Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Jack Abramoff, sleazebag
Via Michelle Malkin:
[AP:] Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, clearing the way for him to cooperate in a massive government investigation of influence peddling involving members of Congress.
Good!
[Christian Science Monitor:] Federal campaign records show that about 220 members of Congress received some $1.7 million in political contributions from Abramoff and his associates and clients, including American Indian tribes, between 2001 and 2004. According to Bloomberg news service, 201 of those members are still in Congress; Republicans received 64 percent of that money.
Since the whiff of scandal began to emerge around Abramoff, members have been rushing to return his contributions or donate the money to charity. But not everyone who ever took Abramoff-related money or perks is guilty of wrongdoing.
[Malkin:] But principled conservatives must call Abramoff what he is--a sleazebag plain and simple, as I've noted before--and condemn his criminal activities unequivocally.
Let's see how this plays out. I hope the investigation is massive (as they suggest), and equally careful. Let's see who saw through him, who stood up to him, who came to their senses and when.
This is going to become such a huge mixture of soap opera plots and corruption sprinkled with a couple mini-media scandals, all folded in on itself again and again.
Sounds about right to me, given today's political hysteria and hyperbole.
Cap'n Ed: "The corruption will have followed both [parties] in proportion to their power. Expect to see enough takedowns to thoroughly embarrass everyone."
- - - - - - -
Update 1/4: Powerline: "The information that was filed yesterday ... seems surprisingly thin. ... Time will tell how much ... is smoke, and how much is fire."
Update 1/9: Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. (HT: PowerLine.)
Update 1/12: Investigators are focusing on five "top tier" suspects: 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats, including Harry Reid. And here's a list of contributions. (HT: Instapundit.)
Comments:
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
Post a Comment
<< Home