Ahm, damn but does this sound familiar

[TayTay]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2346437

Oh boy, back to the influence of foreign contributors and banks on the American political system. (Someone I have heard of brought that up once. I think.)

Ahm, some Dems are cleaner on this than others. Greg Palast (whom everyone here despises cuz he is not a loyalist to any American political party or person) wrote this about past associations with money. Here is a clip about him from his web site. http://gregpalast.com/blog.cfm

Undoubtedly, Palast is written off by mainstream conservatives as one more clown engaging in attack-Bush hysteria, as if there was nothing to attack. But he goes after Clinton as well. His investigation of Clinton's secret Indonesian money trail--six-figure payments to Hillary's former law partners by the Riady family of that country and Entergy International of Little Rock, Ark.,--is something, again, that- never made it to any mainstream media outlet. According to Palast, that mess alone would have resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but the Republicans on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee called off their investigation as a trade-off for the Clinton Justice Department's scrapping an investigation of potential criminal activity by Koch Industries, a monster secret benefactor of the Republican party.

The Clintons were never too particular about where they got their money. There is a lot of stuff out there on Clinton and Indonesia and the funny money that has changed hands. Palast is by no means the only source I've heard for this stuff. By no means at all.

Quid Pro Quo. Not all Dems have fought for Truth, Justice and the American Way, you know. There are bodies buried on both sides of the American political system. Both sides.

[karynnj]

1. As the Abramoff thing starts to hit

I assume that the Clinton offenses will come out - and it hurts that it might take some of the tarnish off the Republicans. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good time for Kerry to reintroduce his and Wellstone's clean elections bill.

When BLM wanted election related legislation links (which others did a better job getting) - I read Kerry 1999 speech from Thomas (and I thank you again for directions in finding stuff), most of what he said could simply be repeated verbatim today and sound as current and real. (the floor speech is on this link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x61549#61554

It does explain beautifully the pressure to raise money that leads to accepting this kind of tainted money.

[TayTay]

2. I don't think the Clinton stuff will ever see the light of day

It was buried and buried but good. (I don't dislike the Clintons, I just think they could have done a better job of policing their fundraising efforts. This stuff stunk to the high heavens and it left them vulnerable to charges of influence peddling from foreign governments. Legitimate charges. Of course, I also wonder why the BCCI investigation got no support in the mid-90's and got dropped. Hmmmmmm. I wonder.)

[ProSense]

4. Agree

Especially about the BCCI investigation. That was a missed golden opportunity.

[karynnj]

5. What I wonder is whether Kerry was told that he

couldn't make an issue of BCCI and Kerry's prescience in worrying about non-state terror if he wanted Clinton support. (It also may have let Bush blame Clinton - even though Bush did far less on terror in early 2001 than Clinton was doing.)

[TayTay]

7. We all know that Kerry had problems with the BCCI

investigation. Not all the problems were with Rethugs. Sigh! That said, Rethugs are so much worse than Dems it's just ridiculous. I have problems with Clinton. I have chasms of problems with Bush and his cronies. (I just wish Clinton had been better. He had so much potential and so much of it just never went anywhere. He disappointed me terribly.)

[ProSense]

3. Here is an interesting statement:

"The reception Abramoff's team received from the Bush administration was in stark contrast to the chilly relations of the Clinton years. Abramoff, then at the Preston Gates firm, scored few meetings with Clinton aides and the lobbyist and the islands vehemently opposed White House attempts to extend U.S. labor laws to the territory's clothing factories."



See the article "Controversial lobbyist had close contact with Bush team" in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2347672

[karynnj]

6. This is great - in that it makes it even more clearly a Republican

scandal.

[ginnyinWI]

8. and they're spinning hard to make it bi-partisan

If, as I've heard, it's only five or six Dems, then that's much less than 5% a Dem problem.

[TayTay]

9. But they didn't get money from Abramoff

They got money from clients of Abramoff. This is significant. The minority party that has no real power in DC and was not the target of bribes. Bribing Dems defies common sense. This was a Republican scandal and Republicans were the targets of the Abramoff bribes.

Confuse, confuse, confuse.

[ginnyinWI]

10. that is true

No point in bribing a Dem, with all the Repubs to keep in line!