Should We Start A Pool?
This is very, very funny. What if certain very corrupt members of the United States Senate started being named for accepting bribes by a man convicted of bribery? What if those Senators were part of the leadership of the party in the Senate?
What if they were members of the Democratic party?
The Jack Abramoff probe may turn on the same Democrats who tried exploiting the scandal for electoral advantage this year. ABC reports that federal prosecutors have taken statements from the disgraced lobbyist that implicate, in Abramoff's words, "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators":
Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is scheduled to report to federal prison tomorrow, over the objections of federal prosecutors who say they still need his help to pursue leads on officials he allegedly bribed.
Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."
The sources say Abramoff was about to provide information about Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, "accepting things of value" from Abramoff.
The Rove mention seems a little odd. After all, Rove has no legislative power, nor any direct impact on policy or spending. Abramoff may well have provided Rove with some gifts, but what would Rove be able to get Abramoff in return? He could have acted as an entree to Republican lawmakers, but that's hardly illegal, and from all of the evidence we have seen, Abramoff hardly needed any help in throwing money at Senators and Congressmen.
Check the list of who got some serious cash (first link). There are a lot of names from the newly elected leadership in the Democratic Senate. If Abramoff just nailed them, this may be an even more interesting two years than I thought it would be already. It's hard to make it to a floor vote when you're wearing shackles.
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 12:58 am
More unconfirmed reports from unnamed sources of alleged activities? I don’t know if I am buying it.
By mokus, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 11:09 am
Here’s a couple more “What ifs.”
What if a US District Judge was attempting to protect Democrat Leaders in the Congress from being named as recipients of Jack Abramoff’s bribes? What if that judge, Paul Huck, ordered Jack Abramoff to prison over the objections of federal prosecutors? What if the judge was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton?
What if federal prosecutors want Abramoff available to name government officials he bribed, but won’t have that opportunity if Abramoff is in prison?
What if the Culture of Corruption in Washington includes several members of the GOP? What if both parties have an interest in keeping Jack Abramoff quiet?
What if the best way to make sure the scandal remains under the radar is to elect leaders in the new Congress who have powerful incentives to keep a lid on Abramoff’s revelations? What if that explains why Pelosi would break tradition and support an obviously corrupt Jack Murtha?
What if a Culture of Corruption infects the leadership of both political parties and both Republicans and Democrats have compelling reasons to ignore public outrage and keep a tight lid on just who is involved in Abramoff’s crooked deals?
What if the American people have no available mechanism for forcing an open and forthright investigation into official corruption, except for elections now 2 years away?
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Uhm, who says federal prosecuters can’t continue the investigation while he is in prison? They can still interview him. I don’t understand the logic that if he is in prison he can’t be interviewed by someone from the prosecuter’s office.
Something isn’t right here because the story basically makes no sense.
By Arlo, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 12:51 pm
If they’re corrupt, go after them. Let all the poison thats in the mud hatch out.
By mokus, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 1:09 pm
If Abramoff has information prosecuters want, he can trade that info for something of value, like staying out of prison on bail, or negotiating for a reduced sentence based on his cooperation and testimony.
Once in prison, the range of options prosecuters have for securing Abramoff’s cooperation become more limited, and not nearly so effective.
For prisoners, the number one priority becomes staying alive, and the best way to do that is to keep quiet. Bad things sometimes happen to guys who talk too much.
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 3:27 pm
“For prisoners, the number one priority becomes staying alive, and the best way to do that is to keep quiet. Bad things sometimes happen to guys who talk too much.”
Right, but he would be going to one of the Club Fed country club prisons, right?
By mokus, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 6:41 pm
The prosecutors don’t want Abramoff incarcerated while he still has information which would be helpful in making cases against elected officials currently in office.
So, the question is: who benefits from sending him to prison now?
The answer is: those who have something to hide.