PDA

View Full Version : list of who Abramoff gave money to



SnakebyteXX
02-09-2006, 05:41 PM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/abramoffdonation2.gif

web page (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-that-about-abramoff-giving.html)

pooltchr
02-09-2006, 06:04 PM
Interesting, but what's the point? That he supports republicans? No surprise there. That he supports conservative causes? No surprise there either. Looks like the amounts contributed were within the guidelines laid out in the latest reform rules.
Is there something in that post that I am missing?
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-09-2006, 06:13 PM
Not really, but when the rest of the indictments go out, and all the "Favors" are listed, the list will have more meaning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
02-10-2006, 06:32 AM
Well, Gayle mentioned more would come out when "favors" and such are opened up. Well, we already know Hillary took some of Abramoff's money (directly or indirectly), how about Harry Reid?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote washington post:</font><hr> Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and Reid's staff had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation.

The activities -- detailed in previously unreported billing records and correspondence -- occurred over three years as Reid (D-Nev.) collected nearly $68,000 in political donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Reid's office yesterday acknowledged having "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners. Reid intervened on government matters in ways that Abramoff's tribal clients might have deemed helpful, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.
<hr /></blockquote> Link to story. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901208_pf.html) Gayle is correct, wait till everything comes out in the open. The "innocent" left is going to be dragged down also.

From the same link...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote WP:</font><hr> A Reid spokesman said none of the senator's 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. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah, sure, we believe ya. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-10-2006, 12:46 PM
Gayle, this list does look benign, and within the guidelines. I'm sure it's not the smoking gun list that will emerge.
I'd also guess that some donations were not "sinister", not influence peddling, may have been included to "justify" the other illicit donations....and that some innocent members of both partys will show up on some list.
Democrats are not immune to bribes...so let the chips fall where they may. Hopefully it'll clean up the dirty game of politics for awhile.
While Steve slathers over the idea that some Dems will on the list, thus exonerating the Rep. party.....bottom line, if they are selling, or buying influence, pork barrel projects, nepotism, favorable job placements, etc.....it's wrong.

Deeman3
02-10-2006, 01:53 PM
Wolfdancer,

I agree these are all pigs at the trough. I would prefer that no donations be allowed by anyone, that all political contributions be a government handout. It would be cheaper on us all in the long run.

What goes on in Washington, in both parties, is a crime and we all accept this. If I took $500 from a supplier for any reason, I would be thrown out on my butt. However, we are so accustomed, over the years, to corruptionie. Senators vote for their oem raises!!!! They are all corupt in some ways and we have just learned to accept this.

I am so discusted but moreso at ourselves for letting this get out of hand. The last non-corrupt politician we had in the White House was Jimmy Carter and he was a blithering idiot. We just can't win.....


Deeman

wolfdancer
02-10-2006, 02:03 PM
I think JC was, and is a very honest, moral man, above political corruption. He might not have been prepared for the Washington Political arena, and since he couldn't be bought, had little support, and was made to seem incompetent.

Gayle in MD
02-10-2006, 05:17 PM
That is very true. One only has to listen to him speak, or read one of his books, to recognize that he is a very intelligent man, with a great deal of integrity, and empathy.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-10-2006, 05:29 PM
The frosting in the cake is the way the guy that the repubs have put in charge of drawing a new clean face of the republican party is resisting doing anthing that has any validity regarding changing the corruption practices amd lobbying reform.

Anyway, from Katrina... (Bush lies) to the war in Iraq ...(More Bush lies) to outing a C.I.A.Agent (More Bush and Cheney lies)... to the truth about what is happening in Iraq (Loads more Bush Lies) to the illegal wire taps (Loads more Bush lies) I am thankful that there are more and more people seeing through the slogan style bs that this administration has used to keep Americans from truth. There weren't any Democrats taking $10,000.00 golf trips, or riding around in R. Royces, and so far I haven't seen a list of Democrat aides like the long list of republican aids indicted for crimes.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-11-2006, 08:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> While Steve slathers over the idea that some Dems will on the list, thus exonerating the Rep. party <hr /></blockquote>

I couldn't care less who is on this list. As I pointed out, I don't see anything sinister, illegal, or corrupt about the information on the list.
Steve

pooltchr
02-11-2006, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There weren't any Democrats taking $10,000.00 golf trips, or riding around in R. Royces=

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

If you believe that, your head is far deeper in the sand than I had previously thought. That statement seems to say that dems are all squeeky clean, and only republicans can be corrupted.
Also, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-11-2006, 08:38 AM
AH HA HA HA, hey, since it is YOUR party which polls are showing most people want out of office, and YOUR President which polls show only 40% of Americans approve of, You might just want to dummy up on accusations of having one's head in the sand, LMAO!

Once again, let me say that I don't think that any party is squeaky clean! There is usually more corruption going on with the party in power, than the minority party. This administration, however, has been by far, the most corrupt I have seen so far in my lifetime, even Nixon's, which runs a close second. I don't vote party lines for president, and usually not in the mid terms, either, but for these times, I wouldn't vote for a republican next time for any office, so corrupt is the republican party of tody!

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-11-2006, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I wouldn't vote for a republican next time for any office,
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

So you would vote for a Democrat, even if the Republican was the better qualified candidate????? You're losing it, Gayle!!

Gayle in MD
02-11-2006, 12:11 PM
That's right, probably....we are in such great need of a clean sweep of these republican crooks, and liars, it would have to be a very very bad democratic option, before I would consider a republican candidate. I don't like what the republicans are doing, and trying to do to our Constitution, and I certainly don't like the way the Supreme Court conservatives legislate from the bench, which is how Bush got in there in the first place. It was the most aggregeous act of judicial activism in the history of the Supreme Court.

Of the 64 Supreme Court dicisions since 1964 asking judges to uphold or stirke down, the so called conservative Supreme Court Judges, have far higher instances of striking down...Thomas 65 times, Scalia 56, Kennedy, same thing.
Stevens...39, Ginsburgh...39, Bryer...28, so you see, the republican myth about liberal judges legislating from the bench, is just that, a myth.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-11-2006, 06:15 PM
Since you only quoted numbers, and not the facts of any cases, this is a pointless statement. The supreme court is there to rule on whether or not lower court rulings are within the guidelines of the constitution. If the lower courts (full of very liberal judges, by the way) are doing the legislating from the bench, then I'm glad the supreme court is there to stop them.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-11-2006, 06:23 PM
Fine, Steve, in the future, anytime a judge makes a judgment you don't like, you just go right ahead a label he or she a liberal, lol, whatever blows your socks off.

I never knew, that when a judge makes a decision, he/she makes it a practice to stand and address the courtroom, stating weather his political views in general are conservative, or liberal.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-13-2006, 05:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
to outing a C.I.A.Agent <hr /></blockquote> Has anyone been charged with this? Even Libby was is not being charged for this. There is just no proof of this but you are free to hanging on to your fantasies.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-13-2006, 02:18 PM
It's an urban legend, like global warming.....
Were you an alternate jurer on the O.J. trial?
Same mindset.....

eg8r
02-14-2006, 08:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's an urban legend <hr /></blockquote> Apparently. If it was so true, you would think they had a smoking gun. Surely they could not just make this up could they. Why aren't they charging Libby for it if he is the one that did it? He is being charged for lying to the court, not outing Plame.

Based on what has been said about Valerie, she was not even covert when her name was brought up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-14-2006, 10:45 AM
Kind of hard to communicate to people when they don't even know what has been already proven and is common knowledge in the world, huh?

Don't answer him. He is uneducable.

Gayle in Md.