Week 2--Has Katie Couric gotten back to us yet?

[KansDem]

COURIC: Hey, wait a second. Democrats took — Democrats took money from Abramoff too, Mr. Dean.

DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.

COURIC: Let me just tell you — According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats, including Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid.

DEAN: Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat. We can show you the FEC reports, we’d be very happy to do it. There’s a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee’s been spinning that this is a bipartisan scandal. It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.

COURIC: Well, we’ll obviously have to look into that and clarify that for our viewers at a later date. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Dean, Governor Dean, thanks so much for talking with us.

DEAN: Thanks very much.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/

Well, it's Week 2. Has Katie and CNN "looked into" this for a clarification yet? I haven't seen one.

[JeffR]

1. Katie's too busy right now

Trying to pull her head out of her ass.

[DainBramaged]

2. I bet she will grow a second head before she clarifies anything

[ixion]

3. Waiting for that flushing sound in the memory hole,

she is. That's my bet.

[hopein08]

4. I think Matt Lauer did...

as I remember, he said that they did check CRP and while Abramoff did not give DIRECTLY to Democrats, Abramoff's "clients" gave like 34% of their total to Democrats. So I think NBC was kind of trying to say that everybody was right and everybody was wrong.

Here's a link to a blog that summarizes it...http://newsbusters.org/node/3777

[KansDem]

8. Are Abramoff's "clients" the same as his "associates?"

From "Expose the Left"

January 29, 2006
Howard Dean Refuses To Believe Democrats Are Connected With Abramoff (VIDEO)

Later in the interview, Dean again made the claim that Democrats have nothing to do with Jack Abramoff, even though it is public knowledge that Abramoff’s associates ‘donated’ money to them. When Dean is asked what proof he has that the money donated to Democrats has no connection to Abramoff he says “because they said so”. I think we know what happens when Democrats are trusted by their word

http://exposetheleft.com/2006/01/29/deanfns/

It appears the neo-Con fascists are trying to blur the connection by suggesting that "Abramoff's associates" (ie, Indian tribes?) are synonymous with "clients." Perhaps they need a flowchart to illustrate the difference between an "associate" and a "client."

[hopein08]

10. Seems to me that "associates" would be...

people like Scanlon and Ralph Reed while "clients" would be the tribes. Am I wrong? Aren't "associates" people you do business WITH and "clients" people you do business FOR?

More right leaning groups would naturally want to use the word "associate" because it has a more sinister connotation.

By the way, KansDem, I love your signature line. It's perfect!

[NighthawkMS]

5. Heh, well

McClellan told her they can't release information about an ongoing investigation :sarcasm:

[newyawker99]

11. Hi NighthawkMS!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gratuitous]

6. Well, they did grudgingly admit that Dean was "technically" correct

Although America's Sweetheart apparently couldn't bring herself to admit as much.

I find it instructive that for being "technically" correct, Dean is pilloried for being a liar and playing fast and loose with the facts in a live give-and-take. But when Bush says flat out in an over-rehearsed speech in which every word is weighed, considered, and eliminated if found wanting, that he wants to cut Middle East oil imports by 75%, his handlers come out the next day to say that he shouldn't be taken "literally," no similar network approbation accrues to him.

[Catrina]

7. No, she hasn't and it might be time to get back in touch with her

Has she mentioned that Abramoff is a bi-parisan scandal since then? I think she owes an apology to her listeners.

I know she was sent evidence that her statement was incorrect. If she wants to become a bigtime, serious journalist, she can't do that without credibility. Bush won't always be in power, and we will have long memories as to which journalists were trustworthy during this time when propaganda took the place of real news.

Right now, Katie is on the list that includes Judith Miller and Jeff Gannon ~ in fact there should be a list of 'journalists' somewhere, sort of like a Hall of Shame, who went along with the lies so that when this is all over, we will never forget them.

Journalist like the incredibly professional Cristiane Amanpour are the ones Katie ought to be taking lessons from. Instead she appears to be looking at the tabloid types, like Ann Coulter, for inspiration.

[Roland99]

9. Wonder if Katie would do anything if we all printed and mailed this to her

What's underneath the Abramoff scandal? Apparently, a years-long effort to stall or defeat Cobell v. Norton (which an investigative diarist at DailyKos has found means that US industry apparently owes Native Americans up to $150 BILLION)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x305196