JOSHUA FRANK: The Tempest Cometh -- Jack Abramoff’s Bipartisan Sleaze

By Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

It is far too early to tell what kind of impact it will ultimately have on the Republican establishment, but the Jack Abramoff scandal could well be the most perilous of all the storms developing around Washington. And the cloud forming on the horizon is a dark one indeed.

The most enthralling aspect of this whole controversy is the number of people it potentially involves. From elected officials in Congress to top conservative activists, the Abramoff lobbyist sham could ravage the neocons far worse than the Plame affair. It could also take a top Democrat or two down as well.

The Abramoff saga is more than a single sordid tale of an insider gone wild; it’s a vivid narrative of how business is done in Washington. From legal maneuvering to backroom bribes and pay-offs, Abramoff is just a lobbyist in a long line of power hungry DC powerbrokers.

At the heart of the Abramoff inquiry is the work he did for six Indian tribes during the 1990s up until 2004. At question is whether or not Abramoff along with his partner Michael Scanlon bilked at least $80 million from his clients, evaded taxes and violated lobbyist disclosure laws.

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=1749

no matter how far he needs to stretch.

the Abramoff scandals in any way, bi-partisan.

Some of the fallout so far, and they haven't even begun:

Arrested and charged Republicans so far:

Safavian: Arrested and charged in connection with Abramoff/Tom Delay
Abramoff: Arrested and indicted in the Florida Casino scandal.
Kidan: Arrested and indicted in the Florida Casino scandal.
Scanlon: Arrested and indicted in the Abramoff Indian affairs scandal.
3 Mafia hit men: Arrested and charged in the murder of Kidan & Abramoff business associate, Bouris ~ (they bought Suncruz Casinos from him). One of them was a consultant to Kidan.

Under investigation in connection with Abramoff's various affairs:

Tom Delay: For trips financed by Abramoff and other entanglements

Ralph Reed: In the Indian affairs debacle.

Blunt:

Cornyn: Did he vote on legislation in return for money contributions from Abramoff?

Gale Norton's Interior Dept: various employees who may have been used by Abramoff, exposed during the Senate hearings.

Susan Ralston: Abramoff's former assistant and now Rove's. Abramoff's influencing of legislation to prevent oversight of what amounted to slave labor from the Philipines and the Marianas Islands. What role did she play in facilitating Abramoff's access to the WH?

Since Abramoff seems to have operated in various countries, including countries in Africa (under investigation is whether or not he rceived millions of dollars from one African leader for a visit with Bush) and his charities included a sniper training school in Israel, the extent of the investigations will be unprecedented.

Bush received $100,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff.

Kelly Moore Capita has dropped out of the race against Sen. Byrd because she too received thousands of dollars from Abramoff. But that alone would not have caused her to drop out of the race. The question is her vote. Did Abramoff buy it?

That's just off the top of my head, and I know I haven't even begun to list the Republican Congressmen and women who were involved with Abramoff.

So far, I see NO Demcorats on that list ~ so the attempt to spin this will simply fail, imo. Even if one or two Dems did get money from Abramoff, that in itself is not the issue. They are allowed to accept money from lobbiests, unless that money bought any of their votes.

Then there are the three Republican Governors who have been indicted and charged, or convicted of corruption over the past year or so.

Gov. Rowland of Connecticut (Rep.)
Gov. Ryan of Illinois (Rep.) and 30 other indictments of Repubs there.
Gov. Taft of Ohio (Rep.) (which is a whole other Republican scandal, including Tom Noe already indicted and spreading across the ocean to Spain. All Repubs.

Enron, Ken Lay, trial in January

Pentagon Spy case, Larry Franklin, guilty, two more charged. Trial in January.

Not to mention Rep. Cunningham (Rep.) and the involvement of more Republicans in the Defense industry.

Nope, I don't this is the season to go after Democrats. This is an unprecedented array of crimes all involving Republicans, and many we don't know about yet as the investigations continue.

And of course, the outing of Valerie Plame and the indictment of yet another Republican, Lewis Libby.

Under investigation also, neocon Richard Perle, in the Hollinger case, and his friend and fellow neocon, Conrad Black indicted and charged with more crimes.

Douglas Feith, neocon, is also under investigation and of course, Karl Rove ~

Sorry, I just keep thinking of more!

Maybe it's time to make a list, check it twice to see if there are any Dems on it, and send it off to Frank ~ and Chris Matthews, and the rest of the propagandists so they know we know, these are all Republican scandals ~ at least he's right about one thing. It will be huge!

he smears Democrats. He relies on innuendo and those uninformed in enough numbers on the left who are willing to believe him.

that means Democrats have to frame this before they do. He needs to remove the word 'bipartisan' from that article. He should be challenged to prove it right now.

As you can see, just from the few Repubs I could remember who were close to Republican Lobbyist, Abramoff and his Republican, indicted partner, Scanlon, and his other Republican indicted partner, Kidan and their Republican hitmen friends, Frank will be buried in Republican Congressmen, Republican think tanks, Republican organizations, the Christian Right's Ralph Reed, people like Republican, Norquist, et al.

And that's only the beginning ~ if they insist that Nancy Pelosi and Reed, eg, because they received money from Abramoff in some way committed crimes, then they will be on the path to having to insist on indictments against literally dozens of Republican Congressmen and Senators and even, if just taking money is a crime, Republican President George W. Bush who received $100,000 from Abramoff for his re-election campaign.

No, I think Republicans will have enough to deal with, just trying to defend, eg, the likes of Republican Tom Delay for his criminal dealings with Abramoff, than to go after those who simply received legal donations from him. If they do, they will have the President himself under suspicious ~ and as I said, dozens and dozens of Republican legislators ~

And, let's not forget Republican Speaker of the House, Hastert and Republican Sen. Frist, also under investigation ~

I have to stop, there are so many corrupt Republicans it's just too time consuming to list them all here.

.

If in fact Harry Reid and John Breaux took donations to oppose the casino building and if James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson were flown to the the Marianas by Abramoff it makes them just as involved in this scandal as the republicans who did the same thing.

If you are questioning his facts fine, but that wouldnt really be an issue of stretching.

will smear Dems as equal even if those few donations were made for appearances sake.

Like Murdoch's individual donation to Gore and then Kerry - For appearances. While his network had them drawn and quartered as standard fare.

I said that any individual democrats involved are as culpable as Republicans who took the same actions. I certainly never implied that the party as a whole was equally involved and neither did Frank.

GOP has an entire network set up here and Frank will smear Dems as equal even if those few donations were made for appearances sake.

Except that Frank never claimed Democrats and Republicans were equally involved.

Meanwhile the Republican involvement in the scandal has been the primary focus of scandal coverage. Frank isnt ignoring that involvement or downplaying it, he is assuming you have already heard about it and telling you something you may not have heard, which is that some Democrats may also be involved.

Meanwhile if the donations were made, Frank hasn't smeared anyone since that is all he claimed. Whether they were just for appearances or not, if they exist, they support Frank's account. All he is saying is that some top Democrats will find themselves under scrutiny for their dealings with Abramoff that run along similar lines as those dealings Republicans have been under scrutiny for.

.

It indicates that members of both parties were involved which is all he is claiming.

uncovered has been entirely Republican?

It's pisspoor reporting is what it is. When the evidence shows that ANY Democrat was corrupted by a donation then it would have SOME credibility , but until then that headline is blatantly FALSE from any journalistic standpoint.

Involved in the corruption when so far the only corruption that has been uncovered has been entirely Republican?

In this article Joshua Frank is saying that although up until now the attention from the scandal has been entirely on republicans, there is likely to be scrutiny in the near future of some Democrats because certain particular Democrats were involved in situations much like those that some of the Republicans were involved in.

He isnt saying that Democrats have already been exposed as corrupt, he is saying that some of them will come under scrutiny during this investigation because of the actions he lists. That there is, so to speak, a bipartisan angle of this scandal in addition to the primary focus on what is obviously a group of republican operatives who worked primarily with the republican party.

It's pisspoor reporting is what it is.

So you are saying that the facts he cites in the column are not true? That Reid and Breaux did not recieve these donations and make these votes? That the other dems did not take plane flights paid for by Abramoff?

When the evidence shows that ANY Democrat was corrupted by a donation then it would have SOME credibility , but until then that headline is blatantly FALSE from any journalistic standpoint.

Except that it isnt blatently false if read in plain english. In plain english it just says that there is an approaching bipartisan angle to the scandal, which is all he claims in the article.

The headline does not imply that any democrats have been proven corrupt, in fact it couldnt possibly be implying that because it is referring to the future, not the present.

at Joshua@brickburner.org.

I'm certain that he will want to know about any factual errors in his work. I certainly would like to know, however, I think it would be better for you to take them up with him.

The World News Trust site is meant to be non-partisan, however we welcome commentary from various progressive points of view. The stuff is certainly not meant to be propaganda. Cheers, Francis Goodwin, WNT editor.