Abramoff Investigation Republicans AND Dems are "nervous" - Smoke Screen??

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

Ed Henry said on CNN's "On The Story" that both Repubs AND Dems were nervous re the Abramoff investigation.

A quick google search yielded Byron Dorgan, ranking Dem on the Indian Affairs committee, as having some connections to Abramoff.

Has anyone followed this closely enough to have an opinion as to whether or not this is typical rovian strategy, smoke screen, distraction to obfuscate the really really serious unethical, illegal, and just plain wrong actions of Abramoff, DeLay and their cohorts?????

Excerpt and link from an AP story re Dorgan:

"The Democrat helping to lead the Senate investigation into Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying had his own connections to the controversial lobbyist's team and clients, including using his sports arena skybox to raise money.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., acknowledges he got Congress in fall 2003 to press government regulators to decide, after decades of delay, whether the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserved federal recognition.

Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives and collected at least $11,500 in political donations from Abramoff partner Michael D. Smith, who was representing the Mashpee, around the time he helped craft the legislation, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press..."

http://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/news/2005/1202/Front_Page/005.html

[sendero]

1. Anyone who took BRIBES..

... ought to be worried. I'd like to see them prosecuted, regardless of which party they belong to.

Something has to chip away, even a little, at the blatant corruption now endemic in our failing democracy.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

2. I agree, of course. But it isn't clear to me if Dorgan took "bribes" n/t

[WatchWhatISay]

4. Actually, Dorgans response makes it very clear. Read it here:

http://www.dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=249313

Makes it very clear that the Pugs are grasping at straws. Unfortunately MSM isnt reporting this.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

9. That was what I suspected from reading the AP articles too. n/t

[sendero]

12. Not what I meant...

... it isn't clear to me either. Let the "justice" system that Congress set up decide :)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

13. I agree again, but what makes me ask is that I'm aware of a huge amount

of horribly scandalous material on DeLay and Abramoff alone, to say nothing of other Repubs.

But what seems to get the media attention is a little money to one Dem Senator who doesn't know Abramoff.

See Chapter 10 "The Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway"

chapter of Al Franken's "The Truth, with jokes."

[sendero]

14. Well...

... we have to live with the media we have until we can storm the gates and man the guillotines.

By the time this whole thing is over, people who worked in TV, radio or print news will have to lie about their occupation to survive :)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

17. Aye, we do political battle with the media we have, not the media we wish

we had.

;)

[Toots]

22. I guess it depends on how you describe taking a bribe I guess

He obviously was paid money either to do something or because he had done something. $11,500. in fact. But the law says accepting campaign money is legal. The key is in finding quid pro quo. Often people give money to like thinking candidates whether they do something that benefits them or not. If we ever want to rid our system of such blatant corruption then we need to make 100% Public Funding for Campaigns. Law makers should never be allowed to accept money from people doing business with the government...

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

23. I'm all for that. And see no reason why a person has to be

wealthy to run for office, or have wealthy "friends."

[DURHAM D]

3. Receiving money for campaign funds is legal.

Selling your vote is not.

Big difference.

And in the case of Cunningham 1.2 Million right into his personal accounts - tried to hide it with various schemes but they were not sophisticated enough, thank god.

[peacetalksforall]

5. They should all be listed with the issue they supported, by the amount

they collected. The amount and the issues are important for relevance.

[acmavm]

6. Hey, maybe now it will be understood that anybody taking MONEY OR

FAVORS for supporting any cause is wrong.

Pushing a cause you believe in or sympathize with is one thing, getting moolah for your campaigns is another. Either party. No matter who.

[OKthatsIT]

7. hmmm...possible 100 Reps vs. 6 Dems....conservative ratio, too

The thing is...Dems have always helped Tribal causes.

When I've heard Dems respond to allegations, they repeatedly express not knowing Abramoff was involved. The Tribes donated from their own pockets, so its not an obvious 'background deal'.

However, the GOP could give a rats ass what happens to Tribal communities.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

8. I think you hit the nail on the head! n/t

[cantstandbush]

10. If they are guilty, take them all down. we don't need them, they are

baggage.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

11. Very true. But the question is whether he is guilty or not. n/t

[newblewtoo]

15. Smoke Screen??

Has anyone followed this closely enough to have an opinion as to whether or not this is typical rovian strategy, smoke screen, distraction to obfuscate the really really serious unethical, illegal, and just plain wrong actions of Abramoff, DeLay and their cohorts?????

I watched McCain on Meet the Press but had little or no idea about Dorgan. I looked up the Keating Five right after the show. Dorgan's press release sounds a lot like what I read about McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

18. I assume that McCain was only marginally involved since that

whole Keating mess didn't get him indicted.

The bad old days in Arizona.

[sendero]

16. The nice thing here is..

... this stuff will get sorted out in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.

Bush** can lie his ass off day in and day out, and fool enough people to spare his hide, but if we can get lucky enough to get honest prosecutors on this case, the critters who took BRIBES are in trouble.

This case is too far along to go away now, and I haven't the slightest doubt that if there were any Dems culpable, there were 10 times as many Repugs.

It isn't just a theory that Repubs are greedy grabbing people, it is a fact.

[kentuck]

19. If any Democrat was stupid enough to get involved with this... ?

Then I say, let the chips fall where they may. Don't bite your tongue and call off the dogs because one of the good ol' boys might have had his hand out also... This is a scandal of possible immense proportion, in my opinion...

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

20. Agreed. The question is did they actually get involved in the sleazoid

factor?

Dorgan pressed for the Feds to recognize one Indian tribe, but they'd been waiting for years for official recognition.

I've watched, streamed, some of the hearings McCain and Dorgan have held. I would be surprised if Dorgan's involvement was criminal, and disappointed.

But if he or anyone did, I agree...let the chips fall where they may.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

21. Washington Post article on the subject, not conclusive

Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web

By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt

Monday, December 5, 2005;

Revelations about the activities of Jack Abramoff continue to cause discomfort for the many lawmakers who received meals, trips and campaign contributions from the former powerhouse GOP lobbyist.

Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Republican ethical woes. But as The Washington Post reported in June, some prominent Democrats, including former senator Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), were among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff's associates and clients.

Now Dorgan, ranking Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee, is receiving some heightened attention.

Dorgan has asked some of the toughest questions in the committee hearings probing the $82 million Abramoff and Michael Scanlon charged their tribal clients. As the Associated Press reported last week, Dorgan had his own dealings with Abramoff's circle. Dorgan acknowledged to the AP that in the fall of 2003 he pushed Congress to approve legislative language urging government regulators to decide whether the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserved federal recognition. About the same time, Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives and Michael D. Smith, an Abramoff associate..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/04/AR2005120401158.html

[Al-CIAda]

24. The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff-

June 21, 2005 -Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker

The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.

The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.

So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.

One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.

Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.

What were they doing there?

http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

25. Yikes

:scared: