Abramoff Scandal

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    This morning I read a very interesting piece in the 1/23rd issue of Time (Bode Miller on the cover who I hope smokes some international butt on the downhill at Torino) on the continuing Abramoff lobbying scandal and it's fallout. I was hoping Time had the article on the net but not yet without paying. Worth the price of the issue IMO just for that article. Bode Miller piece was excellent as well. Sorry but I love downhill!

    Anyway, in searching for this article on the net I did stumble on another op-ed written nearly 2 years ago by Pat Buchanan but not on Abramoff by on the effects of lobbyist in general. IMO, worth the read from someone who has stayed true to the core roots of small gov't conservatism.

  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I also read in the Time piece that Abramoff paid money to Ralph Reed of Christian Coalition to mobilize the CC on the issue of Casino gambling to block further Casinos from coming into being to compete with other already established owned by the Indian Tribes hired by Abramoff.

    It's also sad to see honest folk who hold certain principles as a part of their faith have it misused by others for the gain of filthy lucre.

    The articles listed the Congressman who had recieved monies from Abramoff and both political parties were well represented. Be interesting to see how hard the democrats push this as a number of their sacred party cows were on that list too!
  3. wkmac,

    You are mistaken. Not one Democrat took money from Abramoff. A number did receive contributions from the Indian tribes, who were his clients and also his victims, but records show that they gave to the Dems before Abramoff had them for clients, and after Abramoff had them they gave less to the Dems and considerably more to the Repubs. It's all on opensecrets.org, see for yourself. Repeat after me..."Democrats took no money from Abramoff", say it again...

    Not that aren't plenty of rotten Dems in DC, but Abramoff is a strictly Repub scandal, and getting very close to the White House. If we only had a legislative branch separate and equal to the executive branch, now there's a concept!

    Meanwhile, guess where Boehner is living in DC? Yep, that Boehner(nice tan for a guy from Ohio), the guy who handed out tobacco money on the floor of Congress before a vote on tobacco legislation. Go look it up, you wouldn't believe me if I told you. These folks are amazing.
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I believe Mac stated that he read the time piece and that it gave specifics about democrats taking money from Abramoff. If so is he mistaken in saying he read this or are you saying he is mistaken because "opensecrets" has a different opinion? If you are not disputing the point that he read this in the time piece then Mac is not mistaken in what he said.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Only saying what was in the Time magazine piece. Go to the jan. 23rd issue and read it for yourself!

    The blunt truth is democrats are just a crooked, evil, manical, empirical as the republicans are and you need to face that fact as well. I got no problem you slamming republicans because they've betrayed to small gov't message that propelled them into office in the first place but if you are gonna sit their and tell me the savoirs of America are democrats I'll tell you in a heart attack to go pound sand and then shove it all up where the sun don't shine!

    WASHINGTON, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, ARE FASCIST WITHIN THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD. You guys slam Bush with the fascist label and then you dance around when challenge to call the gov't that. Coward or might it be hypocrit? I pull no punchs and call it what it is. As I said before in calling Washington Fascist, don't compare the Hilter or even the Mussolini models to the American Empire as they don't exactly match up but in the sense that the gov't and corp. world are complete partners and in the sense that the state doesn't own the means of production via the true socialist or communist models but rather totally control the privately owned means of production via the bureacracy and to maintain it's working within the master plan of public policy, this fits the fascist mold to a tee. And bothsides are in lock step to it. It's just when it comes to the "how" part of the international expansion of the American Empire is where they part company. Both in the end support Empire!

    Don't believe me. Why not start by looking hard at the Bretton-Woods agreement, the International Monetary Fund, the modifying of the Marshall Plan from European to international in scope in 1961' when JFK re-organized it into the Agency of International Development and how in Internal Revenue Manual Section 23 a prescribed accounting rules for taking collected 1040 tax dollars and moving them directly to the AID completely by-passing the Treasury General Fund and it's all completely legal. I told you going to gov't offices is worthwhile. You think this by-pass is why Congressmen like Ron Paul have stood in the well of the House and extolled that Congress has no idea where the money IRS collects goes too and no one ever challenges that comment? Go back to 1861' and the first Revenue Act which was the first income tax and then look at the Revenue Act of 1862' that created the office of Bureau if Internal Revenue and then come forward. Oh don't forget to look at those international treaties as much of our tax law has their foundations there.

    Throughout all of this history and through most of the empircal charge of the 20th century it has been not the republican party leading the advancement of American Empire but rather it was the democrats. The republicans are just the conservative turncoats who got control in Washington and just learned to play the game they learned from your buddies! You want to slam Bush, go ahead, but have the guts to look at yourself in the mirror first. You just may find a fascist looking back at you!

    I have no use for republican or democrat party loyalist so as the old flag said, "Don't Thread On Me!"

    Sorry to be nasty but I felt that needed to be said up front so you don't confuse me as something I am not. I agree with some and/or appreciate what you bring to the board but I have no use or loyality to either political party and have not much use for someone who tries to sell me the idea one is better than the other. They both totally sux IMO!
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I hate to be the bringer of bad news (OK, we both know that's a big lie!):tongue_sm but there's more on the Abramoff scandal and this one will likely sting a little.

    If it makes you feel any better, according to Time JD Hayworth Rep. Sen from Az. is the #1 reciever of Abramoff monies accordingto the Time article I spoke of earlier. The entire system has been corrupted from top to bottom and the effort of both parties to instill powers up to the federal levels from the State's and local jurisdictions that the founders of this country never intended have vastly driven the effort. The lobbyist love it because now they only focus their efforts in one arena instead of 50 or in the case of local jurisdictions we're talking 1000's. This makes it easy for the worst of humanity to take advantage of the rest of us. It's like taking all the money from 1000's of banks and placing it into one location and then granting permission to the bank robbers to wine and dine the bank employees. I wonder how many hear would scream bloody murder at this but who now sit by and support wholesale centralized power in Washington and the moving of that power from the State and local jurisdictions?

    If I don't get the chance, have a good weekend and:

    To Tie,
    Remember those lovely warm days we were having? We're paying now with very cold weather and I hear you guys might get some frozen mess. I'll say it for both of us.

  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    One last thing Tyrone. In case you were thinking this was nothing but a right wing smear job, uh I never saw where the Washington Post was considered in any way a part of the right wing machine. Most of what I hear about the Washington Post pertains to the so-called liberal/democratic side of the isle.

    Don't you hate it when they start eating their own!

    Fear not, this ain't over and won't be surprised to see this dirt go all the way to the top!
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    OK Tyrone, I know I've been kinda rough at you the last couple of days so here's something to cheer you and your friends up on the so-called other side of the isle. Funny, I always see you democrats and the republicans all on the same side anyway! You guys are only upset because you aren't in the driver seat expanding the great Empire. LOL! Same result no matter who runs the store.


    Just saw where for Jan. we had a $21 Billion budget surplus. I guess looking on the bright side you could say that's a start but being realistic I figure that would pay about 10 days worth on the national debt since at current rate it grows by $2.14billion per day.


    Since I could be "hyping" things up to "conspiratorial" levels as one here has suggested, you can watch the real count by hitting refresh and
    watching the national debt grow, and grow, and grow, and grow, and.............................................................................................
    ............ ah heck with it. My hand's getting tired!:tongue_sm
  9. wkmac,

    The Reid thing is really old news to those of us that pay attention to the goings on in the political world. I don't like being viewed as a spokesman for the Democrats, but it should be pointed out that Reid is a Senator from Nevada, and it seems only natural that Indian Tribes would contribute to his campaigns. The true test of dishonesty, IMO, is if a politician changed his vote from that which would represent his constituency. In Reids case, the answer is overwhelmingly NO!

    In spite of the incendiary headline in the WaPo piece, buried towards the bottom is this:

    Although Abramoff never donated personally to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Louisiana Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. Reid was Democratic whip at the time.
    Abramoff sent a list to the tribe titled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."
    About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show. His March 5, 2002, letter pressed the agency to reject a casino proposed by a potential rival to the Coushattas, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) also signed the letter.
    Reid also officially opposed new tribal casinos in California and Michigan, where Abramoff had tribal clients with casinos.
    Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas's gambling establishment.

    Reid never voted in the interests of Abramoffs clients, but instead in the interests of his constituency. I found the connection to the Marianas more interesting, so I did some research. Follow this link if you are interested:

    To summarize, at this point, at least, there is no evidence that Reid has done anything illegal, or even immoral. Sorry to disappoint. I really thought you would fact check more, instead of believing everything you read.[FONT=&quot]

  10. mac,

    While you're at it and since you seem to be interesed in the law and such, why don't you look up Cobell v. Norton? Follow the money I always say.

    Have a nice weekend, enjoy the last hours of your vacation.

    I got to add this, as corrupt as the Dems have been in the last century, the Repubs are definitely giving them a schoolin' in real corruption. To have accomplished so much in just a few years is really amazing.
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Reid never voted in the interests of Abramoffs clients, but instead in the interests of his constituency.

    ROFLMAO. Great alibi. So is your point that there are no dishonest democrats?
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    As for the Republicans giving the Democrats a lesson in real corruption, well you could say that or simply that maybe they have an expedited plan to try and catch up to the dems. since they held power for most of the 20th century! :tongue_sm

    As for the Corbell case I'm not completely sure as to your point but as to the money part it does mean billions. Ms. Corbell is a member of several banking interests within the Indian Nation and if you look through the case history the Treasury dept. has admitted to the destruction of documents in this case and in one filing it was requested a special investigator look into reports of document destruction by not only the treasury but the Fed banks in Denver, Chicago, Richmond, etc. Follow the money? Sounds to me like a clear case of the Federal Reserve doing it's best of protecting it's turf of fiat money. Pardon me Tyrone while I issue a caveat. Excuse me, uh Tie. Forget I said the word fiat money. Do not go and read Federal Reserve Publications like Modern Money Mechanics or the NY Fed Bank's "I Bet You Thought". I don't want to disturb you in any way.

    OK, sorry Tyrone but I felt that was needed. As to the case, at the link below is a piece on it with some quotes by the Texas judge in the case and his comments on page 2 are pretty stinging.


    Also another website run by the Blackfeet gives a good chronology of the case but your defense of the democrats would almost lead me to believe you pulled the case out as some type of indictment against Bush and the Republicans since the real issue being discussed was the Abramoff scandal or was it a means of deflection from the original issue of the Abramoff scandal. If you look first at the original civil filing case number the # 96 represents the year the case was first filed and the document destruction based on the chronology at the Blackfeet website indicates this all took place under a democratic administration(circa 1998'). Now personally I believe party politics has nothing to do with it but rather it's all about the Federal Reserve and if the Indians want to start their own central bank, hey I'm with em'. Maybe they'll even use gold to back their money and show us how we use to do it the right way! BTW: We've been screwing the American Indian for years so this case is no surprise at all IMO.


    Click on the Overview Tab and then click Case Chronology

    As to your defense of Mr. Reid I can only say it's pretty sickening and IMO shows your true colors. You claim not wanting to defend the democrats so why do it? I'd already pointed out that JD Hayworth, a republican from Arizona, another State with a large Indian population, is the leading reciever from the Abramoff candy store so why the discomfort? Even Charley Wrangle democrat of Urban NY got Abramoff money according to the Time article and most of the Indians in his district are more likely the central Asian kind than the Native American kind.

    You know you accused me of not being well read and that's cool. Maybe I'm not! However, had Time magazine or the Washington Post in their pieces never mentioned a democrat and spent the many pages just slamming the republicans and then I posted those raising the ire of Tie and some others here, I wonder would you still make that same charge at me? You know it's interesting we don't see Tie screaming at the top of his lungs here and Tie will flat tell you I've not been nice to his side of the isle either. Your quickness to defend Reid and the democrats and charge me with with failure to read seems to suggest a bit of hypocrisy if you ask me. If you feel the democrats are the right ones to run this country then fine, say it. I got no problem with that nor do I have a problem with Tie and others saying they think Bush and the Republicans are the right ones. Personally I happen to think the overall general direction of both are wrong and in fact they basically both are the same direction from my point of view but that's my cup of tea.

    One last thing Tyrone, just by chance do you know someone by the name of Tim? I was just wondering if you and I shared a friendship with someone I know. If you do know him, tell him I said hello and to give me a holler sometime. If you don't know Tim, you should. He's a pretty good guy. Ironically you both seem to have a lot in common.

    Be good.

    Oh, one question for Tie. What's the weather like up your way bud? You and your family be safe and enjoy the winter wonderland. Thank God it's the weekend and you don't have to deal with getting to work.
  13. wkmac,

    I never said you were not well read, in fact I thought I implied just the opposite. I did say that I thought you would look behind a story, instead of just believing what was published. Sorry if I wasn't clear. You seem to be one of the few people on this site that actually does read widely.

    In the Reid case, I may be missing something, but I really don't see a 'quid pro quo' here.

    As far as the Dems being the right ones to run this country; all I see is a choice between them and the Repubs. When there is a viable alternative to them, then I may reassess the situation, but at this point I would say they are the only choice we have.

    To address your other inquiry, some things are better left unsaid.
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    OK on the well read part but you gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me that when a lobbyist pays money to any politician that something in some way isn't gained in return? If that were the case then why is K Street loaded to the gills with high dollar lawyers working on behalf of a ga-zillion interests pumping ga-zillions of dollars into our electoral system on a daily basis and all for nothing? I told Tie to go down and read the federal register and connect the dots but I'm beginning to wonder if I told that to the wrong person!

    Are you of all people gonna sit there and suggest UPS is going to Washington and dumping in boatloads of money and getting nothing back out of it? Quid pro quo works in a variety of ways and not always in an upfront manner like most would like for it to be. Sometimes it's not voting for or against something but if you have the leadership power, you can prevent something from ever coming up for a vote or on the other hand you can tell someone that their porkbarrel project for their district will get on the agenda if they support this legislation or that and then quietly attached in the background is?

    Ta-Dah! And it's never ever seen as quid, pro, quo. It's called plausible deniablity and they all use it day in and day out! I still stand behind by other comment had Time magazine and the Washington Post only slammed the other side you'd have never questioned it and would have trumpeted it and likely proclaimed it as gospel. You aren't the independent you claim to be and are only so in your mind!

    This Abramoff scandal will grow and both sides will be effected. Republicans will come off the worse since they are in total leadership but this thing will have bi-partsian claws and teeth in the end.

    As to addressing my other inquiry, I've been having this gut feeling and I knew it wasn't gas! :wink:

    Too Funny!:lol:
  15. wkmac,

    Lobbying is perfectly legal. PAC contributions are perfectly legal. What is not legal is for a politician to change his/her vote because they were bought off. That is what Abramoff has already pled guilty to doing, Please point out where Reid changed a vote because of a contribution. As far as I can tell he always voted with the wishes of his constituency. Am I missing something?

    Check here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/195344/1903

    and here: http://web.archive.org/web/20061117234341/http://www.refpub.com/PomboWatch/archives/indian_rights/

    for some insight into how Corbell relates to Abramoff. Remember, the Indians are victims of Abramoff, not just clients.
  16. Abramoff

    Abramoff Guest

    I bought them all off. You are pretty naive to think the democrats were clean on this one.
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Forget trying to tell me the whore you love is a virgin. I just ain't buying. Changing a vote got nothing to do with it as that is meaningless to me in the point I'm making. You don't have to change a vote as much as sponsor or push legislation that is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. For example an open and free market is in the best interest of the American public so with that in mind one needs to look at the Federal Register and consider that at anytime did Mr. Reid support, present, sponsor or in any other way legislation that give certain clients of Abramoff prefered treatment that protects or grants them a certain market advantage over another business in which it restricts a free and open market.

    Abramoff for example got Ralph Reed to mobilize some Christian Coalition forces to mount anti-gaming campaigns not in a fashion to end gaming in all forms but rather in a way to prevent other gaming concerns from entering certain markets. Noboby changed a vote as far as I know of but the entire process was manipulated to prevent free markets from operating to full advantage of the consumer. Now don't remind me that Reed and CC are republican (no :censored2: Sherlock) but if you are so naive and blind to believe that a guy that plays one side of the street one way and doesn't work in some fashion the same way on the other side, well I got a bridge in Brooklyn I call sell you for a hell of a deal. Face it girl, the whole process has become corrupt and on both sides of the isle.

    Now I know your response will be something like, "well Bush did this blah, blah, blah, Halliburton blah, blah, blah, oil companies blah, blah, blah and I never said that this didn't occur or denied that. I know it does and did. What I'm saying is business is business and they all are alike. Go read and research. It's the way business is done in Disneyland East.

    BTW:Where's Reid been all these years in regards to the Indian Trust? Much of the document destruction according to the Blackfeet website occured under a democrat executive adminstration so in his capacity as a rising leadership member of the democrat congressional bunch you would think if he was so above board that he would have stepped in and done something about these illegal actions taking place. I guess something about that word democrat following the name President Bill Clinton just held him up. I'll bet had the name Bush and republican been there we'd seen a very different Reid.

    Where's Reid been? Hanging out with everyone else in the Congress sittin' on the sidelines lettin' the Indians flop in the wind. Probably lined up at Abramoff's office with everyone else wheelin' and dealin'! LOL!

    Defend the hypocrisy my dear!

    Just as the title of the article on dailykos sez,

  18. Keith,

    I know that you don't like politicians unless they are Libertarian, but a quick Google of "Reid Indian Affairs" wiil show you that the Senator from Neveda has fairly represented his State and the Native Americans residing there. When there is real evidence of any alleged wrongdoing, I will be among the first to call for his resignation.

    Didn't someone once say there were two types of politicians; liars and damn liars? Personally I've always thought that elected representatives should have to be either farmers or housewives, the only people that I've seen that can work within a budget:thumbup1:

    Take it easy, there's not much two curmudgeons on Browncafe can do about it, but get your facts straight before you do a 'j'accuse'.:wink:
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Hmmmm! So does that mean my admiration and even even my vote for the late Senator Patrick Daniel Moynihan if I could would not count? Oh yeah, we differ in some areas but I always felt he was honest and sincere and that was a trait not shared by many especially in the corridors of power. He wanted to help people but he also understood the danger of maintaining a bureaucracy and keeping people chained to it. It's one thing to help people stand up and walk but it's another thing to help people up and then knock them down again only to help them up only to knock them down again. How can you end poverty and hardship while at the same time structuring laws that forment it. As to political libertarianism is not a form of gov't or even a party, contary to the fact there is a party by that name, it's an individual mindset and way of life. That's another reason I'm no longer a member of the party itself and haven't been for about 8 years. Does libertarian thought effect the political? Sure but no more than being Christian or atheist or any other belief system with it's own principles of how people should deal and interact with one another. Most people use what is described as libertarian principles every day when dealing with people albeit we don't call it as such. It's just ironic we've lost those principles when it comes to how and what we expect out of gov't.

    You are right about liars and damn liars and the old adage, "When can you tell a politician is lying? When his lips move!" Funny, we toss that old adage around and then we make statements like "liars and damn liars" about politicians but then we turn around and lay all our well being and faith into their hands. We're like sex addicts who want genuine love but we go down the street to the local brothel to the same old "lady of the evening" for love and then on our never ending trips to the doctor for the shot to kill the STD we whine and complain and moan about having to always come to the doctor to get the shot.

    Could it be that at some point we need to step back and look at what love really is and the proper place to get it? The best people to work with to build a good and caring society are the very people you live with and call your neighbor and friends. Hillary Clinton had it half right when she said "it takes a village" and she's absolutely right but she left off the other half that has just as much importance and this is the complete quote.

    "It takes a village not a national central gov't!"

    As to the curmudgeon part, well speak for yourself!:wink:

    You know you aren't a good fisherman at all. You been dippin' and dippin' that hook and the big one you're really after just don't want to seem to bite these days. :lol:

    Bill Dance, Roland Martin, Orlando Wilson, Hank Parker, etc. have always said presentation is the most important aspect of catching the big fish. Guess you just ain't got it! Hey I tired to help!:wink:

    C YA! It's been fun!