Abramoff rolls over and plays nice with the feds.

Don’t forget Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Safavian. And maybe Mr. Cunningham.

Actually, in the history books I see, he is referred to as “the last legally elected president of the United States.

We are waiting for an actual conviction& you know, like it says in the Constitution& .due process and all that?

You mean, the way you are still waiting for an actual conviction of Clinton before you hammered him for his alleged behavior? Or is that the way you have moved on from this incident from eight years ago and have started focusing on the institutional corruption of the party who promised to “bring back civility and morality to DC”?

Oh, wait…

My point was that Dean has some difficulty with truthtelling, as it applies to Republicans. I’m sure there are enough Republicans who will be, at the least, “stained” by this (for the moment, disregarding the Democrats) for there to be no need to make false charges about Republicans stealing from the Indians.

Here is the probable scenario. Abramoff rolls over and plays nice with the feds. In order to keep the feds happy, he says all sorts of things about quid pro quo etc. Unfortunately, there are never any witnesses, or, it is all said to some aide.

Now the defense attorneys come along and say that everything Abramoff said is just to try to get himself a lighter sentence, he is making it all up.

I am not even trying to determine guilt or innocence here, just what I see as the likely legal tactic. It is REALLY hard to prove quid pro quo unless you have a video of someone taking a handful of cash while saying “of course I will change my vote Jack….”

That is why this stuff continues to go on….

Which part do you have doubts about? That money was stolen from Indian tribes, or that “the Republicans” are to blame?

(Dean is clearly laying the blame on Republicans. No question about that.)

I think lobbyists buy mostly non-speciifc cooperation.

Yes.

However, if the Abramoff revelations live up to their advance billing, that’s not what happened here. Abramoff is expected to testify that he bought specific cooperation in exchange for favors, junkets, cash, etc.

That he is now cooperating with prosecutors seems to have a number of lawmakers–from just one party–looking nervously over their shoulders.

Waaay back up there, you wrote:

how about asking Dr. Demento Dean why he accused the Republicans of stealing money from the Indians?

Which part do you have doubts about? That money was stolen from Indian tribes, or that Dean is blaming the theft on Republicans?

Abramoff (along with his pal, Ralph Reed) bilked several tribes to the tune of several million dollars. They were pretty much caught (ahem) red-handed. A congressional committee has the emails to prove it.

Whether it’s fair to lay this at the feet of “the Republicans” is a matter for discussion.

So you agree that Dean’s argument that Abramoff didn’t himself ‘donate’ the money to Democratic poltiicians is, lets say, insufficient?

As to quid pro quo. Honestly, I bet it doesn’t work that way. I think lobbyists buy mostly non-speciifc cooperation. The lobbyists and the politicians know the law and probably realize some things can’t be openly said – but must be understood. “Here’s a $10,000 donation. How do you think that bill my clients support for a nuclear power plant on Nantucket will turn out?” If Sen Sludgepump doesn’t vote the right way, no more contributions.

Right on Cunningham. Cunningham sunk Cunningham all by his lonesome.

Semant, See above discussion. I don’t know at all, but I doubt it is so obvious. I remember some of the evidene at the Alcee Hastings bribe trial some years back and was struck by how non-specific certain things were. So I htink the line between the two types of donations is probably pretty vague. What if the Senator were going to vote that way, any way, for iinstance? Is it a bribe if he then takes cash from a lobbyist who is known to want all politicians to vote that way?

Dugger

Good for you! Just don’t start letting facts ever enter into your thoughts, and that won’t change, nor will the stupidity of your arguements in general :O)

Are you just playing around?

(Says the mobster: I work for Mr Capone and here s the the money, Mr Chicago Cop, for you to turn your head while we rub out a couple of DAs. Says the Cop: well Ok as long as Mr Capone didn t personally direct you give it to me.)

Clearly this is a quid pro quo, the line which marks illegality in the world
of Lobby money. Are you just pretending, or do you really think there
is no difference between donations, and donations in (provable terms)
exchange for SPECIFIC ACTS?

I frankly don t see a moral difference if Abramoff was a middle man to the exchange of funds or the physical entity that passed the bucks.

Nor do I. However, I do see a moral difference between those conditions and the Indian tribes donating money to politicians without any involvement at all by Abramoff.

Surely you don t think these Abramoff affiliated activities [entities?--QiB] are donating money because they like the Democrats wardrobes.

No, I suspect they’re spreading the money around to politicians of all stripes who support their interests.

The crime isn’t in the giving or receiving of campaign money. It’s in the quid pro quo. That, of course, is terribly difficult to prove, and that’s why the prosecutor has granted leniency in exchange for Mr. Abramoff’s cooperation.

I mean, per your view, we really don t know that all of the funds Abramoff PERSONALLY gave were for nefarious purposes, right?

Precisely right.

It could be that NONE of the money he gave personally was for anything other than supporting his favorite candidates. Once again, it’s what the congressmen agreed to do in exchange for the donation that makes it a problem.

When Mr. Abramoff starts naming names, we won’t have to speculate about this any further.

All you show now is that groups gave legal donations to lawmakers they felt would be favorable for their cause, who also used Abramoff to buy favorable votes.

Get Busy.

Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.

It is all downhill from here, in spite of the feeble attempts to change focus, or topics, or draw comparisons to events that are no longer relevant. This is happening now, and it is potentially devasting to republicans in general.

What Abramoff and Dean know hasn’t even come out yet! It is only going to get much worse for the Cons. (ervatives) and the only question is how many more, not if there are any more.

Who effin cares about Dems or whatever, the situation is with the corrupt Republican lobbying tactics and bribes, and that is who is indicted and named right now, and quite likely for the remainder of this.

You can argue all you want, Con supporters, but that fact is the fact is the fact is that it is Republicans who are in shit, whatever you wish else was true.

Did I mention the facts yet?LMFAO!!!

I think what you may be paying less attention to, though, is that Abramoff’s clients gained access to the congresspeople via Abramoff and gained same said access to buy influence. I frankly don’t see a moral difference if Abramoff was a middle man to the exchange of funds or the physical entity that passed the bucks. Surely you don’t think these Abramoff affiliated activities are donating money because they like the Democrats wardrobes. Whether by proxy or by person – same situation isn’t it. I mean, per your view, we really don’t know that all of the funds Abramoff PERSONALLY gave were for nefarious purposes, right?

Dugger

“When we see any indication that Abramoff directed money from his clients to Dems, you ll have a point. Too bad for you we aren t there yet.”

As additonal details come to light about the 45 Democratic senators that have taken Abramoff related money, we learn the problem is not (a) lobbyists’ money – its evidently OK to take that money for progressive causes (b) not Abramoff money – as long as the man himself did not physically hand you the money we can excuse that and now (c) you can take all the Abramoff organization cash you want as long as it can’t be PROVEN it was personally directed by Abramoff (Says the mobster: I work for Mr Capone and here’s the the money, Mr Chicago Cop, for you to turn your head while we rub out a couple of DAs. Says the Cop: well Ok as long as Mr Capone didn’t personally direct you give it to me.)

Dugger (Maybe Democrats had their fingers crossed when they took the cash)

45 Democratic senators that have taken Abramoff related money

Abramoff-related money?

Maybe we could cut through the fog if we can define that odd little phrase. What makes the money “Abramoff-related”?

As I understand it (and I could well have this entirely wrong), Abramoff’s clients gave money to Democrats. I haven’t seen any scenarios that describe Abramoff providing money to anyone who then passed that money along to the Dems, as your clever analogy suggests.

I’m hearing a scenario that runs more like this: On Saturday, I gave part of my paycheck to Mr. Capone for bootleg liquor; on Sunday, I gave part of my paycheck to Father O’Malley. Now that Mr. Capone has been caught, he claims that Father O’Malley is just as bad as he is.

If you want to talk about somemthing with the adults, it must be grounded in reality – not fantasy.

Sez the man who justifies his own fantasies by invoking Criswell.

I suppose if the Indian tribes that Abramoff stole from bought a pack of gum, the storekeeper was accepting tainted money as well?

When we see any indication that Abramoff directed money from his clients to Dems, you’ll have a point. Too bad for you we aren’t there yet.