I don't get the Abramoff "scandall". Seriously.
I've been on vacation for a few weeks, so the only news I've been paying attention to is a bit here and there from TV and radio. Because of this, I'm assuming that I'm about as informed as the average American on the Abramoff scandal right now. That is, I know that there is this guy named Jack Abramoff, that he has been indicted for some reason or another, that he has admitted to guilt, and that he has been a major contributor to the Republican party and a minor contributor to the Democratic party.
From this, the MSM has been running story after story raising 'questions' about those associated with Abramoff. The 'questions' mainly revolve around those who received campaign contributions from Abramoff and his Native American backers. The stories seem to focus on the 'fall out' from the Abramoff scandal rather than the scandal itself. In fact, I know next to nothing about the scandal itself, but I know an awful lot about the 'fall out' from it.
Can somebody please refer me to a good story that will explain the actual crimes committed rather than the 'fall out' from the crimes? I've been way out of the loop, so an MSM story or a blog post would be good. Seriously, I haven't seen a single news story on TV or heard one on the radio that actually explains what crimes Abramoff committed. None.
Editors at MSM outlets have been derelict in their duties--or worse. Imagine if CNN had done weeks and weeks of stories on the "fall out" from the 9/11 attacks, but ran nothing on the attacks themselves. Tonight on Anderson Cooper 360, a roundtable discussion on the Bush Administration's reaction to the al Qaeda attacks. What does this mean to the electoral prospects of the Republican Party?
The only thing I know about the Abramoff case is that he seems to have pled guilty to crimes that are in no way connected with illegal campaign contributions. I only know that because the only substantive discussion of the actual crimes came in a 15 second blurb by Tom DeLay in which he mentioned this. Of course, the news story on Fox in which I saw the bulrb wasn't about the substance of what DeLay mentioned, but about whether or not DeLay would be forced to step down because he had taken free trips paid by Abramoff. DeLay claimed that Abramoff had pled guilty to some scam completely unrelated to campaign finance. Is this tru?
If Abramoff's crimes were unrelated to illegal campaign finance contributions, then what, exactly, is the scandal? Seriously? Is this a simple guilt-by-association type of scandal? So large campaign-donors that turns out to be fellons taints all of those who they give money to? If so, I wonder if Martha Stewart gave money to any politician?
There seems to be some kind of 'scandal' going on here, but for the likes of me I don't seem to see one. The only scandal I see here is poor reporting, coupled with overblown headlines, poured on top of shallow interviews with politicians masquerading as 'tough questions'. I don't get it.
I'm going to spend the afternoon going through e-mail and checking out recent blog posts here and elsewhere. I'll addend this post as I find interersting or relevant articles/posts.
1
Well, it turns out that I get a Comment Submission Error and the Alterne+ dot org site with the summary is questionable. I have tried to post this message several times but have been rejected. Try searching the .org site for ...story/29827.... I hope this helps you.
Posted by: Dale at January 08, 2006 05:52 PM (Dujiz)
2
Well, he admitted to BRIBING the Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Bob Ney (Republican-Ohio).
There's a lot more that's going to come out--he's now a cooperating witness.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at January 08, 2006 06:47 PM (oNxRU)
3
I'm in the same boat as you. I read the initial indictment about SunCruz and couldn't detect the underlying crime. Mail and Wire fraud are nebulous crimes. The actual transmissions don't even have to be fraudulent.
The Information about the Indian Casino deal seems to be, in part, about Abramoff overcharging the tribe. Given the amount of money that the tribes saved--or made--as a result of Abramoff, I don't see a crime.
Geek, where in the plea deal does it say he admitted to bribing Ney? http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/abr10406plea.pdf
The job of a lobbyist is to gain influence with legislators and to persuade them that their client's position is the right one. I don't see how it can be proved that Ney was bribed.
I also don't trust Federal Prosecutors.
Posted by: Sue Bob at January 08, 2006 07:13 PM (cskP4)
4
Please don't quote me, but I seem to remember hearing something about the creation of fake Corporations, and using them for fraudulent billing.
Posted by: dave at January 08, 2006 08:11 PM (CcXvt)
5
I guess Libs are under the impression this makes any difference.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 08, 2006 08:24 PM (8e/V4)
6
Corruption seems to be the new cornerstone of the Republican Party. Abramoff is hardly the only corrupt republican to get caught or caught up in corruption/ethics scandals, or investigations lately - google - cunningham, pombo, ney, noe, scanlon, delay, doolittle, rove, libby, this list could go on for pages and it will.
Tha's the Republican Culture of Corruption and Cronyism.
Posted by: steve at January 08, 2006 08:57 PM (6hT/C)
7
Hope you get up to speed soon. It's breathtaking. I've been blogging Abramoff for over a year now. Where've you been?
Check out Mohammad Atta being on Abramoff's Sun Cruz gambling boat, and check out the murder of Abramoff's partner, Gus Boulis. For sure the Florida prosecutor will be questioning Abramoff and the other surviving partner Kidan soon.
Posted by: Maezeppa at January 08, 2006 09:15 PM (AsrJM)
8
Three federal counts: Conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud stemming from Capitol Hill influence peddling on behalf of Indian gaming clients.
Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 10:53 PM (oxMjD)
9
I saw the McLaughlin Report this morning and it convinced me that there's something pretty rotten here. For one thing, there was apparently a murder involving people that Abramoff had hired to protect from from the person murdered. Maybe there's an explanation, but it looks dark indeed.
But more to the point, the speed with which the Republican leadership has managed to produce this level of corruption is staggering, since it took the Dems roughly 50 years to achieve the same level of corruption. My point isn't that Republicans are more vulnerable to corruption, but that something is seriously wrong with "the system." I have no doubt that Dems will succumb just as quickly (or even more quickly) if they come to power. It may simply be that Qutb was right, that there's a "horrible schizophrenia" at the core of western liberalism. It may also be that we can overcome it. (I think we can.) But so far, we haven't even begun.
The "ownership society" is, I think, the "way out." But someone had better start taking that seriously pretty soon, or we're really screwed. I feel almost transcendentally angry, and it's not about Michael Moore. Abramoff was one of the people that I'd have trusted implicitly. I was simply gullible, and kind of stupid. His ilk ought never to have been trusted.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 08, 2006 11:42 PM (iObV6)
10
So, do the Indians get their money back or what? How much money are we talking about here?
With all this influence peddlin' - did the Indians get their money's worth? - or did they simply get screwed again?
Posted by: hondo at January 09, 2006 12:05 AM (3aakz)
11
indeed, that is why I said not to quote me
I was half listening while reading, and I thought they had said something in regards to him setting up Corporations, and using those Corporations to bill clients for services that he did not perform [fake billing?].
My bad.
Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 12:15 AM (CcXvt)
12
It appears in the plea agreement that he only pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and wire fraud. That's not the same thing as being convicted of influence peddling.
The Government hasn't proven bribery or cheating the Indians and they have dismissed all such charges. Wire and mail fraud are pretty malleable charges. The actual transmissions don't actually have to be fraudulant. They just have to be tied to transactions the government says are fraudulent. This is another instance of a man being convicted (albeit through a plea) without the underlying crime being proved.
Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 07:49 AM (cskP4)
13
Demophist,
What I read in the Weekly Standard article I linked above, was that at a meeting between Kidan and Boulis (Abramoff was not there), Boulis became angry and allegedly stabbed Kidan in the neck with a pen or pencil. Kidan is the person who hired people to protect him from Boulis, not Abramoff.
I'm just trying to parse through all this to see exactly what Abramoff is actually tied to. The MSM is terrible at that.
Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 08:42 AM (cskP4)
14
US News & World Report had an informing article on this late last year. Not sure of the exact date but I honestly hadn't heard of any of it till I read their article. Personally I tired of the Dems complaining when you look at their rolls of who took money and how much. Both sides are dirty, period. I'm all for term limits, no long term benefits, and make it where they have to come home and go to work thru the year. It would stream-line the gov't, save tons of money and cut out much of the corruption that is rampant today with the current system.
Posted by: Debby at January 09, 2006 08:43 AM (DbBZu)
15
The scandal is that every sonofabitch in Congress is bought and paid for, regardless of party affiliation, and always have been, always will be. It's really a shame that the plane that crashed in Shanksville didn't make it to the Capitol building, and find every lowlife crapweasel Congrescritter inside; the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor by taking out Congress, though they thought they were hurting us. Just think, no more Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, et al. They almost saved us that day, but the passengers stopped them in an act of bravery that in retrospect was misguided.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 09:32 AM (0yYS2)
16
Doh! Typo alert:
"the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor" should read
"the damned jihadis tried to do us a favor"
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 10:25 AM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
