Comments on: On Message

By: Dave M.

Dave M. — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:01:57 +0000

That still doesn’t answer the question if those donations were illegal. For instance, I note a contribution of $2,000 to then Senator Max Cleland because “he was receptive to tribal issues”. That’s perfectly legal and is the reason most people and organizations give money to candidates (I doubt that anyone gives money to candidates who are unreceptive to the issues the donator feels are important). Again, all this shows is that the tribes were directed to give money to people who might be receptive to their concerns. To say that this without something more shows that anyone (republican or democrat) on that list did anything illegal is idiotic. Please explain why this in and of itself shows illegal activity.

By: randy

randy — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:01:29 +0000

The Washington Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts. http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/deborah_howell_.html

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:01:15 +0000

Looks like factcheck & Dean are going to need new talking points.

By: Dave M.

Dave M. — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:01:07 +0000

dr.p. I for one haven’t taken a position as to who will be indicted or found guilty in the Abramoff scandal (except Abramoff himself who has copped a plea and will be naming names in return. If I were a betting man I would say on the basis of all the evidence presented thus far and the reasonable inferences that can be made therefrom, that the vast majority will be republicans). My real point is to date there has been nothing presented, especially by you or other conservatives here to suggest that any democrat has been involved in taking any illegal bribe or illegal contribution. Merely “taking money”, i.e., a campaign contribution is not illegal. The assertions being made to the contrary that also single out and name individual democrats are simply dishonest. As I said earlier I don’t expect an answer to my query. I still haven’t received one.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:01:37 +0000

Democrats took no money from Abramoff. They did take money from Indian Tribes, which is not illegal or under investigation. Learn how to read, save chickenhawk.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:01:34 +0000

Let me clarify- Indian tribe money is under investigation, but only in connection with Abramoff. Indian tribe money is not inherently dirty, as is Abramoff money.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:01:10 +0000

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp And your link proves it! No money from Abramoff. Zilch. Nada.

By: Rational

Rational — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:02 +0000

A point that I believe was mentioned elsewhere (TPM) was to compare the Tribes contributions before and after Abramoff.
The examples cited showed that, at best, the D’s contributions remained level while contributions to the r’s went up dramatically.

This would speak against this being a “bipartisan” scandal.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:01:43 +0000

Oliver, isn’t this what you would call a photo op?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:01:30 +0000

Democrats are going to regret putting all their eggs in the corruption basket.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:01:25 +0000

Free Republic actually goes back and deletes all your comments from months ago when you’re removed? Wow, that’s Orwellian. Aren’t you now an unperson?

“What happened to Buma?”
“Who is Buma?”
“I don’t know, he used to post here”
“No Buma ever posted here”
“I could swear—–”
“It must have been your imagination”

By: drpedro

drpedro — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:01:21 +0000

Hey dave, when you were a defense attorney did you demand that people were treated as innocent until proven guilty?

Good, just do the same thing with this Abramoff thing and we will all be in agreement. So far no republican legislatures convicted, no democrats convicted. The score is even…….

We can start counting when the convictions come in, eh?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:01:17 +0000

Noone knows whether the money given to Democrats is illegal. All the more reason to have an investigation! (as libs would say)

Anyway, the point of bringing up OpenSecrets.org was to specifically refute Factcheck, who keeps trying to sell Dean’s line that “Democrats took no money.” The data says that is 100% false.

By: buma

buma — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:01:09 +0000

I think Mr Ed allows comments, but there are not many other con blogs that have them. Free Republic will purge comments that are not in keeping with their echo chamber circle jerk sessions. I have been through 3 different screen names as a Freeper, each time keeping it polite and middle of the road, but sooner or later they wind up shutting me down for having opposing views. When they purge you they will root out your every comment, going back several months to do so. It’s a different approach from the more progressive blogs.

By: Dave M.

Dave M. — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:01:37 +0000

Like I said in my original post – I don’t expect to hear an answer.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:01:20 +0000

DaveM.

If you were a defense atty for 25 yrs I don’t have to tell you about
evasion. You will need the patience of Job.

By: Dave M.

Dave M. — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:01:57 +0000

Semantic – I understand why a contribution might be illegal and the vageries of burden of proof in court (I was a practising criminal defense attorney for 25 years) I was wondering if any of the right wing types who troll here could explain why the contributions they trumpet as showing democrat complicity in the Abramoff scandal were in fact, illegal.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:01:51 +0000

DaveM;

It is not complicated to explain, just difficult to prove in court.

Basically any donation, perk or contribution is illegal if it is tied
to specific acts on the part of the donee. There has to be a
Quid Pro Quo, or tit-for-tat.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:01:33 +0000

Sorry Leo, I know you hate to have your echo chamber silence broken by facts and alternative opinions, life’s a bitch…….

But Ollie can ban us at anytime, we are spending his electrons you know…

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:01:33 +0000

No Peedy.

I actually relish the presence of you mental giants.

An echo chanber is really quite boring. That must be why

neocornhole sites so jealously guard their groupthink. That

gene pool makes a virtue of their lack of verve and originality.

Stewing in their own juices is haute cuisine to their tastebuds.