January 04, 2006

Bush campaign to donate Abramoff contributions Speaker Hastert, Rep. DeLay to also donate money from lobbyist Yes Slushfans it's time to disavow any knowledge of Abramoffgate! Read the charges! Eat to the beat of big money talking! And don't forget! "It was an in-kind contribution, and it was an oversight that it wasn't reported, but we are taking steps to correct that" Whew!
posted by petebest 18 years ago
  • Apparently, there was no controlling legal authority on this thing.
  • Be aware that Bush is giving $6k to charity. The other $94,000 that was directed to his campaign by Abramoff's efforts he's hanging onto. How much more fraud and corruption does this country need to see before we take this idiot (Bush, in case you wondered just which idiot I meant) out of office. But, hell, let's just all go see Narnia...it'll be ok, right?
  • Bush, in case you wondered just which idiot I meant Well, yeah, we did, considering there are lots of people that took money from this hump. Are we really shocked here, at the revelation that lobbyists extract concessions and preferential treatment in exchange for (gasp) money? I'm not defending Bush on this. but it's not like this is something he personally invented. Both houses, both parties, lots of bribery and corruption to go around. And where Abramoff leaves off, dozens of others will step in to fill the now-empty outstretched hands of our beloved representatives. To paraphrase: a well-earned pox on both houses :)
  • Jack Abramoff donated nothing to Democrats. Democrats received $0.00 from Abramoff.
  • Jack Abramoff donated nothing to Democrats. That may be (although I haven't heard that) but I agree that both parties are guilty of money-for-favors. It's so utterly accepted that many quotes I've heard surrounding Abramoffgate have been "well, that's the way it is". That and paperless balloting are why we are regularly fUX0r3d!1! by this representative republic. My hope is that this fetid stenchole drama will create some legislation to rein it in a lot.
  • Dammit Fes, on this website we respect the law of the excluded middle!
  • On postview, nice link Fes.
  • Abramoff never personally gave money to a single Democrat. All his personal and family contributions went to Republicans. Lots of his clients contributed to the GOP & Dems, but that is not the issue, the issue is Abramoff's party affiliation and his motives. So when you read such statements as "Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff" understand that it is factually incorrect and somewhat of a diversion tactic.
  • I am sure that they all take bribes. I don't care how much they take or who is doing the taking. I think that it is important to attack the receivers of the bribes with everything the media and the law have to attack them with. It is the worst thing that can go on in government. Business as usual? It may be. So go after whoever there is taking the bribes and make others afraid to take bribes in the future.
  • Lots of his clients contributed to the GOP & Dems, but that is not the issue, the issue is Abramoff's party affiliation and his motives. My understanding is the exact opposite is the issue, at least with regard to illegal activities. Personal contributions to the party of your choice, while one's motives may be nefarious, are iirc protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
  • Really? You can only bribe people with someone else's money? /serious
  • up to $2000 I think, yeah. Then you need other people's money to bribe someone.
  • I think you can contribute any amount to a nonspecific party-affiliated PAC ("soft money"), but yeah, there's a limit to how much you can contribute personally to a single candidate. $2K sounds right. Lots of ways around it, though, of course.
  • MonkeyFilter: Fetid stenchole drama
  • "Personal contributions to the party of your choice, while one's motives may be nefarious, are iirc protected speech under the 1st Amendment." The political contributions are not what this is about. This is about the enrichment of Republican representatives' families, boondoggle vacation trips, and perks that do not fall under the definition of political contributions, in return for doing the bidding of Abramoff and cronies. Patronage and contracts awarded for political favours - and primarily this all takes place outside of the political machine, you see. People who wanted to make deals with the GOP would give Abramoff millions of dollars in lobbying fees, which he would then launder via various sham groups, or phony charities, what-have-you. This largess was used to fund political transactions by Congressmen, or used to give family members a choice contract, or to fund extravagant vacations, such as Scottish golf trips, etc.
  • Actually, it's looking more and more like this is bout the ways in which the US Republican party operates. This LA Times article talks about Abramoff's part in the K Street project, and here is some more detail about how lobbyists were converted to acting as part of the machine.
  • For the sake of unity, then, we shall hereafter take it as assumed that Byron Dorgan has honorary "Republican" status for the duration of the festivities.
  • According to Media Matters, there is no record Dorgan ever received contributions from Jack Abramoff or his wife.
  • According to Slate, Dorgan returned $67,000 of Abramoff-related donations. He did receive, according to the AP, upwards of $20K from Abramoff's firm and various Indian tribes within a month of sending a letter to the Senate Appropriations committee in support of an Indian school building plan that Abramoff was lobbying for. Dorgan, it may be noted, is chairman of the Indian Affairs committee. But yes, it is certainly possible that Dorgan never received a personal check with Abramoff's name, or his wife's, on it.
  • Shit. Linkies one and two, sorry about that.
  • Werd to polychrome - the point of the story is not that a legislator was bribed (or however you want to say it) but that this goes way beyond the scope of what was "accepted" and how the K Street Project went over the line, even for the politicos. Concise Story here (audio link, if you like)
  • Still you gotta love the hat via J-Walk blog
  • I don't think that's a fedora, which are I believe characterized by a downturn on the brim in the back, and a oval brim in general. That hat looks more circular, like a Homburg, but Homburg's typically have upturned brims (like a serving plate for a juicy dish). Rather, it is, I believe, a "porkpie" hat (and a rather largish one, by the looks of it, or else Abramoff has a small, dainty head). I've seen some nice porkpies in black leather at Wilsons. As a bald man, I too fervently wish for the return of the hat as a staple in menswear. For Abramoff, however, it's an obvious affectation, like a hale man carrying a walking stick. He wears it not because it looks cool, but because he *thinks* it looks cool, which thus makes it uncool.
  • I am not hugely schooled in hats, though, so I could easily be wrong on that.
  • Evacuate? In our hour of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!
  • Dozens of lawmakers jettison Abramoff donations Republicans make up three quarters of those donating funds "I wish it hadn't happened because it's not going to help us keep our majority," conceded Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio.
  • I retract my earlier statement: it *is* a fedora. Pete's CNN link has a better angle on it. "I wish it hadn't happened because it's not going to help us keep our majority," conceded Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio. What a dipshit. Hubris, &c.
  • Upon second thought, it might not be hubris. It might be a simple inability to think about what one is going to say before actually saying it, coupled with the narrowminded, us v them partisanship that would prompt someone to, in light of the greater issue of rampant congressional bribery, to consider anything further than the meanest, short-term consequence. Golly gee, dudes, we might lose our majority! Horrors! Well, maybe you deserve to lose it, for being such greedy corkball dipshits, when you were supposed to be the party of fiscally responsible, liberty-minded, small-government, sanctity-of-individual-rights grownups. Feh.
  • "We've gotta protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen, we must do something about this immediately!"
  • I didn't get a harumph from that guy! Harumph! You watch your ass!
  • MonkeyFilter: greedy corkball dipshits
  • This particular man of God, vaunted for his scholarly understanding of the Bible and his apologetics for Christian fundamentalism, turns out to have served as a money launderer and fraudster for Abramoff. Awww.
  • DeLay finished as majority leader 1 down, ??? to go.
  • Off. Heh.
  • Who is "Abram" anyway?
  • This from the party that repealed their own "You can't be Speaker if you're convicted" rules.
  • "The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps..." What IS this hat obsession, anyway? Next thing you know, there'll be a clause allowing gifts of fedoras.
  • The "gift" was a baseball cap. With a pennant to wave. And a team.
  • "I don't know him." --POTUS George W. Liar, on Jack Abramoff, whom he appointed to his transition team in 2001. "I never met Jack Abramoff" --New Tom DeLiar House majority 'leeter Boehner who accepted millions from Indian Tribal groups after meeting Jack Abramoff, and who acknowledges handing out tobacco industry checks on the house floor during session to influence votes. Y'know I don't know why f8x never visits this thread. I'd be interested what today's compassionate conservative thinks of a BushCo. corruption scandal.
  • petebest: I love you, dawg... but I don't think the callout of f8x here is fair. All too often, it seems like requests for f8x or Fes to join a political thread are a code for "hey, we need a right-wing punching bag over here," and I think we should probably be above that. If I'm reading your comment incorrectly, my apologies.
  • no, no that's fair but it's also the case that the right-wing apologists (in the true sense of the word) seem pretty scarce after gloating over the 2004 election and some random Intelligent Design action. Abu Gharib and the torture scandals, illegal wiretapping, bungled war, bin laden not found, Alito, (no)global warming, you name it - who's representing that 51% or whatever percentage props up the right?
  • non-Abramoff related, at least on the surface: As the San Diego Union-Tribune explains, the bribes Cunningham took range from "the routine" to "the peculiar" to "the truly astonishing": meals and travel, a laser shooting simulator, cars, yachts, houses and antiques as well as $1 million in good, old-fashioned checks and wire transfers. To cover his tracks along the way, the paper says, Cunningham tried to persuade a real estate agent, a rug dealer and others to lie on his behalf and rejected a suspicious staffer's demand that he resign. "Persian rugs were delivered to [Cunningham's] district office, and a staff member delivered a cash-stuffed envelope to Cunningham and saw invoices and sales records that cried out bribery," the Union-Tribune reports. "This employee confronted him with the evidence and demanded that he resign. Cunningham thought it over before deciding he would rather stay."
  • Yeah, the Cunningham thing is unbelieveable. The sentencing memorandum can be found here.
  • Could be that we don't notice that the conversations are ongoing - often as not, I don't know when discussion on a topic has continued. While I can't speak for f8x, and while I have railed a bit in the past on the conservative callout, if people want my opinion as a conservative on this or that topic, especially in the threads that have passed off the front page, drop me an email to let me know and I'll be happy to toss in my 2c. As for conservatives' occasionally going missing in action, and again, can't speak for f8x, but I will occasionally bypass a thread that is obviously an outrage-meter-pegger for the left or is a conservative-trap (those, thankfully, are rare here). For instance, there was a thread on the newly release Abu Ghraib photos not long ago, in which I declined to comment. I've stated my opinion on the activities there before, I do not condone or support torture, and am as sickened by thte treatment of the Abu Ghraib prisoners as you are. But, as a stated past supporter of Bush and the war, all too often I am called to defend actions which I find deplorable. The question remains: why then not say so? I could, of course, and have before. But in many cases, it just seems better to avoid the conversation altogether. How many times have we seen people exhorted to avoid threads that they find troublesome or trollish? And yet on the other hand, to do so when one is a conservative sometimes invites speculation that we are either fearful to join since our positions are frail, or convictions in absentia as supporters of whatever happens to be going on that we are neither a part of nor, often, support. There are some who have made the claim that, having voted Republican and supported the administration on *some* things indicates that we support the administration in *all* things and are tacitly responsible for whatever the administration does. This is not the case - Republicans are as different in philosophy and outlook as Democrats. F8x and I, while we share a great many conservative precepts, differ on just as many. And as for responsbility: I'd like to think that I am responsible for my own actions and beliefs, and no one elses - no more so that a liberal is responsible for Pelosi's or Kennedy's actions, or a Labourite for Blair's, or a Communist for Putin's. People believe what they believe, with lesser or greater levels of intellectual underpinning. But I don't think that we should equate support with collective responsibility.
  • But I don't think that we should equate support with collective responsibility. Well that's a great point, and maybe I'm not looking for stories of the Bush administration that I'd support, but I want to say I haven't found any. Perhaps it has to do with thinking the rush/campaign to war in Iraq was not only criminal and immoral but blatantly so, that I'm always perplexed/aghast that anyone would support them as a regime. Particularly when they're friends & family. Point taken about individual/collective support though, and thanks for the $0.02.
  • Fes: I may not agree with what you have to say, but I commend you for a cogent, well-thought out comment.
  • Ex-Congressman Gets 8-Year Term in Bribery Case The Dukester (not ours - theirs) gets 8.5 years for gross bribery. Yay. But guess who requested a 10 million dollar project on behalf of one of the contractors who testified to bribing Cunningham? Heeyyyy . . . where have I seen that name before?
  • DeLay spends election night with . . . Lobbyists! "I think it's amazingly ironic and callous he would be spending election night with a group of lobbyists," Campbell said. "I don't think he understands how unhappy constituents are with what appears to be a trade of principle for power."
  • Abramoff's AmEx bill Outs DeLay D'oh! Stupid computers! (and what a picture on that one - the guy looks like he's 5)
  • Who did he THINK was paying?
  • This is a classic illustration of what's gone wrong. These guys think they're so far above the law that they don't even need to bother being secret about breaking it anymore. And the sad part is that in most cases, they're right.
  • They don't feel they're *above* the law - they *make* the law. Does a baker feel he is above the biscuits? It is a malleable thing in their hands, something to be crafted, bent to purpose. If anything, I think they're attitude would be more one of separateness from the law, of being not so much above as outside of it. And the vaunted Fourth Estate allows them license. One of the primary responsibilites of the media is to check the efforts of government towards tyranny. It is one of the reasons that journalists enjoy the privileges of access, of authority, that they do. But of course, most of the new media have abrogated this responsibility with nary a thought. As a former journalist and media professional, this is more repugnant to me than anything that a politician might do. Politicians are by nature graft-hungry power-junkies! To see them assay tyranny is like a seeing a child trying to get the cookies of the counter - a natural, almost instinctual impulse. But it is the PRESS who is supposed to expose and check that. And nowadays, the press is nothing to fear.
  • They taught me in school that it's the legislative branch that makes the law, the judicial brancj that interprets it, and the executive one that (like the name says) executes it.
  • And the press is supposed to hold all three accountable to the citizenry who judges them worthy or not.
  • well spoke Scoops, er I mean Fes . . . :)
  • The American press has taken a major hit from televised 'news' broadcasting over the past three decades. And news-blogs aren't filling in the holes.
  • Bees: I agree to a point. Everyone expected that the print media would get it's ass handed to it when TV news really came out and while it did a little bit, what TV news really did was morph the way the print news handled itself. There was no way print could stand up against news for timeliness and eyeball appeal, so print concentrated itself (and advertised subsequently) that where TV was timely, print was deep. The other thing that kept TV from killing print was that they sent information via very different mediums - I won't go into a lot of communication thoery here, but the idea is that people seek either print or TV news to meet different communicative needs. While the general market (for news) was the same, the product was as different as the method of transfer. In short, print survived BUT they did see some mild contractions in circ and advert dollars. Basically, they were standing on a the precipice of the very real "major hit" you describe. But that hit hasn't come for the most part over three decades (and TV news has been around for six decades, remember); it has come in the last 15 years or so. Why: internet. The internet has murdered print journalism in two ways that TV never could (or, really, did): one, whereas Tv and print are at their core different mediums, print and internet are NOT - both text and photo. The inhabit the same communicative channel. And second (more importantly in my opinion) the internet allowed the amateur newsgatherer an equal footprint in the market and, even more damning, provided easy access to the consumer to a wide variety of news sources, far FAR wider than every before available, even in the largest library reading room. When amateurs on the scene compete with equal footing to the formerly vaunted paper and any reader can access literally thousands of news sources at the click of a mouse and can use those sources to compare and contrast the accuracy and biases of their prime news source? The newspaper suffers mightily.
  • In the net-enhanced world, there is now only one criteria in the news marketplace: credibility. Newspapers still think they own their local markets, and are opinion leaders therein. But increasingly, the are getting burnt, getting it wrong, getting scooped, and getting stomped. Increasing economic pressures invariably end up punishing the news side rather than the business side, and slowly, credibility-wise, they swirl around the bowl in a vicious circle of credibility gap --> declining circ --> decling revenues --> pressure on news --> declining cred... I think the traditional print version of the daily news will die by 2050, save for some legacy papers that will print versions for throwbacks who love the feel of a fat Sunday newspaper with their eggs and coffee.
  • Almost 6 years And so, civilization was saved and common decency was restored. But . . . . for how long?!?!
  • Pshaw. This was not punishment for graft, nor will it stop for one moment the river of money. This was punishment for breaking the delicate surface tension between what is seen and what is real.
  • Cynicism noted, Sir Fes - but remember he still has another trail to go. I forget the details but I wanna say it's in D.C. as opposed to FL.
  • trail trial.
  • They can throw him in the clink for life, it won't change a thing in DC, except to make his counterparts a bit more surreptitious. Lobbyists want and need to bribe, Congress wants and needs to *be* bribed, and the rest is theater.
  • They can throw him in the clink for life And maybe they should. But don't you think that - like America itself - a bribe-free government is an ideal that must continuously be strived (?) for? striven? stroved?
  • Sure, like a Platonic Form. But realistically, it's like striving for "world peace" or "human rights." There is always going to be someone, somewhere, aiming an AK at someone they have chosen not to like. We should always try to make our areas of influence better - to aim for ideals. But we should similarly have no illusions as to actually achieving those ideals on a grand scale. There will always be graft, corruption, war and suffering. It is not, I believe, within the power of humanity to stop these things, because they are rooted inextricably in the way humanity is. There's a lot of wisdom in the phrase "think globally but act locally."* There is always the windmill of the day to be tilted at, but I think we're personally better off to clean up around the house, than rage about the lack of clean up around the capitol. Mote, beam, etc. *as there is in the phrase "think Yiddish, dress British"
  • I thought it was "write Yiddish, act British" in regard to sitcom tv shows
  • mine is attributed to Gene Simmons of KISS. But I reversed it, it's "Dress British, Think Yiddish."
  • Grover Norquist Fences Stolen Car Stereos Moving money from a casino-operating Indian tribe to Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition founder and professed gambling opponent, was a problem. Lobbyist Abramoff turned to his longtime friend Norquist, apparently to provide a buffer for Reed. This is a SLEAZY story, but it would make a great viral Intarweb video with sock puppets.
  • OT, but big snaps to homunculus for the link text above. And Ralph Reed always looks to me like he's got kids chained up in his basement for the evening's...entertainment.
  • OT = too many choices I C: Over the Top Old Testament Occupational Therapy Oolong Tea Old Texas Overly Technical Overly Truthful OverTime =oaty, full of oats PS, are those ginger snaps?
  • I hear the freedom fries in prison are fabulous. Republican party-of-big-business anti-environment, screw-the-poor ignorant Hobag sleaze licking fucker. Well! That felt cathartic.
  • Including Rove, and Mehlman too. And Santorum was named last week. And Ney's excuse? Alcoholism. He was so god damned drunk all the time, he forgot that it's illegal for him to take bribes.
  • In other news, is Republican Rep Mark Foley trying to seduce a 16 year-old boy?
  • Seems like a stretch...caould easily be as innocent as he claims.
  • I agree, a huge stretch. I mean, who would believe that a priest congressman would be sexually interested in a young boy?
  • TPM: "Everybody's running for cover," including House Majority Leader John Boehner (and it's pronounced "B-A-Yner," you sick bastards.)
  • Oops! Heh. Boner.
  • ...did I scoop Homunculus? (also, add Hastert to the list of people who covered for Foley)
  • I am not a nice man. Not at all. For I want to see them all brought low.
  • Didn't Abramoff visit the WH "hundreds of times"? This sort of pointless corrupting secrecy exactly, even specifically, what the new policy is about, methinks
  • Bees, there's not being nice, and there's aching for justice. Two separate things.
  • "Dusty" Foggo has to be a CIA agent based on his name alone. An alleged crooked CIA agent, all the more literary. Sad, and par for this administration's cronyistic course, but literary.
  • YES! Finally! *pops popcorn* On or about August 15, 2003, after approximately 15 minutes in the suite, [Wilkes] and [Cunningham] escorted Prostitutes "A" and "B" upstairs to separate rooms. At approximately midnight, Wilkes tipped Prostitute "A" $500 for the services; ...and the next day, after a catered breakfast, a cocktail party, a lavish dinner... On or about August 16, 2003, at approximately 11:00 p.m., [Wilkes] arranged to have Prostitute "A" and Prostitute "C" available for himself and [Cunningham]. Pursuant to Cunningham's request, Wilkes arranged for the Congressman to get a different prostitute for the second evening; Sweeeet.
  • Note to self: Avoid prostitute "B".
  • During one of those trips, Heaton and another staffer helped Ney conceal $5,000 brought into the country through customs and stored the money in a safe inside Ney’s congressional office. Court documents said Heaton “open[ed] the safe as requested so that Ney could make repeated withdrawals.” Sah-Leeze-Ee! Goodbye corrupt politician-loser! You suck!
  • Oh sure, and next you're going to tell me that Dick Cheney publicly outed the CIA agent investigating Iran's possible nuclear weapons just to blow smoke and cover up faulty Iraq intelligence. You crazy kids!
  • To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated. That should raise questions about the White House’s involvement. Sticky!
  • I'm suddenly reminded of that old elementary school chant "I'm rubber and you're glue..."