Did some Dems get "Abramoff money"? Too soon to say....maybe.

[MercutioATC]

It's late, so I'll stick to one Dem, Tom Harkin.

"Harkin wrote at least three letters in 2003 pressing the government to release federal money to help the Sac & Fox tribe in his state cope with the temporary closing of its casino due to a tribal dispute, according to Interior Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and records provided by Harkin's office.

In doing so, Harkin accepted input from Sac & Fox lobbyist Michael D. Smith, a member of Jack Abramoff's tribal lobbying team at the Greenberg Traurig law firm. Smith met with the senator and also offered suggestions for the letters, Harkin spokeswoman Allison Dobson said.

"Absolutely, he did contribute to those letters," Dobson said, adding that she wasn't sure what Smith's suggestions were. Harkin also met with lobbyists on the other side of the dispute, she said."

AND

"Harkin twice used Abramoff's skybox for fundraisers — once in 2002 and again in 2003 — without reimbursing. He also collected $17,000 from Smith and other Abramoff-related sources in 2003. The Sac & Fox gave $4,000 more to Harkin in 2004, about six months after the federal government allowed the tribe's casino to reopen."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-03-harkin-letters_x.htm


I'm not on a witch hunt, but claims that Dems are completely above reproach on this Abramoff issue do seem to be a little premature. There are issues that merit investigation.

[sandnsea]

1. I am confident they will be investigated

By the time the right wing is done "investigating", they'll probably manage to make this a Democratic scandal. I think I already heard that Hannity was trying to run that line. I do not know why Democrats are always so quick to believe the worst about their own party.

Did Harkin pit the tribes against each other in order to concoct phony needs for legislation? Did he launder money? Did he get involved in tribal issues outside of his state while leaving his own tribe abandoned?

I don't know how anybody expects them to be an opposition when they're always having to defend against accusations from our own elements.

[MercutioATC]

3. I think we're better served by looking at this honestly.

On the surface, at least, there appear to be parallels between Sen. Harkin's actions and the actions we've been criticizing some Republican lawmakers of. Rather that self-righteously claim "NO Dems were involved", perhaps it's better to look at ALL of the information.

As I said, it's too soon to say with any certainty, but there ARE signs of possible improprieties.

[sandnsea]

6. I think it's stupidity to the 1000th degree

It happens time and time and time again. Bush gets involved in a scandal, we attack the Democrats who are trying to expose the scandal, then we wonder why Bush never goes down. When a Democrat is charged or named, then throw them overboard. Until then, this is no more than repeating right wing talking points that have already been identified as a right wing strategy. I fail to understand how continuously jumping on the "they're all the same" bandwagon helps anything.

[lostnfound]

10. I certainly don't jump on the "they're all the same" bandwagon but

when the fellow at work says yesterday that he's excited to see Abramoff & Delay & Ney go don, but he's heard there's some Dems involved too, and I tell him 'don't be too quick about that, what you're hearing may be trumped up, and I'm hearing that there's NO Dems involved", then I've just lost a whole lot of credibility with him.

I agree with Mercutio on this, I want to know the truth. I'm not sure that the left has the luxury of standing behind anything less than the whole truth because we don't have the well-funded Republican spin machine or the media in our pocket. If we are 95% right, the 5% will be paraded on TV 24-7.

[InsultComicDog]

89. I guess we'll have to stay tuned and see where this goes

Dorgan, Reid, and Harkin are the three Democratic names being tossed around.

Now, just because a Senator does something for someone, and then he gets a contribution from that person or other interested persons, it is not necessarily illegal. And most of the time, it probably isn't.

[Debi]

120. When a Senator comes out and explains what occurred

and his supporters get on a board and explain what occurred should we continue to beat the republican 'investigate him' drum? How about a little innocent until proven guilty here? How about a record of honesty and integrity. Dorgan, Reid and Harkin's names are being thrown about by whom? the DNC? the DSCC? No. The RNSC and they've fed it to the MSM. Are we so foolish as to bite at that bait? I hope some of us are not.

[InsultComicDog]

123. Actually

They are the three Democrats named at the thinkprogress.org site.

[aquart]

9. And stand on the side of the law.

We don't want bribetakers among us, anyway...so we'll let them go and say how disappointed and disgusted we are.

RULE OF LAW!

[Debi]

19. Harkin got involved in a tribal dispute that closed down the casino

and put 1,300 people out of work. Although he received money SIX MONTHS after he got involved he has represented Iowa in the US Senate for 15 years (and that means the Meskwaki Tribe for fifteen years). He has received money from Meskwaki and other tribes each time he has run for office.

The money is clean, which is why he should not return it. The only think dirty is the republicans trying to paint Harkin as taking a bribe and some Democrats wanting to believe it.

[punpirate]

2. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines...

... legal and illegal monies. M'self, I think taking anything from lobbyists is dirty--the money (or in-kind payments) taken combined with a vote in favor of a lobbyist's position is an implied quid pro quo arrangement, despite the oft-quoted assertion that the money (or gift, service, campaign contribution) didn't influence a vote or the introduction of legislation.

Power, and the corruption power engenders, can't be rooted out if one sees it as a partisan issue. The Republicans are largely at fault in the Abramoff matter, and should be excoriated for same. If Democrats are caught up in it, even to a lesser extent, that's a matter of degree, not kind. They're culpable if money influenced their decisions, even if ethics rules and law say they weren't. So it goes. If Harkin's legislative decisions were influenced by lobbyist money, he ought to go, no matter what his views are on other issues.

The only way we regain control of government is by not excusing bad behavior by any legislator, regardless of his or her political stripes. As for the details of Harkin's involvement with Abramoff, we'll have to see how it plays out.

[MercutioATC]

5. I completely agree.

Again, this isn't a witch hunt. It's a call to examine the actual information to determine if our Dem lawmakers are acting in a manner we're comfortable with.

However, we're never going to do that if we shut our eyes and simply claim "We weren't involved".

[sandnsea]

8. Rebuttals have been posted

Nobody is just closing their eyes and saying not involved. Rebuttals have been posted on various Democrats and their work with tribes. It's well known. Some aren't interested in that, they're just interested in dirt on Democrats because that's their goal anyway, to take down the Democratic Party.

[MercutioATC]

12. Yes, and this is a rebuttal to the rebuttals, I guess.

There is at least the appearance of involvement on some levels. Rather than toe the Party line and deny all wrongdoing by Dems, I think it's important to know the facts and be honest about them.

Maybe all Dems ARE innocent in this, but I'd rather say that from a position of having looked into allegations such as this and coming away convinced than simple denial.

[sendero]

11. Really...

.... this is so simple. We simply have to hold Dems to the same (at the very least) standard we hold Repubs to.

If a Dem engaged in a pattern of behavior that we would assume as corrupt if a Repug did it, well the Dem is corrupt too. End of story.

[BigYawn]

92. Excellent, well thought out, intelligent post.....must read.....n/t

[AtomicKitten]

4. I want to know the truth.

But I am hesitantly confident that the Dems did not break any laws. Hopefully. Finger crossed.

And damn if those whiny biotch Republicans don't start pointing fingers from the get-go. They have as much maturity in that regard as a 5-year-old.

[sandnsea]

7. Because it works

They'll keep sliming Democrats with their shit as long as we let them.

[Spazito]

13. The key to this, imo, is to research their positions on the same

issues before and after they received monies from the tribes connected to Abramoff. If their position has been constant then they are free and clear. Also, check and see if the same tribes had contributed to the dems before Abramoff become involved and, if so, the dems are, again, free and clear.

If, on the other hand, the position they had taken on the issues after the monies were received versus before then one could surmise they are as dirty as the repubs.

My bet is, after said research is done, the dems will be fine. There may be an odd exception, but in it's totality the dems will be seen as having taken consistent positions on the issues all they way along. Just my opinion and suggestion, for what it is worth.

[MercutioATC]

14. See, you used the word I'm talking about..."research".

From the little I've read, it seems that the money Kennedy got is fine. There was no direct link to Abramoff or any of his team and Kennedy's positions remained consistent.

Harkin's use of Abramoff's skybox is a little more troubling as is having a member of "Team Abramoff" have direct input into letters he wrote urging action on behalf of the Sac & Fox Tribe. He could be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but it does seem a worthwhile subject to research.

[Spazito]

15. Yes, and it is appalling, imo, that the mainstream media can't be

bothered to do even the minimum of research on this but, instead, are gleefully touting dem names and inferring they are equally culpable to the republicans that are under ACTIVE investigation.

[MercutioATC]

22. I agree...I'm just advocating making sure our own house is clean before

we start gloating that no Dems were involved.

[Debi]

26. And the OP isn't doing the same? Tom Harkin isn't the enemy here

and I'm appalled that he's being singled out on this thread.

Let's attack Neil Ambercrombie, or David Bonior, c'mon let's go after Barbara Boxer and Maria Cantwell. We need to stick it to Max Cleland and Hillary Clinton! Don't forget the Democratic Parties of Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington. The DSCC, DNC and DCCC should be implicated in this scandal because they've received money from Tribes who used associates of Jack Ambramoff at some point since his birth. John Dingell, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle...All of them Dirty, dirty, dirty. Nancy Peolsi and David Obey need to be taken to the wood shed right now and ousted for their immoral receipt of money from groups who may have breathed the same air as Abramoff. Rangel, Reid and Sanchez - all got money as well. That nice new Democratic Governor from Montana, Sweitzer...yep, he got some too! But you know what gets me, what really breaks my heart? Is that JOHN KERRY would take money connected to Ambramoff... hang them all out to dry why don't we?



http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

[MercutioATC]

31. As I said, I'm not attempting to single anybody out...Harkin is just an

example of the issues I think deserve investigation. He may very well be completely innocent, but I'm not comfortable gloating that "NO Democrats are involved" until issues like this are resolved.

[Debi]

32. You're not singling anyone out, which is why you singled Harkin out? n/t

[MercutioATC]

34. Well, I didn't have time to research EVERY Dem who got money from

Abramoff or one of his clients. Harkin was the first one I ran across that had ties to Abramoff that were more involved than simply taking money from one of his clients.

[Debi]

36. Harkin had no ties to Abramoff - quit spewing the republican hatred

He has never met the man, and has never received money from him.

His staff didn't even go through Abramoff to rent the skyboxes for events

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/ralston.memo.4202000.html

And actually, the skyboxes may have been in Abramoff's name, but he wasn't paying for them

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/abramoff.ralston.shares.7242000.html

Harkin's staff DEFINATLEY made a mistake by not paying for the use of the skyboxes - that doesn't equal his having 'ties' to Abramoff.

[MercutioATC]

41. I disagree.

I don't know that his ties weren't perfectly legitimate, but they extend beyond simply taking money from Abromoff's clients. That's a fact.

I'm not comfortable stating that "NO Dems were involved" until matters like this are cleared up.

[Debi]

44. And you choose to use Tom Harkin as an example instead of....

The DNC, DCCC, DSCC, Patrick Kennedy, Patty Murray, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Tom Daschle, Brad Carson, Dale Kildee or Stenny Hoyer - all who received more money than Tom Harkin!

Harry Reid is the Senate Minority Leader
(Tom Daschle the former SML)

Stenny Hoyer is the House of Representatives Democratic Whip!

Holy Crap - these guys are in real positions of power w/in the Party and have much more influence in D.C. than Harkin and they all got more money from Abramoff's acquaintances than Harkin did.

But you chose Tom Harkin - out of a list of over 100 Democrats (Including Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader, Nita Lowey - former head of the DCCC and John Kerry - Democratic Nominee for the 2004 Presidential Election).

You chose Harkin because the RNSC chose Harkin, you chose Harkin because the MSM chose Harkin, no reason to do your own research, just drink the Kool-aide. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

46. What didn't you understand about Post #34?

I chose Harkin because he was the first one I happened upon.

[Debi]

50. And he is the first one listed on the RNSC web site

Which is where the MSM got It's info.

Instead of 'reasearching' the information you just went along with the lemmings.

http://www.nrsc.org/

Oh, on second glance he's #2 on their list, so why didn't you go after Dorgan?

[MercutioATC]

54. I've explained this issue.

I didn't visit the RNSC website for any of the information.

I'm sorry that you seem to have taken this as some sort of personal attack on you or "your" Senator.

[Debi]

57. With over 100 Democrats to chose from it seems that it is personal

You just took one MSM story and ran with it not caring to check any of the facts, just buying into what was fed to USA Today by the GOP. Then you preach to us on this board that WE should do research. Please do some yourself.

There are far more powerful people in DC that have connections to Abramoff acquaintances than Tom Harkin (many of them Democrats), getting money form someone who knew someone or worked w/someone is not a crime. Working on behalf of your constituents is not a crime and receiving contributions from individuals who also give contributions to other candidates is not a crime nor is it unethical. Harkin has done nothing wrong, but you are willing to believe what the republican hate mongers have thrown out and the idiot press has picked up.

Tom Harkin is not Bob Ney.

[MercutioATC]

59. Again, I've explained that...

Why the hell would I single out Harkin, anyway?

He just happened to be the first name I came across...

[Debi]

61. That's kind of my question and the question of other Iowans on this thread

Why the hell would you join in with the GOP mob and single out Tom Harkin - why not trust him and his staff (by reading the entire article) that he's done nothing improper? Why not have a little faith in him rather than jumping on the GOP band wagon? Why not head over to the Iowa Forum and ask some of us if we know anything about the issue rather than post a blanket allegation? Why not do some 'research'?

When I went over to opensecrets.org the first Democratic 'name' I came across was the DSCC receiving over $400,000 from friends of Abramoff - sixty times what Harkin received - the first elected official I saw was Patrick Kennedy receiving over $40,000 - six times that of Tom Harkin. Will you request an investigation of the DSCC and Kennedy? Or just of Tom Harkin?

[MercutioATC]

63. Because "trust" doesn't exhonerate anybody.

By your logic, we should "trust" Bush when he says the Iraq war was necessary simply because he said it. My opinions aren't even the issue...the opinions of the general population are. It's a fact that Harkin had ties to Abramoff that went beyond simply taking contributions from tribes that happened to be Abramoff clients, regardless of how insubstantial those ties are. It's also a fact that this is an issue that's getting a lot of attention from the American people. I think an investigation into ALL lawmakers who had dealings with Abramoff that go beyond simply taking money from tribes is both necessary and politically advantageous.

...which is why, in the OP, I said "It's late, so I'll stick to one Dem".

[Debi]

66. Well, then unleash the hounds - because the entire Democratic Party

has ties to Abramoff.

Thank you for attempting to link Harkin's honesty and Bush's incredulity, that's class.

I'm tired, I'm going home.

I do hope you get your wish and the DCCC, DSCC, DNC and all the Dems listed on the open secrets web site get bogged down in DC investigations. Kiss the 2006 and 2008 elections good-bye, but you'll sleep better at night.

This is no different than investigation the Clenis. :eyes:

Congratulations.

[MercutioATC]

68. That's not true, and you'd know that if you read the OP and my

replies on this thread. Harkin may not be guilty of anything, but his ties go BEYOND those of most Dems.

I didn't link "Harkin's honesty and Bush's incredulity". My point is that the average American doesn't respond to "trust me" as proof of honesty.

As for your allegations that I wish Dems harm, it's unfortunate that you can't engage in a disagreement without making personal attacks.

[Debi]

90. It seems that, in your eyes, Tom Harkin is the only one who'd done

anything wrong. You've investigated (read one story in the USA Today), tried (just replace Harkin w/Bush or Delay) and convicted him w/out even considering he may have done nothing wrong.

Why would you NOT give him the benefit of the doubt?

Why, as Democrats, would we allow republicans to manipulate us this way?

This very behavior - "The republicans say some Democrats did something wrong so it must be true" is worse that them doing it.

As for personal attacks, I don't know you, how could I attack you? I will attack your posts and defend mine. I will defend my Democratic Senator, who has done nothing wrong, against attacks by someone who has no knowledge of who he is and what his character is made of.

[MercutioATC]

94. Then you're either not listening or not comprehending.

I've made it clear, repeatedly, that I'm not accusing Harkin of any wrongdoing. I certainly haven't "convicted" him. I've also made it clear that:

1) The OP didn't reference a Republican because that wasn't the issue of the thread.

2) Harkin was one of at least a few Democrats that had ties to Abramoff beyond taking contributions from tribes that happened to be Abramoff clients.

3) The OP refers to ALL Democrats who have those ties.

Guilt or innocence isn't the subject of the thread. Requiring the same transparency from Democratic lawmakers that we demand from Republicans is the issue.

I really can't find a simpler way to put it.

[Debi]

99. Then how is it in the two day long thread you haven't come up

with a single other name? You have only hammered on Harkin. You refuse to acknowledge anything any Harkin supporters have posted and you continue to state that he needs to be investigated.

What type of transparency do you require? Harkin's involvement in the Tribal dispute was in every Iowa newspaper during the time. The contributions form the Tribe ended up on his FEC reports during the appropriate reporting period. An INTERNAL audit showed a failure to reimburse for rental of a sky box and the reimbursement was immediate after the mistake was shown. What more would you ask of him?

Do, please list the names of all the other Democrats you have attacked on this thread, I just can't seem to find any of them.

[MercutioATC]

107. Because this thread is about the concept, not Harkin in particular.

I haven't "hammered on" Harkin. In fact, I've made it clear that he's just being used as an example and that I'd advocate the same standard from ANY Democrat. I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, my opinion simply differs.

Let this "attack" issue go. It just doesn't exist.

[Debi]

110. Which is why you continue to use Harkin?

I can tell you aren't attacking Harkin, which is why you can't even name another Democrat you would have investigated, because you don't really mean to say "go after Tom Harkin" it's just what you're saying. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

113. I don't "continue" to use Harkin...

I've explained that I'm using Harkin's actions as an example. That example illustrates my point. What would be the purpose in using other examples to illustrate the exact same point?


Look, if it'll make you happy, I'll just use "Senator X" from now on...that's all Harkin has ever been in this example, "Senator X".

[Debi]

116. Why didn't you do that in the first place?

Or change your original post when supporters of Harkin who were quite assured of his honesty defended him? Look back at your posts in this thread, you had no problem implying that Harkin was an Abramoff stooge.

Still trying to see where Harkin's "actions" are in any way illegal or unethical! The only places I've seen questions are on the RNSC web site - the MSM articles and your posts.

Why buy into what the republicans are shoveling at us?

[Robbins]

16. Abramoff

This Is a Republican scandal. Abramoff hated Dems just as some here hate Republicans. The tribes he
was suppose to lobby for gave money to a few Democratic Senators. Republicans and the Corporate
Media will try to make It look like people of both parties are tainted or this hurts Democrats more
than Republicans.

[PretzelWarrior]

17. that's bull. a line has to be drawn between an Indian tribe lobbying

and a scoundrel lobbyist bribing officials. Got it? I can tell you that VERY FEW staffers and elected officials will come in for serious investigation and charges with only a handful of convictions.

I can also tell you the investigation net is going to tilt 80% to Republican direction.

[MercutioATC]

21. Read Post #20.

In addition, I agree that this will be at least 80% Republican. However, that's not "NO Democrats were involved".

[guidod]

65. Has anybody seen this?

http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff

[Debi]

18. In writing the letter Harkin was attempting to get the frozen

Meskwaki Tribe funds distributed to the over 1,300 people who were jobless during the Tribes Leadership dispute (a Federal Judge closed the Casino and froze the Tribes money). That's 1,300 people Tom Harkin was trying to help. Why wouldn't he use Michael D. Smith to assist him in writing the letters, Smith was an expert in Tribal law.

Harkin received money from Tribes prior to 2004, but that doesn't seem to make a bit of difference, only the $4,500 he received is highlighted. What about the $6,000 he received in 2002, what will we tie that to? Also, the same groups that gave Harkin money in 2004 and 2002 gave the Democratic National Committee $25,000 (as well at the DCCC & DSCC) in 2004, $15,000 in 2002 and $10,000 in 2000. Can we assume the DNC was in on the 'take' as well? Should we investigate the entire Democratic Party?

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

One very important note that keeps getting missed. Harkin (nor any other Dem) has received $0 from Jack Ambramoff. Only from people who worked for or with the man. Abramoff has contributed solely to republicans.

Tom Harkin is not a dirty politician

[MercutioATC]

20. The money directly from Abramoff is chump change...and legal.

The issue here is the trabal money directed my Abramoff and whether it was used to buy influence.

Harkin came up on the radar for me because of two issues:

1) He had a direct tie to Team Abramoff (Smith) and let that person have substantial input in letters he wrote. He later recieved contributions from the tribe that benifited from those letters.

2) He used Abramoff's skybox for campaign purposes and didn't reimburse him (well, he did as of 1/5/06).

I'm not saying Harkin is "dirty". I'm suggesting there are enough flags wo warrant an investigation.

[Debi]

24. He'd received money from the Tribe prior to writing the letters

and I'm certain will continue to receive money from the Tribe as long as he's a Senator from Iowa.

This issue wasn't about a casino coming to town or expanding, it was a specialized issue that probably didn't come into Harkin's radar in the past. Nobody has said that Smith is bad, just working for a lobbying firm doesn't make a person bad (didn't I read somewhere that the firm Smith worked for had both republican and Democrat clients?). Just as Harkin would ask an Ag expert to help him draft letters regarding Ag policy or ask a foriegn affairs expert about international law he asked a Tribal Law expert to help in draft a letter that would hopefully free up some much needed money for 1,300 out of work Iowans. (The dispute closed down not only the Meskwaki Casino, but the school as well - it completely froze all the Tribe's assets and affected everyone in and around Tama, Iowa).

Look into Harkin's use of the sky box all you want - and every other person who used it - I feel your posts are attacking the wrong person for the wrong reasons. (While your at it look into the Tiger Cage photos Harkin sold to Life Magazine as a staffer for Neil Smith in the 1970's, wow, he's a baaaaad man.)

[MercutioATC]

25. Smith was a lot more than a tribal law expert...

"Troubles continue for Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C., office in the wake of a furor over fees that were charged to Native American gaming clients," Kate Ackley and Andy Metzger reported (http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticle&t=PrinterFriendlyArticle&cid=1098108217569) in the October 20, 2004, Legal Times. "Another Greenberg Traurig lobbying partner, Michael Smith, received $20,000" in 2002 from Michael Scanlon's public affairs firm Capital Campaign Strategies, "the documents reveal. Greenberg, in a statement released late on Oct. 11, said Smith was staying with the firm."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_D._Smith

This is the same Michael Scanlon who was Abramoff's partner and plead guilty to bribery and fraud in November, 2005.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/November/05_crm_622.html

[Debi]

28. You forgot to post these parts of the article...

<snip>

As for Smith, Perry said in the statement, "Facts that have emerged regarding Michael Smith have been considered as part of our investigation, and he remains a shareholder in good standing with the firm."

Perry added: "We have been engaged in an intensive internal investigation and have taken such actions as we have deemed appropriate."

<snip>

GREENBERG PRAISED

Greenberg Traurig has been praised by members of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs for cooperating with its investigation into Abramoff and Scanlon. The firm was portrayed by senators as a victim at the committee's Sept. 29 hearing on the Abramoff affair. "Credible law firms were taken advantage of," said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and interesting from the Sourcewatch article you linked that Smith is now the Meskwaki's lobbyist - the very tribe that Harkin aided as their Senator. Are you going to said the entire Tribe is corrupt?

[MercutioATC]

30. I didn't "forget"...Greenberg asked Smith to resign in early 2005.

In October 2004, Smith was "in good standing with the firm".

In early 2005, after the investigation, he was asked to resign.

[Debi]

33. And was immediately hired by the firm that the Meskwaki Tribe hired

after they left Greenberg. I think I'll agree with the Senators on this one.

[MercutioATC]

35. That's fine...it still doesn't erase the Abramoff/Smith links, though.

[Debi]

38. Does that mean everyone employeed by Greenberg at the same

time as Abramoff should be called into question? Or just the staff memebers that were assigned to work with Abramoff? You say you aren't trying to singel anyone out, but you sure have your sights on Iowa and anyone associated with the state.

[MercutioATC]

42. No, that means that a Senator who lets a "Team Abramoff" member

help compose correspondence to benefit an Abramoff client and then recieves a monetary contribution from that client when favorable legislation is passed deserves a second look, if only to clear up any sense of impropriety.

As I've said before, Harkin was just the first one I ran across with ties that went beyond taking money from Abramoff clients. No singling-out intended.

[Debi]

48. Harkin had received contributions from the Sac and Fox Tribe throughout

his elected career. Do some research, check the republican party facts before you come here and recite them.

You keep saying you aren't singling MY Senator out, but you don't seem to want to look at any other Democrats that received substantial sums more than Harkin.

You won't even look at the links that show that Harkin recieved money in 2002 prior to the trouble that lead to the writing of the letters, you just lump it all together the exact same way the GOP has and the MSM has copycatted.

And there was NO FAVORABLE LEGISLATION PASSED. Read the Rawstory link I posted. This was an internal Tribal dispute, a Federal Judge froze the Tribes funds there were 1,300 people out of work. Both Harkin and Grassley got involved as well as Rep. Boswell. This had nothing to do with the United States Congress, only to get money to 1,300 people and their families.

[MercutioATC]

53. What makes you think I haven't looked at the information you mention?

You're free to disagree with the question or the suggestion that an investigation would clear the matter up but you really have no cause to question my motivation. I made that quite clear in the OP.

You're correct about the "legislation". Federal funds were requested for the Sac & Fox Tribe, but Congress didn't have to vote on it.

[Debi]

58. What you made clear in your post is that Tom Harkin should be investigated

"You're correct about the "legislation". Federal funds were requested for the Sac & Fox Tribe, but Congress didn't have to vote on it." I know, and if you had read any of my posts or posts from others from Iowa you would have known that as well - heck if you would have read the story you posted you would have known that.

Again, you continue to single out Tom Harkin for no other given reason than what you saw in the MSM which has an eerie similarity to the RNSC web site.

[MercutioATC]

60. I can't think of any way to make things clearer...you're free to

disbelieve me if it makes you feel better.

I did read the article, I simply mistyped. The point remains unchanged...whether it was legislation or Federal funds, the tribe got what it was lobbying for.

[Debi]

62. You mean Senator Harkin got what his constituents needed in a time

of peril - which is what he is elected to do. He had received money from the Tribe and Greenberg several years prior to the Tribal dispute and will continue to receive money - the contribution had nothing to do with the work he did for Iowans. Harldly something that needs to be 'investigated'.

[MercutioATC]

64. And by way of that, the tribe got what it lobbied for...

I understand that you feel we should simply "trust" Harkin and not investigate.

As I explain in Post #63, I disagree.

[Debi]

67. Like I said, I hope you get what you want...

Investigate all the Democrats, the DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer and Dick Durbin. Take out the entire Democratic Leadership.

That'll show em!

[MercutioATC]

69. You obviously have no idea what I "want".

...and I fail to see how an investigation would "take out the entire Democratic Leadership" unless they did something wrong.

[Debi]

91. So the Whitewater Investigation HELPED Bill Clinton and the Democrats?

How many charges were brought against Bill Clinton after the wrap-up of the Whitewater Investigation (outside of his lying about extra-marital sex, the idiot)?

Do you honestly think headlines in USA Today 'Harkin Investigated for using sky Box - Harkin called to testify about aiding his constituents' would help Democrats in the 2006 elections? Maybe Ken Starr could be called back and he could make sure that Harkin's comments that his daughter Amy's child being due on the 4th of July, 2006 isn't just a campaign ploy (maybe she's not even pregnant - should we have an investigation into that?)

[MercutioATC]

96. But he DID use the skybox!

It may not have been illegal or unethical, but he did, in fact, use Abramoff's skybox. I'm not breaking any news here, the media has already reported it. Is it better to investigate the matter and resolve it or attempt to sweep it under the rug?

Actually, I think that WE should be demanding this. If we're going to berate Republicans for this type of behavior we sure as hell should demand that our own lawmakers, regardless of our perception of their innocence, submit to the same standard we demand from Republicans.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Debi]

100. Are you kidding me?

We are going to investigate Tom Harkin because he used a sky box that Jack Abramoff rented (using his client's money - one of those clients being the Meskwaki Tribe that Tom Harkin represents)? He paid for it after an internal audit showed the money didn't get paid when the sky box was used.

I'd rather spend my time and tax-payer dollars going after the criminals associated with stealing elections and buying votes than a guy who forgot to pay his tab.

You've proven once again that you have found a scapegoat to pin all the republican blather on. You will throw Tom Harkin to the wolves and ignore the wrong-doing of the republicans than to stand up and call what they're doing bullshit. You have absolutely bought in to all that they have sold.

[BigYawn]

102. So, you would prefer to sweep it all under the rug instead of shining

the light of truth, just so we don't lose a few seats in 2006?
Actually the repuglicans have lot more to lose by a thorough
investigation. So IMO the net gain goes to dems with a THOROUGH
investigation of ALL involved in this sordid scandal.

If your senator from Iowa, whom incidentally I admire, falls then
so be it. It will give more credibility to the whole process, which
like I said gives us a big NET GAIN.

[IA_Seth]

104. The light of truth?

Are you kiddin me?

The light of truth is pretty damn bright here in Iowa where we can clearly see that Harkin did nothing unethical, illegal, or even questionable. He stepped in and wrote a letter on behalf of his constituents, which was the right thing to do. He used a skybox in Abramoff's name and incidentally didn't pick up the tab at the time of use...but he DID pay for it. He had no direct interaction with Abramoff. He received, and will continue to recieve, contributions from the Meskwaki, who are his constituents!

The media is lining up behind the RNC in their witch hunt to find a dirty dem and Harkin is one of their picks so far...does that alone make him suspect? It shouldn't. But yet in our rush to "make things fair" we are going to drag a solid representative of our party through the muck unnecessarily.

Why?

I will say it again. If there were hints of improprieties (there isn't, we covered that), then an investigation might be warranted. In this case however, an investigation will only mire a good person in a dirty game. Do you honestly think John Doe Moderate gives a rats ass what the investigation finds? It will be enough for the RNC to keep Harkin's name out there...and this only is helping that.

[BigYawn]

124. I did'nt say Harkin did anything illegal, I said lets investigate

THOROUGHLY and let sen Harkin be vindicated, as I am
hoping and assuming he will be. Just in case he is not,
then us democrats should jettison him.

From what I have read so far about Abramoff, far more republicans might
be involved than dems. Therefore to give the process credibility, I am
all for a thorough investigation with a special prosecutor. If sen. Harkin
has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about, is it?

[Debi]

108. You would willingly drag the political career of an honest man through the

mud for net gains in seats in Congress? I'm not so young or naive to believe that the word investigation attached to Senator Harkin's name will muddy anything he attempts to do in the future (he would easily be exonerated, but the MSM spoon-fed public doesn't care about exoneration, only about juicy headlines).

Do you actually think what I'm saying is to sweep the criminal acts of Abramoff under the rug?

I just don't think we should be buying the Republican party baloney that ANY Democrats are dirty until proof of unethical or illegal acts surfaces. Nothing Harkin did was unethical or illegal. So, why investigate it?

Have you looked at the list of individuals and committees that received $$ from people or PACs associated w/Abramoff? Do you truly want an investigation of over 100 Democrats (ALL of the elected Democratic Leadership and the DNC/DCCC/DSCC)?

Or are you, like the OP, desiring to pick out certain Democrats you'd be willing to 'do without' and throw them to the wolves? I can tell you that, in Iowa, I don't believe we'd see a NET GAIN in House or Senate seats. The way the republican party spins and the public believes, I'm not so certain you are correct in your presumtions.

[BigYawn]

125. I want a special prosecutor appointed and investigate every crooked

politician accepting pro quid pro dollars. If sen. Harkin
has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about. I
don't think the voting public will hold a grudge against him
simply because he was investigated and then EXONERATED.

[FogerRox]

126. " No singling-out intended." but you did

SO on Saturday you could research someone else and start a new thread to disprove your critiques.

Actions speak louder than words

[MercutioATC]

129. Suggestions? I'd be more than willing to do that.

If you have an idea on how to better address the issue, I'd definitely be interested.



I tried to do so in another thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353650 but it got hijacked (the mods graciously corrected that).

[FogerRox]

130. you want to look at DEMs who took lobby money and did something in return?

I understand the idea of holding DEMs to a higher standard than repubs-- but you will treading on thin ice here at DU-- SO no opinions or conclusions-- in other words -- dont think so much.

How about A COMPILATION OF THE BIGGEST DEM RECIEVERS of Abramoff lobby money- Just a list-

no commentary- if you insist on going in that direction.

On the other hand-- I'd be worried that the repubs will be throwing Bush to the wolves, and talk about impeachment, as the 2006 season heats up. If the Repubs can control the impeachment process, they can control the damage. ANd get re-elected. If DEms get the House back, they control the process.

[MercutioATC]

132. That's not the issue, though.

I'm not trying to create an illusion of blame (regardless of what some people might insist). I'm dealing with one specific issue. Some Dems DID take "money" (at least in the form of services) from Abramoff. It may have been completely above-board, but to say they didn't is just factually false.

[CornField]

39. Actually, Harkin's office says he reimbursed that money last fall

Following an audit (one that his own team initiated).

Interestingly enough, this article was also a prominent feature over at FR. Interesting how the things that damp their panties always seem to make there way here, isn't it?

Tom Harkin, whom I've had the pleasure of knowing since I moved to Iowa roughly 10 years ago, is a stand-up man -- both personally and as a member of the Democratic Party. To call him out here without taking one iota of time to do a little personal investigation on your own about the Sac & Fox/Meskwaki Casino dispute is inappropriate. The 1,300 jobs Harkin was attempting to protect didn't only belong to tribal members. Those 1,300 jobs which were placed on hold had a disasterous affect on all of Tama, Iowa and many surrounding communities. (If you could drive through Tama you'd understand.)

Finally, as for the letter writing beef: IT'S COMMONPLACE AND LEGAL! Every one of our federal and many of our state officials have lobbyists help them draft letters and even particular pieces of legislation. If you are upset about that, then you need to place your anger to work changing the system, not attacking those who utilize it.

[MercutioATC]

43. I'm not accusing Harkin of anything (and I made that clear in the OP)

There are a lot of Democrats running around saying "No Dems were involved" and "Republicans are lying about any Abramoff links to Dems. All the Dems did was take money from tribes who happened to be Abramoff clients". The first statement may be true, but we really don't know yet. The second statement is false. There may not have been any impropriety, but there ARE some links that go beyond taking money from tribes that happened to be Abramoff clients. Those links should be investigated.

[Beelzebud]

23. The truth should leads where it leads.

I don't claim to know the details of this investigation. I don't think any of us do.

However, IF there are any democrats, and I'm saying IF here... If there are any democrats involved in unethical or illegal behavior, they should be punished. I expect integrity out of the people I support.

[Neil Lisst]

27. I don't doubt some Dems got some money.

There is nothing inherently inappropriate for interest groups to hire lobbyists and spend money promoting their agenda. So if Indian tribes want to do that, they may.

THAT is not the issue here.

BUYING influence from key leadership members is the issue. Abramoff is in trouble foremost for STEALING from the Indian tribes, not for buying influence. They're using his conviction for stealing to make him rat out the ones he bought off. Those have to be Republicans, because no Dem has had any power the past few years.

Lobbyists spread their goodies around as a matter of routine, and when the legislator is not opposed to their cause, sometimes they take the goodies.

[Debi]

29. Here's an article that might interest some here - about the Meskwaki

dispute that Harkin was involved in

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/abramoff_grassley_meskwaki_casino_421.htm


<snip>

No known members of the lobbying firm connected to the Meskwaki account gave money to Harkin’s PAC during the leadership battle. Smith, who signed off on Greenberg Traurig’s lobbying disclosure forms, wrote a $5,000 check to Harkin’s PAC in June of the following year, and gave $5,000 to Harkin shortly before the casino was seized.

<snip>

[IA_Seth]

37. Oh lord...we aren't going to by into THIS are we?

Tom Harkin?! Are you f'in serious?

Tom Harkin stepping in on behalf of the Meskawki (the sac & fox tribe) was something any Senator with any kind of compassion would and should do for his state. 1300 people were out of money and out of options. THIRTEEN HUNDRED. I don't know about you, but if my Senator DIDN'T step in I would be disgusted.

Ok, so he has to step in. As its been said elsewhere in this thread, why would you NOT accept help from a professional?

Before we get all fired up for a witch hunt, let's make sure we are distinguishing between true political duties and sleazy bribes.

[MercutioATC]

45. Did I not specifically state that this wasn't a witch hunt?

I'm not accusing Harkin of anything...I'm asking questions and suggesting that the matter bears clearing up.

[IA_Seth]

47. Ok, and the questions have been answered, have they not?

I mean, what is the question exactly, and what answer are you hoping to get here?

Harkin got help *in the process of doing what he SHOULD do* by someone who chose to associate with Abramoff. It's not even a direct tie. There is a very tenuous link at best, even associating Abramoff with Harkin.

Harkin did the right thing, like he has done for our state for years. No foul, IMO. Of course some people won't allow the Dems to come out clean in this, and maybe some will go down, but to pick up a story that has no legs and carry it across the internet is foolish.

What still needs cleared up?

[MercutioATC]

51. They've been "answered" on a Democrat internet forum.

That's hardly a resolution.

Let me make something clear. I don't think he did anything wrong. However, as I stated in the OP, Democrats aren't completely exhonerated of involvement until issues like these are cleared up, which is why I feel investigation is important.

[Spazito]

77. LOL, it seems credible links, etc, have been provided which, if

you were genuine in your quest for research, would cause you to see that Harkin isn't a problem yet you persist in arguing what has become, imo, a moot point, that being research needs to be done yet when done you do not accept the results because they don't back up your OP. Interesting, to say the least.

[Debi]

78. Sigh, thank you!

:hug:

[MercutioATC]

79. Why do we waste all of this money on prosecutors and investigations?

There are web pages out there with all of the information we need.


Is that the gist of your arguement?


Why a 9/11 Commission? There are thousands of web sites with 9/11 data.

[Spazito]

80. I don't see you doing any research unlike the various posters

responding to your OP yet you negate anything they provide in answer to your 'questions'. I hope you will follow your own advice and do some research other than simply negating others' work.

Edited to add proper punctuation.

[MercutioATC]

82. What makes you think that?

I've done hours of research on the various players (Abramoff, Smith, Scanlon, etc) specifically related to my OP.

What "work" have I been "negating"? I don't disagree with any of the data others have presented, only their conclusions based on that data, in some cases.

[Spazito]

83. From the posts done by others, would you say it is less likely

that Harkin is a problem than when you wrote your OP? You agreed with me that research needed to be done on the votes of the dems being smeared by the right wing, etc, yet the only research you have done has been on the repubs as you iterate in your post. Your OP is pointing fingers at dems yet you have only researched the repubs. Odd.

[MercutioATC]

87. Personally, I don't think Harkin did anything wrong.

My point isn't his guilt or innocence, it's that there are issues that can only be cleared up, perhaps, in an investigation.

The reason the OP is about a Democrat instead of a Republican is that there are still many DUers gloating "NO Democrats were involved. All they did was take contributions from tribes that happened to be Abramoff clients". That's not factually true. It may be that no Democrats did anything illegal or unethical, but there WAS more involvement, at least in some cases.

[IA_Seth]

81. That's hardly what anyone is saying here...

What we are saying is this: "Why do you continue to have 'questions' about Harkin's integrity and insist an investigation is necessary when we have clearly explained and accounted for any of your original misgivings or doubts?"

Sure, if there were improprieties then an investigation would be warranted, such is the case for a number of congressman. Harkin, however, doesn't fall into this category but regardless of facts he has been picked up by the RNC as a scapegoat in an attempt to dirty one of the Democratic party's cleanest members. It just so happens he is the one you picked too.

Calling for an official investigation is one thing if there questions left unanswered or evidence pointed towards illegal acts...but in this case it does not.

[MercutioATC]

84. Here's one example:

(and this standard applies to ALL lawmakers in this issue, IMO)

Harkin used Abramoff's skybox twice and didn't reimburse him. Here are the explanations I've seen:

1) Harkin didn't know the box belonged to Abramoff.

2) Harkin's office conducted an internal audit months later, discovered the issue, and paid for the use of the box.


All I'd ask is that you replace the name "Harkin" with "DeLay". Do these explanations satisfy you? THAT'S the standard we have to demand when looking into the actions of EVERYBODY in this matter...our own people included.


You may disagree, but I hope I've at least made my stance clearer.

[IA_Seth]

86. It's a question of context

If you could replace "Harkin" with "DeLay" throughout Harkin's resume, his biography, and his previous actions...sure I would accept that. I am sure there are a number of honest Republicans (lol, as big of an oxymoron as that may seem) that have just as innocently taken money from 3rd parties that can be tied to Abramoff.

It's a matter of context. Harkin has proven himself a class-act, a responsible lawmaker, and a advocate of his constituents. To tie him up with a pointless investigation to satisfy the right-wing bulldogs is to give in to the height of inanity.

[Debi]

88. That's absurd

First you attempt to tie Harkin's honesty to Bush's BS (upthread) and now you try to equate his use of a sky box for a fundraiser to Delay's lavish abuse of trips/dinners/golf outings for his fundraisers.

Your stance is very clear, you want to jump on the republican bandwagon and find a Democrat or two to attack and take down in a long, drawn out investigation (that will take years and costs millions of dollars), after the negative press and front page garbage, Tom Harkin will be exonerated (the story will end up on page E-13) and nobody will care. President Gingrich and his republican controlled Congress with have 'reformed' campaign finance once again (those 527's really cleaned up the system) and we'll wonder just why this happened. Oh, yeah, because as Democrats we wanted to be 'fair'

But fair isn't fair when we haven't done anything wrong. You don't start investigations on someone who didn't do anything wrong unless you want to destroy their reputation. You don't repeat republican talking points unless you would rather believe it than find out the facts for yourself.

How many charges were brought against Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater investigation?

[MercutioATC]

93. I ask again. If you replace "Harkin" with "DeLay", do you feel the same?

You seem obsessed with drawing comparisons I'm simply not making. I'm not equating Harkin's actions with DeLay's, I'm illustrating that we have to demand as much transparency from our own Senators that we demand from theirs. Unless you can say that the same action performed by a Republican wouldn't make you suspect the possibility of wrongdoing, you're not doing that.

You seem to either disagree with this position or you're unable to comprehend it. Either way, it's fine to see things differently but it's just silly to claim that I'm "jump on the Republican bandwagon".

[IA_Seth]

95. Again, its a matter of context. Post # 86 n/t

[MercutioATC]

97. I disagree.

If that was the standard, only people with repeated violations would be investigated.

I'm not suggesting their histories are similar. I'm asking in this SINGLE instance, if you replaced Harkin's name with ANY Republican's name, would you still assume his innocence and feel no need for investigation?

[IA_Seth]

105. Then your answer is YES.

If a republican stepped in on behalf of his constituents by writing a letter, If a republican received in the past, and continues to receive, donations from an tribe located in their state in the amounts of Harkins, If a republican used a skybox, that had been rented in Abramoff's name, and paid for it (late or otherwise), all the while having no connections TO Abramoff, I would say they are alright with me.

What we should focus on here is criminality. Which of Harkin's actions are you saying could even possibly be illegal?

[MercutioATC]

109. Great. Then I understand why you don't have an issue with this.

However, that's not the position of many people here.

Again HARKIN is not the issue. It's the double-standard that I'm addressing. This doesn't seem to pertain to you, personally, but it does to other posts I've read here on DU.

[Debi]

98. There is no possible way I could replace Harkin's name w/Delay's

because I am aware of Harkin's integrity and honesty. That is what makes trying to explain anything to you so infuriating. You are making the presumption that all elected officials are as dirty, dishonest and unethical as George Bush or Tom Delay.

Tom Harkin's supporters - His constituents - people who have contributed to him and advised him are telling you different. You are not only arguing against his honesty, you are arguing against ours and our ability to believe and trust in him. He's been involved in Iowa politics longer than I have been alive and in office 3/4 of my life. He has sat across the table from me and my husband countless times and we have had the opportunity to discuss many, many issues with him. He has helped our clients more times than I can consider and he has NEVER asked for anything in exchange. My husband has known Tom Harkin for 40 years and has had the honor of serving in the US Congress with him. Our son is considered an equal in his school because of Harkin's work on the ADA, probably the greatest step toward equality in the United States since the 1960's.

I don't have to demand transparency from him because he has already delivered it. He explained where the contributions came from, which I already knew since he's been receiving contributions from the Tribe since 1990, he explained the failure to reimburse for the sky box and corrected the mistake immediately upon his knowledge of it.

But you won't believe anything that I might say, because the USA Today printed information copied from the GOP and you'd rather start an investigation (which means a special prosecutor appointed by President Bush or his cronies) and attempt to destroy Tom Harkin's name.

[MercutioATC]

106. Well, then, I guess you can't.

It seems we disagree.

[Debi]

112. Yet you'll go on claiming that Harkin is dirty and needs to be investigate

Because it's easier than admitting that he might actually be honest and clean and not anything like what you and the GOP have implied.

What you are doing is a disservice to our party, and to the elected officials with integrity (and you are the lemming the republican party was hoping to direct right off the cliff).

Of course, I don't mean you, I was just using you as an example, just because I said you don't think I was thinking of you, I could of been thinking of anyone but I just used you.

[MercutioATC]

115. Show me ONE SINGLE POST where I accused him of wrongdoing.

I wouldn't, because I don't personally feel he did anything wrong (which I've stated in a couple of posts in this thread, too).

That doesn't change my stance. If a Republican Senator had done EXACTLY what Harkin did, I'd say there was reasonable cause to look into the matter. I would consider it hypocritical, then, to demand a different standard for any Democratic Senator.

[Debi]

117. Go back to the beginning of this thread and look at your posts

You continue to state that you don't think Harking did anything wrong, but then you write things like 'ties to Abramoff' and 'needs to be investigated' How can you reconcile those comments?

If he didn't do anything wrong, why investigate him? Unless you want to join in with the ranting republicans and pick and chose a Democrat to attack.

[eve_was_framed]

40. absolutely some Dem's took money and that's not illegal what is

illegal is if the money influenced them to change their vote or stand on any given issue. If I rob a bank and give all the money to a charity the charity would not be guilty of anything if they had no knowledge of the illegal origins of the money.

[ClassWarrior]

49. None of the ILLEGAL donations went to Dems. None.

Investigate away!

NGU.

[Bluzmann57]

52. Tom Harkin is an Iowan

Through and through. He actually has the "gall" to want to do right by us Iowans. When he took money from the Native American tribes he was trying to help his fellow Iowans by providing jobs for many people. The Tama casino is a huge operation and whether one approves of gambling or not, it is an economic boon to the Sac & Fox tribe as well as the peole in surrounding areas who work there. There is a very good chance that he had no clue that the money donated by the tribe was tainted. I have had the pleasure of meeting Tom Harkin and he is a good man.

[MercutioATC]

55. I've never met him in person, but I'd agree with your assessment

of his character. I'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing, I'm stating my belief that we would benefit from an investigation that would clear the matter up.

[Arkana]

73. Agreed, but the last thing we need is a Kenneth Starr-type

who wants to turn it into a referendum on a stained dress. Make it a fair, even-handed investigation--hell, get Fitz to do it!

[MercutioATC]

74. Agreed. Somebody like Harkin would be difficult to smear with such

other big fish in the water right now anyway. If we're going to claim we want transparency, let's call for real transparency...our guys included. This is going to be too big for any single Prosecutor ...demand two or three...and make it a bipartisan (ideally, nonpartisan) group.

[Zodiak]

101. He is my favorite senator

I came up with a way to measure Democrat's "progressiveness" and he scored at the very top of the list. Boxer was second. I was stunned, but instantly became a fan.

[Debi]

114. Well, watch out cuz Boxer received Tribe money as well

If we follow what the GOP and MSM are trying to lead us to we will be investigating all good Democrats (and by WE I mean well meaning Democrats like the OP)and ignoring the criminal acts of Abramoff and cronies.

Thank you, though, Harkin is a good person.

[Zodiak]

122. Well, the numbers do not lie

and yes, it is no surprise to me that the targets are well-intentioned Dems instead of a parade of DINOs.

[Debi]

56. OMG Everybody, look at when Tom Harkin got money and from whom!

In 1996 $6,650 from Greenberg,Traurig et al - $2,000 from the Cabazon Indians (he got money from the Yankees, but I'll try to forgive him for that)

It's obvious now that Abramoff and Harkin were connected, that this has been going on for years - even before Abramoff was employed by Greenberg, Traurig!

I must dig deeper and find out what else Tom Harkin has been doing while he's been representing Iowa for the last 21 years in Washington.


http://www.opensecrets.org/navasp/whosgetting_response.asp

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

70. Dems did NOT receive money DIRECTLY from Abramoff

Receiving funds from the same tribes, or from lobbyists who worked with Abramoff, or getting the use of the dumb skybox are the things that yes did happen.

If you let the Repugs cast that as equal to the pernicious crimes of Abramoff and his Repug cohorts, you do our party a terrible disservice.

[MercutioATC]

72. Not equal, but something to be cleared up, IMO.

As far as the direct contributions, they were small and met FEC requirements. I don't see them as an issue. The client money is the real concern.

[StraightDope]

71. I'm sure that SOME did...

LIEberman, anyone?

SD

[flyarm]

75. no dem took a dime from abramoff stop buying the bullshit!!!!!! n/t

[demgrrrll]

76. Absolutely right. Enough of this bullsh*t. eom

.

[oneoftheboys]

85. The thing that bothers me most about this is the fact that...

everybody got money except me.

:grr:

[Zodiak]

103. wow

of the two threads in which I have seen today containing thoughts from the orginator of the OP, one thread he argues that it is the fault of th consumer when they get screwed by the Bankruptcy bill and this one where we HAVE to investigate Harkin.

Batting a thousand today on DU?

[MercutioATC]

111. Some of my views aren't always popular...

...but I make no apologies for that.

Ironically, the two threads you mention are the two that have frustrated me the most. Quite a few of the replies I have received on both have nothing to do with the issue I'm trying to get across...they're just (seemingly) emotional responses to a collateral issue.

[FogerRox]

119. Humor_In_Cuneiform is right

Abramoff

NEVER

contibuted money to the campaign of a DEM.



not a single DEM

[MercutioATC]

121. He made no personal contributions. That is correct.

However, one of the big issues between Abramoff and DeLay is that DeLay received "contributions from Abramoff" in the form of tribal monies.

Personal contributions are a drop in the bucket. The bigger issue (IMO) is the tribal money.

[Debi]

118. Drinking the Kool Aide if you ask me.

It's easier to have the MSM do 'research' and spoon-feed it then it is to actually look into allegations.

Who gave the MSM Harkin's name?

[NativeTexan]

127. I say we need to take our usual position on these things...

....and that is the higher ground! Let the chips fall where they may. No lobbyist has takers from only ONE PARTY. You KNOW there have to be some on both sides.

But I can guarantee you......it will be VERY LOP-SIDED in the GOP direction.

[BigYawn]

128. Exactly right, the GOP will take MUCH BIGGER fall over Abramoff mess

Therefore I don't understand why so many dems are against a
thorough investigation. What is wrong with weeding out a few
bad apples if they exist in our basket?

[Imagevision]

131. In less then a week after Abramoff pleads guilty - Delay steps down

Sure Dem Senators took cash, Reid from Nevada even got $60,000+ that he last week stated he wasn't sure if he was going to return or donate it to a charity. Charity?? like that changes one iota of perceived guilt!