WHOW: Five Years for Abramoff?

[davefoc]

Also, keep in mind that Abramoff didn't corrupt anyone. He saw an opportunity in the corruption that existed on the Hill.

exactly

 

[jj]

Also, keep in mind that Abramoff didn't corrupt anyone. He saw an opportunity in the corruption that existed on the Hill.

Eh. Created it, exploited it, that gets deep into semantics, since we can't show who might or might not have gone over the line without his money in their face.

Now, nothing excuses the guys he paid off, either, regardless of who put the idea into the other's head.

 

[Renfield]

Five year sentance. Doesn't that mean he could be out in a year or two? I don't know the law that well, but these things often work that way. And that, for being behind the biggest corruption scandle in decades.

Quite a racket these politicians and lobbyists have going. Even when they lose, they end up winning.

 

[Manny]

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.

See above. 5 years? TBD.

Five year sentance. Doesn't that mean he could be out in a year or two? I don't know the law that well, but these things often work that way. And that, for being behind the biggest corruption scandle in decades.

When I invent a device to send a physical shock through the internet I'm going to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

Of course, given the extent to which certain officials have hung him to dry ("I tell you this, that before the cock crows thrice you will deny me"), I don't blame him.

They gladly shook his hand, called him friend, and took the money. But as soon as he got busted, they denied even knowing him.

"Surely you were with him?"
"What? I do not even know the man!"

Jack Abramoff learned who his friends were. And weren't.

 

[Renfield]

Originally Posted by Gravy :
See above. 5 years? TBD.

Ok. "5 years" (more like one or two) still seems pretty light for the crime he WAS convicted of. Basically defrauding others out of millions of dollars. He'll probably still be rich beyond the dreams of avarice when he gets out.

 

[Art Vandelay]

...

Mostly, I was just making a joke about your use of the word "reign".

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.

That's a bit like saying that the Towers fell because the FBI was insufficiently vigilant, rather than because terrorists attacked them. Obviously the president has something to do with it, perhaps is even more to blame for it, but isn't the cause. Failing to stop something is not the same thing as doing it in the first place.

Oh, and "veto" is kinda like "potato". No "e" on the singular.

Do you have any thoughts about which legislators should be replaced?

No.

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.

The president has no power to do that directly; the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional, so the president can't veto specific pork. All he can do is try to blackmail Congress into doing what he wants. It doesn't look to me that there the framers intented to have the president be a counterweight against pork. Had they been concerned about that, they could have made one of the houses be elected by the country at large.

 

[davefoc]

Mostly, I was just making a joke about your use of the word "reign".

Oh, and "veto" is kinda like "potato". No "e" on the singular.

On the reign, rein, rain thing I thought I might have been wrong. But I wasn't sure and just went with my best guess of the moment.

On the vetoe thing I realized I had misspelled it but it just reminded by of the Dan Quale potatoe thing so I left it in.

As to the substance of your reply: It does surprise me that we are more in agreement than I realized on this issue. I am aware that the line item veto was declared unconstitutional based on a case brought by Rudolf Giuliani. I was very disappointed that he did that.

None the less, I think the president has substantial power, even without the line item veto, to control congressional spending. I not only don't think this president has made an attempt to use that power he has been complicit in the expansion of federal spending. Government spending has been expanded largely with the goal of rewarding Republican benefactors and Bushco has worked with the legislature to see that everybody gets lots of pork to pass around to help cement their political position. In the past Republicans haven't had a great history of fiscal responsibility but this president has abandoned it entirely.