52 pmThe obsession is for an accountable admin.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:52 pmAnyone else think the HOT! TIP! guy is kinda weird? No offense or anything. Different strokes and all that….
Marc, you’re dead on. If you apply a similar standard to republicans on Abramoff, Reid would be way down on the list of questionable actions. But that won’t stop the media from hyper-objectifying the scandal.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:54 pm“I think the obsession with Abramoff will be dangerous for the Dems. In other words, I am all for it.
Comment by Able Conservative — February 9, 2006 @ 8:49 pm”
Interesting choice of words. So you’re more concerned about how this will impact a political party – than whether your president may have accepted bribes. What gymnastics the partisan brain must have to do to produce this kind of conclusion from the available facts. I commend your gymnastic skills grasshopper. And I also forgive you for putting partisan politics before truth, honest, integrity and morality in our government. Too bad those values seem to hold so little currency with partisans.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pmTalking Points does a good job of disecting how Reid didn’t play ball with the ‘Abramoff related’ lobbying firm, despite the AP story’s rather misleading article. Not surprising that the republicans would try to push this into a bi-partisan scandal. This one appears to be pure republican bribery all of the way, and that’s a desperate situation coming into an election year. I’m sure they’re hoping to swiftboat with articles like this, instead of facing their own corruption in a mature and responsible fashion. Poor Republican partisans, they have so much passion, and so little integrity.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:27 pm#19
Here here. Amen Brother Feingold
Bravo Just Mike for bringing that to the board.
Archon
February 9th, 2006 at 9:31 pmHOT! TIP!,
February 9th, 2006 at 9:31 pmThe coastal fly-bys have been going on with China, North Korea and the former USSR since the middle of the Korean war. Just a foray into enemy territory to evaluate and locate defense radar. In that instance, a Chinese pilot tried to take down the probe by ramming it. He miscalculated and crashed into the sea because of damage to his plane. Still, the probe was damaged to such an extent that the American pilot decided to land on Chinese territory. Bad decision – he should have ditched at sea.
HOT! TIP!,
February 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pmW had a very successful poppy, an obsessive mother and a spoiled childhood. He was correct in trying to extract Osama from Afghanistan (dead or alive), but he failed because he wanted to outdo his father and enrich his campaign sources at the same time – he failed at that as well except for the enrichment part, instead, he bankrupted a nation. I guess that greed is the basic English term to describe his policies. But, perhaps, he is merely stupid.
I forgot envy.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:49 pmhot tip
Whats your trip with china? Who cares how many people they have. America has enough nukes to wipe out all life on earth. Nobody is taking our homeland. If we get rid of our need for oil we wont have much of a reason to fear what the outside world can do to us.
We should be working with china to usher in the next great migration. Just as all the ships brought so many people to the “new world” we human beings are beginning the private expansion into space. China would be a perfect partner for America. They are smart and love science and as they fear us less and less they will relax and their strangehold on power will no longer be neccessary with no great enemey to fear.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:05 pmYeah, you all are going to trust a convicted felon here?
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 8, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Why is it illegal for Jack Abramoff to give money to someone? He gave the legal limit, and he did it without strings.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:44 pmComment by Gary Ruppert — January 3, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
#50, Gerald, since 1945, the US has defined itself by who it thought its enemy was:
1. Soviet communism
2. Islamic fundamentalism
3. Chinese communism
The US without an enemy to put under the bed would have to look hard in the mirror at itself….much easier to have an enemy. There will be no partnership with China…
February 10th, 2006 at 12:20 amBush is lying as well about some phony terror attack in Los Angeles he supposedly stopped over 3 years ago > lol.
If the story was true he would have told the press at that time > lol.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:27 amThe plot doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I have handled and used explosives for years in the military, and unless you are damn careful and have a lot of experience with controlling the force direction of the blast wave then there is no way in a confined environment like an airliner any type of takeover by bomb make much sense. Even a one pound piece of explosive has a danger radius of 30-50 meters, and a hand-grenade has a kill radius of 20-25 meters. How far can you expect to get away on an airliner?
Why a shoe-bomb? If you want to kill yourself and take down the plane, a shoe-bomb might work but blow open the cockpit door? the overpressure would disable many in the plane if not kill them outright. Also since most airliners are already between 5-7 lbs above the outside air pressure, the chances of blowing out a window is very real. Given the speed of an airliner combined with a missing window in the cockpit flying at that time would be almost impossible.
This does not even speak to what damage would result in the area around the door where all the control wiring and hydraulics pass from the cockpit to the control surfaces of the plane. The attacker could gain entry to the cockpit but find the plane unresponsive thus unflyable.
I am not saying that bush did not speak from just the facts but given the planning that AL Qaeda has shown in the past this plan has a lot of probable bad scenarios that are beyond the control of the attackers. And the terrorists usually leave little to chance. The shoe bomb leave me thinking that this is more spin on some plot that the Asian countries foiled and reported to us. Since Richard Reid was captured at that time they spun the two together and report this today.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:33 am#56- Abramoff is a LOBBYIST!!! OF COURSE there are strings attached to the money!!! Otherwise there would be no need for lobbyists to even exist. Money is the attention getter that lobbyists use to bait their traps. And it works! Boy howdy, does it ever!
February 10th, 2006 at 1:46 amBono is Brian Peppers!
February 10th, 2006 at 8:14 am#21 – Gary Ruppert wrote:
“It wouldn’t stun me if the liberals at the AP were throwing out something so blatantly wrong in order to shield Reid from factual criticism.”
You mean like the MSM has done to keep Pres. Bush from being criticized for his illegal actions, mis-statements, lies, and non-action???
February 10th, 2006 at 8:49 amput me down for two 8×10’s and a dozen wallet-sized pics of Dishonest George and Dishonest Abe together when they’re released…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/02/picture-this-jack-abramoff-and-george.html
February 10th, 2006 at 10:01 am#12
Congratulations Gary Ruppert!
You have just posted the oxymoron of the year!
If Jack Aoff is trying to sink Bush out of spite he is not a ranting fool but a most perceptive gentleman.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pmIt wouldn’t stun me if the liberals at the AP were throwing out something so blatantly wrong in order to shield Reid from factual criticism.
Comment by Gary Ruppert #21
Scary Pookbutt,
You’re confusing sides…
…that’s YOUR side of treasonous inbreds who float fake documents…
…like Bushiva’s fake ANG documents that got Dan Rather in hot water, and once again convinced you sh*thead inbreds that Bushiva wasn’t (what in fact he is)…a deserter!
…and fake rumors…
…like the Swift Boat traitors’ lies about John Kerry…
…boy, you really are confused aren’t you?
February 10th, 2006 at 12:11 pm44,000 people died in car accidents in 2003.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:15 pmInstead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.
In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.â€
Comment by Just_Mike_{ô>ô} #19
Does this mean we’re going to war…
…with each other?
February 10th, 2006 at 12:29 pmIt wouldn’t stun me if the liberals at the AP were throwing out something so blatantly wrong in order to shield Reid from factual criticism.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:01 amAuto Loan
Bad credit auto loans could possibly be swell beneficial solution to track down a good bad credit car loans responsibility in the eletronic highway.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:25 amAsian Asian Schoolgirl Asian Porn Stars
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 8:23 amSchoolgirl Spanking Schoolgirls Schoolgirl Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 30th, 2008 at 10:38 amSchoolgirl Asian Schoolgirl Porn Japanese Schoolgirl Masturbation
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 6th, 2008 at 6:58 am