Since you’ve decided to enter the conversation, let me ask you a very simple question:

What illegal act is suggested by Mr. Reid’s acceptance of campaign contributions from clients that also hired Mr. Abramoff?

I await your answer.

“What illegal act is suggested by Mr. Reid’s acceptance of campaign contributions from Indian tribes that were also clients of Mr. Abramoff’s?

Mr. Reid has acknowledged receiving contributions from Abramoff’s clients, but has said he does not intend to return the money because it represented legal donations. The sources said Mr. Reid is thought to have collected as much as $61,000 [emphasis added - fd] in donations from Abramoff clients, including Indian tribes.
“Senator Reid has done nothing wrong, and he doesn’t see any reason why he would need to return the money,” spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said last week.

You’ve been reading the Washington Times.

Surely you know that you need to double-check what you read in the Moonie Times by reading an actual newspaper.

Going by the initial names released, I think the GOP would be more than glad to let all five of the lead suspects go. How would you feel about trading Dorgan and Reid for the chance to get rid of Burns, Hayworth, and Ney?

Are you trying to be funny?

Just what problems, exactly, do you think Dorgan and Reid have? What suggestion of impropriety have you seen?

Let’s try this once more:

This isn’t about campaign contributions.

Abramoff is in trouble for theft, fraud, wire fraud, bribery, and money-laundering. Not giving campaign contributions within legal limits.

Yes, you can look at the FEC records and see that Mr. Dorgan received contributions–legal ones–from Indian tribes that also hired Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist. What does that have to do with any of the admissions Mr. Abramoff has made in court?

A Republican leader calls his Democratic counterpart:

“Hey, this Abramoff thing is getting ugly. I got an idea. We’ll get our three to resign, and you do the same with your two. Then we both lean on the respective governors and get them to appoint replacements of the same party, to keep the balance in the Senate. How’s that sound to you?”

J.

Of course, we’d have to set aside such trivial matters as actual guilt and due process and the like, but I always thought those were overrated.

J.

 That s not  tainted money.

And how, oh wise one, do you know its not tainted?

May I hazard a guess?

I think FB is using “tainted” as an eqivalent to your use of the term “Abramoff-related.” If Indian tribes donated money to a politician before they hired Mr. Abramoff, it’s more than a small leap to call that money “Abramoff-related.”

It’s possible that Indian tribes have bribed politicians without Mr. Abramoff’s help. So yes, it is possible for money to be tainted, but not Abramoff-related. However, no one has accused the Indian tribes of misconduct with either party!

But then you have to admit that the Abramoff direct money may not have been bad unless you can ID a specific quid pro quo.

Of course.

Making a campaign contribution is not against the law! Bribery is.

Did those Abramoff affiliated tribes and entities just pass the money to Democrats becasue they liked their shoe color

No, they gave money to Democrats–and Republicans too–because they were running a PAC, and that’s what PACs do!

FB is right. It’s not the campaign contributions that are causing problems for Mr. Abramoff. It’s collecting huge sums for “chairitable foundations” that make their way into the pockets of the wives of staffers, it’s the lavish junkets in return for favors, it’s just as you said: the quid pro quo.

When it hits the papers that Harry Reid or any other Democrat was involved in any of that kind of activity with Mr. Abramoff, this will become a bipartisan scandal. Until then, this pup belongs to the GOPers.

“That s not  tainted money.”

And how, oh wise one, do you know its not tainted? Inside sources? Media matters? Swami’s crystal ball?

Poor effort otherwise. Just for a starter: “Dorgan started receiving contributions from the Indian tribes before Abramoff started representing them”

So per your ‘reasoning’, if Dorgan got scads of cash from Abramoff and voted per Abramoff’s wishes, its OK, not a problem, because Dorgan ’started’ receiving the money earlier.

Pull yourself together, think more deeply, WD-40 the ol’ hard drive and try again.

The Mighty Dugger has Spoken

I don’t think you answereed my question from an earlier post in
which you seemed to make no distinction between donations
and donations tied to ’specific acts’.

Based upon your narrow defintiion you are correct. The question
remains who took action at JA’s bidding, and which of those acts
are provable(the dilemma of the smoking Blackberry) in a
court of law. Under my definition, 50-1 is a possible ratio.

Harry Reid started receiving contributions from the Indian tribes before Abramoff started representing them. That’s not “tainted” money.

Dorgan started receiving contributions from the Indian tribes before Abramoff started representing them. That’s not tainted money.

I haven’t looked at when Clinton received contributions from the same firm Abramoff was working for, but since that firm had a history of contributing to both GOP and Dems before Abramoff joined them, it’s probably unlikely that money is tainted, either.

Contrast that with Conrad Burns, who reversed his position on legislation after Abramoff directed his clients to give him money, or Tom DeLay, who laundered Abramoff money to pay for the salary of his aide’s wife, or Roy Blunt, whose wife and son are lobbyists for companies who contribute to his campaigns.

The GOP are neck deep in dirt, Dugger. Embrace it.

If you were to say this may become a scandal and that there may be more republicans involved than Ds, I would not be able to debate it very well. But to say it is a R scandal alone or even a largely R scandal is really not correct IMO. And you must admit, that Democrats like Dean are striving mightily on national televison to create that impresssion.

Dugger, Did those Abramoff affiliated tribes and entities just pass the money to Democrats becasue they liked their shoe color

Actually, if you are talking about quid pro quo money, 50-1 is a lot
closer to the truth than “bi-partisan”.

Try honesty and the reduction of denial. You’ll find it liberating.

Dugger

It’s like they think Rich Lowry will read anything critical they have to say, and then come over to their houses and be sarcastic at them until they cry.

Rich Lowry has a column up at National Review that a lot of people on the left are talking about. In it, he suggests that Republicans [...]