Some Happy TV

I love this clip.  I have it on a loop while I am working. 

Wolf Blitzer:         Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who's now pleaded guilty to, uh, bribery charges among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrats who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back.

Howard Dean:      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.  This is a Republican finance camp ... scandal.  There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money, and we've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

"We've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true."  What have you been doing there at CNN, Wolf?

Blitzer:        [Almost 3 seconds of dead air.]  But there ... there ... but through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that, uh, presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

Dean:        That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either.   There is no evidence ---

Blitzer:        What about Senator ... what about ... what about Senator Byron Dorgan?

Dean:         Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

Blitzer:          [Almost 3 seconds of dead air, then a sigh.] Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.  Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

Comments

[dryle]

oh my....this had me laughing out loud. thanks for the clip. i might have to save this for rainy nights (at least until '08)

[montana]

He's completely wrong about that. Our local paper, Great Falls (Montana) Tribune, ran an article about our democratic senator (Baucus) returning $18,000.00 that he took from Abramoff.

So it looks like at least ONE democrat did take money from Abramoff.

[Lisa Williams]

Hi, Mithras -- I've heard that Dems got no money from both you and Steve Owens, another blogger I trust. But I keep hearing that Dems did get money in other places. Just today, in an article harshly critical of Abramoff, Republicans, and the K Street Project in the New Yorker, I see: "of the 5.3 million Abramoff funnelled to candidates and PACs through clients and associates from 1999 through 2004, "only" 1.9M went to Democrats."

Does Dean make the "no money from Abramoff" claim because Democrats received money indirectly, via PACs, rather than directly as campaign contributions from his lobbying clients?

[Steve Vigoren]

Anyone that says the "Dems took some money too" is obviously trying to deflect what the Republicans have been up too, which is taking BIG money for BIG influence in a BIG way.

[Lisa Williams]

Steve, I'm a Democrat and totally happy with the answer "it's a big fat lie, they didn't get a dime!" But I have a hard time figuring out why a writer like Hendrik Hertzberg -- who would probably (like me) throw a party if impeachment hearings started -- would say such a thing if he didn't believe it to be true. What is the 1.9M Hertzberg is talking about?

[Gib]

These guys list a number of donations from clients of Abramoff along with donations from him directly. Apparently (I haven't checked every name on the list) while all of Abramoff's individual donations were to Republicans, a fair amount of money made its way through clients of his to mostly Republicans, but several Democrats as well. Whether that money came from Abramoff, or was donated at his direction, or whether it was done for any illicit purpose, is a whole other series of questions that can't be answered by a line on a campaign finance report. There may be plenty of Abramoff and Abramoff related donations that aren't illegal, or even terribly unethical.

If Abramoff was doing something he knew illegal, it stands to reason that suspect contributions might flow through front donors. It's also possible that he just told the tribes in question to make donations to certain people as part of an overall campaign on behalf of whatever the hell he was hired to lobby Congress about. That may or may not be illegal or unethical - I don't pretend to understand campaign finance regulation well enough to voice an opinion, but it's probably enough to let one guy say Democrats took no Abramoff money and another guy say they did, and for them both to be telling the truth. Or both lying, as the case may be.

And, in case anyone notes that I'm more or less a Republican, I agree with Rich Lowry that this is a Republican problem, regardless of whether or not a Democrat or two gets hung up on the periphery, and any and all public officials found to be involved in Abramoff's illegal schemes should be removed from office, imprisoned, and while I don't support branding them, I'll probably have better things to do than oppose it very strongly.