A purely hypothetical situation about the Abramoff issue:

(Again, this is purely hypothetical. Senator Voinovich's name is ONLY used because he's a Republican Senator, not for ANY other reason.)

If the following report was in USA Today:


"Senator Voinovich 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 Voinovich's office.

In doing so, Voinovich 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, a Voinovich spokeswoman said.

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

AND

"Voinovich 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 Voinovich in 2004, about six months after the federal government allowed the tribe's casino to reopen." (Reimbursement for the skybox was eventually made in October 2005)

Would you feel:

and Voinovich is helping them! Hell has frozen over! That's as hypothetical as one can get. I would hope that if it were true, Voinovich or Harry Reid or whoever would be investigated.

To draw the comparison as accurately as possible, I left the details untouched.

I also wanted this to be an issue of principle, not one of bias toward any particular Senator.



No, we're not getting casinos in Ohio yet...

:)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

I'll let those good folks decide before I create a kangaroo court for Democrats.

..both theirs and ours. I don't think we can ethically condemn them for doing things we are willing to excuse Democrats of doing (whether it's ultimately a legal of ethical violation or not).

Doesn't matter what party they are in. If they had the connection..they should be investigated. And this CRAP that these people gave the money to a charity doesn't exonerate them in the least.

He's not loathed by Democrats is he?

Nothing to do with the Abramoff scandal. Abramoff took money under fraudulant circs, used that money for fraudulant purposes and quid pro qou with several Republican senators.

Doing everything you can to assist a group of people in your own state is what our govt officials are supposed to be doing. They can "accept input" for "suggestions for the letters" from anyone they want.

deserves investigation, in the opinion of whomever responds.

then no - he is covered... and perhaps one ought to look at other actions of the Senator in relation to differing legislative goals of Abramoff (per the skybox stuff), but if there is the Senator has long been responsive to a tribe which is a constituent group, there really isn't any there, there.

Now if the senator had a pattern of voting against the interest of the tribe until this one time... a little harder to just write off as acting in the best interest of a constituent group. Point being context matters and the context is the past pattern of acting neutrally, against or on behalf of the tribal group in question.

The standard isn't proof of guilt here. I'm not suggesting that.

If I read your post correctly, you suggest that "investigating" past legislative positions and context and establishing a pattern are crucial to determining guilt or innocence. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I have no personal doubt that an investigation of this Senator's actions would result in a finding that he did nothing unethical or illegal. This belief, however, is not (IMO) a reason to NOT investigate the matter.

but degree to which there is a "there there" to invest in a serious investigation. Think of it as a flow chart inserting the questions that I asked... Not much investment to look at his previous voting pattern and determine or not whether it was in line with that or not... so move to step two - quick look at known legislative lobbying efforts of Abramoff and how the sen voted - granted that alone is not a sign of anything - if he wasn't supportive of Jack in the Box's effort - end the cursory look. If so - then determine if the votes were in line or out of line with his voting record (again short easy action - not a big major investigation to do this) - if something jumps out- then invest in a full scale investigation. Look for the real fish and sharks and quickly rule out dead ends.

but degree to which there is a "there there" to invest in a serious investigation. Think of it as a flow chart inserting the questions that I asked... Not much investment to look at his previous voting pattern and determine or not whether it was in line with that or not... so move to step two - quick look at known legislative lobbying efforts of Abramoff and how the sen voted - granted that alone is not a sign of anything - if he wasn't supportive of Jack in the Box's effort - end the cursory look. If so - then determine if the votes were in line or out of line with his voting record (again short easy action - not a big major investigation to do this) - if something jumps out- then invest in a full scale investigation. Look for the real fish and sharks and quickly rule out dead ends.

that still entails an investigation, which is all I'm suggesting. From what I've seen, "Senator X" in the OP scenario wouldn't warrant more than a cursory investigation. That would still be an investigation.

...and that investigation and subesequent finding of no wrongdoing would make a HUGE difference in terms of public opinion. When people hear that this sort of situation occurred with a Democratic Senator while we're all gloating that "WE didn't take ANY money from Abramoff", it worsens our standing. Letting the public see that we support both Dems and Repubs being looked into is a much better position to take, IMO.

*but have read so much in the past 24 hours that I couldn't tell you where* that listed those implicated - it also gave criteria for exclusion - specifically when the interests were consistent with past record, and involved constituent groups - under that several repubs as well as dems were exluded. For ex the hot head congressman from Arizona (can't remember his name) who is a former sports caster, and sits on the committee that is germaine, and has a record of support for tribal interests that predates all of this was excluded.

..and i couldn't be happier that my own congressman had his hand in the cookie jar, and got caught.The guy is a crook.