Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Bush In Photos With Abramoff

WASHINGTON - Although President Bush says he doesn't recall meeting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the two have reportedly turned up in photos together.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together.

Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.

The White House has acknowledged that Abramoff attended some events at the Executive Mansion, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday it's not surprising that the two would have met.

"The president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events," Perino said.

Abramoff met a few times with White House staff and attended Hanukkah receptions in 2001 and 2002, the White House has said, but officials there have refused to disclose how many times he's been into the complex or what business he had there.

The White House also has not released any photos featuring the president and Abramoff, who was declared a Bush "pioneer" for raising at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign.


This is going to get a ton of attention from the media and the left. The contributions made by Abramoff to Bush have already been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism. But before Howard Dean and his ilk begin talking about perp-walking the President out of the White House I'd like to remind everybody, once again, that it is not Abramoff's personal donations to politicians that has him in trouble. Rather, it is the contributions he directed his clients to make to politicians in return for special favors.

This is how it worked: Abramoff would approach a politician to find out if they would be willing to "play ball" for his clients. If yes, Abramoff would direct his clients to contribute the appropriate amount to the politician in question. He did not, as far as we know, route any of this money through his personal accounts or contributions to politicians. And he would be stupid to have done that. Abramoff, as a private individual, faced the same contribution limits under campaign finance law as everybody else. Once he reached those limits he could donate no more in his name. Indian tribes, however, are exempted from that law and can contribute unlimited amounts of money.

Of course, if it comes out that Bush did engaged in some quid pro quo with Abramoff for these contributions the President should have to face the music like everybody else. But that's highly unlikely. Given what we know about Abramoff's other dealings he did not arrange for political favors based on his personal contributions.

But that won't stop left-wing demagogues and media from getting out the tar brush for Bush. Which is sort of ironic, in a way, given that these are the same people who are vehemently denying any connection between Democrats and Abramoff despite the fact that Abramoff directed hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from his clients to Democrats. Given the realities of influence peddling, it is those directed contributions which are more troublesome than Abramoff's personal contributions.

jack abramoff, bush, politics, political corruption

Comments

Avatar for 2Hotel9

Does this mean I was an evil henchman of Ronald Reagan because I had my picture taken with him?

2Hotel9 on January 23, 2006 at 06:02 am
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] As I pointed out yesterday, I’m not sure why this is such a big deal. Yeah, Abramoff is corrupt scum. Yes, President Bush took a lot of money from him. But outside of some legally accepted campaign contributions from someone who was, at the time, not suspected of any sort of criminal wrong-doing, there is absolutely nothing to connect President Bush with Jack Abramoff and his dealings in Congress. [...]

Avatar for Ryan G

...it is not Abramoff’s personal donations to politicians that has him in trouble. Rather, it is the contributions he directed his clients to make to politicians in return for special favors.

Almost right.

Wikipedia puts it best: The lobbyists are accused of orchestrating lobbying against their own clients in order to force them to pay for lobbying services.

In the course of the scheme, the lobbyists are accused of illegally giving gifts and making campaign donations to legislators in return for votes or support of legislation.

Personal donations were obviously part of the Reed/Abramoff scheme.  Otherwise, why would everyone return those personal donations?  Not the ones from the tribes or raised by Abramoff (which many are keeping, like Bush and Reid), but the ones personally made by Abramoff himself?  (Bush returned $6k, $2250 from Hayworth, etc.)

Ryan G on January 23, 2006 at 08:02 am
Avatar for docdave

Didn’t Bush have his picture taken with Cindy Sheehan?  If so, does that mean he belongs to the ‘hate Bush brigade’?

docdave on January 23, 2006 at 11:01 am
Avatar for Don Myers

He did not, as far as we know, route any of this money through his personal accounts or contributions to politicians.

The “we” in this sentence refers to “people with their heads rammed firmly up the ass of the right-wing corporate meda.”

Those of us who breathe the sweet air of the Freedom of Information Act know that Abramoff funneled millions through his dummy corporations and charitable foundations. [source] [source] [source]

Don Myers on January 23, 2006 at 01:01 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Yes, he did. To any politician who would do him a favor. And how many of them hold senior seats in control of the BoIA? H. Reid is a senior member of which party? N. Pelosi is a senior member of which party? J. Rockefeller is a senior member of which party? Ted Kennedy is a senior member of which party? A. Sharpton is a senior member of which party? And the bonus question. Which party has excercised total control of the BoIA for the last 45 years? Come on, donnie, your an educated gay man, you should be able to ace this test.

2Hotel9 on January 23, 2006 at 02:02 pm
Avatar for docdave

The “we” in this sentence refers to “people with their heads rammed firmly up the ass of the right-wing corporate meda.”

I think you meant media.  Anyway, welcome back, Don, so happy you could leave the campaign trail long enough to heap insults on the rest of us.  If one of your prospective supporters asks about you, can we quote you as saying that ‘anyone that doesn’t agree with me has their heads rammed firmly up the ass of the right-wing corporate media’?

Have a nice day too, Don.

docdave on January 23, 2006 at 03:01 pm
Avatar for Don Myers

I think you meant media.

Yes I did. thank you for the correction.

Don, so happy you could leave the campaign trail long enough to heap insults on the rest of us. If one of your blah blah blah…

You’re glossing over the fact that I proved Rob wrong by citing reliable evidence to the contrary. As one who is so quick to correct spelling mistakes, you should be even more interested in correcting false and misleading facts.

Apparently not, tho’…

Don Myers on January 24, 2006 at 03:01 am
Avatar for docdave

Don, it’s not your correction that I’m criticizing but the abrasive and rude way you have of expressing it.  Apparently you think nothing of accusing someone of having ‘their head stuck up someones ass’ as being inappropriate.  If you took the edge off your comments, there would not be cause for complaints.  Besides caustic retorts only distract from the real purpose of the reply.

docdave on January 24, 2006 at 04:01 am
Avatar for Don Myers

doc:

I keep telling Rob that the problem is his font. In Book Antiqua my stuff comes off as bitingly sardonic.

I’m sorry I keep hurting your widdle feelings, but I get angry. And in a blog willed with abrasive and deranged assholes like bob and 2, I’m hardly the worst offender.

And yes...anyone who thinks Rev. Moon’s Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax, and GOPUSA are reliable sources absolutely do have their heads rammed firmly up the ass of the right-wing corporate media.

Don Myers on January 24, 2006 at 05:01 am
Avatar for Carrick

Don:

I’m sorry I keep hurting your widdle feelings, but I get angry. And in a blog willed with abrasive and deranged assholes like bob and 2, I’m hardly the worst offender.

Matter of perspective, I suppose.

Carrick on January 24, 2006 at 06:02 am
Avatar for Don Myers

Matter of perspective, I suppose.

Quite right…

Don Myers on January 24, 2006 at 07:01 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.