home

Technically Speaking

By TChris, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Technically speaking, Tim Russert continues to mislead the public by claiming that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan. Now, technically speaking, Katie Couric and Matt Lauer are pedaling peddling the same false story. (Arianna has more on Russert.)

< 2d Circuit Rejects Gov't Recusal Request | Justice Dept. Lays Out New Defense of Warrantless NSA Program >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Technically Speaking | 50 comments (50 topical)
    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    Technically speaking, they are peddling that false story--as in trying to sell it to the unwitting. They are not pedaling the story unless the story is also a bicycle or a Big Wheel or something like that.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    I'm surprised the Left will continue to insist, in the face of oodles of documented money that Abramoff had his client tribes give to Dems, that such transfers never happened. I mean, even the recipients themselves don't deny it, some of them giving it back, others refusing to. Moreover, this ain't a matter of beating the rap on a technicality (e.g. funneling the money thru intermediaries; big deal); it's the public perception, and they wisely see that money was being doled out to both parties. But they also see the Dems denying everything and trying to pretend that up is down, while the R's have already said "oops, sorry" are replacing their leadership, and are proposing reforms. D's will end up wearing this scandal more than the R's do, not cuz they took the money per se (cuz R's did too) but cuz they refuse either to say sorry or to work on cleaning up the mess.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:37:25 PM EST
    Let's see-Abramoff directs his clients (the tribes) to funnel money to democrats. Let's see: Amerind tribes are traditionally Democrat supports, because traditionally, the Democratic party has been more likely to look out for their interests than the Republicans. Let's see: Amerind tribes that were clients of Abramoff's gave less money to Democrats than other tribes that were not being defrauded by Abramoff. Let's see: there is no evidence that Abramoff "directed" the tribes to give money to any Democrats. Let's see: for the tribes to donate to Democrats or to Republicans was legal. (Nor was it Abramoff's money they were giving: Abramoff wasn't giving the tribes any money. They were paying him.) Let's see: If X is being ripped off by a crook, and X donates money to a politician, how is X's donation - still less the politician who received it - implicated in the crook's crimes? Abramoff scandal partisan, bi-partisan, or non-partisan (far too many conflicting claims to wade through and evidence on all sides) The key thing to remember, Anon, is that Abramoff has been heavily involved in the Republican party for twenty years, and that there is no evidence - none whatsoever - that Abramoff gave money to any Democratic politician. If you forget those key items, or let the lying liars try to blur the lines, then the people who benefited from corruption win.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    I'm not sure whether to consider the Abramoff scandal partisan, bi-partisan, or non-partisan (far too many conflicting claims to wade through and evidence on all sides), but one thing is for certain: The problem of lobbyists buying access and/or legislation is bipartisan, with some of those screaming loudest about Abramoff and Delay fully in it up to their eyeballs.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    Jes, As I noted, I'm not sure what to call the Abramoff scandal in regards to partisan flavoring, but Abramoff is only one small part of a much larger puzzle which implicates both Republicans and Democrats for obvious conflicts of interest and influence peddling. If all we focus on is a convenient opportunity to slam the opposition and, once again, show that partisanship is all that really matters, we all lose and there are no winners. (With apologies for the unnamed post - The site said I was logged in).

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#7)
    by TChris on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that Abramoff directed clients to give money to Dems, although that seems to be the popular Republican spin, adopted wholesale by a compliant media.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    There's two problems and commingling them helps the Republicans in two ways. There's the criminal matters involving Jack Abramoff and there's the entirely legal but undesirable way our system of political donations causes inappropriate (but legal) influence on politicians. The solution to the Abramoff problem is the criminal prosecution of the Republicans involved, something Republicans don't want. The solution to the donation problem is public funding of compaigns, something the Republicans also don't want. Republicans, so they say, think that freedom of speech is also freedom of money - while they pursue the repeal of "entitlement" programs that provide free money to those who might actually need it.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    justpaul : As I noted, I'm not sure what to call the Abramoff scandal in regards to partisan flavoring Why are you "not sure"? What is it about the Abramoff scandal that makes you "not sure"? He was a Republican through and through, and until he got indicted for fraud, bribery, and money-laundering, no one ever claimed he was anything else. but Abramoff is only one small part of a much larger puzzle which implicates both Republicans and Democrats for obvious conflicts of interest and influence peddling. True. The whole US system of politics is deeply corrupt. If all we focus on is a convenient opportunity to slam the opposition and, once again, show that partisanship is all that really matters, we all lose and there are no winners. And that is precisely what the Republicans are doing. The Abramoff scandal is specifically a Republican scandal. The Republicans are trying to slam the opposition and show that partisanship is all that really matters, by spinning their scandal as a "bipartisan scandal". If you accept this view of things, indeed, everyone loses, there are no winners - except for those in the Republican party who want to draw attention away from a peculiarly dirty scandal. Why do you want to cooperate with this people? Cooperating with people who don't want anyone to look too closely at Abramoff is hardly going to help clean up US politics, is it?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    Sorry, justpaul - the above comment is me. Typepad said I was signed in, but I wasn't.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    I agree with TChris, where is the evidence that Abramoff DIRECTED his tribal clients to give money to dems, or that the dems did anything in return FOR this alleged directed money.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    TChris: I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that Abramoff directed clients to give money to Dems, although that seems to be the popular Republican spin, adopted wholesale by a compliant media. It's an old distracting strategy that forces their opponents to burn up time and energy refuting: There's an old story about Lyndon Johnson, 36th President and consummate politician. One version of the story has it that a political ally once came to him for advice. "I'm in a tight campaign," he said. "My opponent is well-funded, well-organized, and ahead in the polls. What should I do?" Johnson replied, "Call him a pig f**ker and make him deny it."

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    Sorry, justpaul - the above comment is me. Typepad said I was signed in, but I wasn't.
    Just FYI, my experience has been that I appear to be logged in when I'm not if I leave the window inactive and, presumably, timeout on Typepad. I think refreshing the window before posting will show your correct status, a habit I'm trying to adopt.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    Those Indian tribes gave the same amount of money to democrats before they hired Abramoff as after, so that doesn't really indicate that he "directed" them to give money to democrats. There is documented evidence (emails where he says "give the money to these guys") of Abramoff directing money to Republicans, not to mention, they didn't give any money (or very, very little) to republicans until after they hired Abramoff. Charley - What I have read in the Washington post has just said that tribes that employed abramoff (like tribes that didn't employ Abramoff) gave some money to democrats. No evidence of direction. JustPaul - you are right, as a separate issue from Abramoff, lobbying causes a very corrupt system. Why are industries giving gobs of money to politicians of both parties (though more to republicans) if not to influence votes? I am glad you agree this is a problem. This is why liberals were so hot for campaign finance reform a few years back. We hate moneyed interests being able to buy our government.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    For all the wingnut liars out there here are the facts. Sixth grad reading level is required, high school degree is optimal, otherwise don't worry about it your mothers will fill you in. Link via josh marshall

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    Technically Abramoff said that he "recommended" to the tribes who they give money to. Good luck selling that to the public. What'll you say? "Abramoff told them who they should give to, and how much to give, but, um, he didn't actually make them do it, so it's quite different than if he'd directed them." Then there's that famous right-wing mouthpiece, the Washington Post reported, in a story headlined "Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations," that:
    An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars
    Then again, maybe "directed" is not really such a bad word after all:
    "Jack Abramoff directed many, many tribes to donate many, many dollars to a laundry list (of politicians) on both sides of the aisle," said Jimmy Faircloth, general counsel for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.
    Four of Abramoff's tribal clients donated $52,000 - a fraction of the campaign cash Abramoff channeled to Republicans and Democrats alike - to the two Missouri campaign committees from 2002 to 2004.
    Lies, all lies! Boy, if we could just get some of these people to testify under oath, maybe the real truth would come out. Oh wait! It has. Let's listen to tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich, under oath, in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, 2004-09-29:
    Senator Inouye. Were any of the contributions made to political party organizations, like the presidential committees? Mr. Milanovich. I do not recall a presidential committee, but perhaps the two party committees. Senator Inouye. Democrat and Republican? Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir.
    Firsthand accounts, made under oath. Let's just call it a scintilla, shall we?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    They certainly are pedaling as fast as they can. Josh Marshall links to another report that says Abramoff preferred Republicans, with before and after (this is crucial) details: The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. Katie and Matt're going to have to give this one to Al Roker to clean up. I trust him more anyway.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    Anonymous, Read the post above yours. Contributions from those tribes to dems DROPPED after they hired Abramoff. They don't have to claim anything in this case.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    Anonymous (hey, log in, would you?) The tribes who were Abramoff's clients were entitled to donate money to whom they liked: this was not a crime. As the money the tribes donated was not Abramoff's, whatever donations the tribes made has no connection to the crimes Abramoff is being charged with - bribery, money laundering, and fraud. As for "selling" that to the public, I'm sure most people would understand that if your neighbor falls victim to a con man, and while being defrauded by the con man gives you a chocolate cake in expectation of being loaned your lawnmower, you are not implicated in the con man's crimes. Yet this is what the Republicans want to "sell" to the public - the idea that the tribes, because they were defrauded by Abramoff, are implicated in Abramoff's crimes; and that therefore any donations made by the tribes who were Abramoff's clients are dirty money. Abramoff defrauded the tribes who were his clients. The money flow was one-way: from the tribes to Abramoff, not the other way round. As for that column by Deirdre Shesgreen from the St Louis Post-Dispatch: any columnist who claims that Abramoff "channeled campaign cash to Republicans and Democrats alike" is hardly a reliable source of information, if she gets such a fundamental fact so completely wrong. Abramoff channeled cash - legal campaign donations, illegal bribes - to Republicans alone, not at all to Democrats.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    OK, the tribes' donations to democrats tended to decrease after Abramoff's direction. That's pretty d*mning to the peddlers. But they still have a glimmer of a chance of not being full of carp. Did the donations to democrats tend to shift toward certain democrats even while declining? If the tribes were giving to a mix of dems before Abramoff's direction, and consistently to the same few dems after, that would be consistent with directing money to "both parties". As in they all started donating to Lieberman, and stopped giving to other Democrats. Not claiming that's the case, just wondering.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    Those Indian tribes gave the same amount of money to democrats before they hired Abramoff as after
    That is a flat out lie. Every tribe gave LESS after J A off was involved. Now let's talk about 'earmarks', all those republican kickbacks done in the middle of the night to their bribing friends. Gee, ever heard of Alaska's 'Bridge to Nowhere'? Repubs changed their vote after getting $$ from JAoff, dems NEVER recieved a cent from JAoff, and didn't change their vote after tribe donations. Amazing how all these cowards come out of the woodwork as soon as they think they can't be personally identified. What they don't know is that their IP Address and ISP are logged with every post. Just another rethug tactic. I bet half the 'new' commenters can be directly attributed to official Repub IP #s.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    Sorry all, the above post was by me, Sailor, not some anonymous coward.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#18)
    by ras on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:00:25 PM EST
    If the Dem defence amounts to "well, at least we were cheaper wh*res," then they're gonna get their clocks cleaned.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 06:52:14 AM EST
    I think the indignation on the left is pretty telling. Would it be so shocking to find that Democratic legislators could be bought as well? Sorry if I'm misreading it, but the implication is that the left is inherently above this kind of racket. Ridiculous, there is nothing intrinsic to liberals that immunize them against this kind of crap. The Republican's solid and thorough hold on power provided the opportunity; bottom line.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:06:07 AM EST
    pigwiggle, you are absolutely right that democrats can be corrupted to. Like I said, that is why us liberals are often fighting to try to get corporate money out of government. I think republicans are slightly more susceptible only because their ideology already makes them friendly to corporate interests. I why I find it more offensive when dems do it because they are betraying their core principles. But this isn't a lobbying scandal, which is the point I think Jesurgislac was trying to make. Abramoff, a very powerful GOP operative who worked very hard to help get republicans elected, stepped over the line in doing this and committed crimes - bribery, money laundering, fraud. The crime isn't that Indians gave money to republicans (or democrats). It is that Abramoff charged them a whole bunch of money to do something, but then didn't do it (that was the fraud part) and then laundered lots of his ill-gotten gains into a bunch of phoney charities and then worked a lot of it back into republican politicians hands. Who the Indians gave money to is not really of consequence, though politicians might want to give it back if they feel that the Indians were tricked/screwed into giving the donations by a sleazy Abramoff.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:46:14 AM EST
    J.B.-It is so hard to understand why the wingers are not getting this, What is clear is the brilliant tactics via MSM the WH employs to elide two unrelated issues in order to convince the public that apples are oranges; deft and magic at its worst. Rove is a genius, sadly an evil one. Your post is crystal clear. The fact that anyone cannot get it from what you wrote is a testament to the cleverness of WH spin. Humans often cannot see a thing that they have been conditioned not to, unlike animals. The famous basketball video, for instance is a clear example. When viewing the video, try to count the total number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball. Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black. Watch the video and when you're done, visit this link for more information.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:49:39 AM EST
    T Chris - After Anonymous' 04:47 PM comments, would you like to change your comment re evidence of the tribes giving money as dirtected by Abramoff? Doesn't his comments and links pretty well prove the point? Zappatero - Well, you see, it works like this. Members of the party in power, that would be Repubs in this case, get more money becaise it is understood that they can get more things done than the members of the party out of power, that would be Demos. Now some money is given to the party out of power as a kind of pilot light. You know. Keep the flame burning so that when they get back in power they have some fond memories of the giver. You will also find, in this matter, that the Demos who received money were almost exclusively from states that have indian casinos as shown in this link. Patty Murray, for example, is from Washington, which has 16 indinan casinos. You should understand that the tribes are very intersted in trying to be sure that they have access to such politicians. Jesurgislac - You can refuse to believe that Washington Post and the St Louis Dispatch, but how about this?
    Oh wait! It has. Let's listen to tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich, under oath, in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, 2004-09-29:
    "Senator Inouye. Were any of the contributions made to political party organizations, like the presidential committees? Mr. Milanovich. I do not recall a presidential committee, but perhaps the two party committees. Senator Inouye. Democrat and Republican? Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir."
    Firsthand accounts, made under oath. Let's just call it a scintilla, shall we?
    Thank you Anonymous at 4:47PM, whoever you are. et al - Now, let us have no more debate about whether or not Abramoff directed the tribes to give to both parties.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:53:51 AM EST
    Squeaky: Humans often cannot see a thing that they have been conditioned not to, unlike animals. That's pretty clear, even more so after Jim's post.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:54:28 AM EST
    Jes, When those complaining about Abramoff show as much concern over Harry Reid's writing legislation to directly benefit company's which have hired his sons and sons-in-law to lobby for them, I'll believe that they are more than just partisan complaints. When those same people also concern themselves with Barbara Boxer working on Indian affairs while being schmoozed by her Indian tribal lobbyist son, I'll believe that they are truly concerned with the problem at hand. Until then, this is just one set of partisans attacking their enemies for the same thing they conveniently ignore in their friends. Pure and unadulaterated politics, with no principle behind it at all. And as for why am I not sure that Abramoff is a purely Republican issue: Claims have been made on both sides of the aisle, and while Abramoff is a Republican, that does not mean he was unwilling to work with or through Democrats when necessary to get what he needed for his clients. I'd rather wait and see how those claims play out before making a decision on just how one-sided this thing is. You are, of course, free to jump to whatever convenient conclusions you wish if they fit your preconcieved notions.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:58:46 AM EST
    edger - So you contend that the WP, St Louis D and the Tribal Chairman are lying? edger, that is funny. Really, really funny.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 08:12:29 AM EST
    Jim, I realize you have trouble resisting that impulse for attributing things not said, in your attempts at diversion. Take Squeaky's advice. Go back and read... really read... J.B.'s post.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    edger - Nice try your self. But the Left has been saying for weeks that the indians weren't directed to give money to Democrats by Abramoff. Now we have testimony and news articles that they were. So now you want to talk about what his crime was? But, since you bring it, and since we now know that Abramoff directed the show, let's look at JB's comments.
    But this isn't a lobbying scandal...
    Huh? Abramoff is a lobbyists and he and his clients gave money to politicians.
    It is that Abramoff charged them a whole bunch of money to do something, but then didn't do it (that was the fraud part) and then laundered lots of his ill-gotten gains into a bunch of phoney charities
    Okay, he may have done this.
    and then worked a lot of it back into republican politicians hands. Who the Indians gave money to is not really of consequence...
    Here his argument breaks down on two points. First, we know that Abramoff directed the Indians money to both parties. Secondly, if you assume he was corrupt for giving it and the Repubs taking it, then so were his actions in directing money to the Demos. He controlled both actions.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#33)
    by TChris on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 10:36:49 AM EST
    It's telling, I think, that the SLT article provides very specific information about dollars directed to specific Republican recipients, while making a generalized assertion that Abramoff also directed donations to Democrats. But yes, I'll concede that the assertion constitutes a scintilla of evidence.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    TChris-Yes, but what does that have to do with the criminal charges against JA? Apples and elephants. Current lobbying practice has big ethical problems on both sides of the aisle. RNC has lumped lobby reform with the JA indictment in order to take the heat off the criminal issue. I am shocked that you took the bait.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    TChris-I would love to hear back as to what your logic is in your above comment. Your posts and comments are usually quite right on and clear but this one is an enigma to me. Specifically regarding:
    But yes, I'll concede that the assertion constitutes a scintilla of evidence.
    A scintilla of evidence of what? Perhaps I am missing your point.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    is this a scintilla of evidence. Of course Feinstein says she returned the money, but what about those that didn't. Can everyone who took money for influence, republicans and Dems

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Jim, you misunderstand me. There are two pots of money. There is money that Indians give to politicians, often at the direction of their consultants, not always so. Then there are the fees that Abramoff charged the Indians. Now, lobbying is sleazy, we need campaign reform, blah blah blah, but it is not illegal and it is not what the scandal is about. It is about the fees (several million dollars) that Abramhoff bilked his clients out of. He has pled guilty to this. This isn't the money that was given to politicians, this was the money that was given to Abramoff and his pal Scanlon and some other cronies. That is the crime and the scandal. And then what makes this a bigger story than just that Ambramoff is a very bad man, is - What did he do with this illegally gotten money he stole from the Indians? And it looks like he put a lot of it in weird slush funds that he may well have used to help out his republican buddies, and certainly he donated tons of his ill-gotten gains to republicans. When I say this isn't a lobbying scandal per se (it is a cheating your lobbying clients scandal first of all), it is because Abramoff, who yes, is a lobbyist, did something else with his time - he raised lots and lots of money for republican campaigns and causes, possibly using his dirty money and breaking all the rules.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#38)
    by TChris on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    A scintilla of evidence that Abramoff directed contributions to Democrats. I don't find it to be convincing or corroborated evidence, nor do I see even a scintilla of evidence that Democrats were bribed or that this is anything but a Republican scandal.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    Thanks TChris for clarifying that.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    T Chris - I must say I am totally shocked and surprised by your position. ;-) Are you saying that the tribal chief's testimony is untrue? J.B. writes:
    It is about the fees (several million dollars) that Abramhoff bilked his clients out of.
    So? What does that have to do with the fact that he directed, and his clients did, that money be given to Demos and Repubs?
    This isn't the money that was given to politicians, this was the money that was given to Abramoff and his pal Scanlon and some other cronies.
    So where is the scandal? So Abramoff is a lobbyist who likes Repubs? So he gave money that may, or may not, have been obtained illegally. How is that a scandal?
    he put a lot of it in weird slush funds that he may well have used to help out his republican buddies, and certainly he donated tons of his ill-gotten gains to republicans.
    So? If he did, that isn't illegal. A bank robber can buy a Big Mac or a Burger King.
    possibly using his dirty money and breaking all the rules.
    As I noted above, the use of stolen money doesn't make the other party guilty, unless there is some other crime that you leave unstated. So. What rules are you talking about. What we have here is a failure to understand that everything he did wasn't illegal, although I understand your strong desire for them to be so.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    ppj-we are only saying that the illegal thing JA did (and pled guilty for) is illegal. OK his leaga stuff was legal.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#42)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    Let's see-Abramoff directs his clients (the tribes) to funnel money to democrats.
    Wow, evidently Abramoff has a time machine. He directed his clients to give Democrats money -- before he even had contact with them! Because, as all of our trolls know, the amount of money Democrats got from Abramoff's tribes decreased, unsurprisingly, since they started giving so much to Republicans. God, we are so sinister, giving Abramoff that time machine to cover our tracks!

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#43)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    Jim, what part of "The amount of money Abramoff's clients gave to Democrats remained unchanged before and after he started dealing with them, whereas the amount of money they gave to Republicans increased by 300% or more" don't you understand?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#44)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    I mean, it would be one thing if their contributions to Democrats went from $0 to $1.5 million. But it went from $1.5 million to... slightly less than $1.5 million. WOW! Whereas the Republicans' went from $1.5 million to over $3 million. Whoops? How the heck did THAT happen? Do I have to start getting really pedantic with the math here?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#45)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    Do I have to start getting really pedantic with the math here?
    scar, ever notice facts have any effect so far?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    scar writes Do I have to start getting really pedantic with the math here?

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    ooops on the wrong button Scar writes:
    Do I have to start getting really pedantic with the math here?
    If you want to, be my guest. But you might try applying a little logic... The party in power was the Repubs. Thus they got the most money. It just works that way. If you want to buy influence you don't go to someone who can't deliver.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    See what I mean Scar? ;-)

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#49)
    by chupetin on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    scar, ever notice facts have any effect so far?
    Guess it depends, have any of the right wingers that post here changed your mind about anything? No Ha? I imagine it works both ways. I have never seen a post from them saying "guess you guys were right on this one" and we never will. Since we are the players, we can't make the call, but I sincerely believe that history will vindicate me when I say that this is the worst president that the US has ever had. Anyway, who knows, like EC says "but you never see the lies that you believe".

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#50)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    ast time I checked it wasn't the tribes that were indicted. No Dems either. Let's let justice take it's course. We'll soon enough find out who broke the law and who didn't. As to the reform issue, this should be done by the chickens in the henhouse, not the foxes.

    Re: Technically Speaking (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    Chupetin, actually there are several instances when rw commenters corrected me on facts, and I admitted I was wrong.

    Technically Speaking | 50 comments (50 topical)