Daily Kos

View Story | 173 comments

  •  Evidence (4.00 / 7)

    Hang on -- The Post's assertion that "Abramoff directed contributions to Democrats" is factually correct, and they have evidence. That evidence consists of emails in which Abramoff itemized recipients, amounts and rationales for giving.Thus, we can see that tribes gave money to Jean Carnahan because she was a "supporter of Native Americans," and to Max Cleland because he was "Very receptive to tribal issues." So they are factually correct.

    The trouble is that in the context of Howell's remarks, and a number of her establishmentarian media colleagues, this is totally misleading, because 1.) it suggests that the crime was the giving itself, and not the massive extortion/kickbacks/money laundering scheme that Abramoff ran, and 2.) confuses the tribes' giving to Dems, generally traditionally strong supporters of tribal concerns in the first place, with giving to Republicans, which was, yes, pretty naked influence-peddling.

    Let's get it right. They're factually correct in stating that, but they're utterly misleading, one must presume willfully so and in thrall of their GOP masters. This stuff isn't hard to understand or to explain.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:01:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Correct me if I wrong (4.00 / 2)

      There's no crime in directing those tribes to give to certain politicians who support Indian causes.

      by pol on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:16:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correct (4.00 / 3)

        In fact, it's not a crime to give to any of these pols. The crime is in how Abramoff motivated his clients to give to his Republican colleagues, which amounts to an extortion racket, and what he did with the money -- essentially laundering contributions to  evade caps on donations.

        But yes, influence-peddling is an unseemly business. The key question -- that which seperates rational self-interested giving to pols who've always supported tribal concerns (the Dems) with good old fashioned influence-buying (GOP) -- is their motivation for giving to an individual candidate.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

        by Septic Tank on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:35:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Evidence?" Not exactly (4.00 / 3)

      The "evidence" you cite (which was also cited by Howell) is highly questionable. Paul Lukasiak raised some good questions about that evidence. You can find Paul's comments here. Search for "2:59".

      by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:47:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  correction to my "evidence" (none / 0)

        Ron Bryaent from Raw Story pointed out a different site than the one I was using for finding contributions -- and it turns out that the Coushatta Tribe did contribute $5000 to DASCHPAC in 2002, contrary to the claim I made in the comment you are citing.

        Everything else is solid, so far! :)

        by bushsux on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  perhaps . . . (none / 1)

      . . . but the link you include did not provide evidence of that.  it only asserted that Abramoff directed money to democrats, and then gave a picture of a list of Rs & Ds that might have been out of context.  It is, however, very likely that evidence  of this matter, one way or another will eventually come out.  

      regardless, we are getting sucked into a discussion of essentially meaningless details that distracts from the larger issue.  Republicans broke the law, Democrats did not.  

      This is exactly what happened with the documents that Dan Rather had.  We got sucked into a discussion of font types and CBS's decision to run the memos when the real issue was that George Bush is not the brave warrior that he claims to be.  

      Bryan E. Burke, Chair of Eastern Washington Voters; www.ewvoters.org

      by bryanb on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:49:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  one problem... (4.00 / 8)

      there is one problem with this statement...

      Thus, we can see that tribes gave money to Jean Carnahan because she was a "supporter of Native Americans," and to Max Cleland because he was "Very receptive to tribal issues." So they are factually correct.

      according to the records of the FEC, the "Jean Carnahan for Missouri Committee" got no money from the Coushatta tribe, and "Friends of Max Cleland for the US Senate, Inc" received only $500 (instead of the $2000 that the tribe was "directed" to give.)

      Its possible that some "soft money" was directed toward Carnahan and Cleland's campaign in some fashion -- but the list in question is a list of "requests" for both hard and soft money -- and while every GOP incumbent running for re-election got the "hard money" requested, Carnahan got no "hard money" and Cleland got only $500.

      the very fact that the Post is using this "list" as their evidence that money was directed to Democratic candidates shows how weak their case is.  The actual data from the FEC, when compared to the list, CONTRADICTS the claims made by the Post.

      ***********

      BTW, we should stop using the term "no evidence" in refrence to "directed" contributions.  "Evidence" does exist, what does not exist is any "evidence" of taint, or any proof that Abramoff's "suggestions" were the reason money went to the Dems.

      For instance, with the Coushatta tribe, Abramoff's firm was not the only lobbyist it employed in 2002.   Johnston and Associates, another DC lobbying firm that specialized in Native American issues, had a long-standing relationship with the Coushatta, and in 2002 the tribe paid J&A over $80,000 for services provided.

      How likely is it that the tribe got no advice on whom to contribute from its long-term lobbyist in DC that specialized in issues of concern to Native Americans across the board?   How likely is it that J&A didn't say to the Coushatta "hey, Tom Daschle from South Dakota is a strong supporter of Native American tribes, and you might want to give his leadership PAC some money?"  

      by bushsux on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 01:05:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly so (none / 1)

        I don't doubt that some of the tribes gave money to Dems, but it's a stretch to say that happened because "Abramoff directed" it.  To draw that conclusion assumes at least that:

        1.  The tribes gave no money, except on advice of their lobbyists;

        2.  Abramoff was their sole lobbyist; and

        3.  The amount in question represented an increment over planned or historical expenditures, rather than a decrement.

        The last is a point worth keeping in mind.  If the leaders of Tribe X had historically contributed $2000/yr to a Democrat who had always been a strong supporter of tribal interests, but cut that in half at Abramoff's urging, it would be technically accurate to say they gave $1000/yr at Abramoff's direction .... but more accurate to say they cut their contributions by $1000/yr at Abramoff's direction.

        by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:27:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To simplify (none / 1)

        The tribes had reason to give money to Dems, since Dem policy tends to coincide with their interests anyway. They did not have reason to give to Republicans unless they were encouraging them to change their positions.

        But yes, this is a distraction from the real issue -- a massive GOP extortion racket and money laundering operation.

        I stand corrected on the unimpeachability of The Post's evidence.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

        by Septic Tank on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:24:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 173 comments