Funny how the "Corruption" truth will come out after the election.

For those of you who the media convinced that it was only Republicans who were corrupt:

This from Captain Ed:

November 14, 2006
Abramoff To Turn On Democrats Next?

The Jack Abramoff probe may turn on the same Democrats who tried exploiting the scandal for electoral advantage this year. ABC reports that federal prosecutors have taken statements from the disgraced lobbyist that implicate, in Abramoff's words, "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators":

Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is scheduled to report to federal prison tomorrow, over the objections of federal prosecutors who say they still need his help to pursue leads on officials he allegedly bribed.

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

The sources say Abramoff was about to provide information about Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, "accepting things of value" from Abramoff.

The Rove mention seems a little odd. After all, Rove has no legislative power, nor any direct impact on policy or spending. Abramoff may well have provided Rove with some gifts, but what would Rove be able to get Abramoff in return? He could have acted as an entree to Republican lawmakers, but that's hardly illegal, and from all of the evidence we have seen, Abramoff hardly needed any help in throwing money at Senators and Congressmen.

So who could Abramoff have been referencing? Well, the first guess would be the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. CQ has covered Reid's connections to Abramoff and his clients in detail in the past:

June 2005: Abramoff Was Ecumenical In His Lobbying, It Seems

This is when we first found out how much money Abramoff directed to Harry Reid, as well as to his predecessor, Tom Daschle. Both received in excess of $40,000 from Abramoff clients. Abramoff also hired Edward Ayoob as one of his lobbyists, stealing him from .... Harry Reid, for whom Ayoob worked as a legislative aide. Ayoob also conducted a fundraiser for the new Majority Leader in Abramoff's offices.

November 2005: Haven't Heard About Abramoff In A While?

In that post , I reviewed the evidence that Reid conducted at least two interventions on behalf of Abramoff clients that closely coincided with $10,000 in donations. We also found out that Reid received more than $66,000 from Abramoff clients between 2001-4.

February 2006: When Harry Met Jack

The AP, which has done a good job of covering Reid's Abramoff connections, revealed that Reid intervened on at least five occasions for Abramoff clients. He collected donations from them "around the time of each action."

I don't think that there's any doubt that Reid will be one of the lucky six to eight Democratic Senators smoked out in this prosecution. The question will be who the others are or were. If enough of them sit in the next Senate, the Democrats may find themselves in trouble for holding their majority. If Reid has to leave, the Governor of Nevada would have to appoint his replacement ... and Jim Gibbons just won the seat for the Republicans.

UPDATE: Allah's got the roundup.

UPDATE II: John Hinderaker counsels some skepticism on whether Abramoff has anything at all. It's not a bad point, but with Ney pleading guilty to the Abramoff-linked charges this fall, we've at least seen something besides smoke.

Posted by Captain Ed at November 14, 2006 09:19 PM

Posted Nov 15 2006, 10:30 AM by Splittfinger

Comments

Goosedyou wrote re: Funny how the "Corruption" truth will come out after the election.
on 11-15-2006 11:25 AM
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  We all know that politicians are corrupt.  They abuse the power that is given to them.  I'm telling you, limiting that amount of terms that a senator can serve would limit the amount of scandal and special interest in Washington DC.  
RationalRepublican wrote re: Funny how the "Corruption" truth will come out after the election.
on 11-15-2006 8:39 PM
Unlike the repubs on this site that defended a child molester, and shrugged off corruption of many Repub Congressmen stating they aren't any worse than the democrats, I say if they are corrupt let em burn. I don't give a darn if they are repubs or democrats; let them burn.  Perhaps instead of an ethics (surely an oxymorn as long as the repubs were in charge) committe that only took action when the person was convicted of a felony, we will have some "real" leadership in this area.  

Goosedyou wrote re: Funny how the "Corruption" truth will come out after the election.
on 11-16-2006 2:55 PM
I whole-heartedly agree with you.  We have a system where the Government governs its self and there is no check by the people, except when scandals come to us through the news.  Any suggestions on how we can keep an eye on the government so as to help this crap happen less?
Desechado wrote re: Funny how the "Corruption" truth will come out after the election.
on 11-16-2006 9:28 PM
RatRep needs to learn how to read. I know of at least two of us that criticized the GOP for the way it handled the Folley Fiasco and then I continued my criticism to the extent of voicing against Chris Cannon for his lack of moral leadership. I did the same thing in '92 because of some infamous words in '88... "Read my lips... No new taxes." RatRep needs to find a new hobby besides telling me what I supposedly said.
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems