WHOW: Five Years for Abramoff?

FreeChile

Graduate Poster
F
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,039
So far 75% of the MSN voters think the punishment was not harsh enough. 20% think it was appropriate. The rest think it was too harsh.

I wonder how much of his punishment was reduced by his contribution to the investigations into those 20+ congress members. Sing Abramoff Sing!!!

Abramoff Gets Five
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12066674/
 
Apparently he is completely cooperating with prosecutors; can't argue too much against a light sentance. They want to encourage people to cooperate in the future, and really, you can kill someone and be out in five years.
 
I don't know the details of what he did, but based on a general understanding five years with complete cooperation to prosecutors seems just about exactly right to me.

There was a moment where I thought that this scandal would lead to major reforms. It is now looking more likely that congress has become so unrelentingly corrupt that true lobbying reform just isn't going to happen.

Right now it looks like the Republicans have set up a system that the Democrats feel like they are poised to take over so neither the Republicans or the Democrats seem to offer anything resembling the integrity necessary for reform. Was it always so? Maybe it was and I just naively didn't notice. I think the Bush presidency may have exacerbated the situation. Usually a president less corrupt than congress provides some control of the process, but now we find ourselves with an ineffective, possibly corrupt or perhaps just dumb president that has done nothing to reign this congress in.

My favorite moment out of this whole sorry mess was when some Republican congressman was being interviewed and he was BSing away about his commitment to reform. The interviewer asked him about his own corruption problems. Apparently he had been handing out PAC checks on the floor of congress and some of this fellow congressman felt that was a little unseemly. So this guy felt like he was a reformer because he favored a rule change to prevent handing out PAC money on the congress floor. It warms your heart doesn't it? Our congressmen are going to take a strong moral stand and not receive PAC handouts on the congress floor anymore. The country will be so much better off once this vital reform is in place and congressman will be forced to get their PAC money in their offices, or their homes, or the bathroom or just about anyplace else except the congressional floor. Wow, what nobility.
 
davefoc said:
Usually a president less corrupt than congress provides some control of the process, but now we find ourselves with an ineffective, possibly corrupt or perhaps just dumb president that has done nothing to reign this congress in.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think monarchy would be an appropriate response to corruption, anyway.
 
davefoc said:
Our congressmen are going to take a strong moral stand and not receive PAC handouts on the congress floor anymore. The country will be so much better off once this vital reform is in place and congressman will be forced to get their PAC money in their offices, or their homes, or the bathroom or just about anyplace else except the congressional floor. Wow, what nobility.
Click to expand...
Hey, it worked with campaign finance reform, didn't it? Eliminated the corrupting influence of money in political campaigns, and...

Oh, wait...
 
You know what I like about this? All the news reports describe him as "disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff", like it's his official job title (HUD Secretary Batson D. Belfry, Vice-Chairman Larson E. Whipsnake, Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff...).

How come none of the congressmen he bribed are disgraced? It's disgraceful to make a bribe, but not to take one? I'm confused.
 
BPSCG said:
You know what I like about this? All the news reports describe him as "disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff", like it's his official job title (HUD Secretary Batson D. Belfry, Vice-Chairman Larson E. Whipsnake, Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff...).

How come none of the congressmen he bribed are disgraced? It's disgraceful to make a bribe, but not to take one? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Its disgraceful to get caught!
 
Keep in mind that the 5+ year sentence was for crimes unrelated to the Washington scandal. He faces up to 30 years at the Washington sentencing, but no doubt he'll get less.
 
BPSCG said:
How come none of the congressmen he bribed are disgraced? It's disgraceful to make a bribe, but not to take one? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

I agree. It seems to be a case of, hate the tempter, not the tempted. ;)
 
davefoc said:
Usually a president less corrupt than congress provides some control of the process, but now we find ourselves with an ineffective, possibly corrupt or perhaps just dumb president that has done nothing to reign this congress in.
Click to expand...

Art Vandelay said:
Well, I don't think monarchy would be an appropriate response to corruption, anyway.
Click to expand...

I believe we have had this discussion before. I believe that a legislature is an inherently corrupt branch of government that only succeeds in not destroying the region it governs because of the constraint placed on it by the CEO. You believe that a legislature can and should rise above the regional influences, the lobbying influences, the political influences and the people who are just out to bribe it to do what is best for the region it governs. I suppose we might agree about that they should do this but as a practical matter I think a legislature almost never will and I guess you think they will if they are appropriately ethical.

So I am guessing you think the out of control spending by this congress has more to do with the corrupt nature of this specific legislators and less to do with the fact that this president has done nothing to constrain congress including using the power of the vetoe exactly zero times.

Do you have any thoughts about which legislators should be replaced? Do you have any thoughts that legislators that you don't particularly like will be replaced by their constiuencies? I suppose a few like Duke Cunningham would have been voted out if the hadn't been forced to resign. But what about the great majority. If they are crooked and hypocritical are they likely to be voted out if the people in their region think there legislator has succeed in bringing home more than their share of the pork? I doubt it. So like it or not, one of the roles that was given to the president in the constitution is to limit the ability of congress to legislate for its own self interest. This president has abdicated that responsibility.
 
davefoc said:
So I am guessing you think the out of control spending by this congress has more to do with the corrupt nature of this specific legislators and less to do with the fact that this president has done nothing to constrain congress including using the power of the vetoe exactly zero times.
Click to expand...
Let's assume for the moment that Bush had vetoed the Medicare prescription drug bill ($500 billion). How would that make your congressman less corrupt?

Do you have any thoughts about which legislators should be replaced?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Mine. BTW, since the linked article was written, he got out of his mortgage difficulties by getting a below-market-rate refinance, right after sponsoring legislation that would make it more difficult to declare personal bankruptcy. I believe the term for that is "influence peddling."

Since then, he's blamed the Iraq war on the American Jewish lobby. Even the Washington Post refused to endorse him for re-election last time around (they couldn't bring themselves to actually endorse his Republican opponent, so it seems they think a violent, influence-peddling ass who they describe as being "unfit" to be a congressman is just as good as a Republican), but he got re-elected with over 60% of the vote, which tells you something about his/my gerrymandered district.
 
BPSCG said:
Let's assume for the moment that Bush had vetoed the Medicare prescription drug bill ($500 billion). How would that make your congressman less corrupt?
Click to expand...
The medicare bill, seems to be an example of the corruption of the president developing a synergy with the corruption of congress. The medicare bill was designed to get the president reelected, put the Democrats in the difficult position of having to vote for it or lose core voters who believe that any government give away program is a good idea and reward key drug company and insurance company benefactors. Politically it was brilliant, morally it was just one more scummy act by a presidency driven by politics.

ETA: I reread my answer and realized it wasn't very responsive to your question. The reason that active control through threats of vetoes makes the congress less corrupt is because it reduces the pork they have to sell. By abdicating congressional oversight and in fact cooperating with its corruption as evidenced by the drug bill this presidency has raised the level of congressional corruption that is always present in any legislative body.
 
Last edited:
Congressmen face re-election every two years. This brings intense pressure on them to take care of their constituency. Corruption is inherent in the system.

But see the Churchill quote in my sig.
 
strathmeyer said:
Apparently he is completely cooperating with prosecutors;
Click to expand...

Not only that, he is being downright jovial about dragging corrupt officials down with him. Almost sadistic.

See my "Montana Burns" thread and read the attached article. Burns is denying he is corrupt, and Abramoff is basically, saying, "Burns corrupt? Oh, hell yeah! Let me tell you all about it."

:)

ETA:

In a recent Vanity Fair article, Abramoff was quoted as saying, "Every appropriation we wanted from Sen. Conrad Burns' committee we got."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Five years for successfully corrupting the most powerful nation in the world.

That's cheap, regardless of cooperation or not.
 
Luke T. said:
Not only that, he is being downright jovial about dragging corrupt officials down with him. Almost sadistic.

See my "Montana Burns" thread and read the attached article. Burns is denying he is corrupt, and Abramoff is basically, saying, "Burns corrupt? Oh, hell yeah! Let me tell you all about it."

:)

ETA:
Click to expand...


I just hope Abramoff can produce evidence beyond his testamony.

I keep fearing that he'll have an accident in prison. :(
 
I have to confess that I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I should have. What did he bribe Congressmen to do? I know about this casino-boat dealie, and about ripping off Indian tribes for services not performed, and that he gave illegal benefits to at least some Congressmen and probably illegal and definitely improper benefits to other Congressmen, including Delay. But what did he get out of it? What legislation benefitted? Was it all Indian casino stuff, or what?
 
Also, keep in mind that Abramoff didn't corrupt anyone. He saw an opportunity in the corruption that existed on the Hill.
 
manny said:
I have to confess that I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I should have. What did he bribe Congressmen to do? I know about this casino-boat dealie, and about ripping off Indian tribes for services not performed, and that he gave illegal benefits to at least some Congressmen and probably illegal and definitely improper benefits to other Congressmen, including Delay. But what did he get out of it? What legislation benefitted? Was it all Indian casino stuff, or what?
Click to expand...

Abramoff had several clients, but the Indian tribes are the primary focus of corrupt lobbying. Abramoff bribed Congressmen and Senators to place legislation favorable to his clients in appropriations bills.

What he got out of it was lobbying fees.

Some public officials received money directly from Abramoff, while others received money from his clients.

For a case study of the types of things he allegedly did, read this story about Senator Conrad Burns of Montana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom