You don't think I'd go 'round pointing out my own mistakes, do you?:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
You don't think I'd go 'round pointing out my own mistakes, do you?:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
It was Clinton and Johnson (not Jackson). edit: nvm I just saw you guys posts.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
Damn my history is a little fucked up though. I thought Nixon was impeached by the House and resigned before the Senate could vote.
just trying to help with the search...
Calif. Congressman Admits Taking Bribes
By ELLIOT SPAGAT
Associated Press Writer
Published November 28, 2005, 10:51 PM CST
SAN DIEGO -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an eight-term congressman and hotshot Vietnam War fighter jock, pleaded guilty to graft and tearfully resigned Monday, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.
"The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my office," the 63-year-old Republican said at a news conference. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
He could get up to 10 years in prison at sentencing Feb. 27 on federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and fraud, and tax evasion.
Investigators said Cunningham, a member of a House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense dollars, secured contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for those who paid him off. Prosecutors did not identify the defense contractors by name.
Cunningham was charged in a case that grew out of an investigation into the sale of his home to a defense contractor at an inflated price.
The congressman had already announced in July -- after the investigation became public -- that he would not seek re-election next year. But until he entered his plea, he had insisted he had done nothing wrong.
Cunningham's plea came amid a series of GOP scandals: Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas had to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted in the CIA leak case.
Cunningham, a swaggering former flying ace with the Navy during the Vietnam War, was known on Capitol Hill for his interest in defense issues and his occasional outbursts.
In court documents, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid in a variety of forms, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, antiques, rugs, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.
Among other things, prosecutors said, Cunningham was given $1.025 million to pay down the mortgage on his Rancho Santa Fe mansion, $13,500 to buy a Rolls-Royce and $2,081 for his daughter's graduation party at a Washington hotel.
"He did the worst thing an elected official can do -- he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said.
Cunningham was allowed to remain free while he awaits sentencing. He also agreed to forfeit his mansion, more than $1.8 million in cash, and antiques and rugs.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have 14 days to set a date for an election to replace Cunningham, the governor's office said.
He is the first congressman to leave office amid bribery allegations since 2002, when former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.
The case began when authorities started investigating Cunningham's sale of his Del Mar house to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000. Wade sold the house nearly a year later for $975,000 -- a loss of $700,000 in a hot real estate market.
Prosecutors said the house purchase was part of Cunningham's guilty pleas.
In addition to buying Cunningham's home at an inflated price, Wade let him live rent-free on Wade's yacht, the Duke Stir, at a yacht club. Wade's company, MZM Inc., also donated generously to Cunningham's campaigns.
Around the same time, MZM was winning defense contracts.
MZM does classified intelligence work for the military. It had $65.5 million of contracts for intelligence-related defense work in fiscal 2004, ranking No. 38 on the Pentagon's list. The company has established a presence in Iraq, fielding a small team of interpreters shortly after the invasion.
Although prosecutors did not name Cunningham's four co-conspirators, details in the plea documents, including business addresses and occupations, make clear that Wade was one of them.
The documents indicate another conspirator was Brent Wilkes, an associate of Wade's who headed a defense contracting company called ADCS Inc. that also provided campaign cash and favors to Cunningham while reaping valuable contracts.
Another co-conspirator appears to be Thomas Kontogiannis, a New York developer. Cunningham interceded with prosecutors on Kontogiannis' behalf when he had legal troubles, and a mortgage company run by relatives of Kontogiannis' helped Cunningham finance a condo in Virginia and his house in Rancho Santa Fe.
Attorneys for Wilkes and Wade declined to comment. Kontogiannis' attorney did not return a call.
Where from? A Scrap Yard? :blink:Quote:
$13,500 to buy a Rolls-Royce
Hang his ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Hartha
Seriously.:angry:
The sad part is that the guy was a genuine war hero - but I guess that was a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Doesnt make him honest.
War hero?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Hartha
I've heard there is no such thing, especially for a Vietnam vet...
here's an interesting piece from the biased liberal media:
I suppose it's easy to pick on the Republicans right now, since they are the ones in control - the argument could be made that it wouldn't be much different if the tables were turned. Still, I miss the good old days when 'political scandal' usually meant marital infidelity or some such.Quote:
www.slate.com:
Corrupt Intentions
What Cunningham's misdeeds illustrate about conservative Washington.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Dec. 2, 2005, at 7:08 AM ET
It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition, and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then finally you exploit the system—your connections in it, and your understanding of it—for personal profit.
And it remains true, sort of, but faster. Even the appalling Jack Abramoff had ideals at one point. But he took a shortcut straight to corruption. On the other hand, you can now trace the traditional moral arc in the life of conservative-dominated Washington itself, which began with Ronald Reagan's inauguration and marks its 25th anniversary in January. Reagan and company arrived to tear down the government and make Washington irrelevant. Now the airport and a giant warehouse of bureaucrats are named after him.
By the 20th anniversary of their arrival, when an intellectually corrupt Supreme Court ruling gave them complete control of the government at last, the conservatives had lost any stomach for tearing down the government. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was more like an apology than an ideology. Meanwhile Tom DeLay—the real boss in Congress—openly warned K Street that unless all the choice lobbying jobs went to Republicans, lobbyists could not expect to have any influence with the Republican Congress. This warning would be meaningless, of course, unless the opposite was also true: If you hire Republican lobbyists, you and they will have influence over Congress. And darned if DeLay didn't turn out to be exactly right about this!
No prominent Republican upbraided DeLay for his open invitation to bribery. And bribery is what it is: not just campaign contributions, but the promise of personal enrichment for politicians and political aides who play ball for a few years before cashing in.
When Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty this week to accepting a comic cornucopia of baubles, plus some cash, from defense contractors, the vast right-wing conspiracy acted with impressive speed and forcefulness to expel one of its most doggedly loyal loudmouths and pack him off to a long jail term. Even President Bush, who possesses the admirable quality of an affable capacity for understanding and forgiveness on the personal level, seized an unnecessary opportunity to wish the blackguard ill. There was no talk of "sadness"—the usual formula for expressing sympathy without excusing guilt.
This astringent response would be more impressive if the basic facts about Cunningham's corruption hadn't been widely known for months. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last June that a company seeking business from the Pentagon had bought Cunningham's southern California house from him, held it unoccupied briefly, and sold it—in the hottest real estate market in human history—for a $700,000 loss. You didn't need to know that Duke's haul included two antique commodes to smell the stench. Yet all the Republican voices now saying that Cunningham deserves his punishment were silent until he clearly and unavoidably was going to get it.
Like medieval scholastics counting the angels on the head of a pin, Justice Department lawyers are struggling with the question of when favors to and from a member of Congress or a congressional aide take on the metaphysical quality of a corrupt bribe. The brazenness of the DeLay-Abramoff circle has caused prosecutors to look past traditional distinctions, such as that between campaign contributions and cash or other favors to a politician personally. Or the distinction between doing what a lobbyist wants after he has taken you to Scotland to play golf, and promising to do what he wants before he takes you to Scotland to play golf.
These distinctions don't really touch on what's corrupt here, which is simply the ability of money to give some people more influence than others over the course of a democracy where, civically if not economically, we are all supposed to be equal. So, where do you draw the line between harmless favors and corrupt bribery?
It's not an easy question, if you're talking about sending people to prison. But it's a very easy question if you're just talking: The answer is that it's all corrupt bribery. People and companies hire lobbyists because it works. Lobbyists get the big bucks because their efforts earn or save clients even bigger bucks in their dealings with the government. Members of Congress are among the world's greatest bargains: What are a couple of commodes compared with $163 million of Pentagon contracts?
Perhaps conceding more than he intended, former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, now on K Street, told the New York Times that a member of Congress will be swayed more by 2,000 letters from constituents on some issue than by anything a lobbyist can offer. I guess if it's a lobbyist versus 1,900 constituents, it's too bad for the constituents. That seems fair.
Marital infidelity is far worse. That personal shit affects how the country is run.:mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Hartha
Yes, and that's all Democrats are ever guilty of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Hartha
Charlie Trie, John Huang, Peter Paul, Marc Rich....DAMN! There I go again...:D
j2 I think both sides pick nitpick when it's convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I, for one, don't always need a conviction to make my mind up. Repubs, when it's one of their own act like they do.
I think many Dems smile when a Repub fucks up 'cause they're were the main ones making a wasted stink about Clinton.
I remember a coupla Repubs having to come out with there adulterous affairs after the Clinton scandal mainly because they had no choice ('cause they were previously outed in the media) and God forbid they do what Clinton did and lie.
I'll hafta admit it's kinda wild that Frist and Delay are in the crosshairs....top Repubs.:happy:
The sooner people realize there is no bad party, as faras corruption goes, the better.
Ideals are an entirely different matter.
Well, it strikes me in such cases that Conservatives believe men to be human, and are less likely to excuse poor behavior without penalty.
The flesh is weak, and solutions created by mere men are not infallible.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the anointed intelligentsia...the "expert".
The intelligentsia pay lip-service to utopia and purport to guide those less gifted toward that goal, and dare not confess it as unachievable.
Those who do the Liberals' bidding are not to be criticized, only exalted and never, ever questioned.
Your "nit-picking" comment is well-taken, BTW.;)
Some people have entirely to much time on their hands... It's funny how some individuals can put sooo much effort into making one look bad, that they in return make themselves look like pompous assholes...
Just so. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by krispy82
There's http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010300474.htmlQuote:
Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts
Lobbyist to Testify About Lawmakers In Corruption Probe
By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A01
Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.
The plea deal could have enormous legal and political consequences for the lawmakers on whom Abramoff lavished luxury trips, skybox fundraisers, campaign contributions, jobs for their spouses, and meals at Signatures, the lobbyist's upscale restaurant.
Jack Abramoff, center, leaves Federal Court in Washington Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006. The once-powerful lobbyist pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors investigating influence peddling that has threatened powerful members of the U.S. Congress. At right is his attorney Abbe Lowell. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) (Gerald Herbert -- AP)
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
FindLaw.com: Abramoff Plea Agreement
U.S. v. Abramoff (pdf file)
Plea Agreement - U.S. v. Abramoff (pdf)
Graphic
Copping a Plea
The long influence-peddling investigation into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff reached a new level with his guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Jan. 3.
TRANSCRIPT
Justice Department News Conference on Abramoff Guilty Plea
Justice Dept., IRS and FBI officials discuss the Abramoff plea agreement.
Special Report
Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty Jan. 3 to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.
• Abramoff Pleads Guilty (Jan. 4, 2006)
• Fast Rise, Steep Fall (Dec. 29, 2005)
• Stacking the Deck (Oct. 16, 2005)
» FULL COVERAGE
Abramoff Lobbying Questioned
A Tribe Takes Grim Satisfaction in Abramoff's Fall
Abramoff and His Vanishing Friends
Fashion:Jack Abramoff, Wearing a Guilty Look
Bush to Give Up $6,000 In Abramoff Contributions
In Florida, Abramoff Again Pleads Guilty
More Stories
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
The Last Liberal in Central Florida
A Newer World
alternative hippopotamus
Full List of Blogs (272 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
In court papers, prosecutors refer to only one congressman: Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio). But Abramoff, who built a political alliance with House Republicans, including former majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, has agreed to provide information and testimony about half a dozen House and Senate members, officials familiar with the inquiry said. He also is to provide evidence about congressional staffers, Interior Department workers and other executive branch officials, and other lobbyists.
"The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive," Alice S. Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said at a news conference with other high-ranking officials of the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. "We're going to follow this wherever it goes."
Fisher declined to identify the officials under scrutiny. "We name people in indictments," she said, adding: "We are moving very quickly."
Among the allegations in the court documents is that Abramoff arranged for payments totaling $50,000 for the wife of an unnamed congressional staffer in return for the staffer's help in killing an Internet gambling measure. The Washington Post has previously reported that Tony Rudy, a former top aide to DeLay, worked with Abramoff to kill such a bill in 2000 before going to work for Abramoff.
Abramoff's appearance in U.S. District Court came nearly two years after his lobbying practices gained public notice because of the enormous payments -- eventually tallied at $82 million -- that he and a public relations partner received from casino-rich Indian tribes. Yesterday, he admitted defrauding four of those tribal clients out of millions of dollars. He also pleaded guilty to evading taxes, to conspiring to bribe lawmakers, and to conspiring to induce former Capitol Hill staffers to violate the one-year ban on lobbying their former bosses.
Under terms of his plea agreement, Abramoff can expect to receive a prison sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, and he is required to make restitution of $26.7 million to the IRS and to the Indian tribes he defrauded. Today he is to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy counts in a related case in Florida involving his purchase of a casino cruise line.
Standing before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in Washington yesterday, Abramoff looked sheepish and sad. "Your Honor, words will not be able to ever express how sorry I am for this, and I have profound regret and sorrow for the multitude of mistakes and harm I have caused," he said softly. "All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done. I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer."
Abramoff has been in extensive discussions with government lawyers for months leading up to yesterday's plea.
Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, is among the first of those expected to feel the fallout. In the court documents -- which identify him only as "Representative #1" -- Ney is accused of meeting with one of Abramoff's clients in Russia in 2003 to "influence the process for obtaining a [U.S.] visa" for one of the client's relatives and of agreeing to aid a California tribe represented by Abramoff on tax and post office issues.
Ney also placed comments in the Congressional Record backing Abramoff's efforts to gain control of the Florida gambling company, SunCruz Casinos, and offered legislative language sought by Abramoff that would have reopened a Texas tribe's shuttered casino.
Oh come on busy....... this is a non story, just a foaming mouth democrat partisan prosecuter run amock:rolleyes:
Just so (to steal one of j2's favorite phrases....oh the irony!...wait, I'm American...I don't get irony...or was that satire...nm).Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You are aware that at some point in history a Democrat did something much worse...let's talk about that instead.
Just move along...these are not the droids you're looking for.......
Pay close attention:
More darts are in flight as we debate this, where they land is yet to be seen.
However this shakes out, they offenders should be shot and kicked for dying.
I have not defended any politician of any stripe during this fiasco, though I'm sure no one remembers the fact.
I have made several comments to the effect that the process ought to be allowed to run it's course, and the media's oversteps have not gone un-noticed.
I await the bottom-line just like you fellows.
While you do that this lot await a line of bottomQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8118/pl8zg.jpg
On the plus side congress is donating a lot of money to charity lately....pity the charities are run by Delay :shifty:
It'd be nice if Abramoff had dirt on some Dems AND Repubs..
Personally I think Abramoff will conveniently die. It is said he has dirt MANY politicians.
I have no doubt he could finger a couple of Dems. but it is really a republican problem, partly because they were the ones with the power so they were the ones worth "bribing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Then you are certainly aware of the converse situation, and, if Abramoff's history is ever publicized, Democrat names will surely be revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
This isn't a game that is played only when Republicans are in ostensible control, is it? ;)
The not-very-cynical-at-all-at-all argument could be made that the reason it wasn't "discovered" when the Dems were in control was that their proficiency after decades of practice in corrupt methods helped them hide these, or, as we all witnessed, when one makes fund-raising an international art, as Clinton did, no one even seems to care.
In the interest of honest debate, though, I won't mention that. ;)
Is that going to be the defence?..... "Democrats did things before you know" :rolleyes:
I think every parent that has to punish their child for doing wrong has heard that one..." Soandso did it first !!!!!"
I promise not to act as if Republicans are pure as the driven snow if you'll agree the Dems ought to be a little more hat-in-hand in questioning things they themselves never stopped doing, and drop the inflammatory rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Hell, even you act as if a Democrat is found guilty, it'd be the Republicans' fault. :dry:
I understand none of this will ever be amended, but feel compelled to point it out, nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
WHat part of this suggest that i think Democrats are "guilt free"? :unsure: I have stated in other threads that if Dems. do wrong they should be punished.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
How am i blaming republicans for Democrat misdeeds :blink:
I kinda think of it as "I want all the dirty motherfuckers fingered".:sick:
It will be mostly Repubs 'cause that's who Abramoff was cuddled with but I wouldn't mind some dirty Dems getting fucked over too.
They were fucking over us. :snooty: I don't give a fuck about their party.:ermm:
Sorry man, the Repubs are the main culprits in that department. No one has yelled loudest than the Republican party. They are good at it and sadly Democrats are not....even with the easy-to-see fuck-ups and the current (of) shit we are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Never mind me, I'm just being pissy.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I wonder, though, if you can imagine how much it galls me, after watching Clinton's fund-raising machinations (which drew no comment from these same people), to hear such fulminations about Republicans-who I have no problem disavowing.
I have my moments, and I'm having one now.
An official vidcc production, no doubt....
have we found any dirt on conservatives yet???
It takes an Archeological dig to find the conservative under the dirt :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
Tom DeLay Denies All Charges (As Told by Dr. Suess)
That Abramoff!
That Abramoff!
I do not like that Abramoff!
"Would you like to play some golf?"
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"We could fly you there for free.
Off to Scotland, by the sea."
I do not want to fly for free.
I do not like Scotland by the sea.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"Would you, could you, take this bribe?
Could you, would you, for the tribe?"
I would not, could not, take this bribe.
I could not, would not, for the tribe.
"If we strong armed corporations
Into giving you donations?
They'd be funnelled to your PAC.
Would you then cut us some slack?"
I would not, could not, cut you slack.
I do not care about my PAC.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"A plane! A plane! A plane! A plane!
Would you, could you, for a plane?"
I could not, would not, for a plane.
Not for a bribe, not for the tribe.
Not for donations from corporations.
Not for my PAC, not for some slack.
Not from any schmoe named Jack.
"Would you help us buy some ships
Perfect for quick gambling trips?
Talk to people in the know
For a little quid pro quo?
Oh come now, don't be a snob.
Let us give your wife a job."
I will not help you buy some ships.
I do not wish for gambling trips.
My wife does not need a job
Even if she is a snob.
We do not like bribes, can't you see?
Why won't you just let me be?
"You do not like bribes, so you say.
Try them, try them, and you may.
Try them and you may, I say."
Jack. If you will let me be
I will try them, then you'll see.
Say.... I do like playing golf!
I like it, I do, Abramoff!
I do like Scotland by the sea.
It's such a thrilling place to be!
And I will take this bribe.
And I will help the tribe.
And I will take donations
From big corporations.
And I will help you buy some ships.
And I will take quick gambling trips.
Say, I'll give anyone the shaft
As long as it involves some graft!
I do so like playing golf!
Thank you! Thank you,
Abramoff!
source
Funny, my brother-in-law, who was tribal chairman here and was THE pioneer in tribal gaming (in fact, yours truly lost the first dollars to tribal gaming in the whole, wide world), always said that, of the last several Presidents, he liked Nixon best, 'cuz there was always lots of money available for tribal causes during his administration.
I wonder if we'll discover a local connection with Abramoff? :huh:
Here's one for you libs-
Google "Barrett Report" and see what does or does not come up.
You might find conservative reportage to the effect it is "a bombshell", but you'll never find major media stories 'cuz it's about the abuses of the Clinton adminisration.
The unredacted version runs over 400 pages, I hear.
The redacted version is thick enough for 2-3 people to have a paper-airplane fight.
It must be pretty bad, huh? ;)
Equally, the unredacted version might have been almost entirely unsubstantiated - or ramblings about the Boro of the Amazon Basin.
Difficult to tell without actually reading it :dabs:
If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.
As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........
Oh, so if the one makes it to the end of one's term before being properly sorted, one skates?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
A novel view.
Anything to preserve that legacy, huh? :P
But if it holds up?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.