Daily Kos

View Story | 57 comments

  •  "more money to GOP" = some money to Dems (none / 0)

    Does anyone have an actual numerical breakdown of Abramoff's donations?

    I'm predicting the Post's ombudsman will argue Abramoff's donations were "substantial" to both parties - and then argue that "substantial" can mean anything. But this Bloomberg article does imply that Ambramoff's Indian tribe did give money to Democrats.

    Of course, the Post's ombudsman boxes herself in by saying that ABRAMOFF gave the substantial contributions. This is untrue. As I understand it anyways, Abramoff himself only gave money to Republicans.

    We should try to nail this down - with references - to give our complaints more credibility.

    by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  My understanding is.... (none / 1)

      that there are three categories of "Abramoff Contributions"

      1. Abramoff or a family member gave money directly.
      2. An organization controlled by Abramoff gave money.
      3. A client of Abramoff's was directed to give money.

      As far as I know, no Democrats have received money in any of these categories.

      The closest a Dem has come to receiving "Abramoff Related Money" is:

      4) A client of Abramoff's gave money to someone without him being involved in the transaction.

      congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

      by bartman on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:34:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's here right now (none / 0)

      AmericaBlog

      'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

      by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's only category #1 (none / 0)

        Great! That (hopefully) lists all money give by...

        1. Abramoff or a family member

        I imagine that when the Post ombudsman is grilled over this, she'll insist that when she said Abramoff made the donation, she'll insist that she meant he made it through a secondary (non-Abramoff entity.) Thus broading her original incorrect statement to include....

        2. An organization controlled by Abramoff
        3. A client directed by Abramoff

        One of two things will then happen:

        • She'll have trouble finding #3, and then will then try to conflate it with #4. ("A client of Abramoff's who also independently gave money without Abramoff's direction.") Or...

        • She'll admit she made a mistake.

        by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Been busy... (none / 0)

          looks like she found another way. Turned off the comments and told the rest of us to suck wind.
          Nice...real, real Bush like.

          Fortunately folks are Fighting Back!  

          'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

          by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Post ran two graphics (none / 0)

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      The problem with the graphics is they don't show what these tribes were giving to each side in previous years. For that, the Bloomberg story is more fair:
      http://www.bloomberg.com/...

      Wynton Marsalis:"Blues never lets tragedy have the last word."

      by skywriter on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:02:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 57 comments