Gateway Pundit names other Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff clients and got quid pro quo donations.
And, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is leading the pack: "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Of Nevada Sent A Letter To [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton On March 5, 2002 ... The Next Day, The Coushattas [An Indian Tribe Represented By Abramoff] Issued A $5,000 Check To Reid's Tax-Exempt Political Group, The Searchlight Leadership Fund."Along with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) : "Harkin Wrote At Least Three Letters In 2003 Pressing The Government To Release Federal Money To Help The Sac & Fox Tribe In His State Cope With The Temporary Closing Of Its Casino Due To A Tribal Dispute, According To Interior Department Documents Obtained By The Associated Press And Records Provided By Harkin's Office."
The esteemed Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-La) joins them: "Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Who Was Engaged In A Tight Re-Election Race In 2002, Sent Her Letter March 6, 2002. That Same Day, The Coushattas Sent $2,000 To Her Campaign And She Received $5,000 More By The End Of That Month. By Year's End, The Total Had Grown To At Least $24,000."
As does Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] ... Debbie Stabenow ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."
And, don't forget Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] Carl Levin ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."
Most people already knew that Dean was crazy, but apparently he's stupid too. Declaring publicly that the Democrats "are clean" on the issue of Abramoff-related pay-for-play was a monumental error. Even CNN isn't buying (Ed Henry)
"I Want To Underline Again, There Are Democrats Implicated In [The Abramoff Scandal] As Well. So [Democrats'] Argument About A Culture Of Corruption May Not Resonate With People Across The Country." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan were among the very first targets of law enforcement investigations into the Abramoff affair.
Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.
Ironically perhaps, Tom Delay was not a target for investigation. Yet Democrats unleashed the guilt-by-association beast and it may well turn around to bite Harry in the ass.
Now, Congressional Quarterly reports that Reid's former legislative counsel, Edward Ayoob, joined Abramoff’s then-law firm, Greenberg Traurig, in March 2002, and that some of Ayoob’s clients at the firm were Indian tribes. "Democrats have taken a special interest in Ayoob's clients," reported CQ. "Of the eight tribes Ayoob represented when he was with Greenberg Traurig, Reid acted in behalf of or moved legislation benefiting six." One case involved a casino controversy. "He [Reid] intervened, for example, to block other Democrats from opening a casino in Michigan, noting that other tribes in the state -- Ayoob's clients -- would suffer," CQ noted. "Ayoob gave $51,333 to Democrats since 2002, including $4,000 to Reid in 2003, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Tribes represented by Abramoff or Ayoob also gave Reid $30,500 since 1999, according to the Center." Announcing a Democratic ethics reform package last week, Reid told reporters, "This is a Republican scandal and they can try to spin-doctor it. … Eddie Ayoob didn’t work for Jack Abramoff, he worked for a 1,000-member law firm."Considering that Abramoff's modus operandi was to create a problem for an Indian tribe by orchestrating opposition to their casino proposals, and then offer to 'fix' it for a fee, it would be a coincidence of enormous proportions for Reid not to have any involvement with him.
Harry Reid, like Ralph Reed, were Abramoff's glass breakers. Every so often some Autoglass company gets the bright idea that if they send some people around to break some windshields, they can create some business for themselves. Abramoff used his glassbreakers to oppose Indian casino gambling and then offered to "fix the problem" for a considerable fee. The fact that Reid has been doing this for years and getting big bucks for his trouble suggests that its way more than a coincidence.
Regardless of Reid's innocence or guilt, the smart thing to do would be to resign the leadership post and avoid tainting the party.
Captain's Quarters has more dirt on the Culture of Corruption.
Underneath the elegant conference room table in her House office, the California Democrat clenched her hands in her lap. She bit her lower lip. But Milling pressed on, and soon Pelosi was accepting a box of bonbons and an invitation for a 36-hour, expense-paid trip to New Orleans. "I'll be there," she said before the women walked out.
Would you be surprised that New Orleans residents are having to bribe members of Congress will all-expenses-paid trips to visit the devastation? Only 55 House members and 30 Senators have made the trip. Thes rest are holding out for a private jet.
















Comments (4)
So let me get this straight:
You're saying that it's illegal for congresspersons to receive money from Abramoff's clients?
Is it illegal for congressmen/women to write letters on behalf of these people?
Please check FEC regulations and get back to me on that one.
Republican scandal. Period.
Posted by Mike Hunt | February 1, 2006 8:54 AM
Posted on February 1, 2006 08:54
So, I have read this and I still do not see any link to Abramoff. Instead, you simply note that Reid got campaign contributions from Indian tribes. So what? I really wish this wasn't the only defense that people could come up with. It would be pathetic, even if it was true, and it is not.
By the way, Greenberg Traurig is just about the largest law firm in DC, and a very prestigious one at that (or was), so am I supposed to gasp when you note that someone who worked for a senator went on to a sucessful law firm. WOW! Of course he did!!!
This has surpassed the "depends on what the definition of "is" is" defense. Like when you not Ayoob OR Abramoff clients donated 30K. Wow, I barely noticed the bullshit OR in the middle which made the statement totally meaningless. Get a new talking point.
Posted by Joe | February 1, 2006 3:46 PM
Posted on February 1, 2006 15:46
I presume you support public financing of campaigns and the elimination of all campaign contributions by corporations, private and public interests groups, etc.? And that you understand that by the standards you appear to be setting here every politician in Washington, every Republican and every Democrat alike (including Bush), is corrupt?
You don't agree with the Supreme Court and Mitch O'Connell that "money is speech?"
The Abramoff scandal is not about campaign contributions -- or how unseemly the financing of our political process has become (which it certainly has) -- it's about crimes that Abramoff, one of the most powerful and well-connected money men in the conservative movement, has copped to -- fraud, money-laundering, bribery.
Furthermore, Abramoff's clients were his victims. His crime isn't that he suggested that clients give money to politicians to further their interests in the political arena -- all lobbyists do that. His crime is that he extorted money from his clients under false pretenses - while often working AGAINST their interest -- and used that money to enrich himself and his political (strictly Republican) pals.
Posted by esmense | February 2, 2006 3:38 PM
Posted on February 2, 2006 15:38
Could you perhaps outline why it's relevant that democratic representatives, traditionally more sympathetic to tribal issues, received money from the tribes?
Can you produce any evidence that the money was given at the behest of Abramoff? That there was any quid pro quo involved? Are you aware that the tribes involved gave LESS to democratic reps AFTER Abramoff "consulted" on their behalf?
The fact that the tribes exercised their right to donate to whom they wish is not the point. The tribes are the victims in this matter.
Posted by Frank | February 2, 2006 3:52 PM
Posted on February 2, 2006 15:52