This should be an INTERESTING week for members of Congress and a good time for those who are aghast at the corruption in our legislature...
quote:Lobbyist, Prosecutors Said Close to Deal
The Associated Press Saturday 31 December 2005
Washington - Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff are putting the finishing touches on a plea deal that could be announced as early as Tuesday, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
The plea agreement would secure the lobbyist's testimony against several members of Congress who received favors from him or his clients. Abramoff and a former partner were indicted in Miami in August on charges of conspiracy and fraud for allegedly lying about their assets to help secure financing to purchase a fleet of gambling boats.
For the past two weeks, pressure has been intensifying on Abramoff to strike a deal with prosecutors since his former business partner, Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with the 2000 SunCruz deal.
Abramoff's cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to 20 lawmakers and their staff members.
Frankly, I'd have to hope his plea agreement includes some jail time. Abramoff is pretty slimy.
You're right, it will be interesting to see how this comes out.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Frankly, I'd have to hope his plea agreement includes some jail time. Abramoff is pretty slimy.
You're right, it will be interesting to see how this comes out.
Me too... BUT I'd be fine with a reduced sentence, if that included damning evidence of wrongdoing by 20 corrupt Congresspeople/Senators.
Like my approval would matter!
In one article that I read about this, the paper trail was said to lead all the way to the White House. Hmmm. We will see.
This should be an interesting week.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote: GOP Lobbyist to Plead Guilty in Deal with Prosecutors By Anne E. Kornblut The New York Times
Tuesday 03 January 2006
Washington - Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to three felony counts in Washington on Wednesday as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues, people involved with the case said.
With Jack Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption within the Republican leadership.
I just hope (ignorantly, I know) that this isn't spun as a partisan attack on the Republican party.
What would be nice is if some Democrats were also involved...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have no doubt they are, although Abramoff might not have been involved with that side of it directly.
[ January 03, 2006, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Here's a link... Democrats too Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I fear that people will see 2-3 democrats in the list and think the parties are both equally bad, when it's pretty clear that in the last 5-10 years, the Republicans have been especially egregious as far as corruption and nepotism are concerned.
There are corrupt figures on both sides, but the fact that Abramoff primarily built up a system for the Republicans shows something more novel in that regard.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's not, and never has been, that the Republicans are any more corrupt as a class in their dealings. But they are, as a class, better at it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really think that's any better Chris.
I too have a feeling that if 30 Republicans and 2 Democrats are weeded out in this investigation that the people will call the whole thing a wash. I'm interested, out of sick fascination, to see what Ann Coulter has to say about the whole thing. Likely it's a giant Democratic led Republican witch hunt, though the fact that Democratic leadership is involved is a curious happenstance were that the case.
The brunt would fall on Harry Reid, unless he can get the now defunct Daschel or Gephardt to claim responsiblity and take a hit for the party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it's more that in recent years the republicans have been gaining power and the democrats have been losing power. Lobbyists tend to spend more money on the party in power, and less on the party not in power. It's just popular to believe that repubs are more corrupt now just like it was more popular to believe dems were corrupt when they were in power.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Many dems were corrupt when they were in power.
"Better" might not be the right word. How about more efficient? Consider gerrymandering. Democrats have been just as guilty of rigging districts to benefit themselves (as opposed to benefiting their constituents) just as long, but Republicans have gone about it with a terrifying efficiency.
Keep in mind I don't like either side, as a class.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say the Republicans tried to be a little too clever with the gerrymandering. The most recent binge of it in Texas should be overturned. At least when the Democrats did it, they didn't break the law. No, that isn't much, if any better.
But it certainly says a lot about Republican boldness if they think they can flaunt their power and skirt the law so brazenly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Democrats have a pretty good gerrymandered stronghold on California, though.
Maybe that's it. Republicans seem... bolder is a good word.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Many dems were corrupt when they were in power.
Maybe yes, maybe no, it depends on what your political point of view is. When you say 'many' Dems were corrupt when in power, remember that when people are accused of corruption it ain't necessarily so. Convictions are what count.
Dan Rostenkowski comes to mind. He may be the most obvious example of a corrupt Democrat from the era when the Dems were in power. But his corruption was isolated greed, rather than what appears (at this point) to be collusion and an ingrained culture of money for legislation.
quote:"Better" might not be the right word. How about more efficient? Consider gerrymandering. Democrats have been just as guilty of rigging districts to benefit themselves (as opposed to benefiting their constituents) just as long, but Republicans have gone about it with a terrifying efficiency.
Keep in mind I don't like either side, as a class.
It's the old adage: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The people who wrote the constitution tried to eliminate having too much power concentrated in one group with our system of checks and balances. This scandal is an illustration of why that checks and balances system was a wise move on their part, and why the current Republican domination of our government is NOT a good idea. Everyone should be equally part of the system, so that no one group can dictate to the other. How many times have the Republican Committee chairmen overruled debate through their majority? That sort of abuse of power is scandalous.
Many people have spoken about the current administration's rules and laws catering to special interests rather than the public welfare. We are getting some insight into how that was done. As this plays out we will (hopefully) see how deeply that vein of corruption really goes.
One irony that strikes me is how well these people have played the 'moral majority' into putting them into power.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd say the Republicans tried to be a little too clever with the gerrymandering. The most recent binge of it in Texas should be overturned. At least when the Democrats did it, they didn't break the law. No, that isn't much, if any better.
But it certainly says a lot about Republican boldness if they think they can flaunt their power and skirt the law so brazenly.
Yes, I agree. This "we're the majority and we can do anything" stuff has got to stop, for everyone's sake.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
"Interesting" indeed.
/what's the scandal count up to now?
--j_k
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One irony that strikes me is how well these people have played the 'moral majority' into putting them into power.
I'm not sure they've been 'played'. They seem to be openly willing to sacrifice most other government issues, including ethics and morality in general, in order to advance just a few social issues, such as abortion. When you vote according to a single issue, you should expect to get elected officials who are untrustworthy on everything except that single issue upon which they were elected.
The irony is that the failures on those other issues ends up endanging the agenda as a whole. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to think they've won if they can get their people in office, through whatever means necessary. What they don't seem to realize is that if those officials dirty their respective parties with corruption and bad policies, the election of those officials is actually harmful to their agenda in the long run. As I said in 2004, the Republicans would have been better off losing then than being given the opportunity to continue following the course they have chosen to its disasterous end. "We can do use any means we want to achieve the desired ends" is a course that is always eventually going to lead to things like indictments, torture scandals, jail time, resentment, insurgencies, and terrorist attacks - which all eventually lead to losing power. And thus the cycle goes on.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:One irony that strikes me is how well these people have played the 'moral majority' into putting them into power.
I'm not sure they've been 'played'. They seem to be openly willing to sacrifice most other government issues, including ethics and morality in general, in order to advance just a few social issues, such as abortion.
To a point I agree, but in addition, what many of these politicians have SAID to get elected later conflicted with what they actually DID in office. That is at best misleading the public, and at worst it is lying and saying anything just to get elected.
There "aughta be a law" that holds Politicians accountable for their campaign promices.
quote:When you vote according to a single issue, you should expect to get elected officials who are untrustworthy on everything except that single issue upon which they were elected.
The irony is that the failures on those other issues ends up endanging the agenda as a whole. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to think they've won if they can get their people in office, through whatever means necessary. What they don't seem to realize is that if those officials dirty their respective parties with corruption and bad policies, the election of those officials is actually harmful to their agenda in the long run. As I said in 2004, the Republicans would have been better off losing then than being given the opportunity to continue following the course they have chosen to its disasterous end. "We can do use any means we want to achieve the desired ends" is a course that is always eventually going to lead to things like indictments, torture scandals, jail time, resentment, insurgencies, and terrorist attacks - which all eventually lead to losing power. And thus the cycle goes on.
Yes, I agree. And this one issue mentality has caused people to vote against their own best interests to 'save the unborn children' (for instance). That is manipulation for personal gain.
I'd love to see the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party fragmented to form the "Moderate" party. THAT party would hold a significant majority.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm not sure they've been 'played'. They seem to be openly willing to sacrifice most other government issues, including ethics and morality in general, in order to advance just a few social issues, such as abortion. When you vote according to a single issue, you should expect to get elected officials who are untrustworthy on everything except that single issue upon which they were elected.
I'm a little confused, are you saying that a majority of voters are electing people who they know are unethical, immoral, and untrustworthy because the candidate held the voters view on abortion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm a little confused, are you saying that a majority of voters are electing people who they know are unethical, immoral, and untrustworthy because the candidate held the voters view on abortion?
If he's not saying it, I'LL say it. Many, many people I know are single-issue voters on this topic.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
For abortion or against abortion, or a mix of both views?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I too would love to see both parties fracture and form other parties. I don't really see it happening though. It would have to happy simultaneously, otherwise the other party would take advantage of the fractured one and they would run the table. Moderates from both sides would have to form some sort of underground kabal and pull it off together.
I wish more young people were involved with politics and voted. I think if the 18-24 year old demographic voted as a whole, the face of politics today would be drastically different.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I know a lot of people on BOTH sides of that debate who are single issue voters.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well, I'd love to see a poll taken asking the question "Would you vote for a candidate that you know is unethical, immoral, and untrustworthy but has your view on abortion?"
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, my pastor once gave a sermon on how he knew that Republicans were the rich man's party. That they were immoral, that they didn't have his best interests anywhere near his heart, that he didn't agree with them on 90% of issues, and that he was sure they weren't really serious about ending abortion. However, since they were the only side even pretending to be against abortion he would continue to vote for them in the hopes that some day one would come along who would do something about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, that blows my mind.
And were that my pastor, he wouldn't have continued to be so after that sermon.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, that blows my mind.
And were that my pastor, he wouldn't have continued to be so after that sermon.
I agree with you.
And it gets worse and worse as more of the corrupt vermin are exposed for who they really are.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently." - Jack A. Abramoff
quote:According to campaign donation information gathered by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the following officeholders and candidates have received political donations from Abramoff since 2000:
Tom DeLay (R-Texas). John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). John Ensign (R-Nev.). Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Mark Foley (R-Fla.). Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Doug Ose (R-Calif.). Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.). George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.). Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Suzanne Terrell (R-La.). Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). Connie Morella (R-Md.). Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.). James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). James M. Talent (R-Mo.). John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). John Thune (R-SD). Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Bob Ney (R-Ohio). CL. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho). Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Heather Wilson (R-NM). J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). James V. Hansen (R-Utah). John Cornyn (R-Texas). Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii). Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Mike Ferguson (R-NJ). Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Ralph Regula (R-Ohio). Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). Tom Young (R-Ala.). Bill Janklow (R-SD). Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). William L. Gormley (R-NJ). Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). Bill Redmond (R-NM). Bob Riley (R-Ala.). Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif.). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo.). George Allen (R-Va.). Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC). Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Joe Pitts (R-PA). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Bob Ehrlich (R-Md.). Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa.). Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif.). Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). Mark Emerson (R-Utah). Tom Davis (R-Va.). Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).
Also:
Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Republican Majority Fund, Leadership PAC of Don Nickles (R-Okla.). Keep Our Majority PAC, Leadership PAC of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio). Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Friends of the Big Sky, Leadership PAC of Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). American Liberty PAC, Leadership PAC of Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Battle Born PAC, Leadership PAC of John Ensign (R-Nev.). Fund for a Free Market America, Leadership PAC of Phil Crane (R-Ill.). Team PAC, Leadership PAC of J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.). The Republican Party of New Jersey.
Also:
George W. Bush (R).
quote:Each and every name listed, each and every PAC, has an (R) after it. The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff. The amounts given to the Republicans listed above amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In extremis, Republicans have taken to bandying about the name of Byron Dorgan, Democratic Senator from North Dakota, as evidence that this Abramoff thing is a two-party scandal. Dorgan received $67,000 from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff - not from Abramoff himself - and has since returned the money. Furthermore, he got the money before the tribes had any dealings with Abramoff. In short, Dorgan's so-called involvement in the matter is a red herring.
[ January 05, 2006, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think CRP is very clever in their wording
quote:The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff.
It's pretty easy to make a list, not include any Democrats on it, then make it seem like Democrats have not take any donations from Abramoff. When all is said and done, I am sure there will be a few Democrats on the list too, such as Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Rich Gephardt, and Max Baucus to name a few Washington Post Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It should be pointed out that simply receiving money from a lobbyist, even one working for Abramoff, isn't illegal. It's the way business is done in Washington. All politicians work with lobbyists and I'd be surprised to hear of any that didn't receive donations from them.
What is being investigate in Abramoff's case is quid pro quo donations, which are basically bribes. It is illegal for a lobbyist to provide donations or gifts to public officials in exchange for specific votes or specific actions. So while you might find Democrats who received money from Abramoff as political donations, there is nothing inherently illegal in that (or even immoral unless you believe the whole system is immoral, which is a different issue altogether). What has to be proved is that Democratic congressmen received gifts, money, and/or donations in exchange for their voting a particular way or performing specific tasks for Abramoff or those he represented.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Does the same hold true if a Republican received money from Abramoff? Or is simply accusing a Republican enough?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Of course it holds true both ways.
However, the thread seemed to be taking on the tone of "See, the Democrats got money too, so the corruption is on both sides." I'm just pointing out that Democrats receiving money has little to do with Republicans accepting bribes. (Or vice versa, but if the best rebuttal is bi-partisan donations, I'm not too worried about the Dems just yet.)
Well, I am but for different reasons. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
A list of Republicans receiving donations has little to do with a list of Republicans receiving bribes. well, except that there is the massive implication the ALL the Republicans are guilty merely by making a list. I mean they have to be guilty because they are Republican, right? Republicans are just all EVIL!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There are going to be far more corrupt Repubs at this point in time, simply because there are more of them in power, they hold the reins of power, and people like Abramoff and Grover Norquist have made it a point to destroy the Democratic Party's ability to get funds. This isn't conjecture, this is based on quotes like the one above from Abramoff and others that I have seen from Grover Norquist. If Dems were able, I'm sure they would've have been more than happy to get their snouts into some of that money.
I would also like to conjecture that mixing private enterprise in charge of of vast amounts of public monies is just an invitation for corruption. Always has been, always will be. Perhaps one way to have less corruption is to make it so that there are permanent government entities that do whatever the government needs to do. I think most of the corruption comes from services sold to private business, and cutting more private business out of the picture might reduce corruption.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I think that if we're going to have the death penality, we should seriously consider applying it in cases of political corruption (and large scale financial buggery like the Enron thing). It might actualy serve as a serious deterrent in these cases and I consider blatantly betraying the public trust to be serious enough to warrant it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The death penalty?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Sure, why not? Some slime bag steals the pension of thousands of old people, they should fry. You think that the Enron scandal didn't cause deaths?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, I think that's one of the very few instances where I think the death penalty might actually be a deterrent.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree, and I'd expand it to corrupt law enforcement, too. I'm all for giving cops really good pay and benefits. After all, they put their lives on the line to keep us safe. But by the same standard, when one of them betrays the public trust, it hurts far worse than the average mugging, etc.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: There are going to be far more corrupt Repubs at this point in time, simply because there are more of them in power, they hold the reins of power, and people like Abramoff and Grover Norquist have made it a point to destroy the Democratic Party's ability to get funds. This isn't conjecture, this is based on quotes like the one above from Abramoff and others that I have seen from Grover Norquist. If Dems were able, I'm sure they would've have been more than happy to get their snouts into some of that money.
You have a valid point StormSaxon. As a breed Politicians have porcine appetites - my apologies to the pigs of the world for that comparison.
Frequently the source of donations has been used against Dems, for instance Gore's Buddhist donations and the Chinese connections of a donor who then disappeared. I thought that was unfair. I agree that accepting donations does not mean a Politician is/was corrupt. It does seem to indicate that Abramoff's personal preferences ran toward Republicans and Republican members of Congress, which is not against the law. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)