I don’t understand why all of these people waited until today or yesterday to get rid of the Abramoff money they took, but it seems they should have done that a while back:
At least 24 politicians have now pledged to relinquish $515,199 in Abramoff-tainted campaign cash, including some of the most powerful Republicans in Washington. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) will give up at least $60,000. DeLay, the former House majority leader, has pledged to donate $57,000 in Abramoff-linked contributions to charity. And acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) plans to shed the $8,500 that Abramoff and his wife donated to his political action committee.
Also, I have no intention of trying to turn this into a bi-partisan scandal (like CNS News appear to be trying to do with this one page package of lies), as it seems pretty clear to me, at least, that this is a pretty much Republican dominated scandal, but this seems odd:
All but three of the 24 politicians giving up the funds are Republicans. The three Democrats — Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.) — have pledged to shed a total of $97,000 in contributions. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Reid has no intention of shedding the $47,000 he has received from Abramoff’s lobbying team and tribal clients.
“Abramoff was a Republican operative, and this is a Republican scandal,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. “Any effort by Republicans to drag Democrats into this is doomed to failure.”
Either the money is tainted, or it isn’t. Someone fill me in why this stance by Reid makes sense, because I am not seeing it.
*** Update ***
Never mind. I misread the story. I understand the distinction now- it is the same reason that the CNS news story is nonsense. Just a liitle slow on the uptake today.
*** Update #2***
Via Ross Douthat guest blogging at Andrew Sullivan’s joint, this David brooks quote:
I don’t know what’s more pathetic, Jack Abramoff’s sleaze or Republican paralysis in the face of it. Abramoff walks out of a D.C. courthouse in his pseudo-Hasidic homburg, and all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too.
That’s a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us . . .
Ouch.
Doctor Gonzo
I think the difference is between money that Abramoff gave himself, which only went to Republicans, and money that Abramoff’s friends (i.e. “lobbying team”) gave, which went everywhere.
tbrosz
Patrick Kennedy also believes he earned that money fair and square, and is keeping it.
Steve
Money from Abramoff’s CLIENTS isn’t tainted. It’s nothing more or less than campaign contributions. The clients didn’t do anything illegal to get the money, and they didn’t do anything illegal when they donated the money. The only way there would be something illegal is if there was a quid pro quo, which is to say, an actual bribe.
Abramoff himself, on the other hand, raised money through a lot of illegal devices. Any money personally received from him is dirty or potentially so.
Politically, maybe it makes sense to act like you’re cutting ties with everything having to do with Abramoff, particularly if you’re a Republican. And the more people who start donating this money to charity, the more pressure there is to join the crowd. But as it relates to contributions from Abramoff’s clients, it’s a purely political calculus, there’s nothing actually wrong with the money.
Ozymandius
I think he means the tribes had already bought his support before Abramoff arrived on the scene.
ChristieS
The simplest reason I can think of offhand is that Reid received money from tribes that regularly contributed to him before they took on Abramoff as a lobbiest.
If they were regular contributors BEFORE Abramoff, then I don’t see why Reid should send it back. I don’t see why ANY of them should send back money that was contributed legally. Perhaps I’m too pragmatic though.
Also, as I understand it, legal contributions aren’t the problem here. It’s the alleged bribery, money laundering and other assorted crap that is bringing down Abramoff and company.
demimondian
If the tribes in question had been giving money to him before they contracted with Abramoff, or if they gave money for other reasons, then why is the money tainted? The TRIBES aren’t tainted — they have a legitimate business interest in having “access” to Reid, both as minority leader and as a figure in the gambling industry.
I’m not saying that the money is or is not tainted. You should wait and see, too. It looks bad — but that doesn’t mean it *is* bad.
capelza
If Reid and Kennedy jumped on the “giving it to chairy” bandwagon they would be seen as acknowledging the money they got from the tribes was indeed tainted. By sticking to their guns and keeping it, I think they are trying to separate themselves from the slightly (in the least) act of just giving the money back now.
Steve
The refusal to give back the money makes it appear to me, as someone familiar with the details of the scandal, that it’s incrementally more likely that Reid is innocent of any wrongdoing. It seems to me that if he had done Abramoff or his clients any actual favors in exchange for these donations, he would be highly motivated to join the crowd and donate the money to charity, hoping to avoid sticking out like a sore thumb.
To those like John who are just now trying to understand the details of the scandal, Reid’s actions may give the opposite impression, which is why I explain above that it’s a purely political calculus. Although I would ask, if Reid actually did take a bribe, why in the world would he choose to attract attention to himself like this?
capelza
That should have read slighty (in the least) suspect act.
Stormy70
Didn’t Hillary just return some money, as well? TTG.
Too Tired to Google
Steve
My morning paper reports that Hillary returned her donations, but the irascible Charlie Rangel did not.
It is, of course, completely consistent with Hillary’s politics to choose the “safe” route.
Ed
A Senator from Nevada receives contributions from hundreds of people in the Gaming Industry and Patrick Kennedy recieved donations from 110 Native American tribes as ranking Democrat on the Native Affairs committee . I think they are both saying that contributions from 3 tribes that also happen to be Abramoff clients, but none from Abramoff, does not tar them personally any more than any other interest group contribution.
tbrosz
So let me get this straight: Reid is the only politician in Washington who doesn’t do contributors any favors for their campaign contributions?
Stormy70
Link to Hillary story.
This will muddy the waters for the Dems in my opinion, since some are giving money back from the clients of Abernoff and some are not. It is the typical Democratic unity we are seeing in every other major political issue. This may not be effective politically if some are keeping the money, because it opens them to attack by the Republicans. The money is either tainted or it is not.
DougJ
Stormy and John: you’re right, both parties are equally guilty here. I just hope the voters realize this.
capelza
Stormy…I think what Reid and any others are doing is separating symbolically what was legitimate campaign donations from the tainted money that Abramoff that will cause several politicans grief.
Ed a few posts above you said it very well.
Though I agree, as usual the Dems aren’t the snappy drill team they should be. Personally, if I was one of these guys, I would have said the money I received was honest, I have no reason to give it back. By not doing so it raises, rightly or wrongly the little radar. Hillary really wants to be a Rockefeller Republican, going back to her roots…that is all I can figure. It doesn’t impress me.
Ancient Purple
In the case of HRC, it is not. She received the money from a client of Abramoff, not from Abramoff. One only has to check the FEC records to see that Abramoff did not give any money to HRC or Rangell.
Stormy70
Most people will tune the distinctions out, since this is another boring “all Congess is corrupt” scandals. It just confirms voters’ suspicions. Since all politics is local, and “my congressman would never do such a thing, look how much pork he’s bringing us home”, I predict nothing much changes.
feral1
The money, in the form of direct campaign contributions by Abramoff, is not the scandal here. This is small change. The real crimes that are going to be sending people to jail and ending political careers involve phony charities and other organizations set up by Abramoff to launder huge contributions that were then used to send Republican politicians and their staff on lavish junkets, pay salaries to their spouses for non-existent work, etc.
And when this all shakes out, you’re not going to see a single Democrat that gets indicted because they were simply not involved with the Abramoff machine at this level.
One of the key characteristics of the Republican K Street project was to EXCLUDE Democrats from this influence peddling process.
The Other Steve
No. Reid is not the only Democrat.
I’ll be here all week, folks.
Paddy O'Shea
The issue is bribery, not campaign contributions. Those who are giving back contributions are certainly free to do so, but it really has nothing at all to do with the investigations into influence peddling by Abramoff, or those who provided services in exchange for cash.
This is all pregame nonsense anyway. Once the true culprits are singtled out and the public burning begun, none of this will matter a whit.
Reid did not take bribes in exchange for actions favorable to Abramoff’s clients. And why would he? He’s from Nevada, a state noted for its gambling industry. Why would Reid want to help out of state Indian casinos?
The premise of this entire thread is bogus.
Geek, Esq.
The money trail isn’t what’s important. The flow of donations and favorable treatment on Capitol Hill are commonplace.
What’s important are the email trails. The problem is that these stupid fuckers were arrogant and hubristic enough to essentially admit to crimes in electronic correspondence.
AkaDad
“Stormy and John: you’re right, both parties are equally guilty here. I just hope the voters realize this.”
What is your definition of the word “equally”?
How many Dems have been indicted? None
How much money did Abramhoff, not his clients, give to Dems? None
Either your just making stuff up or your intentionally being dishonest, which is it?
nyrev
Heh.
John, if you ever decide to create a site FAQ, don’t forget to include an entry about DougJ.
The Other Steve
Gotta agree. It seems like the real crimes are the kickbacks, the money laundering through charities… definately.
Actually one of the articles I saw mentioned that Abramhoff was on the Bush transition team after the 2000 election, and had helped appoint people to the Interior Dept in charge of Indian Affairs, also mentioned a couple of senior white house staffers who were involved.
The campaign contributions given by clients isn’t the issue. Those clients would be doing that regardless of Abramhoff. It’s the stuff that happened behind the scenes.
Mr.Ortiz
Stormy, it’s nice to see that you’re okay with your entire party being corrupt, as long as they drag down one or two Democrats with them. Seriously, I can’t tell the difference between a bad Stormy post and a good DougJ post anymore.
As for Delay donating his dirty money to charity, didn’t he try that scamalready?
The Other Steve
You may be right, and certainly that is the best case scenario the GOP is hoping for.
But there’s a number of congressmen who aren’t going to be re-elected following this year. Delay for one, most likely Burns and Ney also.
Then on top of that, there are a number of open seats that Democrats hope to pick up in this next election. The best case scenario for Republicans was that they would win some of those challenges, or potentionally unseat some existing Dems. With this scandal in the air, that’s unlikely to happen. Of which unknown evil do you pick? The unknown, or the one with the seal of the Corrupt Old Party on their lapel?
DougJ
I take back my snark aimed at John now that I see the updates.
The Other Steve
If I were the GOP… I would be more concerned that the hit in Florida on that casino boat owner wasn’t connected to Abramhoff.
Stormy70
I never said I was happy with the Republicans. I don’t give them any money anymore, and you do not know how I will vote because it’s none of your business. I am discussing the politics of the thing. McCain survived the Keating Five, didn’t he?
Stormy70
I think Santorum will be defeated in the midterms, which does not bother me one bit. It is a long time until November, and with the economy rolling along, I doubt this will be front and center all year long.
Foreign policy events are moving into high gear, with Israel’s prime minister down and the Palestinian gunmen invading Egypt and shooting up the border guards. I think Egypt just cut off the electricity to one of the Palestinian cities.
Iran seems to be rattling Europe lately, and Russia is feeling their oats.
I don’t think the Dems can dine out that long on a scandal that is already extremely Beltway and boring.
Stormy70
Ok, hate to revert to form when this thread has been very nice and fun, but I am seeing King Kong today.
Dinosaurs and giant bugs will always win out over politics.
Peace out.
Krista
Beautiful…
Lines
Why isn’t Ney in jail for his scandal? Just getting voted out of office isn’t punishment for that piece of trash.
p.lukasiak
John, you should also file this one under “Democratic stupidity”, for those democrats (like Hillary) that are returning the money. Its just DUMB/
The Disenfranchised Voter
I think it should be noted that while Bush returned $6,000 of Abramoff money, Abramoff actually donated $100,000+ to Bush’s ’04 re-election fund.
He didn’t even give back 10% of the money Abramoff donated to him.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*10% of the total money
tb
…both parties are equally guilty here. I just hope the voters realize this.
No, this is purely a Republican scandal, and it’s going to be bad for your side. You’re basically on the eve of Stalingrad. You know that, right?
Jim Allen
AkaDad — re: “Either your just making stuff up or your intentionally being dishonest, which is it?”
Our boy DougJ is multi-dimensional and isn’t limited to your simple binary system.
Vladi G
Technically, he gave back the money that Abramoff and his wife donated (and $2K more from somewhere). He didn’t give up the other $94K+ that Abramoff lined up for him.
W.B. Reeves
I see her Majesty has checked in with her precious insight into the psychology of the vast unwashed electorate. Really, could anything be more apparent than Stormy’s contempt for the majority of her fellow citizens? Perhaps her contempt for democratic values?
Evidently, Stormy believes that the electorate is a fundamentally stupid and short sighted rabble. So long as they have full bellies she believes they will overlook anything, not excluding rampant lawlessness, where elected officials are concerned.
It isn’t clear how her prediction of Santorum’s impending defeat jibes with this view. Nor is it readily apparent why she thinks that such an apathetic, self interested mass as the US electorate would be fascinated by foreign policy rather than malfeasance at home.
Pooh
2fer1 so far Dougie…
AkaDad
“Our boy DougJ is multi-dimensional and isn’t limited to your simple binary system.”
LOL
Thanks for the laugh…
Ozymandius
“Right, wrong, I’m the guy with the snark.”
Zifnab
If she believes that, she’s not far off from being right. If the Civil Rights movement, the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, the Zionist Movement, the ending of Aparthide in Africa, and every other popular movement has proved anything in my mind, it’s that a groundswell of people can affect change (for good or ill) if they really want to. We’ll know when America is truly feed up with the status quo of government corruption when they stand up and do something about it. And not just at the ballot box. Exchanging one set of dirty politicians for another does not a revolution make.
I have no more faith in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi than I do Bill Frist and Tom DeLay. And I look forward to the Democrats reclaiming House, Senate, or Presidency, but I don’t look forward to them reclaiming all three.
If we really want out of this slim mill we’ve erected, then for the love of god will we all just stop voting party lines. Vote Kinky Friedman. Vote Strayhorn if she breaks ranks. Vote Green Party. Vote Libertarian. Campaign for them. Donate to them. Tell your friends. Show your love and your support.
I’m not saying that it’s hard for an independent to be corrupt, but the party system just makes corruption so damn easy. At the end of the day, Abramoff isn’t guilty of anything else than gluttony. Cause he’s no worse than every lobbiest in deed, just in volume.
Pooh
My contracts professor was discussing how much to ask for in a lawsuit when he said “Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.” The axiom is generalizable.
W.B. Reeves
This hardly sounds as though you consider the electorate to be an ignorant and short sighted rabble. You celebrate the power of popular movements as though there were an absolute distinction between those who support such movements and those who vote. Such a distinction does not exist. You admit as much when you appeal to people to vote for anyone except the two party monopoly. If you think they are all belly without brain or heart, why make the appeal?
searp
We will know which party “owns” this scandal when we see who is indicted. Prediction: Republicans, in a landslide.
Buddy
There was alot of money going to alot of different people, funneled through alot of different sources:
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
ATS
The numbers don’t matter as much as who had a plausible reasons for getting contributions. The Ohio-based Ney, for example, will be hard put to explain his curious interest in cruise lines in Florida. Reps who didn’t represent Indians will have to try to explain their taking sides in gambling casino issues.
Money from Abramoff clients (as opposed to Abramoff himself) is less prejudicial, and may (perhaps) be innocent or merely dubious. That said, some of these guys are toast.
Bernard Yomtov
All the “give back the money” hand-washing is absurd.
I doubt there is any Senator or Representative who has not known for some time that Abramoff’s dealings were considerably less kosher than his diet. If it’s inappropriate to keep the money now, it was inappropriate to take it then. Those who give it back are not doing so out of outrage at his behavior. They are doing it do strike a righteous pose and to distract attention from their earlier willingness to take it.
John S.
Buddy-
Thanks for that link.
It does seem that a lot of money was going to a lot of people, but unfortunately for the Republicans, Abramoff’s money went to them over Democrats by a factor of 2:1.
Steve
The money of Abramoff’s clients is not “Abramoff’s money.”
John S.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize the semantic police were patrolling the board.
Abramoff channeled his clients’ money to Republicans at a rate of 2:1 over Democrats.
Better?
demimondian
Only if you have evidence that Abramoff actually played a role in any of the donations to Democrats.
Barbar
More than that, Dem: there’s nothing illegal about a lobbyist spreading money around.
The quetsion is, where are the Democrats who took bribes from Abramoff, or hatched schemes to defraud his clients.
demimondian
Nah, Barbar, I don’t buy that. It’s the intellectual equivalent of “I was in favor of taking loot from this clown before I was against it.” True, perhaps, but definitely a sign of poor judgement.
Slide
Even if the general public (a good portion of which still belive Iraq had something to do with 911, btw) thinks this is a bi-partisan scandal that is bad news for the Republicans. Any “throw the bums out” movement hurts the incumbent party. Bush’s worse nightmare? A Dem controlled congress that can hold hearings with subpoena power.
Now we have not only the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY… but the WORST CONGRESS IN HISTORY…. ahhhh… you gotta love Republican leadership.
John S.
I don’t have to prove that Abramoff played a role. The charts I was examining are an accounting of all public money that came from Abramoff and/or his clients, so I think it’s a given whether or not he played a role. Did you look at the charts at the link provided by Buddy above? Here is what I was looking at:
For what it’s worth, Abramoff personally gave over $200,000 in that time period, and not a dime of it went to Democrats.
Anyway, I’m not trying to claim this is a bipartisan issue – according to the publicly recorded data, the lion’s share of money went to Republicans. I’m also not trying to divine what private monies exchanged hands that aren’t listed on these charts. I’m merely looking at the trends indicated by the data provided, and that clearly shows that public money coming from Abramoff and/or his clients went to Republicans at a rate of 2:1 over Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stormy70
Learn your place, peon!
I liked King Kong. I would like to go to that island.
Stormy70
Harry Reid is looking worse and worse here, politically.
Trust the Democrats to blow their one good chance at the Republicans by being dumb as rocks.
demimondian
Actually, that article raises a pretty solid argument in Reid’s favor — he’d acted in the same way previously, and raised exactly the same point of law, in a case where Abramov had no involvement at all.
In the Famous Letter, Reid argued on legal grounds against the siting of the casino in Louisiana. He’d used the same arguments against another casino just outside San Francisco some years earlier. So he’d done the same thing some years earlier for nothing…why pay him now?
Stormy70
Yes, and REid was rewarded for it the next day. Any Republican worth his salt could hammer this political point home, and turn the tables. He sent the letter and was paid $5000. Just a little something to show our appreciation. See, it’s not that hard to muddy the waters when political contributions are involved. It may be legal, but it looks like Reid is dancing to the tune of the Indian tribes. Well, he is. Just like most of them.
demimondian
Oh, of course. I agree — it’s stupid that he hasn’t returned the money. I’ve already said that.
I’m trying to figure out what the best riposte to such a gambit would be if I were a Dem strategist.
capelza
Somewhere, some Native Americans must be chuckling in a sardonic way. They may not have been able to defeat the United States militarily as it rode over them, but it looks like they might take out a big chunk of it, because it hoisted it itself on their petard.
jack
I’ve never managed to get excited over any of this? Cash in exchange for access? for action? Jeez, that’s DC in a nutshell.
It’s not new–hell, we went through 8 years of it with Clinton. Only then it was the Republicans screaming and the Democrats saying things like ‘everybody does it’.
But we don’t say that anymore. Republicans are always guilty. And they act like it, the morons. Democrats do what they want, with impunity–knowing thet their scandals never seem to make the media splash that Republican scandals do. Steal top secret documents/ A mistake, a slap on the wrist. Campaign finance irregularities? Hey! Look at what Bush is doing now! Leaks? Plame-bad, ongoing terrorism investigations–good.
Doesn’t it get tiresome?
What scares me is that the retarded Republicans will tie themselves in knots trying to ‘fix’ this, trying to do the ‘right’ thing(i.e. whatever the Dems say is right) and it won’t matter. There is no ‘right thing’ that they can do, short of ceding control to the Democrats and working to eradicate all non-leftist thought in the nation, if not the world.
My only comfort is that the American people are not as stupid as the left thinks they are.
demimondian
Cash for access isn’t the issue. Cash for favors is — and most Americans, including their legislators from both parties, know the difference.
Nice talking point, though.
capelza
jack, how did this come to pass then, with a GOP government? I mean, how did a Justice Dept. headed by GOP appointees decide to go after these guys? Did Clinton leave some secret hypno ray that caused those guys to suddenly investigate themsleves in essence?
jack
How did it come to pass?
Because they ALL do it in one form or another. Didn’t you listen during the Clinton years? They ALL do it. That’s what the Democrats told everyone every time they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
And they were right.
It’s part of the game we call politics, and it has been since the first homo erectus realized that he could get access to all the females he wanted, provided he kept the leaders’ belly full.
demimondian, of course they know the difference. That’s why cash-for-favors costs more.
Remember what I said about the American people not being as stupid as the left thinks they are? Well, don’t take that to mean that the right doesn’t think the people are stupid. All politicians want the voting public to be as dumb and as easily led as possible. Big wallets, small brains, makes a government happy.
But I think the right has a bit of an advantage in seeing through the stupidity curtain. Not, as a group, but as individuals. Right-wing thought, despite the best efforts of Christian-right statists, tends to be more individualistically focused. Self reliance, self responsibility and all that. The right fights internally far more than the left does. This website is a fine example of that fact. John is ‘right-of center’, but he routinely, loudly, bashes his own side when he thinks they’re wrong. You don’t see that as much on left-wing sites, or in the whole of left-wing thought.
Anyway, where this gets me to is the place where the Republicans voters are aware of the wrongs that their elected officials do. They accept them as part of the package. And they know that the alternative is worse. Don’t think for a minute that Republican voters are so stupid that they forget ANY Democrat scandal–or that they do not note the way that Democrats are very quick to idict people for behaviour they’ll happily engage in(when they think they can get away with it).
John S.
I love political Mad-Libs. Watch the magic…
Don’t think for a minute that Democratic voters are so stupid that they forget ANY Republican scandal—or that they do not note the way that Republicans are very quick to indict people for behaviour they’ll happily engage in(when they think they can get away with it).
Works liek magic!
capelza
You’re still not answering my question jack. If this kind of thing is done “all the time” why is now that this paricular “business as usual” operation is going to hit so many? What set of circumstances led to this one blowing up?
Also I would like some examples of “everyone does it” during the Clinton years (you did bring it up) that you find just as egregious. Sincerely I just want to know your baseline. Thanks.
demimondian
Um, cash-for-favors is illegal. Cash for access isn’t.
Your confusion exhibits the somewhat cavalier attitude towards such petty issues as legality which is endemic in the american right, as perfected in the current administration. Unlike the right, the left, for whatever odd reason, cares about remaining within the bounds of the law. We’ve found that inconvenient for ourselves, but, ultimately beneficial for the nations as a whole.
You might try it.
ATS
Hastert needn’t have returned Casino Jack’s money. Bush just said Denny is doing “a heckuva job.” No kidding. 12:50 PM EDT, in Illinois.
jack
Oh, demi, you’re so cute? So Democrats stay within the law?
Hillary just got nailed for finance irregularities. Sandy Berger stole classified documents.
Of course, there aren’t any Democrats out there calling for their heads to roll–like there ARE Republicans calling for rolling whatever heads need it in this Abramoff scandal. Look at John.
capelza, this particular ‘scandal’ is the result of the same type of scandal-mongering that plagued the Clinton years–with one major exception. These scandals will get UN-sympathetic play in the media.
I really don’t care what actual indictments come out of this. What I am worried about is the inevitable Republican shuffle to the left, to try to appease the media. Spineless asses will twist themselves into knots–and it’ll do no good. But it WILL harm them in the eyes of their constituencies–and THAT is exactly what the Democrats want. If the Republican is no better than the Democrat, why bother?
As far as ‘everybody does it’, if you can’t remember the ‘Everybody lies about sex’ meme, then I can’t really help you. And that was just one of the biggies.
capelza
jack…so it’s back to the blow job as the example. And that’s “the biggie”?
Let’s be clear on Berger’s inexplicable crime…he took COPIES of classified documents. The originals were left if I remember correctly. I will never understnad that one. And Hillary didn’t get nailed, a couple of her staff or advisors did. Not defending her, just noting the difference. Didn’t one get convivted and the others, while technically cleared admit to it? Working from memoery here, so anyone, feel free to correct me.
Lastly, if you think that Clinton got sympathetic press, you are out of your mind. Said very sweetly, but seriously.
jack
“one” of the biggies. Sorry. That one doesn’t do it for you, huh? I should go look for more to convince you? Why? You clearly admit this one—and then act like it doesn’t matter. You asked for one, I gave you one.
And then you make an excuse for Berger. And Hillary(it was her CAMPAIGN, not her)
And you don’t think there was sympathetic press? Why wasn’t Hillarys’ campaign finance scandal all over the news? And HER campaign workers were busted, convicted–they DID it. No need for speculation on what an indictment might bring down–we know Hillary’s campaign was BUSTED. And yet, barely a peep. But Abramoff? Banner headlines, round the clock coverage–and we don’t even know the scope of the thing. Both involve campaign finance irregularities. Yet only one gets massive play. And it’s not the one with the conviction.
Why are a potential presidential candidates proven campaign financing illegalities not as big a deal as Abramoff’s?
Sympathetic press. You still report the news, you just do it in a way that favors your biases. Two big campaign finance stories? One hurts Republicans and one hurts Democrats? Put the one that hurts Republicans on the front page and put the second on the inside page where you place the second(or third, if possible) part of the story that hurts Republicans. Headline it in such a way that it is as favorable as possible–like maybe pointing out that one of the criminals admitted wrongdoing even though he didn’t have to(because he’d been cleared by a good lawyer and double jeopardy laws don’t allow you to be tried twice for the same offense).
And, during the perjury thing(there was no crime involved in Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office)the media focused on what Clinton lied about(it was just a blowjob) instead of the fact that he lied under oath(but it was about a blowjob). They did their best to make it seem that it was the sex act that the prosecutor(prude) was going after instead of the crime, which was falsifying testimony.
And they did a damned good job–you said ‘back to the blow job’. Perjury. It was perjury. The blowjob was legal.
capelza
Sorry, I just can’t get worked up about sex as a biggie…considering that Starr was appointed to investigate a failed land deal in Arkansas. The perjury was bad, stupid, and Bill Clinton paid for it with an impeachment and disbarrment. I also want you to answer honestly here, is there a difference in your mind at all between an investigation into a President’s admittedly sleazy sex life and an investigation into a corruption scheme that involves actual votes that determine how we are governed?
I didn’t excuse Berger or Hillary, just pointing that they were all “caught”.
Abramoff gets massive play because it is massive. In that it IS pretty huge in scope. I agree with you that all politicans can be corrupted. I think the issue here is that it is not “just business as usual”.
jack
You don’t see it at all, do you?
There WAS NO INVESTIGATION into Clinton’s sex life by Kenneth Starr. Clinton committed perjury during a sexual harassment trial, the Paula Jones case. The only reason ANY part of the man’s sex life came up was to determine if he had, in fact committed the crime.
Is there a difference between the two cases? Other than subject?
Given that I think that neither investigation had any concrete result. That I believe that nothing will come of this in the end–by that I mean that politicians will still accept bribes(Democrat AND Republican–and any other politician who can get a piece) and people will still commit perjury(and get blowjobs) Then no.
Are the two of differing importance as subjects? Of course.
But I wonder how committed to that you are. The Chinese were caught illegally contributiong to our elections in the ’90s–were you up in arms over that? Or did you dismiss it as right-wing whining?
HH
“Actually, that article raises a pretty solid argument in Reid’s favor—he’d acted in the same way previously…”
LOL… well he is consistent, give him that.
HH
Interesting to note that CNS News’ “nonsense” is pushed in those far-right publications the WaPo and Boston Globe…
capelza
jack, I have always wondered why it was Starr (who was not involved in the sexual harrasment case, right?) who put all this before Congress, as his brief was the failed land deal in Arkansas. Why didn’t the judge or whoever in the sexual harrassment case do it?
To be honest with you jack, there is a lot about the Clinton’s I didn’t like. The Chinese money was one of them. Now let me ask you this. If it was so illeagal though, why didn’t Starr go for THAT instead of the perjury? If he was looking for something to sink Clinton with, wouldn’t that have been more important than the other? More far reaching and harmful to our interests? But Starr didn’t.
He ignored possibly egregious wrongdoing and went for a very petty perjury charge in a sexual harrassment case that judging from Ms. Jones subsequent behaviour and choices has led me to doubt her sincerity at all. Though, despite her, he should have not lied. He should have told them to go to hell.
HH
USA Today, the NY Times and the Associated Press continue to publish Republican talking points, all nonsense and lies, I’m sure…
ATS
It isn’t hard to figure. In this case (and some others) the contribution was straight up help for a member who has a real vested interest in the cause anyway.
Obviously, that could be true of Republican recipients as well. The rub is the quid-pro-quo stuff, based on seeing members embrace suspicious interests.