Lauer:‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Repub

End of story.

They know they can't fool us but man they're over working their sheep dogs.

Two posts (one mine) from yesterday. That is excellent rpgamerd00d


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x245433


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x249881

But, hell....who cares about what's legal and what's not, nowadays...?

of visual illustrations of your point!!

:rofl:

donate to groups that engage in terror. Similarly, if Russert gives a donation to the RNC, it means that everyone who works at NBC supports the RNC. After all, they're "affiliated."

I love when Potato(e) Boy Russert goes into his insider pundit mode and tries to turn something that's obvious into a convoluted he said/she said story.

Idiots.

If Joe Schmoe donated money to NBC, and then Joe Schmoe donated money to a Con Man, who then took that stolen money and donated it to Hamas, NBC would have received "Terrorist-related" money.

That is the right analogy.

not that he gives a damn but just so he understands some of us are onto him

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

I watched this morning 'cause I saw that some DUers were going to hold up signs, but I never saw them. Were you guys stopped or was no one able to go today? Maybe tomorrow?

You've advanced the story all the way from "everyone did it", to "how bad is this for the Democrats" :banghead:

They've ALL got Deborah-Howell-itis. It's an epidemic!

Day One: Read lies about Democrats from Republican script, and get called on lying.
Day Two: Read lies about Democrats from Republican script.

"But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth , and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach."

That is such a totally horseshit response. Russert drags in a related yet separate issue, that of lobbying reform. He is trying to claim that while it is correct that Democrats didn't get money from Abramoff, Democrats still must view the Abramoff scandal as "bipartisan" because they also take money from lobbyists. So the fuck what, Russert, you shill hack whore? That wasn't the question, nor is it the issue. Total redirection and by inference, keeps the democrats connected with the scandal when Russert knows they are not.

to donate to the Democrats. Or that he directed anyone to donate to the Dems.

if we dems allege provable things like election fraud, we're "conspiracy theorists" and "moonbats," but the Repigs can claim that every dime a Democrat received was somehow tainted by Jack Abramoff?

Think about it: in order to turn Abramoff into a "bipartisan scandal," Repigs and the MSM have to believe that Jack Abramoff ran a conspiracy so huge it would even make Jeff Rense roll his eyes.

Where's the proof of that? In other circumstances, that's known as "assuming facts not in evidence."

While true that some of Abramoff's indian tribes gave money to democrats, there's not a single shred of evidence that they did so at his behest. In fact, if I recall correctly, the money Byron Dorgan received even predated Abramoff's relationship with the tribe.

Isn't it time we start calling the Courics and the Lauers and the Russerts and Matthews what they really are? CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

took money from Jack.

the link you provided points to an opinion piece by Frank Salvato (who is a Republican hack who helped with the Swiftboating of Kerry Biography: Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us and serves as the vice president and executive director of Basics Project. He is a contributing writer for GOPUSA, CNS News, ChronWatch, Opinion Editorials, Men's News Daily, Canada Free Press, American Daily, The American Chronicle and The North Carolina Conservative. His pieces have been featured in Townhall.com, The Washington Times, The Conservative Battleline, American Enterprise, The Federal Observer, US Politics Today, The London Morning Paper, and Pravda among over 100 other publications both nationally and internationally. He served as an editor for The Washington Dispatch before leaving because of philosophical differences. He has been quoted in The Federalist. He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a semi-regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent and USA Radio Networks, The Kyal 2K Show (KTKK, Salt Lake City), The Bruce Elliott Show (WBAL, Baltimore) and has been a guest on American Breakfast with Stan Major (National Radio Network), The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His writing has been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. He has worked as a professional jazz musician, firefighter/paramedic, harbormaster, political strategist, media consultant and writer. He supports conservative and traditional causes including the Republican Presidential Task Force.
).

How come so far all the named players by Abramoff himself are Republicans? Shouldn't you research things before you accept them as truth?

more research...

just cause tribes got cheated by Jack, and also gave money to Dems, does not mean Dems are being paid off for quid pro quo. They were obviously on the donation list as cover, just so that the Pukkkes can say "see, you did it too!" (a few convenient pennies) and muddy the waters while we try to figure out whether and how deeply they were involved.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the money went as quid pro quo to Republicans, who continue to get away with murder.

Dems didn't cheat the tribes--Republicans did.

i'm not buying it....

Ambramoff 'associates' gave money to Democrats BEFORE he came along? Or AFTER he left?

I keep saying that, before we can accuse a Democrat of taking dirty money, PROVE that the money or the Democrat is dirty.

It's easy to say that anyone who took Ambramoff money is dirty because ALL Abramoff money is dirty, the guy bragged about buying influence. But I think we need proof that money from tribes or clients of Abramoff or associates of Abramoff is dirty money (and I say that for Dems and republicans). Not all contributions are dirty contributions.

I think that it's not a fun and newsworthy scandal unless both parties are involved so the RNSC and the GOP are doing everything they can to keep it bipartisan (and God forbid the MSM do their homework).

...but it's so much more convenient for us corporate shills to keep pretending they did."

When you're a balding pretty-boy, you have to whore to keep your job.

Matt knows where his buns are buttered.

in their final desperate push into corporatist totalitarianism.

Surly Russert and Lauer have access to computers and internet connections. They connot possibly be so bereft of critical reasoning skills that they don't know the truth.

A reasonable individual can only conclude that they are complicit in an attempt to deceive Americans into accepting the agenda of the Neo Cons. Or is this just one of those kooky conspiracy theories.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php

Would somebody PLEASE send these links to them?

and asked them to quit checking the RNSC web site for their investigative reporting. :eyes: Lotta good it will do
Noticed that 'perky' Katie didn't have the guts to get up and admit she was wrong, needed Matt and Tim to 'report' that Howard Dean was 'Technically' correct. Man, that had to hurt!

Demand a retraction/clarification on Monday AM!!

MORANS! :evilgrin:

Good grief! Do these ass-hats really believe that people are that stupid?

Unlike the cable channels, NBC is a broadcast network and we have the right to challenge their broadcast license. I urge everyone who cares about a free press that tells the truth to contact the FCC and register a complaint every time they try to pull this stuff.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html

Be sure to send a copy of your complaint to NBC when you file it. :)

Also contact your representatives and demand that they enact legislation that protects Americans from false and misleading propaganda disguised as "news" reports. If the government can protect us from false and deceptive advertisements why can't they do the same for phony news reports?

We deserve better than this from those who get to use our airwaves.

Steven P. :kick:

technical

off the hot seat " ... We'll obviously have to look into that and clarify that to our viewers at a later date ... "

What? Katie can't own her pre-planned inaccuracies? Perky Katie doesn't want another series of emails calling her out?

I remember seeing somewhere that not only did the tribes give to Democrats before they started working with Abramoff, but that the amount that they gave after that, per Abramoff's instructions, was less than they gave before he was calling the shots. That strikes me as a very important fact that should be pointed out to (or shoved down the throat of) Messrs. Lauer and Russert.

Anyone have a link that supports this information?

onenote

but really it's nothing of the kind. Isn't that the same analogy?

Russert? It's clear he's finally sold completely out. What's so hard about saying Abramoff gave NO money to ANY Democrats? :banghead:

A reasonable individual can only conclude that they are complicit in an attempt to deceive Americans into accepting the agenda of the Neo Cons.

Here's the results of the most comprehensive study done to date. What does it show? That the Dems were not in bed with Abramoff of course! No wonder it's not being grabbed up and devoured by the "unbiased" media.

Here's the jest of the study:

The analysis shows:

# in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;

# five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;

# four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;

# Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

Much, much more here...
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

I sent this to the Today show also.

& shops at the very same corner market-he uses dirty money to pay. So, that means, since both of you exchanged money-albeit separately-with the same corner market YOU must have used dirty money too. These people are beyond stupid!

Today,

Regarding Katie Couric's misinformation regarding Democrats accepting money from Jack Abramoff:

Matt Lauer's surrogate response today suggested two things: 1) that Katie apparently can't summon the moxie to defend herself, and 2) Today would be more aptly renamed The General Electric/RNC Talking Point Comedy Revue.

It truly reached comic proportions when Russert again suggested that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan, revealing Today's staff is either woefully inept at interpreting facts, or skillfully adept at RNC propagandizing. In either case the reason liberals get "raging mad" has little to do with an inability to accept blame, and a lot to do with this nonsense being broadcast to a nationwide audience of millions, with nary a rebuttal in sight.

wtmusic

today@nbc.com

grasp.

NO money from Abramoff went to Democrats.

Money from tribes that are in the states of some Democrats went to Democrats, but not at the direction of Abramoff the way it did go from tribes at the direction of Abramoff to Republicans all over the place!!!

Too hard to comprehend for you fine pundits at NBC?????

Try a little harder, or whatever it takes.

Sheesh!

:crazy:

"No Abramoff money went to Democrats, think about it.

NO money went directly from Abramoff to Democrats period.

Apparently this is what you all relied on to try to make the case that Democrats got Abramoff money:

Totals from 2000 to 2006 from Center for Responsive Politics

Grand Total $3,699,921
Dems $1,123,333
Repubs $2,575,588
Abram only $206,253
Tribes only $3,285,068
Sun Cruz $43,000

So the above includes direct Abramoff money (which went only to Republicans), and money from Indian Tribes who at some point hired Abramoff.

So according to your argument if Abramoff was hired by a tribe, then any money that went to anyone from those tribes is "Abramoff money?"

For example, the New York Times hired Jason Blair, who fabricated stories. The New York Times has also published stories from many other journalists.

So according to the logic of the Abramoff story, if the NY Times hired Blair and other journalists they are all tainted, none of their stories have credibility.

Several tribes hired Abramoff and paid Abramoff and also gave money to Republicans at his direction.

The fact that Democrats also received money from some of the same tribes, who in most cases or perhaps all were from the Senators' states, does NOT mean that the money was in any way tied to Abramoff.

I hope that you begin differentiating sooner rather than later, because the scandals that haven't yet come to the forefront get worse, much worse.

Like the Mariana Islands forced labor, forced prostitution, and forced abortion story that lurks waiting to break and is directly tied to Abramoff and DeLay.

It will be embarrassing to you to have to admit later that you conflated the kind of funds that went to the 2 parties in this instance.

As a child, I loved Huntley and Brinkley. They would never have made this kind of error and stuck to it.

They must be spinning in their graves.

Please get it right."

but far too logical ;-)

and I realize that logic is a drawback in dealing with the media and neocons.

and expansive, too? :crazy:

that the media is finally being forced to answer for their mis-information and complicity. Even a bullshit answer makes them look bad, because it is not lost on the audience that their accuracy is being called into question.

Ariana Huffington (who I am more and more impressed with) is currently kicking Russert's kick-deserving ass over on her blog. Her well-done stuff on Judith Miller is a big part of why little Judy finally exited the NYT.

is a "Joker Faced" bitch...

quick, get Russert and Lauer to the batcave...