News Abramoff, Delay, how far will it go?

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting: Even the ultra-conservative talking heads are predicting that this Abramoff scandal will be huge. One must wonder about the timing of Delay's resignation which came at the request of other leading Republicans. And not only how wide, but just how deep this goes is still up for grabs.

...Boulis was killed in a gangland-style hit in Fort Lauderdale on Feb. 6, 2001. Three men -- Anthony Moscatiello, Anthony Ferrari and James Fiorillo -- were charged last month in the Boulis murder. Kidan had hired Moscatiello and Ferrari to provide catering and surveillance services to SunCruz.[continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802232.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

NBC reports that Delay once called Abramoff "one of his closest friends".

 

[Pengwuino]

One of the talking heads said that this could bring down something like 30 republican and democrat congressmen. They were some big names being tossed around too like obviously DeLay and Pelosi and other leading representatives.

 

[Astronuc]

DeLay finished as majority leader
Texan says he will not try to regain post, will seek re-election
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/07/delay/index.html

DeLay Ends Bid to Regain Post as G.O.P. Leader
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/politics/08delay.html (registration required)

Abramoff lobbying scandal suddenly a boon for charities
Politicians scramble to dump tainted campaign money
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/06/MNG8MGIDEJ1.DTL

Washington -- The White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, a center for battered women in tiny Mission, S.D., is far removed from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal that rocked Washington this week. But the society, along with many other charities large and small, is about to become a beneficiary of Abramoff's legendary largess.

As panicked lawmakers rush to distance themselves from Abramoff after his guilty pleas in federal and state courts, tens of thousands of dollars in political donations from the disgraced Republican lobbyist and his Indian tribe clients are being returned or redirected to charities in a vast Robin Hood-like reordering of campaign funds.

Many of these charitable groups -- including the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which will receive $2,000 from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. -- have American Indian ties, creating a certain symmetry, albeit an imperfect one, given that Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bilking the tribes of millions.

Some tribes such as the Saginaw Chippewa and the Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians are getting campaign contributions back. But the refunds are not entirely welcome; tribal officials complain of being branded as pariahs and worry that their clout in Washington will be diminished if lawmakers refuse to accept their money.

Yet the Abramoff plea bargain has been a boon to organizations as varied as the Boy Scouts and the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund. President Bush is giving $6,000 to the American Heart Association. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is giving $18,500 to a Christian mission in his home state. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is giving $2,000 to New York charities that have not been publicly identified.

Even Hillary Clinton was dumping money.

Charles Wrangel was giving back/away money.

 

[Pengwuino]

haha yah its like a scramble to get rid of your money. Well that's a first.

*tear* politicians corruption is once again leading the fight against heart disease.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well according to Simple Scotty Bush doesn't know Jack Abramoff, and can't recall whether he ever met him.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible that the two met at holiday receptions. Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the Bush White House, the spokesman said.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&sid=287204

Which is interesting since Abramoff raised $100,000 for his re-election campaign.

Yet the Bush-Cheney campaign is returning only a fraction of the campaign contributions it received with Abramoff connections. During the 2004 campaign, Abramoff was a top fund-raiser for the Bush re-election effort, raising more than $100,000 for the campaign. While exact figures on how much he raised for the campaign aren’t known, Abramoff told The New York Times in July 2003—months before active fund-raising began—that he had already raised $120,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign. “And I haven’t even started making phone calls,” the lobbyist told the Times. An Orthodox Jew, Abramoff was considered an important intermediary between Jewish groups and the Bush campaign, which worked heavily to make inroads with the voting bloc. When fund-raising began for Bush's re-election effort, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a prominent Seattle radio host and activist, urged friends and colleagues to steer campaign checks to Bush via Abramoff.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711523/site/newsweek/

He was also a member of his transition team.

Yet Abramoff’s ties to the administration extended well beyond campaign checks. In 2001, Bush tapped the lobbyist as a member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues. Abramoff’s former top aide, Susan Ralston, currently serves as the top aide to Karl Rove, one of the president’s closest political advisers

.

I guess it is just another "coincidence".

I must say I question anyone's motives who can still argue that Bush and his administration are honest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the talking heads said that this could bring down something like 30 republican and democrat congressmen. They were some big names being tossed around too like obviously DeLay and Pelosi and other leading representatives.

On the Mclaughlin Group, I think it was Eleanor Clift [Newsweek]who was talking about something like sixty people being involved, though she doesn't expect that many indictments. And most seem to agree that this is a Republican problem. I'll post the transcipt when it becomes available.

 

[Pengwuino]

On the Mclaughlin Group, I think it was Eleanor Clift [Newsweek]who was talking about something like sixty people being involved, though she doesn't expect that many indictments. And most seem to agree that this is a Republican problem. I'll post the transcipt when it becomes available.

heh, most agree its a republican problem.

Sounds like 06' will be a nice chance for those 3rd parties to fire their guns

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was legal money and then illegal perks. And yes, even some conservatives [I think Buchanan for one, again, I'll post when they come online] are calling this a republican problem. But even the legal contributions may have came from stolen money.

 

[Skyhunter]

heh, most agree its a republican problem.
Sounds like 06' will be a nice chance for those 3rd parties to fire their guns

The reason it is a republican problem is;

Why give money to Democrats? They can't get any legislation to the floor, let alone get it passed.

Seriously though, it is because of the K street project.

The K Street Project is a project by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995, by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and House majority leader Tom DeLay.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project

[edit] Here is some more on the k Street connection.

Tom DeLay — the real boss in Congress — openly warned K Street that unless all the choice lobbying jobs went to Republicans, lobbyists could not expect to have any influence with the Republican Congress. This warning would be meaningless, of course, unless the opposite was also true: If you hire Republican lobbyists, you and they will have influence over Congress. And darned if DeLay didn't turn out to be exactly right about this.

No prominent Republican upbraided DeLay for his open invitation to bribery. And bribery is what it is: not just campaign contributions but the promise of personal enrichment for politicians and political aides who play ball for a few years before cashing in.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5977.html

 

[SOS2008]

heh, most agree its a republican problem.

First, the Republicans are the majority party that controls Congress and the White House. Second, Abramoff is a Republican, and so far most of the names on the short list connected to Abramoff are Republican.

Sounds like 06' will be a nice chance for those 3rd parties to fire their guns

Perhaps, but what ever candidate people will vote for, the constant scandals aren't good for Republicans.

Poll: Democrats favored to control Congress
Following Abramoff scandal, public uneasy with Republican Party, AP finds
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - In an ominous election-year sign for Republicans, Americans are leaning sharply toward giving Democrats control of Congress, an AP-Ipsos poll finds. Democrats are favored 49 percent to 36 percent.

The poll was taken this week as Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion, fraud and corruption charges and agreed to aid a federal investigation of members of Congress and other government officials.

President Bush’s job approval remains low — 40 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll...

----------

Some people say they are leaning toward giving Democrats control of Congress because they want to see changes.

“I just don’t like the direction our country is going in,” said Steve Brown, a political independent from Olympia, Wash. “I think a balance of power would be beneficial right now.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740963/

In the article Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman says “If the Democrats had any leadership or any message, they could be poised for a good year.” The Democrats do have a message, which ironically looks more Republican than the present Republican Party does. Even if there was no message, I believe people would vote for Democrats just to regain balance and therefore accountability in Washington. And these days we vote against a candidate more than we vote for a candidate (the better of two evils). I like it when Republicans are arrogant, like DeLay. It is part of the reason why they are in trouble.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well the Democrats have been sorely lacking and that has been part of the problem all along. I found Kerry preferable to Bush, but since I despise few people in this world as much as I do Bush, his father, and [esp] the company they keep, that ain't saying much. But hopefully most people are finally starting to realize who they have put in power; if they don't yet, it appears that the courts will explain it to them.

The good thing is that this will almost certainly plague the Republicans well past the election no matter what the Dems have to offer. And with a little luck, after November we can impeach Bush and finally hold him accountable, which is IMO the thing that must happen in order to restore this country to a Constitutional government. This administration must not be allowed to set precedence for future administrations.

 

[BobG]

In the article Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman says “If the Democrats had any leadership or any message, they could be poised for a good year.” The Democrats do have a message, which ironically looks more Republican than the present Republican Party does. Even if there was no message, I believe people would vote for Democrats just to regain balance and therefore accountability in Washington. And these days we vote against a candidate more than we vote for a candidate (the better of two evils). I like it when Republicans are arrogant, like DeLay. It is part of the reason why they are in trouble.

This won't change the majority in Congress.

Congressinal districts are now drawn up to create much fewer "swing" districts. There might be around 40 some districts that are actually up for grabs. Some of those are already Democratic districts. Democrats need to sweep nearly 100% of contested Republican districts to grab a majority.

Democrats already hold 17 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this year. Democrats need to hold all of their seats, plus win 7 of the 15 Republican seats up for grabs (one of the Senators up for re-election is an Independent).

What this will do is to increase the dependence on PACs (McCain's campaign finance reforms will hit stiffer opposition). Funneling money into PACS that can't be directly tied to a politician will provide a safety buffer. After all, it's not like you have politicians getting rich off of lobbyists - the money is used to run election campaigns and increase a politician's chances of getting re-elected. Independent campaigns by PACs can accomplish the same thing with less risk.

 

[Skyhunter]

The good thing is that this will almost certainly plague the Republicans well past the election no matter what the Dems have to offer. And with a little luck, after November we can impeach Bush and finally hold him accountable, which is IMO the thing that must happen in order to restore this country to a Constitutional government. This administration must not be allowed to set precedence for future administrations.

I agree. If Bushco can get away with the shenanigains they have pulled so far it will spell the beginning of the end of the great American experiment.

Just like with Nixon, an example must be made. A strong statement that says America is a country ruled by law, not cabals!

 

[SOS2008]

This won't change the majority in Congress.
Congressinal districts are now drawn up to create much fewer "swing" districts. There might be around 40 some districts that are actually up for grabs. Some of those are already Democratic districts. Democrats need to sweep nearly 100% of contested Republican districts to grab a majority.
Democrats already hold 17 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this year. Democrats need to hold all of their seats, plus win 7 of the 15 Republican seats up for grabs (one of the Senators up for re-election is an Independent).
What this will do is to increase the dependence on PACs (McCain's campaign finance reforms will hit stiffer opposition). Funneling money into PACS that can't be directly tied to a politician will provide a safety buffer. After all, it's not like you have politicians getting rich off of lobbyists - the money is used to run election campaigns and increase a politician's chances of getting re-elected. Independent campaigns by PACs can accomplish the same thing with less risk.

One of the articles I provided a link to discusses this. But IMO a majority by either party is precisely what we (Americans) shouldn't want. If the Dems can pick up a few more seats (in addition to some Independents) it would help prevent power grabs and abuses.

Of course it would be nice if we had a multi-party system, but who knows if the U.S. can ever evolve toward this. Right now the Libertarians are unhappy with the NSA spying etc., and maybe they will separate themselves from the Republican Party along with fiscal conservatives, etc.

Back to the main topic, it's amazing that DeLay still asserts he is innocent of any wrong doing after Abramoff pleaded guilty to a list of crimes, and it is public knowledge how closely connected the two are. I think DeLay needs to be committed to a psychiatric ward. If he is re-elected, I will need to be committed to a psychiatric ward.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This won't change the majority in Congress.
Congressinal districts are now drawn up to create much fewer "swing" districts.

Probably, however, we may have as many as thirty indictments coming up.

I have faith in the depth and breadth of the corruption in the Rep party on so many fronts... I am counting on a few more Earth shaking revelations before November. I am also hoping that the American people will finally get a grip.

 

[SOS2008]

Probably, however, we may have as many as thirty indictments coming up.

I have faith in the depth and breadth of the corruption in the Rep party on so many fronts... I am counting on a few more Earth shaking revelations before November. I am also hoping that the American people will finally get a grip.

It's actually over-whelming. Requests were still being made for Congressional investigation into the Downing Street Memo and the "fixing" of intelligence, when the leak of Plame’s identity was brought to the public’s attention. I’m still waiting to hear what’s up with Karl Rove, and now there is the debate over the legality of NSA spying. I feel like we aren’t getting answers to very important questions, not just because of a Republican majority, but because each new scandal pushes the earlier scandals to the wayside.

So now we have the Abramoff investigation. It represents the same underlying problem we have with our country as a whole, and that is people gaining position/power with money/connections instead of talent/merit. Look at Bush, DeLay, etc. none have qualifications to be high-ranking leaders of our country. And to add insult to injury, they lack ethics too yet their base is the religious right.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's actually over-whelming. Requests were still being made for Congressional investigation into the Downing Street Memo and the "fixing" of intelligence, when the leak of Plame’s identity was brought to the public’s attention. I’m still waiting to hear what’s up with Karl Rove, and now there is the debate over the legality of NSA spying. I feel like we aren’t getting answers to very important questions, not just because of a Republican majority, but because each new scandal pushes the earlier scandals to the wayside.
So now we have the Abramoff investigation. It represents the same underlying problem we have with our country as a whole, and that is people gaining position/power with money/connections instead of talent/merit. Look at Bush, DeLay, etc. none have qualifications to be high-ranking leaders of our country. And to add insult to injury, they lack ethics too yet their base is the religious right.

I agree that with scandal upon scandal that the American public is desensitized right now. However, these issues are not going to go away before the election, so hopefully there will be a day of reckoning in November. If enough of us stay alert and keep the pressure on we may just be able to elect some real statesman this year.

When asked by a conservative friend why I did not want GW Bush for president I replied, "Because he has never accomplished anything in life on his own." In typical right-wing fashion their reply was, "Well neither have you."

That is why I like PF. The conservatives here for the most part don't follow the doctrine of, "Don't debate the issue attack the person's character."

 

[Astronuc]

How to Raise Cash... Disguise Its Sources... And Buy Influence

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147193,00.html?internalid=AOT_h_01-08-2006_how_to_raise_ca

(I don't know how long the link will be valid)

 

[edward]

It is kind of ironic, Abramoff dropped a big smelly bomb on the Capital. The NSA didn't see it coming,
The CIA isn't allowed to look in that direction,
The FBI probably saw it coming but no one acted on it,
And Homeland security was too busy checking the shoes of little old ladies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I feel like we aren’t getting answers to very important questions, not just because of a Republican majority, but because each new scandal pushes the earlier scandals to the wayside.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. If we can break through the criminal stranglehold on Congress, and Delay being asked to step down was probably a big step in that direction as is the death of the Bush agenda, then the light of the Constitution can still shine through the smoke.

Btw, was it Specter to wanted to change the Constitution in order to get Arnold elected president? Everyone who supported that business needs to be run out of town as well.

 

[SOS2008]

The wheels of justice turn slowly. If we can break through the criminal stranglehold on Congress, and Delay being asked to step down was probably a big step in that direction as is the death of the Bush agenda, then the light of the Constitution can still shine through the smoke.
Btw, was it Specter to wanted to change the Constitution in order to get Arnold elected president? Everyone who supported that business needs to be run out of town as well.

I agree it is good to see DeLay made to step down, and by his own party. As time went by he only looked more and more guilty rather than vindicated as he still claims he will be—that man is a piece of work.

The Bush agenda... Privatization of Social Security is off the agenda (and his damn tours--the security costs alone were inexcusable), and tort reforms have been approved (I have been in favor of some of that). But we are not in the clear regarding the Patriot Act, permanent tax breaks for the wealthy, Supreme Court appointees, and of course the lovely war in Iraq.

I can accept the wheels of justice turning slowly, but not three more years of these idiots running amok in Washington.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Bush agenda... Privatization of Social Security is off the agenda (and his damn tours--the security costs alone were inexcusable), and tort reforms have been approved (I have been in favor of some of that). But we are not in the clear regarding the Patriot Act, permanent tax breaks for the wealthy, Supreme Court appointees, and of course the lovely war in Iraq..

The minor stuff I could care less about - that's just politics. But it has been shown numerous times now that Bush can't just make demands and get what he wants anymore; as with the patriot act, which he demanded that they pass and was snubbed with a five week extension. Also, obviously we need some of this [the patriot act], but the problem is that things have gone way too far, and based mostly on misinformation, or disinformation.

The treatment of Murtha and the quick retreat by the Bush admin was another example. What we saw were other more moderate forces flexing their muscles and putting Bush in his place. Note also that almost right after the Murtha incident, troop reductions were announced.

 

[Informal Logic]

One might has long has this gone on? Do a little research on the University of Texas' Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) if you want to see how and where support has come from for Bush.

 

[Informal Logic]

One might has long has this gone on? Do a little research on the University of Texas' Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) if you want to see how and where support has come from for Bush.

That is what happens when you post in a hurry.

I meant to post: One might ask how long has this kind of activity been going on? For Bush, the cronyism, kickbacks, etc. can be traced back via the UTIMCO.

 

[rachmaninoff]

WASHINGTON - The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.

Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
...
"We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_abramoff

Let's not go fishing.