Daily Kos

View Story | 173 comments

  •  Jeez. Results and comparisons are distorted ... (none / 0)

    ... by Saginaw Chippewa's extraordinary $220K contrib to a DCCC nonfederal soft money account in the 1998 cycle -- a contribution no longer permitted under current campaign finance law.

    You can do a lot of work trying to convince yourself of something that isn't true to begin with, and you may succeed ... but it won't convince anybody outside your bubble. It will only convince them not to listen to you again.

    Now, how do you propose to blind yourself to all the specific-specific-specific cases in which tribal officials testified "Abramoff [or Scanlon, etc] told us to write this check on this date", and the check was written, and was deposited in a Democratic candidate's hard money account, and was reported to the FEC, and was (in some cases, and not in others) refunded by the Democratic candidate?

    The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:38:59 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't ... (none / 0)

      ... propose to blind myself.  That would be painful, and counterproductive.

      Show me the testimony of a tribal official who said Abramoff told him to write a check to a Democrat (provided, of course, that it doesn't represent a decrement of the amount the tribe had proposed giving or had given before), and I'm willing to look at it.

      by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:08:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK. Start here ... (4.00 / 2)

        ... with the Coushatta tribe checks written to numerous R's and D's 3/6/2002 at Abramoff's direction, as affirmed by tribal attorney Jimmy Faircloth.

        IIRC, this story preceded Dorgan's decision to return all his "Abramoff-related" money.

        Also note that Harry Reid received no Agua Caliente, Louisiana Coushatta, Mississippi Choctaw or Saginaw Chippewa (loosely, "Abramoff tribe") contributions in pre-Abramoff years, but $50K in 2001-04 (loosely, the "Abramoff years").

        Note clearly -- none of this makes Dorgan, Reid or anybody else crooked. It just demolishes the conceit that no Democrats received Abramoff-directed funds.

        Before you go after the WaPo, CNN, etc. for not having their story straight, you need to get your story straight.

        The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

        by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:03:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well wait (none / 0)

          Even in light of your evidence, the fact is, the Post was absolutely wrong to say that Abramoff gave money to both Dams and Republicans. If I tell my father to give my sister her rent money, it is not the same as if I give her the rent money.

          The bigger focus though should be what was gotten for those dollars and a clear distinction should be made between dirty money and clean money (as clean as money can ever be).

          The press (and we) are so anxious to break a story and subsequently wrap it up into a neat soundbite that the essential story is lost before the trial even goes down.

          by JaneKnowles on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:49:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the link (none / 1)

          It's not "testimony," as you described it, but it is interesting, and it may support your point.  

          I say it "may" support it, because as I observed a couple of posts upthread, it makes a difference whether the amount provided was an increment or a decrement to what the tribe had originally intended.  If the tribe planned to give $10k to Dorgan, for example, and Abramoff persuaded them to cut that amount in half, I don't think it can be fairly said that they gave him $5000 at Abramoff's direction.  It would be more accurate to say Abramoff directed them to cut their contribution.

          WRT this statement:  Before you go after the WaPo, CNN, etc. for not having their story straight, you need to get your story straight -- Howell's claim that Abramoff gave money to Dems was factually inaccurate.  It's fair game to point it out, and to expect a correction.

          by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:00:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Jimmy Faircloth ... (none / 1)

          ... the source in your article, apparently is a GOP lobbyist, according to this excellent diary by Kagro X.

          Noted with interest.

          by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:48:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read Kagro X (none / 0)

            The cited diary has more information on why the case against Dorgan is questionable.

            by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I know Kagro X. Kagro X is a friend of mine ... (none / 0)

            ... not to mention a blogmate at TNH. But Kagro is in error here.

            There's no indication Faircloth is a lobbyist ... and much indication to the contrary.

            There's no indication Faircloth is a GOP operative. He has several contributions, not unusual for a Louisiana lawyer, but no activist earmarks.

            Sworn Senate testimony was given by tribal council chair Kevin Sickey, but Sickey referred al public inquiries to Faircloth.

            Sickey led a dissident council faction that contested the election of Abramoff-friendly council members in the critical period.

            Faircloth was originally represented the reform faction in their election contest (which Abramoff may have had a role in rigging). He became general counsel to the tribe when Sickey's reform faction gained control, and leads their effort to recover $32 million in Abramoff-related rake-off's.

            I don't find the contribution in question in FEC records, but that's probably because I'm looking in the wrong place, or there's a clerical recording error (not uncommon). Reasoning: Dorgan raised a number of objections to the Coushatta story and its implications, but did not contest the assertion that he had received this money (which would have been his most air-tight defense), and did include it in his contributions refunded and/or redirected to charities.

            The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

            by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:49:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  UPDATE: I dug around in TNH backfiles, re ... (none / 0)

            ... the claim that nobody could find evidence that Dorgan received the $5K.

            The day after Kagro's diary, TNH received correspondence from FECInfo.com indicating the $5K from Coushatta went to a Dorgan-controlled soft money account, and providing a (subscriber only) link. Not sure whether we ever followed up as intended to correct the record.

            The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

            by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:00:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  More on Dorgan-Coushatta (none / 1)

          Helpful analysis here.

          by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:16:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yet more on Dorgan-Coushatta (none / 1)

          Here.

          by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:21:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And it actually proves (none / 0)

          nothing you said before.

          No one has said Dems did not get money Ron.

          What game are you playing?

           

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:42:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dem's got money, Abramoff directed it, ... (none / 0)

            ... and they got (a lot) more money under Abramoff than pre-Abramoff.

            What game are you playing?

            And why are you playing over here, when the front page is over there?

            The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

            by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 11:20:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because you ... (none / 0)


               ... linked to the discussion here, of course.

              by Califlander on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:29:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So what's your point? (none / 0)

              I note your figures but what about the possibility that these tribes didn't have legislation that they were trying to get passed before they hired Abramoff? It could reasonably be said that the tribes might not have needed to lobby Congress before they went along and hired Abramoff, in which case the lower funds were indicative of their level of interest in Congressional matters. The correlation isn't enough to strictly say, in a widespread fashion, that Abramoff was the determinative source of the higher level of donations. It could merely be a symptom of their interest in federal legislation.

              Secondly, what's the larger point here? The debate over campaign contributions is ultimately beside the larger point of corruption, money laundering, and bribery. Surely, corrections are needed when they are due but you've overreached based on what's known so far. I wouldn't nearly be so presumptive as to say that Abramoff never directed a tribe to donate to a member of Congress or that he regularly did. I haven't seen the records. What is known is that there is very little, if any, signs that a single Dem. acted on behalf of Abramoff's interest or the tribes he represented, be it based on legal or illegal means of influence. I feel as though this debate has really lost sight of the larger picture of what Abramoff was all about and how he peddled influence in Congress.

              'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

              by jorndorff on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:10:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  How about (none / 0)

      a cite to those comparison Ron?

      A link? something?

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:40:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 173 comments