So much for "Abramoff never gave a Dem a Dime"

[DKW 86 7,438]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html

Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER

Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long- held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid, D-Nev., has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. I must be missing the Nevada-Marianas Connection here. Can you help me out Tex?

More...

[LegalEagle 22]

Who are you quoting in the title to this thread? Link?

[Tigermike 3,046]

I've been waiting for a lib response to this and this is the best you can do? I have been wondering if Tex will instead have the Honorable US Senator for Nevada Harry Reid's picture placed on his Kickback Mountain poster?

[LegalEagle 22]

Well, the sad thing is that Rebublicans reek of corruption. When many of them get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they find one Democrat just like them and point all blame to him. Their blind puppet followers join in jumping on the Dem. They never accept blame and admit their anti-American activities.

Keep those blinders on boy.

Oh, and don't forget that they make up quotes and use them in their posts. The blind also accept that as fact and charge on. They make old look brilliant.

[MDM4AU 336]

98% of politicians on both sides of the aisle reek of corruption. Some more than others, but it is not proprietary to one group. This just happens to be a Republican story. But if you for one instance believe that the corruption or even the finger pointing when caught is just a Republican thing you are the one with the blinders.

[LegalEagle 22]

98% of politicians on both sides of the aisle reek of corruption.  Some more than others, but it is not proprietary to one group.  This just happens to be a Republican story.  But if you for one instance believe that the corruption or even the finger pointing when caught is just a Republican thing you are the one with the blinders.

219287[/snapback]

Hey. We need to bronze this post. You and I actually agree on something!!

It's just that right now the Republicans are in control and are destroying our country.

[CCTAU 3,336]

It's just that right now the Republicans are in control and are destroying our country. 

So says your opinion. I'm pretty comfortable with the way things are being done right now. There are areas needing improvement. But at least things are being shaken up and getting discussed. When demoncrats are in control there is no question that the path of this country leads straight to HELL.

[Tigermike 3,046]

98% of politicians on both sides of the aisle reek of corruption.  Some more than others, but it is not proprietary to one group.  This just happens to be a Republican story.  But if you for one instance believe that the corruption or even the finger pointing when caught is just a Republican thing you are the one with the blinders.

219287[/snapback]

Hey. We need to bronze this post. You and I actually agree on something!!

It's just that right now the Republicans are in control and are destroying our country.

219298[/snapback]

Are your eyes brown?

[LegalEagle 22]

It's just that right now the Republicans are in control and are destroying our country. 

So says your opinion. I'm pretty comfortable with the way things are being done right now. There are areas needing improvement. But at least things are being shaken up and getting discussed. When demoncrats are in control there is no question that the path of this country leads straight to HELL.

219320[/snapback]

Here's a "little thing" you might need to consider improving on:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/your_debt.htm

[DKW 86 7,438]

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=22658&st=0&p=209094entry209094

QUOTE(DKW 86 @ Jan 5 2006, 02:55 PM)

Among those named by the NRSC as the worst examples of "Democrat hypocrisy" for taking money from Abramoff and his associates are: Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.

Business interests tend to give to key legislators from both parties on the committees that affect their interests the most, e.g. GE will give to both parties. These tribes were not different in that regard. But the statement "taking money from Abramoff and his associates" is false. Abramoff did not give money to Democrats.

Look to the sham "charities" he set up and where the money went. Look to whose family members were on his payroll. That should tell you how this scandal tilts.

Tex said: Abramoff did not give money to Democrats.

That's who...

[DKW 86 7,438]

LE, I totally agree with you about the Reps right now. I am very dismayed that they almost all turned into Tip O'neill. Very disheartened.

But, Till we regular people get in control of our party, I will be an instigator there versus turning Dem. The Dean-Hillary Clinton-Kerry-Kennedy-Reid-Gore party needs some semblance of sanity be restored before I jump back on what was once Ronald Reagan's and my party too. It is a shame.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=22658&st=0&p=209094entry209094

QUOTE(DKW 86 @ Jan 5 2006, 02:55 PM)

Among those named by the NRSC as the worst examples of "Democrat hypocrisy" for taking money from Abramoff and his associates are: Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.

Business interests tend to give to key legislators from both parties on the committees that affect their interests the most, e.g. GE will give to both parties. These tribes were not different in that regard. But the statement "taking money from Abramoff and his associates" is false. Abramoff did not give money to Democrats.

Look to the sham "charities" he set up and where the money went. Look to whose family members were on his payroll. That should tell you how this scandal tilts.

Tex said: Abramoff did not give money to Democrats.

That's who...

219420[/snapback]

He didn't. You still can't research and you still can't even read your own article. Abramoff did not give any money to Democrats. Period. Abramoff's "clients" gave money to Dems before they hired Abramoff. Most gave less afterwards. Most also gave far more to Republicans than they ever had BEFORE they hired Abramoff. As I said in my post you quoted, but still failed to read: "Business interests tend to give to key legislators from both parties on the committees that affect their interests the most, e.g. GE will give to both parties. These tribes were not different in that regard." True then. Still true.

[DKW 86 7,438]

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Apparently Tex, You are the one that cannot read. I guess in your pathetic view of the world, if Abramoff didnt sign the checks himself, or they didnt come from HIS personal bank account then HE didnt pay. He directed, ordered paid, had paid, etc. Reid from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

You Sir live in, on, and by a river, the river of denial.

[LegalEagle 22]

LE, I totally agree with you about the Reps right now. I am very dismayed that they almost all turned into Tip O'neill. Very disheartened. 

But, Till we regular people get in control of our party, I will be an instigator there versus turning Dem. The Dean-Hillary Clinton-Kerry-Kennedy-Reid-Gore party needs some semblance of sanity be restored before I jump back on what was once Ronald Reagan's and my party too. It is a shame.

219421[/snapback]

You are absolutely right about regular people needing to be in control. I'm not a real Regan worshiper either though. Iran - Contra. Olie North, Fawn Hall?

The way it is now, only the super rich can run and win. And only then with big contributions. This media, the internet, is the only opportunity for us to end the status quo. Hopefully, an internet guy or gal will step up and run. How could anyone do worse than what we have for representatives now?

Dean made one good contribution. He showed how the internet could be used for organization and for raising campaign money.

[DKW 86 7,438]

LE, I totally agree with you about the Reps right now. I am very dismayed that they almost all turned into Tip O'neill. Very disheartened. 

But, Till we regular people get in control of our party, I will be an instigator there versus turning Dem. The Dean-Hillary Clinton-Kerry-Kennedy-Reid-Gore party needs some semblance of sanity be restored before I jump back on what was once Ronald Reagan's and my party too. It is a shame.

219421[/snapback]

You are absolutely right about regular people needing to be in control. I'm not a real Regan worshiper either though. Iran - Contra. Olie North, Fawn Hall?

The way it is now, only the super rich can run and win. And only then with big contributions. This media, the internet, is the only opportunity for us to end the status quo. Hopefully, an internet guy or gal will step up and run. How could anyone do worse than what we have for representatives now?

Dean made one good contribution. He showed how the internet could be used for organization and for raising campaign money.

219475[/snapback]

Dean had success one on being a one note nellie, The Internet. I could agrue that MoveOn was the real force behind Dean and that they DO deserve credit for that.

Bush is a good man trying to do a very hardjob. He is basically (IMHO) a bit over matched with the times (IMHO). I dont know any wartime leaders that were very loved during the War. FDR, Lincoln, etc all had their detractors.

Dean is a very passionate loose cannon in a party that is starving for a charismatic leader. He is so busy shooting himself and now the Dems in the foot that he IS hurting the party. Prediction, Obama takes over in about 3-4 years as DNC Chair.

I will say it again, WE need a healthy two party or more system in this country. What we have now is a Rep party run by a few big wigs and a Dem party sidelined with incredibly poor leadership.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Apparently Tex, You are the one that cannot read. I guess in your pathetic view of the world, if Abramoff didnt sign the checks himself, or they didnt come from HIS personal bank account then HE didnt pay. He directed, ordered paid, had paid, etc. Reid from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

You Sir live in, on, and by a river, the river of denial.

219451[/snapback]

Actually, that's Bush's view of the world:

Anne E. Kornblut and Abby Goodnough wrote in the Times:

President Bush and senior Republican lawmakers moved on Wednesday to dump thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist, hastily distancing themselves as he pleaded guilty to two more criminal counts under his agreement with prosecutors.

Mr. Bush will donate $6,000, the amount he received from Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Abramoff's wife and a lobbying client in his re-election campaign in 2004, to the American Heart Association, a spokesman said.

However, The Washington Post reported that the Bush-Cheney campaign has no plans to similarly discharge the bundled contributions raised by Abramoff, the sum total of which is reportedly well over $100,000, and quoted RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt as saying, "At this point, there is nothing to indicate that contributions from those individual donors represents anything other than enthusiastic support for the [bush-Cheney] re-election campaign."

As the Post reported on May 16, 2004, Abramoff was one of 64 lobbyists in a group of more than 300 Pioneers and Rangers who bundled individual contributions for Bush's 2004 presidential campaign. To earn Pioneer status, individuals raised $100,000 or more for the campaign.

Bush's campaign first organized a bundling system in 1998 as a way of formalizing a process whereby individuals could take credit for raising sums of money far beyond the then-$1,000 individual contribution limits set by campaign finance law. Individuals could raise additional contributions from friends and associates and bundle those contributions together and forward them to the campaign. The system expanded significantly in 2004, with the implementation of a four-digit ID code for each prospective Pioneer or Ranger. Individuals were credited only for checks carrying their individual ID numbers.

Abramoff told The New York Times in July 2003 -- more than a year before the election -- that he had already raised at least $120,000 for Bush. Though his final bundled total has not been released by the Bush-Cheney campaign, his status as Pioneer would indicate that it was less than $200,000, the threshold for Ranger status.

From the January 5 Washington Post article:

Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, making him an honorary Bush "Pioneer." But the campaign is giving up only $6,000, which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes the lobbyist represented. The money will be donated to the American Heart Association.

He thinks the only money that matters is what Abramoff himself gave him, not the money he explicity raised for him. This, of course, does not upset you.

But you miss the reason the whole issue of whom he gave money to is even relevant. It is not because it is illegal or even unethical. I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that the long list of Republicans given money directly from Abramoff necessarily did anything crooked to recieve it, and I frankly doubt we will except for a relative handful. Even for them, however, I doubt the inappropriate conduct is actually tied to the campaign contributions Abramoff himself made.

It is relevant becuause of how inaccurately this story has often been portrayed-- consistent with the spin of the White House and other Republicans. Abramoff gave money only to Republicans because he only supported Republicans. Abramoff became a player in Washington only after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. His clients hired him and then gave mostly to Republicans because they were in power. Giving to House Dems over the last 12 years simply doesn't have the same bang for the buck as giving to the Republicans.

The question of who Abramoff personally gave money to is largely irrelevant in terms of what illegal or unethical behavior he is tied to. The real issue is: "what was done illegally because of favors offered?" We don't know the whole answer to that yet, but the known evidence, and the only real logical view, is that it will be largely if not wholly a Republican scandal. It won't include all or even most Republicans. There is no reason to think most Republicans did anything illegal in regard to Abramoff. But there is even less reason to think that Democrats will be found significantly involved with any of his illegal doings, because that was simply not where his influence and connections were.

The story below shows how the Abramoff is shaping up to be a Republican scandal:

Former Lobbyist Testifies Against Official

 Email this Story

May 30, 7:44 PM (ET)

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A convicted lobbyist described Tuesday how he obtained insider information and advice from Bush administration procurement chief David Safavian to advance two projects for Republican influence-peddlar Jack Abramoff, who then took the official on a lavish golf trip to Scotland.

A partner of Abramoff's at the time, Neil Volz also outlined in U.S. District Court how the Abramoff team received assistance from several Republican congressmen or their aides including, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rep. Don Young of Alaska and Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio.

The government's star witness against Safavian, Volz was a former chief of staff to Ney. Volz has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for some of the behavior he testified about. Facing an 18- to 24-month prison sentence, he hopes cooperation with prosecutors will win him probation only.

Just weeks after the assistance, Safavian, Ney and two members of Ney's staff accompanied Abramoff, Volz and other Abramoff associates on an August 2002 golf trip to the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland and then to London. Volz said the bills for $500-a-night hotel rooms in London, $100 rounds of drinks, $400 rounds of golf, dinners and travel on a private Gulfstream jet were paid by Abramoff and his staff, and he never saw Safavian pay any expenses.

On cross examination, Safavian's lawyer Barbara Van Gelder got Volz to admit that Safavian told him in Scotland he was paying Abramoff $3,100 for his expenses.

She also got Volz to acknowledge he once said that figure was "low but reasonable." But Volz quickly explained that by "reasonable" he only meant that reporters wouldn't question it. "I was more concerned about spin than potential legal consequences," Volz added.

Prosecutor Nathaniel Edmonds used Volz' descriptions of the costs to suggest the trip was far more expensive. Edmonds showed that Ney reported $1,200 in hotel expenses although Volz said Ney spent two nights in London in the Mandarin Hotel, which charged $500 a night for the congressional staff rooms, leaving only $200 to cover the cost of four nights at St. Andrews.

The Abramoff team sent Ney partially filled out draft financial disclosure forms for him to use in filing disclosures with Congress that falsely understated the total cost of the trip at $3,200, Volz testified.

"I thought that number passed the smell test," Volz said, explaining that he hoped that reporters searching public records for travel abuses would pass right over it without asking questions.

In a statement, Ney's spokesman, Brian J. Walsh, said, "Congressman Ney filed exactly what his office was told to be the cost of the trip ... what every other member who has taken a privately funded trip has done for years."

In court, however, Prosecutor Edmonds pointed out to the jury that the official date stamp on Ney's disclosure form, due within 30 days of the trip, showed it was not filed until September 2004, the same month news stories appeared about the trip.

The prosecution turned Volz' testimony into a tutorial on how a corrupt lobbyist like Volz gathers information, rewards officials who help influence government decisions and tries to operate in secrecy.

Safavian was the government's top procurement official before he was indicted on charges of lying to investigators about assisting his ex-partner Abramoff while serving in 2002 as chief of staff at the General Services Administration, the government property management agency.

Volz testified that the Abramoff team referred to Safavian as a "champion" because he could get inside information not otherwise available to lobbyists.

(AP) In this courtroom sketch, former congressional aide and lobbyist Neil Volz, left, is depicted in...

Full ImageHe said Safavian gave advice on how to get information for use in secretly amending an election reform bill near passage in Congress so that it also directed the GSA to sell the so-called White Oak property in Silver Spring, Md., to a school Abramoff had established.

Volz also described how Safavian advised him on when to get letters from key congressmen to the GSA to alter a proposal to redevelop the Old Post Office in Washington in a way that would give one of Abramoff's clients, the Chitimacha Indian tribe, an advantage over other bidders.

"We were trying to rig the rules so our client would have the best chance" of winning the redevelopment project, Volz testified.

Describing help they requested from Capito's office on the White Oak project, Volz said they wanted to keep her role secret.

"She was up for re-election and this potentially could have put her in harm's way on the campaign trail ... because this project doesn't have anything to do with her district," Volz explained.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060530/D8HUDI400.html

[quietfan 233]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html

Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. I must be missing the Nevada-Marianas Connection here. Can you help me out Tex?

More...

219204[/snapback]

Slight shift in subject here, but since the territories--Marianas, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.--have no representation in Congress, what are they suppose to do? I see nothing wrong with them trying to get their needs/concerns addressed by any member of Congress that will help. [Don't D.C. and /or Puerto Rico at least have non-voting reps in Congress now?]

But back to corruption--neither party has a monopoly on that, and only a fool or a liar would claim otherwise, IMO. It does seem like a lot more Rep's than Dem's are facing investigations and indictments these days. However, I don't doubt that there have been (and will be) other periods in history when Democrats dominated the corruption news. More of Abramoff's efforts seemed focused on Republicans, but I imagine with a little sleuthing it wouldn't be too hard to turn up a similar lobbyist who focused more on Democrats.

[DKW 86 7,438]

Tex, throw the bums out. Any bums taking money from the likes of Abramoff need to go. PERIOD! Reid, Bush, ETC should all be run off Tex. ALL of them!!!!!!

Abramoff screwed over the Indian tribes during the Clinton Administration by buying off Bruce Babbitt, a DEM. Babbitt broke all kinds of Federal law by circumventing the casino okay practices and choosing winners outright regardless of the circumstances. To say that this all started with Republicans alone in 1994 and later is ridiculous. Abramoff has been bad news since day one and he has been bad news with everyone and everything he touched in Washington on both sides of the aisle.

The Clinton Administration just covered up his involvement with Babbitt and screwing the Indian Tribes over better back then with the help of the MSM. Abramoff has been a notorious figure since the Clinton Administration shenanigans. He and Babbitt screwed some tribes out of hundreds of millions Tex. No delusional denial will ever change that fact.

How the Clinton Adm kept Babbitt from being forced out.

Scandal: Babbitt under pressure from Clinton WH

2) Some TV coverage, barely, of the Chippewa Indian casino scandal. Friday night on ABC's World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer spent 18 seconds to tell viewers:

"Another member of the Clinton Administration could face an independent counsel. The Justice Department has launched a 30 day inquiry into whether Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied about pressure he received from the White House to prevent a Wisconsin Indian tribe from opening a casino."

ABC viewers, of course, would have no idea what Indian tribe matter Sawyer was talking about since ABC has yet to outline the particulars for viewers, though AP and Wall Street Journal stories fleshed out the details last week. CBS and NBC didn't mention it Friday night, but a few weeks ago NBC at least aired a full story about the subject. As detailed in the October 8 CyberAlert, on the October 7 NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw announced:

"With all that you've been hearing about fundraising and reform now all but dead, tonight we have an exclusive report on what appears to be a very direct link between money for the Democrats in this case and a high level policy decision in favor of those who gave. NBC's Lisa Myers tonight on the competing interests of Indian Tribes, casinos, and cold hard cash."

Myers explained how the Chippewa Indian Tribe in Wisconsin tried to turn a struggling dog track into a casino. Federal officials in area supported the new casino, but richer tribes that gave money to the Democrats didn't want to the new casino competition. They set out to kill the new casino by meeting with Clinton and top Democratic officials. They sent a letter to Ickes, saying tribes wanting the new casino were Republicans, those opposing were Democrats who gave substantial money to the DNC. Two months later, Bruce Babbitt killed the casino project, overruling local officials for first time ever on such a case.

In an October 22 op-ed Wall Street Journal editorial writer John Fund revealed that the White House refused to release to the Thompson committee the relevant documents until after Harold Ickes had testified. Further, Fund noted: "Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, whose office denied the casino license, sent an October 10 letter to Senator Thompson in effect retracting his previous denial that he told an old friend and lobbyist that Mr. Ickes had ordered a quick decision against the Chippewa casino."

Fund also relayed how a federal judge appointed by President Carter "has reviewed summaries of the memos the White House had been withholding and ruled that 'there is considerable evidence that suggests that improper political pressure may have influenced agency decision-making.'"

In an AP story carried by the October 23 Washington Post, reporter James Rowley began: "Despite warnings that White House involvement would be 'disastrous' and 'political poison,' presidential aides contacted the Interior Department three times in 1995 about an Indian casino opposed by a Democratic fundraiser, internal memos show."

It's not as if the network reporters don't know about the story or don't find it interesting. As transcribed by MRC intern Rebecca Hinnershitz, on Sunday's (October 26) Face the Nation, CBS reporter Bob Schieffer asked Senator Fred Thompson:

"Let me ask you quickly about Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior. As you know, there's quite a controversy. There are a group of Indian tribes, it is reported, who lobbied hard to get a casino killed out in the Midwest because another group of Indians had wanted to start up. There have been reports that the White House pressured the Secretary of the Interior to kill that. Shortly afterward the people who wanted it killed gave $300,000 to the Democratic Party. You were going ask Interior Secretary Babbitt to come before the committee as I understand it. How serious do you think all this is?"

Not serious enough to warrant a story on CBS! "There's quite a controversy" according to Schieffer, but zilch about it through Monday night on the CBS Evening News. So, ABC and CBS viewers know nothing about this quid pro quo of policy for a donation since neither has run a story on it (other than Friday's 18 seconds on ABC) and NBC hasn't followed up on any of the developments since their story aired. And through last Friday night, MRC news analyst Clay Waters informed me, The World Today had yet to mention the casino controversy.

More on Babbitt Scandal that went nowhere thanks to MSM

Abramoff betrays Indians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_sca...e_United_States

Abramoff tied to James Clyburn (D-SC), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

etc, Had 530+ Citations linking Abramoff, scandal, and Babbitt.

[channonc 466]

Slight shift in subject here, but since the territories--Marianas, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.--have no representation in Congress, what are they suppose to do? I see nothing wrong with them trying to get their needs/concerns addressed by any member of Congress that will help.

All terriorites have a non-voting "Delegate." This includes one for Guam, DC, VI, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc. They all have a Delegate that can be a member of House Committees, and co-sponsor legislation, however, they cannot vote on the House floor.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html

Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. I must be missing the Nevada-Marianas Connection here. Can you help me out Tex?

More...

219204[/snapback]

Slight shift in subject here, but since the territories--Marianas, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.--have no representation in Congress, what are they suppose to do? I see nothing wrong with them trying to get their needs/concerns addressed by any member of Congress that will help. [Don't D.C. and /or Puerto Rico at least have non-voting reps in Congress now?]

But back to corruption--neither party has a monopoly on that, and only a fool or a liar would claim otherwise, IMO. It does seem like a lot more Rep's than Dem's are facing investigations and indictments these days. However, I don't doubt that there have been (and will be) other periods in history when Democrats dominated the corruption news. More of Abramoff's efforts seemed focused on Republicans, but I imagine with a little sleuthing it wouldn't be too hard to turn up a similar lobbyist who focused more on Democrats.

237687[/snapback]

Solomon has written, badly written, several hit pieces on Reid for some reason. For example, he implies here that Reid was influenced by money from the Marianas, when, in fact, Reid ended up co-sponsoring the bill to raise the minimum wage in the Marianas, against their wishes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN00277

Hoping to influence someone with a contribution and actually doing it are two very different things.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

Tex, throw the bums out. Any bums taking money from the likes of Abramoff need to go. PERIOD! Reid, Bush, ETC should all be run off Tex. ALL of them!!!!!!

Abramoff screwed over the Indian tribes during the Clinton Administration by buying off Bruce Babbitt, a DEM. Babbitt broke all kinds of Federal law by circumventing the casino okay practices and choosing winners outright regardless of the circumstances. To say that this all started with Republicans alone in 1994 and later is ridiculous. Abramoff has been bad news since day one and he has been bad news with everyone and everything he touched in Washington on both sides of the aisle.

The Clinton Administration just covered up his involvement with Babbitt and screwing the Indian Tribes over better back then with the help of the MSM. Abramoff has been a notorious figure since the Clinton Administration shenanigans. He and Babbitt screwed some tribes out of hundreds of millions Tex. No delusional denial will ever change that fact.

How the Clinton Adm kept Babbitt from being forced out.

Scandal: Babbitt under pressure from Clinton WH

2) Some TV coverage, barely, of the Chippewa Indian casino scandal. Friday night on ABC's World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer spent 18 seconds to tell viewers:

"Another member of the Clinton Administration could face an independent counsel. The Justice Department has launched a 30 day inquiry into whether Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied about pressure he received from the White House to prevent a Wisconsin Indian tribe from opening a casino."

ABC viewers, of course, would have no idea what Indian tribe matter Sawyer was talking about since ABC has yet to outline the particulars for viewers, though AP and Wall Street Journal stories fleshed out the details last week. CBS and NBC didn't mention it Friday night, but a few weeks ago NBC at least aired a full story about the subject. As detailed in the October 8 CyberAlert, on the October 7 NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw announced:

"With all that you've been hearing about fundraising and reform now all but dead, tonight we have an exclusive report on what appears to be a very direct link between money for the Democrats in this case and a high level policy decision in favor of those who gave. NBC's Lisa Myers tonight on the competing interests of Indian Tribes, casinos, and cold hard cash."

Myers explained how the Chippewa Indian Tribe in Wisconsin tried to turn a struggling dog track into a casino. Federal officials in area supported the new casino, but richer tribes that gave money to the Democrats didn't want to the new casino competition. They set out to kill the new casino by meeting with Clinton and top Democratic officials. They sent a letter to Ickes, saying tribes wanting the new casino were Republicans, those opposing were Democrats who gave substantial money to the DNC. Two months later, Bruce Babbitt killed the casino project, overruling local officials for first time ever on such a case.

In an October 22 op-ed Wall Street Journal editorial writer John Fund revealed that the White House refused to release to the Thompson committee the relevant documents until after Harold Ickes had testified. Further, Fund noted: "Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, whose office denied the casino license, sent an October 10 letter to Senator Thompson in effect retracting his previous denial that he told an old friend and lobbyist that Mr. Ickes had ordered a quick decision against the Chippewa casino."

Fund also relayed how a federal judge appointed by President Carter "has reviewed summaries of the memos the White House had been withholding and ruled that 'there is considerable evidence that suggests that improper political pressure may have influenced agency decision-making.'"

In an AP story carried by the October 23 Washington Post, reporter James Rowley began: "Despite warnings that White House involvement would be 'disastrous' and 'political poison,' presidential aides contacted the Interior Department three times in 1995 about an Indian casino opposed by a Democratic fundraiser, internal memos show."

It's not as if the network reporters don't know about the story or don't find it interesting. As transcribed by MRC intern Rebecca Hinnershitz, on Sunday's (October 26) Face the Nation, CBS reporter Bob Schieffer asked Senator Fred Thompson:

"Let me ask you quickly about Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior. As you know, there's quite a controversy. There are a group of Indian tribes, it is reported, who lobbied hard to get a casino killed out in the Midwest because another group of Indians had wanted to start up. There have been reports that the White House pressured the Secretary of the Interior to kill that. Shortly afterward the people who wanted it killed gave $300,000 to the Democratic Party. You were going ask Interior Secretary Babbitt to come before the committee as I understand it. How serious do you think all this is?"

Not serious enough to warrant a story on CBS! "There's quite a controversy" according to Schieffer, but zilch about it through Monday night on the CBS Evening News. So, ABC and CBS viewers know nothing about this quid pro quo of policy for a donation since neither has run a story on it (other than Friday's 18 seconds on ABC) and NBC hasn't followed up on any of the developments since their story aired. And through last Friday night, MRC news analyst Clay Waters informed me, The World Today had yet to mention the casino controversy.

More on Babbitt Scandal that went nowhere thanks to MSM

Abramoff betrays Indians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_sca...e_United_States

Abramoff tied to James Clyburn (D-SC), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

etc, Had 530+ Citations linking Abramoff, scandal, and Babbitt.

237694[/snapback]

I know you're still obsessed with the Clinton administration, but given that this is a political/current events forum and not a history forum, I'm frankly more interested in what is going on with those in influential positions NOW. I don't even know what Babbit is doing now, but if he did something crooked, prosecute him.

Similarly, we could go back and see that LBJ supporters, including Brown and Root, benefited from the Viet Nam War. Let historians slam LBJ for that. Similar folks are benefitting NOW in Iraq and I more concerned with that.

But it is frankly too broad a brush to say anyone taking money from Abramoff should go. That's a long list and I doubt most of them did anything improper. Some almost certainly did and let the chips fall where they may. Here's a list and I don't think all are crooked:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips_full.asp

Kingston, Republican congressman from Georgia, for example, at least strikes me as a reasonably straight shooter. A little goofy and I don't agree with him on much, but that doesn't make him a crook.

[quietfan 233]

Slight shift in subject here, but since the territories--Marianas, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.--have no representation in Congress, what are they suppose to do? I see nothing wrong with them trying to get their needs/concerns addressed by any member of Congress that will help.

All terriorites have a non-voting "Delegate." This includes one for Guam, DC, VI, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc. They all have a Delegate that can be a member of House Committees, and co-sponsor legislation, however, they cannot vote on the House floor.

237717[/snapback]

I didn't know that...thanks for the info!

Obviously they still need to sway as many voting members as possible to address their concerns. But that's true for the states with votes too--no state's delegation can get a bill passed one the strength of their votes alone.