It could be a very Merry Christmas Happy Holidays indeed for federal prosecutors, who are now negotiating a plea bargain with Republican uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for his cooperation.
Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a “unique resource.”
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.
…
Prosecutors are also looking at how some former Congressional staff members landed their lucrative lobbying positions and at the role the wives of several lobbyists and lawmakers may have had in any influence scheme, a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the “wives’ club.”
There are a lot of very nervous people in nation’s Capitol this morning… and most of them have an “R” next to their name.
I guess it’s about time for a “terrorist” attack.
Republican uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff
Is that why thousands upon thousands of his dollars were laundered into the Harry Reed campaign?
michael the selective-reader:
Did you notice the ‘most’ in Goldy’s post?
If a few corrrupt dems go down, great… They’re corrupt. But thats assuming your unsubstantiated claim is true. Every time I trust a rightie troll to come up with facts, I get burned…
If you think this thing isn’t a Republican scandal, you’re losing it. A few Dems in the loop doesn’t change the primary direction of his targets.
Recipients of Abramoff dollars (funneled through his lobbying group or casinos that he lobbied for):
Patrick Kennedy (D) $128,000
Harry Reed (D) $40,000+
Tom Daschle (D) $40,000+
Dick Gephardt (D) $32,500
Byron Dorgan (D) – unspecified
Patty Murray (D) – unspecified
Okay Michael @ 2, Say you are right, even though I think it is B-ll Sh-t. Your bluff, I call. Chips fall where they may. If the Feds nail any D’s, that is just the way it goes.
Having said that, I believe that there is a greater chance that King George the III will give up drinking. Mr. Abramoff, my Jewish brother, knew which side of his bread the butter was on. And the D’s did not own the dairy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....nos_Boulis
I’d trade any Dem to get rid of that thief DeLay. No doubt in my mind that most of Jack’s dealings are with GOP politcians. After all, Jack is an “R”! No way you can compare the millions he gave GOP candidates with the thousands he gave Dems. Look for the Republicans to have this guy killed any day now. This is their biggest nightmare! Another example of the GOP culture of corruption. This can’t do anything other than help the Dems!
@ 2
Gonna have to call BULLSHIT on you. Abramoff NEVER gave money to Harry Reid.
I’d say get your facts straight, but you know what? It doesn’t fucking matter what your facts are; it only matters what the prosecutors facts are. And, with Abramoff singing like a bird,
prominent Republicans are going down, “Syndrome.”
This will bring down the control of cogress from Republicans, and Bush admitting to an impeachable offense of spying on Americans with FISA oversight will bring down the presidency.
Fuck Yeah!
@ 8 correction
(I should have said without FISA oversight)
There has been a flurry of money being returned or donated to various places by those who received this money. I suspect that we will learn that many of the recipients will turn out to be willing dupes, and didn’t really understand what they were doing. That doesn’t make them innocent, just dumb.
Most of this money was tribal money. I think we have a huge problem on our hands with the amount of money that the tribes have, and the amount of influence they are buying with it. Just look at our own backyard. The tribes want lots of gambling, and no smoking on non-tribal property. And the current administration seems to be just fine and happy giving it to them. How much money has Gregoire gotten from the tribes?
It seems in the U.S. a couple lawmakers take bribes from lobbyists, it is buisness as usual but a few get kicked out or forced to resign. Up in Canada, favoritism to lobbyists brings down the government, literally!
Does anybody really believe that Abramoff gave money in even remotely equal shares to Dems as he did to Reps? Really? give me a fucking break.
as much as I’d like to see him rollover on the culture of corruption, part of me wishes for some old testament justice for that lobbyist fucker.
A primer on the main players in the Abramoff scandals:
http://www.alternet.org/story/29827
Michael @ 4: Source for your numbers? Now, non-partisan source, i.e. MSM, gov’t page, congressional page, etc that confirms those numbers?
I’ve done a brief web search and noticed the progressive vs conservative blogs give wildly diffferent figures, so if you sourced this off a partisan site, I’d take it with a huge grain of salt.
Finally, the PACS give senators money all the time. That’s legal. The issue is whther the senator was giving service, tit-for-tat. Many of the senators had nothing to do with this issue, other than that it appears their votes may have been bought. Reid, on the other hand, is intimately concerned with gambling, being the Senator for NV, and a little donation to him is legal business as usual, AND, there is no indication that he would or did change any of his votes, as that would screw his constituents. So, regardless of whether he took money, how much money did he take ILLEGALLY?
You also have to keep in mind how the republican criminal mind works: they lavish millions of dollars on people like DeLay and the Dukester and then provide cover by giving a mere $5,000 to Dems. That way, if there cover is blown there is the appearance of wrong doing on everyone’s part.
Truth is, republicans = corruption.
So much for the Contract with America, or was it all along the Contract on America? Now that they are being revealed for what they are the latter rather than the former rings true.
@12, 15 I didn’t realize there was a dollar limit on the line between moral and immoral.
David-
Alternet.org? Gimme a break.
GBS-
Your koolaid is staining your straight jacket.
On the Senate side, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), now the Senate minority leader, also wrote Ms. Norton in opposition to the casino. The letter was dated March 5, 2002. On March 6, 2002, one of Mr. Abramoff’s tribal clients wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund. “There is absolutely no connection between the letter and the fundraising,” said Mr. Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley. Another coincidence! Mr. Reid’s Abramoff-related total: $66,000 between 2001 and 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01469.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01469.html
Rest caught by filter.
But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.
The Indians’ largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff’s team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.
Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff’s group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....58_pf.html
Wow Mikey-
6 Dems vs 300 Rethugs…I LIKE them numbers.
After Abramoff squeals the Krazy Korrution Konservative party will be a smoking crater.
Good.
Fucking.
Riddance.
4
Patty Murray didn’t receive Abramoff funds, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that she chaired did.
10
“How much money has Gregoire gotten from the tribes?”
I don’t know; but Native American votes put Cantwell over the top in her 2,200-vote margin over Slade Gorton in 2000, so shove that up your ass! Go, Indians!!
16
“@12, 15 I didn’t realize there was a dollar limit on the line between moral and immoral.”
You also didn’t realize that what counts is not the dollar amount but whether a congressman’s or senator’s influence or vote is for sale. Campaign contributions are legal; influence peddling is not.
In fact, Michael, there’s a lot of things you don’t realize. You’re just an all-around dumbshit.
@22 You should be on the Delay defense team…
@24 So your point is that they are all for sale, but Democrats can be bought cheaper than Republicans?
@21 6 Dems vs 300 Rethugs
And now I am going to have to ask for your source as well.
If some Dems are caught in the Abramoff-Casino scandal, good. Kick em out!
But we all know it wil be a footnote to the total collapse of the Republican Congress, and that is a GLORIOUS thing!
@ 26
Right now, it’s all speculation.
Let’s just wait for Abramoff to finish his plea agreement which includes FULL COOPERATION.
Then, we can just source the facts in the prosecutors case. Sound fair?
@ 26
I would add on, as pure speculation, that it’s not going to be an equal parts neo-convicts to Democrats, either.
The last line in the NYT article quoted made me laugh: a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the “wives’ club.”
Reminds me of another upstanding repubican, Jack Ryan of Illinois. Ahhhh, the moral majority that is conservatism. What neat Christian “values” they have, huh?
I like how you characterize, even if sarcastically, Republicans as Christians. You realize that like 85% of Americans consider themselves Christians, right? So if you ever want to win the presidency, the house, the senate, the supreme court, etc. back, you might not want to alienate the Christian voting block.
Considering so much bad shit has happened in the name of a Christian “God” throughout the history of the world, is it any wonder that these neo-cons are corrupt? Don’t they supposedly go to church every sunday and sometimes wednesday nights to worship “God”? Aren’t they supposed to live their lives the way that “God” would have them live it? No, of course not. They know their faith is a scam that makes mountains of cash, they know that the “moral majority” in America are idiots who will blindly follow any who hold the “Holy Bible” in one hand, and give handjobs to Satan with the other. It’s all profit margin, it’s all shareholder security, It all comes down to greed no matter which way you bend or twist the “truth”.
Micheal, I think the point is that the Republican party tries to wrap itself in the shroud of christian values. That they are woefully immoral and evil makes it very ironic.
THe direct contributions are only a part of the story. The “Wives Club”, where members wives got high paying jobs with little experience will be very interesting. How many D’s are affected by that?
Do you think Rush Limbaugh is a Christian? Do you think he claims to be one?
Micheal, to whom are you addressing the query?
The people who assert that all Republicans are hypocritical christians.
Naw, I know several athiest Republicans.
Those fuckers are going to hell!
Campaign contributions are not the story. The story is fraud, money laundering, and influence peddling. Democrats have no influence to sell. Hmmm, who does?
BTW, someone’s theory on donations from casino interests to Reid:
“Since Reid received $5000 from Abramoff, there seems to be a tendency for some (you know who) to say “both sides are guilty”, using that “transgression” to tar all with the same brush. Some on our side, sensing the foolishness of this may be inclined to say “Let’s hang them all, if Reid took the money he must be a crook, too.”
Reid’s motivations are totally innocent, however. Representing Nevada, he could not politically support the opening of new casinos and was, indeed, probably required as a condition of reelection to do everything he could to prevent such an result. Abramoff probably had a computer program automatically dispensing contributions to those who opposed the new Indian casino permits, which Reid independantly had great incentive to do.”
I think by “you know who” above, they mean Michael. Michael spends all his energy spinning on the “but they did it too!” narrative, and either totally ignoring the original “these guys broke the law” or purposely distracting from it. “Look over her! LOOK!”
Paraphrased from AlsoAlso:
There are clear differences are here between the Democrats and the Republicans who received constributions from Abramoff and associated entities:
1. Payments AFTER votes; and
2. Payments from the tribes, not Abramoff.
Taking money from special interests is SOP for federal politicians. That’s not an issue. What becomes an issue is when money is spent, and favorable votes are then suddenly cast. That’s not what you have with Senators like Dorgan and Reid, two figures with long support for tribal casino interests, who voted favorably and then sometime later received payments.
And those payments came directly from the tribes, as the standard political donation. What Abramoff’s relationships were to Republicans under suspicion, is something wholly different. Abramoff wined and dined, golfed and consulted, hired and pampered his better friends. And then they immediately did really nice things for him. The tribes? They got shafted.
2. Payments from the tribes, not Abramoff.
That is called money laundering in some circles. You should apply to be on the Delay defense team, they need more people who can make the same argument you do.
Michael spends all his energy spinning on the “but they did it too!”
My argument is not that they did it illegally, but that they did it legally too. So what is the big deal? I’m not the one calling for impeachments on the other side of the aisle, while refusing to acknowledge both sides do it.