Is there any proof that Abramoff gave any money to Democrats?

[oc2002]

I keep hearing that the Democrats got money too, but where is the proof?

[txindy]

1. There is none. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x92097

[spanone]

2. None, zilch, nada, nyet.....

Just rethuglican spin spin spin

[liberal N proud]

3. And where do you hear this? CNN and FAUX

all spin to try and soften the blow the republican party.
Dean said it all in his interview with Wolfie:
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/DeanAbramoffDemocrats.asx

[Stephanie]

4. NO

Look it up for yourself.

www.opensecrets.org

[ComerPerro]

5. Just more "this is just politics as normal, both sides of the aisle" BS

The media is trying to make it look like Dems and Republicans are equally guilty, and that its not just a Republican scandal

[Deep13]

6. Abramoff gave nothing to Dems because he offered nothing.

[librechik]

7. Whoever challenges you, make THEM prove their assertion

but ask them why bribing a democratic congressman, in a republican-controlled congress, would get a scumbag anything they wanted.

[papau]

8. Indian Tribes gave Dems money before , during, and after Abramoff

NO Abramoff money went to Dems.

So the GOP use "money from Abramoff clients" meaning the tribes as a way for the media to sell the everyone does it GOP defense.

[Canuckistanian]

9. NO! Now stop asking

This question has been asked and answered six ways from sunday on this board, left wing blogs, Air America, Howard Dean and other sources.

You're listening to the wrong sources.

Sorry for my impatience, but this meme of "Democrats took money from Abramoff, too" is an outright lie.

[chat_noir]

14. Canuckistanian, agree with you

oc2002, you have a star by your name, which means that you can use the DU search function.

[H2O Man]

10. Some people think

hat if they repeat that often enough, it will stick.

[txindy]

12. You mean, daily? Ad nauseum?

Why, yes, so it would appear.

[H2O Man]

13. Yep.

Many are convinced that they can do it on the sly, by putting it in question form. Silly people.

[bowens43]

11. You can't prove a negative.

They need to prove that he did. They haven't.

[RufusEarl]

15. Let me say this one more time "NO" they have not! Period

[oc2002]

16. sorry for asking the old question, I just keep hearing the lie that even I

..fell for it!

[oc2002]

20. this is why I got confused from the Wpost article on Tribal donations too.

if you read this it sounds like the dems are just as guilty! thats why I got confused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html


Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

[Beetwasher]

21. That WP Article IS FULL OF SHIT

They have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT ABRAMOFF DIRECTED THE TRIBES TO DONATE ANY MONEY TO DEM. Nothing. No proof, no evidence, nothing. Zilch. Nada. Get it? Not a single Dem is indicted, being investigated or named by anyone investigating the case. Not one. Get it? The ONLY people saying this are people in the Corporate Media who are parrotting Repub bullshit propoganda.

They have yet to put up even the tiniest shred of evidence that this claim: "Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators" is true. Not ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS ALLEGATION ABOUT DEMS. Get it? NOT ONE. NOTHING. NADA. Further, NOT A SINGLE DEM IS IN ANY WAY UNDER ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION OR HAVE THEY IN ANY WAY BEEN IMPLICATED BY INVESTIGATORS. The same can't be said about the Repubs.

Get it?

Abramoff STOLE MONEY from the Indian tribes and directed it to REPUBS ONLY. Some Dems received money from DIRECTLY from the Indian tribes. Money THEY HAVE ALWAYS GOTTEN FROM THEM EVEN WAAAAAY BEFORE ABRAMOFF WAS ON THE SCENE. Get it?

If your brother gives you some money, as a gift, and then is ripped off by a con man, are YOU guilty of associating w/ the con man? Get it?

GET IT YET?

[oc2002]

22. I know, its just an example of how the media is itself, corrupt.

.. its also a old article.. but it shows the story being framed by months of articles like these.

[rodeodance]

17. Dean correctly corrected bumbling idiot Blitzer on this issue a few days

ago. Any Kennedy did yesterday--told Blitzer boy to get the facts!! te he.

[tuvor]

18. Indeed, where's the proof?

You'd think if they had it, they'd be more than happy to show it to you!

Hmm...:think:

[AlCzervik]

19. None, Abramoff didn't want or need democrats.