Howard Dean in Abramoff Cash Fib
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Dems - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.
That little detail didn't faze Dean, however - who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.
Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."
Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.
Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Sens. Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski - as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.
This is why we have to keep talking and keep typing!!! People will watch this show and believe Dean. Dean is showing once again that he will say anything and do anything to get back power. I truly can not understand how power hungry someone can be to try and politicize EVERY issue. Katrina, the war, tax cuts, sunami's...you name it, Dean and the Left have tried to politicize it. This story is a complete and absolute lie. How can someone look at themselves in the mirror after saying lie after lie after lie. But, maybe it isn't a lie.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The head of the Dem's has no shame
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Right. Here is a list of those Democrats that DIDN'T take money from Abramoff:
# Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
# Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
# Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
# Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
# Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
# Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
# Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
# Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
# Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
# Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
# Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
# Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
# Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
# Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
# Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
# Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
# Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
# Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
# Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
# Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
# Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
# Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
# Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
# Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
# Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
# Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
# Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
# Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
# Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
# Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
# Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
# Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
# Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
# Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
# Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
# Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
# Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
# Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
# Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
yep...got a list lower on the blog...this is a flat out lie. I can't believe that he can do this and not get drilled in the media
I don't see how they are.
Delay GAVE UP HIS POWER even though he has not been convicted of anything...matter of fact, no one you guys like to site has...but is Dean a flat out liar...yep...that is right here in black and white. I'm so glad Dean and others are doing this...he will make sure people remember what an idiot he is and take the focus of the "republican" scandal...
Answer this Jim, if none of these Dem's got money from xoff, how can they give it back...there is a growing list of Dem's giving money back...if they didn't get money from xoff, how can they give it back? I asked the same question twice so that maybe you answer it.
Will this go down as ANOTHER stupid, cheap, dishonest ploy for the Dem's to get power.
So far
Rove....nothing
Delay...nothing
Bush...nothing
you guys are sad and pathetic...
Good enough Steph?
Libby-indicted
Delay-indicted
Rove-in legal jeopardy
Scanlon-convicted
Abramoff-convicted
Cunningham-convicted
Safavian-convicted
Giving money back does not PROVE that the money was from Abramhoff directly. The point that Dean made was that none of these Democrats got money directly from Abramoff. He challenged Wolfie that there was no evidence indicating that any of them had. Do you have any?
Why did George W. Bush give back $6,000? Why did George W. Bush keep $94,000?
You don't see how Tom Delay is power hungry? Because he was forced to step down from House Majority Leader, all of a sudden he's not power hungry?
Cheney asserts that the president's power in "wartime" has no limits, and he's not power hungry?
You guys are sad and pathetic.
Jim doesn't believe in the rule of law...anyone can be charged with anything...
How many grand jury's did it take to get Delay? 3? 4?
Rove....they investigated him for how long? 2 years....and nothing...
Wouldn't it be nice, Jim, if your party could win an election because people liked your ideas more? What are your ideas?
Abortion on demand...
Higher taxes to pay for illegal immigrants and permanent well fare free-loaders...
socialist health care...
give terrorist "constitutional rights"...
"understand" why terrorist hate us...
what other great ideas does the Democratic party have Jim?
besides saying everying the Right does is wrong...
I believe totally in the rule of law. It doesn't matter how many grand juries it took to indict Tom Delay. Did you happen to note that The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Delay's bid to quash the indictment? Maybe there's something to the charge.
Rove, nothing? Last I heard he was in legal jeopardy. Let's see, Starr spent five frickin' years investigating Clinton and came up with a blow job. So maybe Rove isn't out of the woods yet. Do you think Fitzgerald is just making up s**t so he can tell Rove he is in "legal jeopardy?"
I believe 1993-2000 would be eight years of a Democratic president.
Democrats have been the majority in the Senate for 54 of the last 72 years.
Democrats have been the majority in the House for 58 of the last 72 years.
But Democrats never win.
Abortion on demand is a Republic talking point frame. There is nobody except a very few radicals who believe that abortions should be totally unrestricted. My brother worked for planned parenthood for years and he told me nobody ever demanded an abortion while he was there.
I thought you were complaining about US automakers being disadvantaged by health care costs. What if they government helped pay for it with the employees instead of the companies?
We've had a Republic president for 5 years, a Republic House for 11 years, and a Republic Senate for 9 of the last 11 years. Why are we still paying for "illegal immigrants and permanent well fare free-loaders." When are your lame Republicans ever going to do something about it? Don't they have any ideas? Or are they spending all their legislative time simply enriching their friends, turning back environmental and worker protections, and lowering the standard of living of the middle class?
Clinton committed a FELONY, so obviously you don't care about the rule of law...lying under oath...you must not care about that one...
It is possible Libby and Delay will be found guilty, but until they do they are innocent...
I will TOTALLY agree with you on the immigration issue...see, I can be intellectually honest. Republicans SUCK on immigration and spending lately...no doubt about it...
Clinton did win in 1996, but for the last 7 elections the Right has gained seats in the house and senate...how can you explain that Jim...focus on that question.
Even in 2002 when pretty much EVERY President EVER lost seats in the mid-year election, the Right won MORE seats...please, I would love to hear the reason for that
"They are not near Baghdad. Don't believe them.... They said they entered with... tanks in the middle of the capital. They claim that they - I tell you, I... that this speech is too far from the reality. It is a part of this sickness of their plan. There is no an... - no any existence to the American troops or for the troops in Baghdad at all." -Baghdad Bob
OK, Clinton was found non guilty, that means he didnt commit the felony?
You cant say Clinton was a felon, and then say Delay and Libby are innocent because they havent been found guilty.
Despite common misperception, almost every Republican administration has raised taxes and increased spending. If you blame it on the Democratic legislature, then you really screw us, cuz we have Republicans in both, now.
Clinton lied under oath rhyno, he was impeached...the senate decided not to punish him...that is not a hard one
Impeachment = indictment
Senate = trial
Votes to convict fewer than 67 = acquittal
Final vote on perjury: 45 convict, 55 acquit = not even a majority to convict = acquitted of perjury
Get your terms right, Game. Punishment would only be removal from office. That would only happen if the Senate convicted. They did not. They acquitted Clinton of the charge. Therefore he could not be punished.
As you are fond of saying, "You cannot PROVE" that Clinton committed a felony. Did Clinton lie? No doubt. Was it perjury? The "jury" didn't think so. They understood that it was a manipulated event orchestrated by the dishonest "Independent" Counsel, Starr.
The Republicans gained in the 2002 mid-term elections? Uh, duh! 9-11, the drums of war, the vote to authorize militar force. Fear, Fear, Fear!
what happened in 2004...or 1992...or 1994...or 1996 (minus Dole sucking)...or 1998...or 2000...what happened all those times Jim?
Sorry dude, jim has it correct. He was found not guilty.
I am seriously displeased nobody enjoyed my Baghdad Bob reference towards Dean.
AAAAAHHHHRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!
Is that what you were doing....then well done.
Lets see if Jim starts yelling at you too for pointing out this completely, 100% obvious LIE by Dean
"clinton! clinton! clinton!"
it's ought-six, bub.
no dems recieved donations from abeoff. only republicans did. abeoff lobbied dems. he lobbied repubs. not a crime to lobby. it is a crime to con people out of their money, and then turn around and give that money to pols. and in this case, only repub pols recieved money from abeoff.
KEvron
why do I see stories of Dem's giving money back then?
"The Hunting of the President". Good source of information on all of the crap that went on in the Office of the Independent Council.
Starr had all but thrown up his hands in surrender because he could not find any credible evidence against Clinton regarding Whitewater, Morgan Guaranty, Filegate, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Travelgate. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nil. He was going to go to Pepperdine University, but the rabid Clinton haters wouldn't let him leave after nearly 5 years and $30 Million and no goods on Clinton.
So along comes Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp with knowledge that the president is having an affair, and working with the Starr team, they set up a perjury trap. They knew he would likely lie about having an affair, so they figured out a way to get him to do it under oath. Bingo! Perjury trap.
SR,
Do you mean that the government that runs one of the most efficient systems in the country, Social Security, could possibly be a worse bureaucracy than the medical bureaucracy that exists today? And the cost of postage has increased an average of 2% per year for the last 15 years. There's an inefficient bureaucracy for you.
I'm not suggesting to raise taxes. I already pay a large portion of my medical insurance. Don't you? What's the difference whether my health insurer is the federal government or HealthNet except that the government is a not for profit operation?
So, I'm still waiting for your answer to the looming health care crisis. How do you keep GM from going broke? How do you keep the average family healthy if their healthcare costs continue to rise 10, 15, 20% per year? Do you think people will soon be ready for some radically different thinking when their healthcare costs as much as their car payment or eventually their mortgage? The standard of living for the middle class is declining, and healthcare costs are a big reason.
What's your plan?
Post a Comment