Gingrich falsely claimed Reid took money from Abramoff
SUMMARY: On Fox, Newt Gingrich falsely accused Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of taking money from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and asserted that this made it more difficult for Democrats to charge Republicans with perpetuating a "culture of corruption."
During Fox Broadcasting Co.'s January 31 special coverage of the State of the Union address, Fox News political contributor and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) falsely accused Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) of taking money from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and asserted that this would compromise the ability of the Democrats to charge Republicans with a "culture of corruption."
Gingrich's claim regarding money he said "Reid took from Abramoff" has no apparent basis in fact. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, a Center for Responsive Politics breakdown of Abramoff's donations shows that Abramoff made contributions only to Repubicans, not Democrats.
From Fox Broadcasting Co.'s January 31 special coverage of the State of the Union address:
SHEPARD SMITH (host): Is that a case -- were you in charge of that party [the Democrats] -- you could make? The culture of corruption?
GINGRICH: Look, I think it is a good case for them to try to make. I think, frankly, with Reid's relationship to Abramoff, the amount of money Reid took from Abramoff, it's a little trickier case for them to make. But, you know, if you are the opposition party, you've got to try.
...that Smith was quick to correct him, right? Oh, wait, that would be something a JOURNALIST would do. Sorry.
Fox has this odd habit of picking up people who are a total disgrace, like Newt.
Oliver North sells weapons to terrorists, lies about it to congress, gets off on a technicality, where does he end up? Fox.
Egomaniac Geraldo Rivera, where does he end up? Fox.
Bob Novak throws tantrum, swears and storms off CNN set, gets fired, where does he end up? Fox.
Bill O'Reilly lies about winning Peabody award, concocts "war on Christmas," throws tantrum about NBC being critical of him, where is he? Fox.
Race-baiting talk radio host Sean Hannity and Alan "Doormat" Holmes, where did they end up? Fox.
Now we have serial wife-cheater and liar Newt Gingrich, where did he end up? Fox.
Notice a pattern here?
When is a "journalist" going to call any any of these Republiturds on the lie that they have been telling over and over that any Democrat ever took any money at all from Jack A off? This is getting to be a bigger lie than wmd's in Iraq and we all know what the MSM's timidity on that lie got us into.
Democrat events and stump for Democrats.
Uh, zero.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
What MMFA seems to forget is:
But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Many of the top beneficiaries of the campaign contributions that Jack Abramoff and his team of lobbyists directed from Indian tribes were Democratic legislators.
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.
Of course anyone who isn't blinded by irrational partisanship can see that this lobbying what Newt is referring to. (And yes you can spare me the part about the contributions to Reid and others being legal. Been there. You need to come up with something new.)
for the rest of the article see: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Instead of endlessly repeating it, that Abramoff DIRECTED anything, AND that it was directed in a way that was illegal as many of the GOP Abramoff contributions clearly were (see his guilty plea). You will have a point. As has already been noted MANY times, Abramoff worked for the tribes, not the other way around. When is the last time your gardener directed YOU? The tribes had traditionally given money to dems that amount went DOWN after hiring Abramoff. Any money they gave, minus you SHOWING us different, was for THEIR benifit, supporting congressmen who supported one or another agenda helpful to their tribe or people. WHEN you can show the TRIBES bribed someone which as of yet they are NOT charged with this will be relevant, until then it simply isnt. The Tribes were Abramoff VICTIMS, to attempt to spin it as any money Abramoff victims contributed, even without the rumor of wrongdoing, is as tainted as Abramoff money is pure desperation
I respectfully disagree.
On January 3, 2006, Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts—conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion—involving charges stemming principally from his lobbying activities in Washington on behalf of Native American tribes. In addition, Abramoff and other defendants must make restitution of at least $25 million that was defrauded from clients, most notably the Native American tribes. Further, Abramoff owes the Internal Revenue Service $1.7 million as a result of his guilty plea to the tax evasion charge.NPR. The court filing is available as a PDF.[2]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
To say that he had nothing to do with the Indians shifting their campaign contributions from Democrats, (who were no longer in power,) to Republicans is like saying the Indidans hired a $85 million consultant in order to disregard his advice. That just doesn't pass the smell test.
What you seem intent on ignoring is the fact that Democrats took money from Abramoff's clients just as did Republicans. To ignore this fact is to bury one's head in the sand. Frankly it makes Democrats look silly, (like Dean on the Today Show when all he could say was repeat that No Democrat got money from Abramoff when Curic presented him with evidence otherwise.)
On a separate note. Can anyone tell me how much of Abramoffs personal contributions have been to Republicans? How much of that is considered to have been illegal?
I thought so.
AA,
The important point (for your smell test) is that the Dems were getting contributions from the tribes prior to Abramoff. Abramoff came into the picture, and the contributions to the Dems actually went down despite the Dems continued support of the tribes.
If the Dems had gotten new contributions (presumably from Abramoff) that they hadn't gotten before from the tribes, then you might have a case. Since that isn't true, you don't have a valid argument to bring to the table. It's irrelevant that contributions occurred while Abramoff was hired; only relevance is the change that occurred...which was down, not up.
like Dean on the Today Show when all he could say was repeat that No Democrat got money from Abramoff when Curic presented him with evidence otherwise.
She did nothing of the sort. She starts out by saying that Abramoff gave Democrats money. Dean disagrees. THEN she says "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats, including Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid." So she's switching stories in midstream.
Furthermore, the next day, the Today show sheepishly updated their position: : "We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and technically Howard Dean may be correct but while 66% of the money in this situation went to Republicans, 34% of the money not from Abramoff but from associates and clients went to Democrats."
Don't say Abramoff gave money to Democrats. It just didn't happen. If the media wants to do its job and dig into this deeper, then they should explore the money given by those groups that hired Abramoff, why it was given, when, etc. Heck, even Al Franken did this in his book. But until they do that, and do it clearly and honestly, the media is guilty of Just Plain Getting It Wrong.
You're right, the Democrats did not receive money directly from Abramoff, but I caution you not to use the statistics from NBC Today's non-apology, especially the use of 66% (wrong % by NBC Today) and 34% together. NBC Today misleads the audience with those percentages to make the Republicans look better. You can read the analysis if you want on the follow link. Salon's comment are also appropriate. Abramoff worked for the tribes, not the other way around. Abramoff wasn't providing the money to the tribes direct. The money contributed belonged to the tribes and they were giving money to politicians before Abramoff was around.
NBC Today's Misleading Statistics in Non-apology (west1 comments)
You may want to check this out for a more exhaustive and complete profile of WHO is on the TAKE from the HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT!!!!!!
[link to www.thinkprogress.org]
You all might also want to check this and this out. I placed the first link in another thread last week. I guess the wingnut right thinks that if they keep repeating their garbage often enough people will take it as fact. Alway seems to work for them. Not only is this a Republican scandal but it is much bigger than most of us yet see. If you look at the second link and spend a little time patrolling Wampum instead of Free Republic you will see the story cuts to the heart of how we are being governed. Of course ferreting out the facts requires time and effort. Most people are more willing to believe and repeat simplistic mantras (Democrats are corrupt too!...Democrats are corrupt too!...repeat until your eyes feel very heavy) and the next thing you know they don't care about the truth anymore. The heat was off Bush and company this month while the Imperial President rammed yet another of his legal thugs through confirmation to the Supreme Court. Another one of his thugs would be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who may have perjured himself at his confirmation hearing. But, from the same link we also see that the White House may also be guilty of the destruction of evidence in connection with the Libby case. Democrats are corrupt? Sure--because many politicians are corrupt. That is not the topic...although it is the discussion the Wingnut Troll Patrol of the Swiftboat Liars of America wants to have. The stuff Bush & Co. is pulling...well its both epic and apocryphal. Got to give them credit...their good at what they do. It just isn't good for America or the world. It is now time to turn the burners on high again.
Abramoff worked for the tribes not the other way around. This scandal is about bribery. You slipped the conspiricy charge in their, except consipricy is a charge concerning committing another crime. In this case Abramoff plead guilty to conspiricy to commit BRIBERY. Until you can connect some Tribe money to BRIBERY, its still completely irrelevant. Tribes had legitimate reasons to give money to dems who, in congress had been out of power since 94 yet the dem contributions went down AFTER they hired Abramoff not after the dems lost power. This is pure spin, show me Abramoff DIRECTING the tribes to BRIBE dems, or you are doing nothing but spinning.
1. Democrats did not take money from Jack Abramoff.
2. Tribal interests are and were not agents of Jack Abramoff.
Facts supported elswhere:
3. No Democrats are even being investigated for wrongdoing.
4. Some Republicans are.
Um, not to belabor the point, but is not the entire issue over the fact that Abramoff's contributions were ILLEGAL? So if the ENTIRE
so if the entire controversy surrounds illegal contributions, what's your point? You claim we are all blinded by partisan hatred, but you sure want to implicate the Dems for impropriety for taking legal contributions? Just so they look just as bad to you as the Republicans? Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Add to that the fact that contributions to Dems actually significantly DECREASED once Abramoff became involved? You can't chalk this one up to partisan hatred. Yes, our country is polarized, but you can't have an agenda that leaves out 50% of the population, and expect everyone to like it. That's primarily where the hatred comes from. There is an inherent lack of fairness in the way this administration and the GOP in general are operating, and you just want to chalk it all up to partisanship. God forbid you might want to admit that they have done something wrong. The current Republicans are simply the Democrats of the 80s, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And right now, the Republicans have absolute power, and its effect has been right on the money.
What's more... this current administration not only acts as if the GOP makes up a majority of Americans... but, seems to pander to an even SMALLER subgroup of its own party - namely, the religious right. This is a partisanship we have not witnessed... not during a Democratic administration.
The Country Club Republicans have used Abortion, school prayer, evolution and gay marriage to agitate the less-than-brilliant evangelicals into voting against Liberals no matter what. With the help of Theonazis like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, they have created a sychophantic, unthinking voter base who will support them no matter how much they lie, cheat and steal. It works out pretty well for them, actually.
Anyone who thinks George Bush gives a rat's butt about Jeeeezussss is delusional.
Right, you're referring to the tribes that had always contributed to those dems and actually reduced the amount they contributed in order to give to rethugs?
The contributions are NOT specifically the problem. The problem is the favors being done for the money. When it's shown the dems did that, then they need to be taken down. So your pithy "been there" regarding the dems contributions being legal is ridiculous. It does make a difference and you haven't "been there" in any reasonable sense to dismiss the point.
for any Fox News reporter or any other reporter to see. No reporter is willing to state the fact that Dems took no money from Abramoff. Whenever someone does, they immediately get grilled. Yet they never try to question any Republican whenever they their false claims.
can be found here: [link to www.capitaleye.org] Note the amount to Democrats directly from Abramoff of zero ($0.00) dollars. Now, if you look at contributions by recipient on this chart: [link to www.capitaleye.org] There is a rather overwhelming amount of RED recipients when compared to the BLUE recipients. Those blue recipients are typically in states with heavy Native American composition, such as SD, ND and the like. No direct donations from Abramoff went to Dems, but he donated to almost EVERY Republican out there. No one is claiming that all of his contributions were illegal, just SOME of them, and those are the only ones that matter. SO FAR, no Dem has been implicated as the recipient of any illegal donations. And if they are? Then I say investigate them fully, and prosecute to the full extent of the law. But, that seems to be the major difference between most of us at the middle to left of the political spectrum - we want ALL guilty parties caught and prosecuted, NOT just the ones on the OTHER side. Last time I checked, this country was NOT named after a political party. it's not the United States of Republicana, as far as I know.
Desperate enough to use an old discredited mouthpiece Newt to regurgitate the old "Dems took $$ from Abramoff" saw that doesn't pass the reality test. The official contribution records show that NO Democratic Party members took ANY $$ from Abramoff. Equating contributions from an Abramoff client as the same as taking DIRECTLY from Abramoff is like saying your best friend blew you because your girl friend happened to blow him and you, since your best friend obviously DIRECTED her to blow you, right? That's the kind of ridiculous connection the Republicans have concocted.
Republicans keep pushing their claim that Dems took money from Abramoff, woops I mean from Abramoff's clients at his direction. Which raises the question: why would Abramoff go through these convolutions to "direct" money to Dems through intermediaries when he had no compunction about directly giving money to Repubs himself? That's what doesn't wash.
Correct. Why use an intermediary, since he was not at all shy about directly contributing $$ to Republicans? It makes no sense, unless you factor in insanely arbitrary arguments like Abramoff didn't want to be observed giving Democratic Party members $$. Since when was a corporate shill like Abramoff all demur about whoring for corporate interests? Since never.
about the repug claims will wash. I'll say it again. What would he gain by trying to bribe (and THAT is the REAL issue) any of the dems in congress? They have NO POWER. What could he possibly gain? The repugs have the numbers in both houses to pass any legislation they want even if every dem voted against it. The only thing keeping them in check is the power of public opinion. Bribing dems just wouldn't make any sense.
This whole issue is about corruption not semantics. The Republican and the media are running a drill of sorts. While the Republicans are trying to do their usual confusion act, they must also do damage control. What better way to accomplish this by diverting attention to the Democrats as no more honest then they are -- this will stop the loss of supporters and confuse the issue in one lying stroke. The media is another story. The 2006 media is in competition with Fox after Fox reported record viewer numbers. To get into the act, all of the major media outlets have taken on right wing slants. The concept of "fair and balanced" looks different when you report it with a right wing bias. When putting these two bodies together, you get a one sided propaganda machine that consistently gets things wrong.
This is about real corruption not and who was involved in that CORRUPTION. No Democrats are being charged for TAKING MONEY OR HAVE BEEN CHARGED WTIH THIS CORRUPTION SCANDLE, and the Republicans hate that they can sell and MAKE this a fact.
Gingrich has as much credibility discussing "ethics" as Bill Clinton does discussing "fidelity". And Gingrich doesn't have any credibility discussing "fidelity" either.
And not all of the Republicans in Congress have been dirtied by the Abramoff scandal. But they are dirtied by their lameduck oversight of the executive branch over the past 5 years.
took money from Abramoff. They are both employees of one of his clients.
Thanks to all who took the time to reply to my previous note. Since this is now a day later, I'm not sure how many will read this.
The point I was trying to make and maybe did so poorly is that even if Abramoff personally gave contributions to Republicans, and not the Democrats; the actual giving of the money was not illegal.
Anyone can give money to any candidate. We know Abramoff was a Republican. It stands to reason he would give money to the GOP. In the same token I think it is safe to assume that George Soros contributes to Democrats.
It seems to me that the Dems and media are making a false argument by saying that Abramoff only gave to the Republicans. Yes, it is true, he personally gave them. But he gave $1,000 or $2,000 to a variety of candidates and sometimes $5,000 to some PACs. These contributions are not what he was convicted for doing. His personal contributions are not what is illegal. Besides they are rather miniscule when you think about it. Countless other Americans do the same thing. To think Congressmen and Senators would be bought by this level of contribution is laughable.
If it isn't illegal then why does it even enter the discussion? As far as I know, Abramoff has said he'd cooperate in an investigation regarding quid pro quo giving money for favors with some lawmakers. That was part of His plea bargain regarding the Indian Tribes. Maybe he did it to save his own skin by making prosecutors think there are bigger fish to fry? I don't know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only one who seems at this point to be under scrutiny is Bob Ney. And it seems to me that is primarly for a golf trip to Scotland. Ney says he thought the trip was paid for by the interest groups, (which is legal,) and he is innocent. Whether you belive Ney or not, at this point he has not been convicted of anything, much less charged.
Since Abramoff's personal contributions were not illegal, it stands to reason that his lobbying and much greater amounts of money contributed by his CLIENTS is what is at question. Did the millions spent by his clients buy favors? Hmm... well his clients gave something like 65% of their contributions to Republicans and 35% to Dems. Yes the Republicans got more money, but so did influential Dems. This is where the heart of the scandal and it affects both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
By definition. They have Abramoff emails citing quid pro quo agreements at least with Ney. THAT is bribery. That makes HIS direct contributions suspect, I mean we KNOW he used his direct contributions to bribe Ney at least.