http://dnc.org/a/2006/01/republicans_own.php

Republicans Own Abramoff Scandal

Despite the best attempts of the Republican Party and their good friends at the Washington Times, the Jack Abramoff scandal is owned, "lock, stock, and barrel" by the GOP. Jack Abramoff has never ever, not one single time, given even a penny to a Democrat. Period. We all remember Governor Dean having to remind Wolf Blitzer of this point on one of the Sunday shows this weekend:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

But the same people who brought you the "ownership society" refuse to take responsibility for their role in dragging the public trust of government through the mud. And that's fine with them, they are after all the same people who created you the K-Street project; the group that wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." It's also the reason they have no pause getting baseless stories planted in the Moonie Times, the paper of last resort when no credible news organization will carry the GOP's muck.

A Justice Department investigation into nfluence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

Note the blind source, yet again, a favorite tactic of those who have nothing of substance to sell. But unfortunately, it forces good Democrats like Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan to defend themselves -- as Senator Reid's spokesman did in the article:

Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, said that no official acts were performed for Abramoff and that the senator has always opposed the expansion of off-reservation gambling, a stance favorable to Abramoff's clients.

"These kinds of wild and baseless rumors smack of desperation and is simply a desperate attempt by Republicans to drag Democrats into a scandal they own lock, stock and barrel," Mr. Manley said.

Now let's think for a second... is there any reason that Senator Reid (D-NV) might oppose the expansion of gambling sites in states other than his own? Hmmm... Maybe because he is the Senator from... wait for it... Nevada.

The Washington Times is no stranger to hit pieces on the Senate Minority Leader in times of Republican strife. It was only several months ago as the GOP was threatened to blow up the Constitution with the "nuclear option" that Charles Hurt, another Times columnist, launched a baseless and unfounded attack on Senator Reid. Many of us remember it well ... his claims were debunked completely and thoroughly before the article even went to print.

Charles Hurt Washington Times piece May 13, 2005:

Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."

Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.

The night before DavidNYC of Swing State Project found this June 4, 2004 article by the same Charles Hurt of the Washington Times:

From the moment Mr. Hatch began the meeting, he struggled to get the quorum required to vote on a nominee. As soon as a quorum gathered, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, requested a private meeting to discuss accusations stemming from Judge Saad's FBI background check.

Though several Republicans noted privately that the routine check had been completed more than six months ago and that no questions had arisen, Mr. Hatch acquiesced and removed the public and reporters to hold a meeting. During that meeting, Judge Saad's hopes of getting out of committee faded.

Although the closed-door meeting succeeded in delaying Judge Saad's nomination one more week, it failed to remain secret. The hearing was broadcast over the Internet because of apparent inadvertence on the part of Republican staffers.

Basically, the Times tried to attack Senator Reid for information they made public a year earlier that was also broadcast over the Internet... an error made by Republican staffers.

Not one single cent of Jack Abramoff money went to a Democratic candidate, ever. The central figures involved in this case are all Republican Members of Congress, their spouses and their staffs, who received lavish personal gifts, trips and jobs from Abramoff. These attempts by the GOP and the Washington Times are simply stabs in the dark to distract the American public and drag honest representatives like Senators Reid and Dorgan into the middle of their own corruption scandal. This is all about people who were arrogant with power, thought they were above the law, and are now resorting to desperate measures. This has nothing to do with Harry Reid.

Well, either the good Dr. Dean doesn't know what he's talking about, or Time magazine is lying. Just last night I was reading that 34% of the people who took money from Abramoff or his clients were Democrats, including Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel. They had a nifty graphic and list of who took what in the magazine, but all I can find online from Time is the following: (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...47156-3,00.html)

Given the potential damage, it was no surprise that Republicans sought to make Abramoff a bipartisan stain, circulating a seven-page research paper titled "Jack Abramoff's Democrat Connections," which lists contributions and news stories associating the disgraced lobbyist with nine Democratic Senators and six Democratic House members. But the fact is that about two-thirds of Abramoff-related money went to Republicans, and that may have already begun to shift the political equation 10 months before the congressional election.

If two-thirds of it went to Republicans, then the other third went to Democrats. And don't give me the stuff about the Bush-loving media. Time has nothing to gain by printing outright lies that can (and would) be proven false. Numbers are numbers, and while you can slant words, and even figures, to make your case, you can't argue with cold hard facts. Unfortunately, we have no way of proving which side of this story is correct. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.