Harry Reid “in the mix” of Congressional bribery investigation
posted at 7:24 pm on May 29, 2006 by Allahpundit
My words. He’s not under investigation, mind you. He’s just … in the mix.
The boxing tickets are the least interesting part of it, actually.
Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.
The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff’s partners, firm and clients…
A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it…
AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff’s partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
Here’s ABC’s report on Hastert from last Wednesday. Read it and see if you can find any difference between what he did and what Reid is accused of doing. Feel free to offer your theories in the comments as to why ABC reported on one and not the other. Did Brian Ross simply get scooped on Reid? Does he not consider questionable behavior by the Senate minority leader to be sufficiently newsworthy? Or … might there be another reason?
Actually, here’s one difference between Hastert and Reid, according to ABC: unlike Reid, Hastert’s not going to keep the tainted campaign contributions he received from Abramoff’s cronies.
Nice job by USA Today in its choice of photo for the AP article, by the way.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What is with that horrible picture of Jindal on the main blog page?
I know it is still early, but put me on the Jindal train for 2016. I’m sure there will be other people I will also like, though.
bluegill on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM
You must not be from the Northeast. No, Northeastern liberals do NOT send their kids to Fordham, Loyola, Sacred Heart, etc. Liberals send their kids to Groton, Milton, Kent, Dalton, Horace Mann……
Maddie on December 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Another junk justice Judge Benedict “Egomania” Roberts wannabe who knows what’s best for the peons, or else. Surprise!
Ya gotta problem wit’ judicial tyranny? Shaddup, little people, or I’m gonna hold ya in contempt!
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Wrong. Most voucher programs are directed at bad schools. These are the kind of schools that don’t educate, but by
Godgovernment you will send your children there to be uneducated, unless you can pay all your taxes and still afford to send your children to a private or Christian school, or home school.Yes, these are mostly lower income families. Higher income families typically move to whatever neighborhood has a good school, so their children can go there.
So technically, both upper income and lower income children are treated exactly the same: they both go to whatever public school is in their school district. But the end result is totally different.
Vouchers are not a giveaway. They divert some of the funding used for public schools to send children who were not learning at those schools to a school where they can actually learn. So the public school still gets a portion — maybe half — of the taxes raised to educate the child, while the charter school gets the other portion. Usually, the voucher completely covers the cost of the charter school tuition, because public schools waste so much money.
So why do public schools hate them: Because their funding is derived from how many students they have, and if even 100 children are home-schooled or private-schooled, they figure they’re losing that much funding.
And make no mistake: that is at the core of the issue. If vouchers were just a government giveaway, they wouldn’t care. But because it affects their own funding, they act like the money is being stolen from them. In spite of the fact that they are not entitled to funding to educate a student if that student is actually being educated elsewhere.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Only an NEA-thug Obama voter would oppose the opportunity to move their kid to a competent private school where the teachers can actually speak English, inculcate hard science, understand addition, subtraction and the, er, higher math of multiplication and division and convey such knowledge to civilized students not cowering in fear for being shaken down for lunch money or molested (and worse) in the bathrooms.
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Of course. People who are taught how to think don’t vote democrat.
Slowburn on December 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Here’s an explanation of the LA funding formula
http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SPELA-2011-2.pdf
It appears to me that Jindal could pull some money out of the funding and apply that to the voucher program, or given how severely underfunded LA’s schools are, seek a new source of funding for the vouchers.
Charter schools are included in the funding formula, but are under hte control of local school boards – that might be an avenue to explore as well.
Daisy_WI on December 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM
.
SARAH PALIN ? … : )
listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If these kids are forced back into the public schools I fear their grades will suffer from retaliation by the teacher their parents rejected.
agmartin on December 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Liberals DO NOT LIKE children being educated PROPERLY! They have been fighting that for over 50 years now. With the large number of minority students involved, IT IS RACIST for liberals—and liberal Judges—to decide that such large numbers of minority students DO NOT DESERVE a better education! LIBERALS ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!
DixT on December 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Everyone is treated the same now (equality of opportunity) but voucher proponents want giveaways only to “lower income families” to reach the same end results for all (equality of outcome). Muddleheaded liberalism (no matter how well-intentioned) that is spending money we don’t have and destroying our country.
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM
If annoyinglittletwerp is still reading, here’s the key difference between Jindal (liberal) and Milton Friedman (conservative)
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2