YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/abramoff/ A senior Bush official insisted the administration does not know how Abramoff got into the meeting or on the White House grounds that day. B.S. I have been to the White House, had to have my S.S. forwarded ahead each time and been check out just to get onto the grounds and then again upon entering the WH for a meeting. Doesn't even pass the Smell Test. On as side note: A friend of mine who works for the Native American Rights Fund, when asked by me why he wasn't upset that Abramoff took so much money from the tribes without actually providing them with any assistance other than some proforma meetings responded, White man taking something from Indians without giving anything of value back in return is new news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I have been to the White House, had to have my S.S. forwarded ahead each time and been check out just to get onto the grounds and then again upon entering the WH for a meeting. 601598[/snapback] Well, you aren't a GOPUSA plant posing as a reporter, or a CEO of a major energy corporation. It's who you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Well, you aren't a GOPUSA plant posing as a reporter, or a CEO of a major energy corporation. It's who you know. 601628[/snapback] Use to be a congressional staffer working for Demcratic Chairman of the House Ag Committee before the right wing take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Use to be a congressional staffer working for Demcratic Chairman of the House Ag Committee before the right wing take over. 601798[/snapback] Yeah, I think THIS klind of confirms you as a leftist loon. Of all the millions of words in the English language, you entitled a photo of Hillary Clinton DIGNITY? I don't know whether to laugh at your blind partisanship or cry at your butchery of the English language. I mean, come on. What about "Bitchiness" or "Petulence" or "Arrogance" or even "Murder"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Use to be a congressional staffer working for Demcratic Chairman of the House Ag Committee before the right wing take over. 601798[/snapback] But at least you're unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/abramoff/ A senior Bush official insisted the administration does not know how Abramoff got into the meeting or on the White House grounds that day. B.S. I have been to the White House, had to have my S.S. forwarded ahead each time and been check out just to get onto the grounds and then again upon entering the WH for a meeting. Doesn't even pass the Smell Test. On as side note: A friend of mine who works for the Native American Rights Fund, when asked by me why he wasn't upset that Abramoff took so much money from the tribes without actually providing them with any assistance other than some proforma meetings responded, White man taking something from Indians without giving anything of value back in return is new news? 601598[/snapback] Here's a CNN reference for you: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/abramoff.reid.ap/ "' Sen. Reid helped Abramoff's clients Minority leader's staff had regular contact with lobbyist's team' Thursday, February 9, 2006 Posted: 2247 GMT (0647 HKT) Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote four letters helpful to Jack Abramoff's clients. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients. The activities -- detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press -- are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients."... Gee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 But at least you're unbiased. 601814[/snapback] Yeh right, unbiased funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Here's a CNN reference for you: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/abramoff.reid.ap/ "' Sen. Reid helped Abramoff's clients Minority leader's staff had regular contact with lobbyist's team' Thursday, February 9, 2006 Posted: 2247 GMT (0647 HKT) Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote four letters helpful to Jack Abramoff's clients. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients. The activities -- detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press -- are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients."... Gee... 601821[/snapback] I don't think Reid would even contest this article, so why is the Administration. Think it involved more than legal campaign contributions. Abramson is a crook and likely got some slime on both sides. Any lobbyist worth his weight in salt would. The question is did he illegal access and provide contributions illegally. Don't know, but the majority of Abramoff money went to the GOP, 70/30 from what I understand. The denying of photos in the White House and jeez, how did he get in there? That familiar with White House Secret Service, they just let him in? Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Yeah, I think THIS klind of confirms you as a leftist loon. Of all the millions of words in the English language, you entitled a photo of Hillary Clinton DIGNITY? I don't know whether to laugh at your blind partisanship or cry at your butchery of the English language. I mean, come on. What about "Bitchiness" or "Petulence" or "Arrogance" or even "Murder"? 601811[/snapback] Like many politicians that have been villified in the press or by either side, having had to take photos of them is different. I know ones on both side of the isle that are standup people in person with lots of patience for people who just seem to want a piece of them. Hillary gets mobbed by folks every time in public and is patient with autograph and photo seekers beyond reason. Hence the title "Dignity". Senator Pat Roberts, while I disagree more often him politically, I will always respect having worked with/for him on the House Ag Committee and seen how he treats people including his staffers as an example. I am a moderate and yes a Dem but doesn't mean I haven't seen unnamed Dems and Republicans who as human beings have no business being elected officials...they are jerks. P.S. John Beohner, the new GOP House majority leader is an interesting character, guiet spoken, very observant, never showed up staffers in public, has a temper but keeps it underraps and goes regularly to the tanning salon. Smokes like a stack. Strikes me as a Scotch siper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I don't think Reid would even contest this article, so why is the Administration. Think it involved more than legal campaign contributions. Abramson is a crook and likely got some slime on both sides. Any lobbyist worth his weight in salt would. The question is did he illegal access and provide contributions illegally. Don't know, but the majority of Abramoff money went to the GOP, 70/30 from what I understand. The denying of photos in the White House and jeez, how did he get in there? That familiar with White House Secret Service, they just let him in? Scary. 601833[/snapback] Did you see that photo? Picture a landscape 8 X 10, with the President shaking the hand of some large guy in the foreground, and the image of Abramoff was about the size of a quarter, in the upper left-hand of the 8x10. Oportunistic warts are always fighting for a photo op. Lobbying and buying off is as old as the hills. When the Dems owned Congress for 50 years, as well as when their guys were the Prez, what do you think your assumed ratio was? Maybe 70/30 Democratic? The issue is buying of politicians, and I suggest you direct anger and indignation towards that. Funny, this ba-de-ba about Federal stuff. I guarantee you, your local County Commissioner junta has far more effect on you or me than any one of these tin gods running the Executive branch or sitting in the Legislatative branch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Did you see that photo? Picture a landscape 8 X 10, with the President shaking the hand of some large guy in the foreground, and the image of Abramoff was about the size of a quarter, in the upper left-hand of the 8x10. Oportunistic warts are always fighting for a photo op. 601865[/snapback] The picture is hilarious. It's like "Where's Waldo?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The picture is hilarious. It's like "Where's Waldo?" 601872[/snapback] Good analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Did you see that photo? Picture a landscape 8 X 10, with the President shaking the hand of some large guy in the foreground, and the image of Abramoff was about the size of a quarter, in the upper left-hand of the 8x10. Oportunistic warts are always fighting for a photo op. Lobbying and buying off is as old as the hills. When the Dems owned Congress for 50 years, as well as when their guys were the Prez, what do you think your assumed ratio was? Maybe 70/30 Democratic? The issue is buying of politicians, and I suggest you direct anger and indignation towards that. Funny, this ba-de-ba about Federal stuff. I guarantee you, your local County Comissioner junta has far more effect on you or me than any one of these tin gods running the Executive branch or sitting in the Legislatative branch... 601865[/snapback] Don't disagree with anything you said except the legislative stuff. Constituent work has helped out a lot of folks, not necessarily legislative, but congressional casework by young underpaid staffers who often are told to help without regard to party affiliation do amazing things. Pulled a few myself, but basically it is all grunt work, not pretty, but the undeserved thank you letters I received were inspiring. Legislation is another thing and I agree whole heartedly with the above statement, with one more exception because friends and family being sent to war and being put in harms way without a good honest reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Here's a CNN reference for you: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/abramoff.reid.ap/ "' Sen. Reid helped Abramoff's clients Minority leader's staff had regular contact with lobbyist's team' Thursday, February 9, 2006 Posted: 2247 GMT (0647 HKT) Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote four letters helpful to Jack Abramoff's clients. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients. The activities -- detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press -- are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients."... Gee... 601821[/snapback] The Associated Press story original stated that "Top Democrat Reid met often with Abramoff", although the story never made any claims that the two men have ever met. The story was soon changed to "Top Democrat Reid aided Abramoff clients". The article states that: But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone. Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. Unfortunately, the AP failed to state that Reid opposed the Northern Marianas legislation Before and After the lobbying. So even if Abramoff's clients gave Reid money there was no quid pro quo as Reid did not aid the clients. As far as Reid writing letters helpful to the Indian clients who were trying to stop other Indian tribes from opening casinos: Don't you think that opposing more casinos outside of Nevada might be a position that a Senator from Nevada would take whether he was paid or not? I'm sure that Reid is as corrupt as any other politician, but I think that this article was very misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 The Associated Press story original stated that "Top Democrat Reid met often with Abramoff", although the story never made any claims that the two men have ever met. The story was soon changed to "Top Democrat Reid aided Abramoff clients". The article states that: Unfortunately, the AP failed to state that Reid opposed the Northern Marianas legislation Before and After the lobbying. So even if Abramoff's clients gave Reid money there was no quid pro quo as Reid did not aid the clients. As far as Reid writing letters helpful to the Indian clients who were trying to stop other Indian tribes from opening casinos: Don't you think that opposing more casinos outside of Nevada might be a position that a Senator from Nevada would take whether he was paid or not? I'm sure that Reid is as corrupt as any other politician, but I think that this article was very misleading. 601969[/snapback] As to the varicity of the article, I don't know, the corruptness is a different issue and I wonder if accepting campaign contributions from folks you agree with is corrupt or merely expedient. Corruptness comes in when you accept money for personal use or gain. The gain part can be debated, not sure we can ever get rid of it, given recent Supreme Ct. rulings regarding the speech and debate clause of the Constitution and linking it to campaign contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts