Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011

A Republican Scandal With Republican Criminals And Republican Politicians

Yesterday the Washington Times and their fellow right wing smear merchant, Glenn Reynolds, tried to peddle a story saying that Harry Reid was somehow involved in the growing Republican scandal involving Jack Abramoff.

Like 99% of everything out of the right-wing press, it isn’t true.

The Justice Department is not focusing on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada as part of an investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a source close to the probe said Wednesday in challenging a published report.

Once again, Howard Dean is right.

“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’s Growing: Republican Scandal Now Includes Governors

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

38 Responses to “A Republican Scandal With Republican Criminals And Republican Politicians”

  1. Quaker in a Basement says:

    The Washington Times is still peddling crapola today:

    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that Democrats took no money from Jack Abramoff in the lobbying scandal, but a public-interest group official said yesterday that they did accept contributions from the lobbyist’s clients, who were trying to buy influence.

    The same misdirection as before, insinuating that campaign contributions are the scandal.

    *snippage*

    But Republican officials and a major public-integrity group counter his assertion with a growing list of Democrats have received contributions from American Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to tax evasion and fraud in connection with his lobbying activities.

    In other words, “Abramoff stole money from the Indians, so if you got some, you must’ve stolen it too.”

    [B]oth Republicans and Democrats received contributions from Indian tribes that were represented at one time by Jack Abramoff,” said Lawrence Noble, executive director and general counsel for the Center for Responsive Politics.
    “So the answer to Dean depends on how you define scandal,” Mr. Noble said. “I would say, broadly defined as a question of the tribes’ buying influence in Washington, it includes Democrats.”

    Except nobody has yet accused the Indian tribes of being the problem here. They were the ones that got screwed over by Abramoff.

    The political news wire the Hotline has compiled a list of nearly three dozen Democrats who have received campaign contributions from Abramoff-related tribes. More than a dozen of them to date have refused to give back the money, saying that the contributions were legal.

    “Abramoff-related tribes”?

    Funny. He doesn’t look Native American.

  2. Semanticleo says:

    Misery loves company but Gateway Pundit fails to specify the
    smoking gun of SPECIFIC ACTS tied to any hot dog consumed
    or rented chair at the event.

    It is sheer desperation and panic. Donations are not enough.
    These people understand the concept of Quid Pro Quo.. But that
    doesn’t matter. Does it? Let’s just tar everyone with the same
    brush.

  3. Frank_D says:

    Let me get this straight: So what you’re saying is that this is a Republican scandal?
    Just checking…

  4. Quaker in a Basement says:

    So what you re saying is that this is a Republican scandal?

    Now, don’t go putting words in OW’s mouth, Frank. Haw.

  5. Frank_D says:

    far be it from to do such a thing ;)

  6. kodos423 says:

    We’re just a blowjob away from turning this into a bona fide scandal.

  7. cypher says:

    Pure Glennuendo.

  8. Three Cheers for the CRP
    A “Non-Partisan” think tank.

  9. elrod says:

    Too bad NRO has already called out this idiotic strategy. This is a Republican scandal, period.

  10. LeoStrauss says:

    Oliver,

    I haven’t visited in a while and am just knocked out by how elegant and attractive your blog is. It is so fun and easy to use.

    re Reynolds et al., great succinct rebuttal to their spin. My guess is we ain’t seen nothing yet, and the spin and distortions will go into hyperdrive when other indictments follow.

    Cheers!

  11. decorticator says:

     Abramoff-related tribes ?

    Funny. He doesn t look Native American.

    Perhaps he is Mormon.

  12. SSquirrel says:

    Nice piece, is this comment format a WP add-on or part of 2.0?

  13. Frank_D says:

    Maybe this explains why Oliver has posted this story three times already.

  14. Semanticleo says:

    Media in Trouble;

    Perhaps you would like to assist Frank in citing headlines which
    are liberally biased?

  15. shades says:

    They can spin all they want. Time will tell who gets indicted and who doesn’t.

  16. Frank_D says:

    Cleo, we’ve been over this already — that was your assignment…

  17. Semanticleo says:

    Once again Frank the chronology of events escapes you.

    And I was not addressing you. That is a Frank rule. Is it not?

  18. Dugger says:

    Quaker is obfuscating. What is being sought here is influence on the Hill for the tribes. They used Abramoff to buy influence and then at times apparently went VFR direct. Same deal. Money went to Rs and Ds on the ehill wuith the same end: concessions on poltiical conerns for the tribes. For there to be any sense to Dean’s argument you have to believe that influence pedddling is OK as long as it is not Abramoff doing it directly.

    If a scandal, its a bi-partisan one. Otherwise, it ain’t a scandal at all.

    Dugger

  19. midderpidge says:

    You funny Dugger. I think they need to spend more time explaining just why many of the things Abramoff did fell into the category of illegal influence peddling and bribery. It seems the details are lacking from the debate.

  20. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Let me try to make this clear for you, Dugger.

    What is being sought here is influence on the Hill for the tribes.

    True statement.

    There are two ways to seek that influence: legally and illegally. One may seek influence legally by hiring a lobbyist to present your case to lawmakers. That lobbyist may also advise you to make legal campaign contributions to lawmakers who represent your interests.

    Abramoff didn’t come up with this idea. It’s what lobbyists do.

    One may seek influence illegally by giving lawmakers cash, campaign contributions, trips, etc. in exchange for their vote or other official acts. That’s called bribery and it’s illegal.

    So far, Mr. Abramoff has admitted to doing exactly that with one lawmaker, Bob Ney. He’s also agreed to tell prosecutors all about his illegal activities with other lawmakers.

    In the course of persuing these illegal activities, Mr. Abramoff admits to several crimes in which he stole money from his clients for himself.

    That’s where it stands today.

    No one has accused any of Mr. Abramoff’s clients, including the Indian tribes, of doing anything illegal. No one has named a Democrat who received any cash, campaign contributions, trips, or other swag from Mr. Abramoff (or from someone else acting on Mr. Abramoff’s instructions) in exchange for votes or official acts.

    Now back to the Wash Times.

    The Times, a couple of days ago, printed a story citing a source “working with the Justice department”, that claimed that Reid and Dorgan were on the hook. The Las Vegas paper followed up with a story that contradicted the Times.

    The next day (yesterday), the Times followed up with the story dissected above. The writiers continually make a muddle of simple facts. The accusations (and admissions) of illegality are about bribery and fraud. The Times reporter conflates these accusations with “receiving campaign contributions” when there’s no assertion of illegal behavior in connection with those contributions.

    In a nutshell, if a pickpocket steals five dollars from you and I borrow five dollars from you, that doesn’t make me a pickpocket.

  21. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Quaker is obfuscating. What is being sought here is influence on the Hill for the tribes.

    No, he isn’t.

    Show me one–just one–story that indicates that prosecutors think the Indian tribes have done anything wrong.

    Dugger is misdirecting. Abramoff was stealing from the tribes and using the money for his own purposes. That the Indian tribes were clients of his does not implicate them in his crimes.

  22. Frank_D says:

    No, it isn’t Cleo: Frank’s rule is: When A is responding to B’s comment, you should not address A with a comment that is irrelevant to either A or B.

    It is related to “mad frameone disease” which involves pretending that A said X, when, in fact, A actually said Z, and then arguing that A is a moron (or an idiot) because everyone knows X isn’t true. At this point, the person suffering from MFD insists that, despite A’s protests to the contrary, he knows exactly what A meant, and, thus, A is not just a moron (or an idiot), but is now a liar.

    As of this moment, there is no known cure for MFD. There is some talk of adding it on to Jerry Lewis’s list of genetic children’s diseases for the Labor Day Telethon.

  23. buma says:

    Eventually it will be popcorn time, and it will not be the wingers who enjoy the show.

  24. Zappa says:

    Politicians accept campaign contributions regardless of where it comes from -the system leaves much to be desired, but these contributions are within the legal guidelines. What will come out is when these contributions are outside the legal guidelines and who benefited.
    My money is on Republicans being named in litigation – they spent a lot of time since the 90’s in creating this process and they did not share with Dems.

  25. Semanticleo says:

    Frank;

    You’ve got a lot of rules about comments.

  26. Dugger says:

    Quaker, So all of this political scandal, all of this “its a REPUBLICAN scandal” and the identifiable wrong done by pols is down to only one guy – Ney? All the Abe contributions, personal, proxy or tribe, to politicians and we have one guy (that Abe accuses). of course, you indicate Abe swindled the tribes – but thats not the same as influence pedddling.

    Logically, then it would be your contention that there is no real political scandal D or R?

    See, I don’t think Big Media got the word.

    Dugger, First Hiss was found guilty, then the Rosenbergs and now Sacco and Vanzetti. The liberal’s false world is imploding around them.

    Dugger

  27. Quaker in a Basement says:

    all of this  its a REPUBLICAN scandal and the identifiable wrong done by pols is down to only one guy – Ney?

    Let me revisit this first point, briefly. You qualified this with “wrong done by pols,” so to this point in the investigation, you’re correct. There are others, not elected officials, who have been implicated or who have accepted deals from the prosecutors. They’re also Republicans.

  28. Quaker in a Basement says:

    all of this  its a REPUBLICAN scandal and the identifiable wrong done by pols is down to only one guy – Ney?

    So far, yes.

    of course, you indicate Abe swindled the tribes – but thats not the same as influence pedddling.

    Correct. Read the criminal referral and you’ll see that Mr. Abramoff is accused of fraud and bribery.

    Logically, then it would be your contention that there is no real political scandal D or R?

    Mr. Abramoff has pledged cooperation with the Justice department in exchange for leniency. They have half a million emails to sift through. The storm is yet on the horizon.

    See, I don t think Big Media got the word.

    You may have a point, but I have no idea what it is. If you think that “Big Media” has misrepresented any of the facts you clearly delineated above, I’d be happy to look at examples with you.

    Hiss? Rosenbergs? S and V? WTF?

  29. billOfatlier says:

    Hey Dug. Wake up and smell the indictments. It smells like onehunert percent elephant dung.

    Predictions when enough repugs do the perp walk to lose control of the impeachment process in the house:

    Special prosecutors are fired ala the Nixonian ’saturday night masacre’. Followed by a red level alert on the bubble gum meter. At that time, depending on the bushcos level of fear and involvement, you will see another nineeleven or a fear of such.

    Our dear leader in deepest concern for his citizens will be forced to declare martial law for our own ’safety’. Under martial law our heir leader has the authority to postpone elections until Zel determines ‘eis eit zaafe?’

    Martial law and postponed elections will only be lifted when the ‘terroristos’ are defeated.

    Which will be never.

    Ok. people. It is time to crack some books. Start with writings and quotes of Joseph Paul Goebbels. Mein Kempf runs a little long and is quite tedeous but start with chapter nine if you must. (remember to pay for it in cash at Borders. I had a Mel Gibson Catcher in the Rye moment when I pulled out my credit card to buy it).

    The threats are real and they are spectacular.

    Even if you suffer paranoia there are times when they ARE out to get you.

  30. Dugger says:

    So we’ve got Ney and you’ve got Jefferson D/La.

    Yet corruption is all a R scandal.

    I don’t see it.

    And the Hiss stuff was correct but gratuitous BS on my part. It need not be acknowledged.

    Dugger

  31. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Yet corruption is all a R scandal.

    I don t see it.

    Patience.

  32. Frank_D says:

    Yes, Cleo, and they are designed for your well being, so, in that sense they resemble leftist – originated regulations: If I say they are for your own good, you must obey them.

  33. Semanticleo says:

    Yes Colonel Klink, I know exactly whay you mean.

    But I think I’ll do whatever the hell I want anyway.

    Your Hogan

  34. Semanticleo says:

    Someone else couldn’t wait to feed at the ‘K’ St trough. Nothing wrong
    with networking, but I think a longer cool-off period is needed before
    Beltway types can cash in.

    http://columbiatribune.com/2006/Jan/20060113News005.asp

  35. Frank_D says:

    From the above cited article:

    While Ashcroft s lobbying is within government rules for former officials, it is nonetheless a departure from the practice of attorneys general for at least the last 30 years. While others have counseled corporate clients or perhaps even lobbied in a specific case as part of law firm business, Ashcroft is the first in recent memory to open a lobbying firm.


    Is there a point you were making?

  36. Semanticleo says:

    What? No non-sequitur rant?

    What is it you don’t understand about;

    “Nothing wrong with networking, but I think a longer cool-off period is
    needed before Beltway types can cash in.”?

    The ‘point’ is contained in above statement. I can’t make it any
    clearer. Sorry.

  37. K-Man says:

    Weigh-in: If you bribe one side, you bribe them both. Lobbyist rule. That way, you get influence no matter how the tides ebb and flow. It’s not only time-honored scummery, but it’s common sense. Politicians are sleezebags, in general. Money/power don’t make them so, it’s just a requirement of the job. Only in this oddly secular era are the religious, who are losing a foothold, trying to do something about it. It’s about freakin’ time!

    Next, I think the scariest part in all of this is the idea of contribution reform. In plain talk, this would involve a cosmetic non-solution designed to impress the simple minded and garner a Dem victory somewhere, because God knows that they need one. Basically, they would decide how you could legally bribe them, whilst the public gives thunderous applause. What’s worse is that you would have some elephant/donkey hybrids (not so affectionately called rhinos by certain talk show hosts) flapping in the wind, acting like whatever leftist came up with this idiot notion is a genius.

  38. Semanticleo says:

    “Only in this oddly secular era are the religious, who are losing a foothold,
    trying to do something about it.”

    WTF! You mean like this?…..http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915.html