Boston Globe Falsely States That Abramoff Donated to Democrats

[JohnnyCougar]

Another lie detected by the truth > lies blog (my blog)

The Globe is misleading its readers when it states "Known as a top Washington lobbyist, Abramoff had vast influence and gave generously to Democrats and Republicans alike..." This excerpt goes on to imply that Harry Reid is somehow involved in wrongdoing as well. If the Globe writer Michael Kranish would have bothered to check the FEC's own website, he would have realized that Abramoff did not donate a dime to Democrats. But apparently backing up baseless claims with reality and fact is beyond the scope of a journalist these days.

You can contact Kranish at: [email protected]

[EST]

1. My email to Kranish

Don't you do ANY fact checking before you decide to spread your opinions around for all to see?
Sooner or later, the dark nightmare that is absorbing America will lift and, when the awakening populace looks around to see who misled them into the horror, wouldn't you prefer to be among the truth-tellers, rather than those responsible for spreading false information and seeking to excuse the perpetrators of such mischief?

[MercutioATC]

2. I think he's speaking in the general sense.

No, Abramoff didn't PERSONALLY contribute to any Democrats, but his clients did via Abramoff-run organizations. There is a definite distinction, but "Abramoff money" did, in fact, go to both Dems and Repubs.

[JohnnyCougar]

3. The way he phrased it is intentionally misleading.

But, by the way, which of these organizations that Abramoff ran did donate to Democrats?

[MercutioATC]

4. Well, "Team Abramoff".....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/12/12/CU2005121200434.html

Not an official "organization", I guess, but there is a definite connection.

[JohnnyCougar]

11. But Abramoff's clients were donating to Democrats even before Abramoff

So if they don't stop donating once they hire Abramoff as a lobbyist, then the people who take their donations are bad? If this is what you are trying to say, I don't get it.

Only Republicans took money from Abramoff. Microsoft hired Abramoff at one point. Does that mean that everyone who took money from Microsoft is corrupt and took Abramoff money?

[MercutioATC]

20. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

I'll bring up one Dem, Tom Harkin (just because I've read about him and this issue over the last two days).

"Harkin wrote at least three letters in 2003 pressing the government to release federal money to help the Sac & Fox tribe in his state cope with the temporary closing of its casino due to a tribal dispute, according to Interior Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and records provided by Harkin's office.

In doing so, Harkin accepted input from Sac & Fox lobbyist Michael D. Smith, a member of Jack Abramoff's tribal lobbying team at the Greenberg Traurig law firm. Smith met with the senator and also offered suggestions for the letters, Harkin spokeswoman Allison Dobson said.

"Absolutely, he did contribute to those letters," Dobson said, adding that she wasn't sure what Smith's suggestions were. Harkin also met with lobbyists on the other side of the dispute, she said."

AND

"Harkin twice used Abramoff's skybox for fundraisers — once in 2002 and again in 2003 — without reimbursing. He also collected $17,000 from Smith and other Abramoff-related sources in 2003. The Sac & Fox gave $4,000 more to Harkin in 2004, about six months after the federal government allowed the tribe's casino to reopen."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-03-hark...


I'm not on a witch hunt, but claims that Dems are completely above reproach on this Abramoff issue do seem to be a little premature. There are issues that merit investigation.

[Catrina]

12. Most of Abramoff's clients were perfectly legitimate

organizations who legally donated to politicians under the current laws.

Why is that mentioned in the same sentence that is speaking of the crimes Abramoff is charged with if not to convey what is a lie, that somehow Democrats are involved in this uniquely Republican scandal?

The fact is and it would not have been difficult for a real reporter with no hidden agenda, to check, Abrmaoff NEVER DONATED A DIME TO DEMOCRATS!! This is a Republican scandal, the likes of which, according to many in a position to judge, may never have been seen before.

Democrats and the clients of a Republican lobbyist mentioned in that article, commit no crime. The clients are the ones who reported how Abramoff stole from him. They are his victims. That article needs to be corrected.

[MercutioATC]

21. Abramoff's personal donations were chump change...by law, they HAD to be.

The issue is the millions of dollars contributed by tribes and directed by Abramoff.

Read Post #20. It explains why I'm asking the question.

[madokie]

17. so the indian tribes are run by abramoff, I don't think so.

[MercutioATC]

22. Read Post #20.

[madokie]

24. reread post 11 & 17

[MercutioATC]

26. O.K......how does that address the issue?

(especially the skybox issue)

[BuyingThyme]

5. Good work Johnny. I sent a letter:

January 5, 2006

Boston Globe,

In today’s "Bush, DeLay give back Abramoff funds,” Michael Kranish has misrepresented the role of Democrats in the Abramoff scandal.

Kranish claims that “…Abramoff had vast influence and gave generously to Democrats and Republicans alike…” This is an outright falsehood.

And by the way it was inserted into this article, it’s very clear that Mr. Kranish understood his misrepresentation to be just that. The record shows that Abramoff did not give to ANY Democrats at ANY time. If that had been the case, I’m sure Mr. Kranish would have offered some supporting evidence.

You, at the Boston Globe, are playing a very dangerous game with the truth. As you are aware, there’s a big difference between receiving money from Abramoff, and receiving money from Abramoff’s clients.

Using Boston Globe (false) logic, receiving money from somebody in San Clemente is the same as receiving money from Richard Nixon.

I ask that you print and post a retraction, and take action in regards to the intellectual dishonesty and underhanded trickery of Michael Kranish.

Thank you,

[Catrina]

14. Excellent letter ~ is it so hard for them

to simply report the facts?

My letter:

Dear Mr. Kranish,

In your article in the Boston Globe today, regarding the return of money to Jack Abramoff, you falsely stated that Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. This is not true.

I am not a reporter, but when I first heard this statement, I decided to do some research because this is an important issue.

What I found was (you too can check the official record of political donors, recipients, parties, candidates etc.) that Jack Abramoff and his wife Pamela, never donated a dime to any Democrat. All listed donations from him went to Republicans.

Your article also implies that anyone who received money from Abramoff is guilty of something. This too is untrue.

Republicans who received direct donations from him are also smeared in your article, since it was perfectly legal for them to do so at the time. He was a lobbyist. They would have to have known and/or participed in the crimes he has now admitted to, in order to be guilty of anything.

Also available, I found, was the list of Republicans who actually have been found guilty in this case, or who are under investigation. There is no need to 'imply' anything. The facts are out there. I found no Democrat listed, so far, as either convicted in the Abramoff case, or under investigation.

I ask that, in the interests of truth and to reclaim your credibility, you correct the erroneous information in your article. I find it appalling that the news media, rather than reporting facts, is spinning this story and will, either because of negligence and laziness, or by design, participate in the smearing of innocent people, both Democrat and Republican.

All we ask for are 'facts'. It really isn't all that hard to provide them. Yet, over and over again, ordinary citizens like myself now feel compelled to question everything the press reports, because of this kind of reporting.

I'll wait to see whether or not you choose to correct your article, before deciding if you and your paper can be trusted in the future. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were simply sloppy, and the information you provided was not intended to create any false impression.

Regards,
Catrina xxxxx

[BuyingThyme]

15. I received my response, did you?

Actually, they didn't respond, rather sent me an AP article which, if one takes the time to actually read, only provides evidence to bolster my position.

But I don't think they took the time to read it, and thus will not make any effort to report the truth.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. yeah...they sent me that same letter

It's like, "do you even read the letter that you sent me in your defense?" Aren't these people supposed to be journalists and able to fact check? The letter they sent me proved that they were wrong and I was right!

[rpannier]

6. I sent him a letter.

Thanks for the heads up.

[JohnnyCougar]

7. Link to the article

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/bush_delay_give_back_abramoff_funds/?page=1

I screwed up the original link and can't edit because it is too late.

[depakid]

8. The right wing echo chamber is in full swing

and "journalists" and "editors" are once again running cover for them and spreading their lies.

A sleazier, more dispicanble set of characters would be hard to come by.

[unhappycamper]

9. Yet another reason to cancel the Globe.

http://cancelmyglobe.com/

[BuyingThyme]

10. kcik

[Loonman]

13. The Glob is a shitpaper like the NYTs

Same owners.

[AbbyR]

18. The state paper in Arkansas reported on that today

A staff-written story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said that former Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R) got $8,000, which included a $2,000 personal contribution from Abramoff and his wife, for his unsuccessful 2002 campaign against Sen. Mark Pryor (D).

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) received a $2,000 contribution in 2004 for her re-election campaign from a Mississippi Indian tribe that employed Abramoff.

[Catrina]

25. Why didn't Abramoff give Sen. Lincoln money?

Answer: Because he never donated to Democrats, only Republicans.

[AbbyR]

27. You're right...

but the Demozette had to get something in there about a Democrat or they wouldn't have been doing their job. :sarcasm: They are Fox news in paper form. Well, probably not quite that bad, but absolutely right-leaning.

I thought it looked funny when I read it.

[LSK]

19. you are correct

"Known as a top Washington lobbyist, Abramoff had vast influence and gave generously to Democrats and Republicans alike"

That has been proven wrong by the FEC's website.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

[skids]

23. Make sure to CC his managing editors. n/t