Monday, January 09, 2006

Howard Dean Lies To Wolf Blitzer

Howard Dean had the gall to tell Wolf Blitzer that NO Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff. Watch the video HERE. That's a bald faced lie! Here's the proof...

Jack Abramoff, Indian tribes he represented and people connected to his SunCruz casino boat company gave a total of $4.4 million to more than 240 members of Congress and political committees from 1999 through 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. Some tribes may have given money at their own initiative, separate from Abramoff's advice.

Democrats

Rep. Patrick Kennedy, R.I., $42,500

Sen. Patty Murray, Wash., $40,980

Rep. Charles Rangel, N.Y., $36,000

Sen. Harry Reid, Nev., $30,500

Sen. Byron Dorgan, N.D., $28,000*

Tom Daschle, former senator, S.D., $26,500

Brad Carson, former congressman, Okla., $20,600

Rep. Dale Kildee, Mich., $19,000

Rep. Steny Hoyer, Md., $17,500

Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa, $15,500

* - Returned at least some of the contributions or donated them to charity

18 Comments:

At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That money does not come from Abramoff's pocket. Some of it is from Indian tribes that did deal with Abramoff. But there's no proof that Abramoff directed it to any democrat.

Just like Dean said!!

 
At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abramoff Gave Only to the GOP

Though Republicans are desperately trying to link Democrats to Jack Abramoff, Hotline On Call says their claims are false. "Abramoff has never personally given money to a single Dem. All his personal and family contributions went to Republicans."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/04/abramoff_gave_only_to_the_gop.html

This Statement Is False

"Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received."

That's courtesy of the NRSC.

But it's not true.

Abramoff has never personally given money to a single Dem. All his personal and family contributions went to Republicans.

Yes -- many of his clients contributed regularly to Dems and GOpers. And maybe some of those donations influenced the actions of elected officials. But if the question is: was Jack Abramoff a Republican? was he committed to furthering the GOP agenda? The answer, clearly, is: yes. [MARC AMBINDER]

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/this_statement.html

 
At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You idiot that's the whole charge that Abramoff laundered cash through Indian tribes to politicians. Why do you think Dems are giving the money back? MORON!

 
At 4:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YEAR YOU BIG FREAKIN M-O-R-O-N!

 
At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I MEANT YEAH, NOT YEAR. WHOS THE MORON NOW?

 
At 10:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's watch Rick Keller sleaze his way out of this.

 
At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:27,

Simple answer for you my insult slinging friend...

1) "People connected" is a very, very vague phrase. I'm sure you understand that. Keep in mind Casino Jack was running his own secret lobbying effort seperate and secret from his day job at Greenberg Traurig.

2) If #1 is true then you should realize that tribes give for reasons other than (Republican) jack abramoff defrauding them on his lobbying sales. I'm not saying its not for something else that might theoretically be dirty, but it's the obligation of the GOP to prove that before making the accusation that Dems are involved too.

2b) giving back donations is just a way of saying that the politician doesn't want that money from that source anymore. it could also mean they now disrespect that source. it could also mean that the money was dirty. it could also mean that they don't want it to be an election issue for them, regarless of their involvement. With all of these possible explanations how can you jump immediately to one idea as the only viable explanation? that's closed minded thinking.

3) Ney admitted that he was congressman #1 in the plea agreement. DeLay of course was involved too (writing letters, setting up meetings, etc.) So there are some Republicans involved.

4) There are no Democratic politicians specific actions being implicated in helping Casino Jack.

5)If you look at the list of Dem's supposedly involved, other more rational explanations are easy to come by.

EXAMPLE 1: Rep. Pat Kennedy helped restart the modern day Indian Affairs Committee. So the tribes of course like him. He has created a venue for their lobbbying and complaints.

EX 2: Sens. Reid, Murray, Dorgan, Daschle are all in states with substainstial Indian populations. Daschle was the most prominent political leader to visit the tribes in his state regularlly. Those tribes provided the margin of victory for his senate colleage Tim Johnson back in 2002.

Reid as Dem leader presumably recieves more out of state contributions than most of politicians.

And who's the other Dem on the list... Gephardt! I assume the same goes for him.

Conclusion: Again there is no DIRECT proof against any Dem, as Dean claimed. There is direct proof against Ney and DeLay. There are also many plausible reasons why the Dems got tribal money wholly unrelated to Abramoff (I didn't even mention that Greenberg Traurig, a bipartisan lobbying firm Abramoff worked for skews Dem involvement too, not just the tribes.)

Case closed: Dean was accurate.

 
At 7:46 PM, Blogger wayTOtheRIGHT said...

than why are they giving the money back.

if there are no dems involved than why are they not standing on their well worn soap boxes and screaming at the top of their lungs.

my guess is that they are in many cases just as guilty as any republican and they no it.

anon that convaluted answer you gave sounds like my 10 yr old daughter trying to explain why she needs a cell phone.

 
At 8:41 AM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

...or, Dean/Blitzer was "staged". An act. CNN is notoriously "Dem" friendly, as NBC and CBS... Why not continue the denial, counter accusations, and personal attacks. Democan or Republicrat, you decide.
Why not go on to a friendly forum, stage an "argument", project "anger" and attempt to build CNN's falling ratings, shore up the base so to speak. ...and CNN is saying, "We confront 'all' sides." Dean goes on there to project defense of "middle American" values, A tough guy blinking contest, saying, "Look, I stood up to 'intense' questioning."
Dean is vapid. Blitzer is pink. Abramoff is filthy. Daschle didn't get re elected. Whomever received money/comps and returned them, is making the "smart play". Now, if we could find out how the FBI files ended up in Madam President Hillary's office, Vince Fosters accomplice in his "suicide", where the Chinese benefactors for Clintons campaign ended up, why Clinton and Bush I are hanging out, what EXACTLY was "misplaced" in Bergers skivies, why "Able Danger" has been snuffed, why we haven't stomped the ever lovin' Shiite out of the Suni Triangle, how close is Bush II to his nephew in Mexico who works for Fox, why we can build a bomb in 3 years and use it in WWII, but can't close our back door in 4 etc etc.

Or, maybe Dean has a pretty mouth and has begun to squeal like a hog...

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

wayTOtheRIGHT,

The Democrats are making this an issue because it's good politics and needs to be addressed politically. Just as the Republicans did with the Rostenkowski scandal.

BTW, I'd like to see yr spawn use Rostenkowski in a sentence!

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This just in about yr probable new Majority Leader Roy Blunt. Y'all don't learn yer lesson, then y'all get spanked in 2006, hear?

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/blunt_tribal_timeline1.pdf

 
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This from the NRO! From their top editor!

The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway):
It’s the Republicans, stupid.
by Rich Lowry


Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake. The first step was the permanent ouster of Tom DeLay as House Republican majority leader, a recognition that he is unfit to lead as long as he is underneath the Abramoff cloud. The behavior of the right in this matter contrasts sharply with the left's lickspittle loyalty to Bill Clinton, whose maintenance in power many liberals put above any of their principles. Next, Republicans will have to show they can again embrace the spirit of reform that swept them to power in 1994.

To this end, GOP lawmakers are rushing to introduce lobbying reform. Anything that increases transparency is welcome. But lobbying reform's animating pretense is that lawmakers are all upstanding — until they come under the corruptive spell of lobbyists. In every transaction, however, there has to be a willing buyer and seller.

There are two deeply rooted sources of corruption in Washington. One is that many members of Congress believe that they would be making much more than their $160,000-a-year salaries if they were in some other line of work. This sense is compounded when they watch their former 30-year-old aides go to work on K Street for $300,000 a year. This is how someone like Tom DeLay — otherwise a conviction politician — justifies playing the best golf courses in the world on someone else's dime and getting special interests to funnel easy money to his wife.

It will be a sign that Congress has learned something if it bans all privately funded travel. If a trip is truly educational and necessary, the public should fund it; if, on the other hand, a member of Congress wants to enjoy fine resorts, he should quit, practice law (or whatever), and earn the income to support his desired lifestyle.

The other problem is that Washington makes obscure decisions that enrich small groups of people. Most everyone in Washington supports making these decisions because it increases his or her power. But if Congress really wants to lessen the malign influence of lobbyists, it should reform the inherently corruptible process whereby the Interior Department recognizes new Native American tribes so they can mint money by opening casinos, and end the practice of "earmarking" federal dollars for local and special-interest projects. It's no accident that Abramoff saw the business potential in both of these processes.

Of course, making these sort of changes would be painful. That's why it is tempting for Republicans to look for a John McCain instead.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sickboy,

Was Lowry bought off too? :)

 
At 1:50 PM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

Dear whomever,
I may not have stated my position very well. I reserve my right to amend my statements in the future. Whether or not there are more of one party vice another, my point is "Two Card Monte" is not a choice. Republicrats or Democans- You decide. This scandal is a upper level pissing contest. If "Casino Jack" is guilty, whether D or R, hang 'em from the "Yard Arm", along with ALL the others. Ethics are lacking on ALL sides. My hypothesis still stands. Abramoff got caught doing something illegal TS for him. The 100x lense should be inspecting all the knuckleheads in the PUBLIC service arena: Equally, not when it is convenient for one's agenda, and in particular, when this agenda is driven by malice vice equal justice for all.

"The other problem is that Washington makes obscure decisions that enrich small groups of people. Most everyone in Washington supports making these decisions
because it increases his or her power. But if Congress really wants to lessen the malign influence of lobbyists, it should reform the inherently corruptible
process whereby the Interior Department recognizes new Native American tribes so they can mint money by opening casinos, and end the practice of "earmarking"
federal dollars for local and special-interest projects. It's no accident that Abramoff saw the business potential in both of these processes."

CNN is falling in ratings, FauxX is steady. Even MSNBC is attempting to pull itself out of the gutter. Cosby is now on MSNBC along with a few others from their competitors. Throughout history, there has been "staged" events in hopes to gain or polarize the mass. ...and it doesn't mean those who prepare in an effort to be succinct. I am a bit young to know the intricacies of ABSCAM, or "Watergate", or others. Yes, one will politic to get the things done they want done, it's human nature. Maybe, just maybe, it is FINALLY time to throw the bums out for trash, and elect INDEPENDENTS for once. Lord knows, I've written everyone I can on numerous topics, ever heard of S-147? Check into it, it deals with "recognizing Pacific Islanders, and others, as American Indians. What's this have to do with Abramoff? Well, check it out for yourself. U.S. Senate: S-147. I wrote Senator Martinez, he replied. Wrote Senator Nelson too...(crickets chirpping) Bill? Bill Nelson?... you get the point.
Ahh, I digress. Apologies. Remember, it is an election year. Don't forget it. I am for SMALLER government. I am for CHARITY, not extortion. I believe in personal responsibility. I do not believe in, or live upon, the "Plantation". Maybe we should look at ALL the facts in D.C. Maybe this won't stop until Socialists rule the roost? Since November 2001, the volume has been getting turned up every cycle, more vicious, more smearing, more Bravo Sierra. It ain't gonna stop until post 2008, or until the next real attack upon our shores... then again, more people are paying attention to this crap than the Global Jihad, Constitutional de construction, and the deevolution of people as they pertain to adult child sex etc etc.
"That's all I have to say about that."
Gump.

 
At 9:32 PM, Blogger wayTOtheRIGHT said...

Sorry for the click and paste. but i am not smart enought to remember all these facts and try to re-type them.

so this is from yahoo news

asteriks added by me so all these anonomyous lefties can read the important parts. since reading to much makes them grumpy because they have to read the truth.



Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton's fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren't the problem. The system is.

*** It's absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. ***

Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.

Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her "New York Senate 2000" fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.

The in-kind contributions of shady entrepreneur Peter Paul, who was convicted of three drug and fraud felony counts in the 1970s and 1980s and has also admitted to stock manipulation, were understated in the committee's filings by nearly $722,000. Paul claims he spent nearly $2 million on an August 2000 celebrity concert at a Brentwood, Calif., estate for President and Mrs. Clinton.

Then there's Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer's 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers' votes.

The DSCC and Hillary's campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It's that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

*** Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. ***

*** All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC. ***

And how about Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, who took $36,000 from Abramoff's Indian clients, then gave the New York Post a Marx Brothers skit in response: "I don't know Abramoff, have never met Abramoff and have never accepted a political contribution from Abramoff. But if I do find that any contribution I have received was made at the behest of Abramoff, I will return it."

Abramoff -- and all the sleazy middlemen who may never be caught -- are byproducts of the misguided post-Watergate campaign reforms that actually encourage political money laundering. We need an end to individual contribution limits and to stealthy political action committees. We also need full and immediate transparency regarding those who give -- personal details, occupation, etc.

Only a system based on public visibility will prevent future Abramoffs -- and make sure those we elect aren't being bought off


I hope that all the anon posters read through this so we can get past who got bought off, but get to the real problem.

we have to hold these people accountable.

we have to vote out of office those who are crooked.

vote fresh blood into the process and than hold their politcal feet to the fire.

both parties are at fault.

and both parties need to be PUNISHED!!!!!

 
At 7:12 AM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

"Triangle, how close is Bush II to his nephew in Mexico..."

Error: Change "nephew" to "Brother in Law".

 
At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does one really expect from Howard Dean? The man would not know the truth if it slapped him in the face.

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent.

By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent.

In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.


http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=10924

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home