Abramoff fingers 6 to 8 “seriously corrupt” Democratic senators; Update: WaPo opposes Murtha

posted at 9:21 pm on November 14, 2006 by Allahpundit

Plus Rove, which at this point is almost a bonus.

I like this comment left at the Blotter:

Nancy Pelosi stated she was going to “drain the swamp” I have news for her. When you start draining the water, you are going to find things in the mud that you thought were long discarded.

Oh man. This + Murtha as leader = best. majority. ever.

Place your bets — who are the six to eight? Reid is a given.

Update: This is no way to run a clean hands campaign says WaPo to Pelosi.

Update: Slublog comes through with a blast from Pelosi’s very recent past:

It is long past time for the Republican Congress to take the necessary steps to restore a high ethical standard in Congress and put the Ethics Committee back to work to investigate any misconduct of Members, including those involved with Jack Abramoff. The American people deserve nothing less.

Update: Which Democratic senator has received more of Abramoff’s largesse than any other? Guess.

Update: All of Rob Port’s chips are on Byron Dorgan.

Update: There’s no doubt Reid’s one of the lucky six (or eight), says Captain Ed. And he’s got a laundry list of reasons why he thinks so.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Afterall, when Randy Cunningham makes nearly $1 million dollars in a shady land deal, it’s a crime. When Harry Reid makes more than that (with a serious conflict of interest), it’s just that he was a little sloppy.

cmay on November 14, 2006 at 11:17 PM

I think maybe Nevada itself has a history of voting in shady people. Think Oscar Goodman as “The” Mayor of Las Vegas.

kiakjones on November 15, 2006 at 12:34 PM

The prospects of this whole debacle make me giddy with delight. But I agree–I ain’t gonna hold my breath.

robblefarian on November 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM

As a Nevadan, I’ll say that Dingy Harry got elected because he didn’t tell people who he was. (I didn’t vote for him.) Our Republican senator is very conservative and squared away.

When the LIST is vetted I think we’ll see the usual huffing and puffing and nothing will change.

Mojave Mark on November 15, 2006 at 2:30 PM

But, but, but, I thought it was the Republicans who were beleaguered with corruption and scandal. Aren’t the Dems pure as the driven snow? Isn’t that we finally all wised up and put them in office? My worldview is crumbling around me!

tikvah on November 15, 2006 at 2:37 PM

So investigation of republicans is being an obstructionist. Any dirt on Dems is Christmas and happy days? That’s the problem. This child like, WELL JOHNNY DID IT FIRST, is just sickening. This is old news, there are Dems associated with Abramoff, but the Dem to GOP dirty ratio is about 5 to 1 in favor of bad Republicans; who is this good for? Both parties are dirty. To even venture the thought that one party is holier-than-thou or has a monopoly on good ideas is intellectually dishonest and hurts America. Any scandal or partisan BS hurts us all, I take no joy and we are just egging politicians to act like children.

Wishing for scandal is LIKE WANTING THE TERRORIEST TO WIN, to use a Carl Rowe-is-um. We expect so little from our politicians and rejoice if they stick it to the other guy. I don’t expect holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but geeee enough with the hypocrisy. I am happy when there is a good honest politician of any party. United we stand? A house divided?

gmcjetpilot on November 15, 2006 at 3:11 PM

We need to look at how the MSM force Republicans out, and try to do it to the Dems. I don’t even care if the dems don’t resign until the spring. If they’re too busy dodging subpeonas they can’t do too much damage.
I’ve been saying this for a while. The republicans can’t let the dems get off while their members are (rightly) removed. The rules have to be for everybody, or all bets should be off. If dems are dirty, they have to pay, old news or not.

Iblis on November 15, 2006 at 3:22 PM

All I’m saying ladies and gents, is that the removal of even 1 of these Democrats from the Senate because of Abramoff’s testimoney leading to a conviction, like that of Bob Ney or Randy Cunningham, and it’s a whole new ballgame in the Senate.

If the list of suspects in this thread is correct (and I have no idea either way), then a shake up of major proportions could be under way.

Unless they change the rules, an INDICTED Senator may lose their chairmanship or committee post, depending on the comittee. Wouldn’t you all just love to see Teddy Kennedy’s (for example) wings clipped? Or Dorgan’s? Or Durbin’s?

Abramoff’s fingeringof Bob Ney and others was credible enough to result in his pleading guilty and his resignation. So, if he’s credible enough to take down Ney, he’s credible enough to take down 6 to 8 seriously corrupt DEMOCRAT Senators, too.

And, as I noted, depending upon the Senators involved, it could result in the REVERSAL of the election, giving control to the Republicans again.

Now, we all know — ’cause Nancy told us so — that the 110th Congress will be the most honest and open in history, and that she and Harry are going to “clean house.” So, I’m sure that Honora, and Constantine, and Grebrook are going to join with us in working to insure that ANY corrupt, bribe taking, bought and paid for Demcoratic Senators named by Abramoff are FORCED OUT OF THE SENATE. After all, isn’t that what “A New Direction” is all about?

Right, Honora, Constantine, Grebrook? I hope you three have a very nice day.

georgej on November 15, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Would be fun if Lindsey Graham was involved…the the conservative governor of South Carolina could appoint a non-RINO. :-)

SouthernGent on November 15, 2006 at 4:56 PM

Dang straight. But first we bork Martinez.

If I may pick a nit here, what would be done to Martinez would in no way resemble a “Borking”. Martinez will be opposed by those who have a good faith disagreement with his stance on issues of substance. Bork was blocked on fabricated ideological grounds, supposing him to be a foaming-at-the-mouth radical just waiting to overturn half of the history of the Supreme Court. And that, in spite of a career’s worth of publicly recorded decisions proving that he was an extremely competent jurist who based his decisions on LAW, never ideology.


I can appreciate the sentiment that one shouldn’t wish trouble on another. But that just isn’t going to fly here. Show us where you rebuked left-leaning folks for their joy/glee/thrill at any harm ever to come to the right, and I’ll believe you have a pure motive at heart. Not holding my breath.

And just for clarity’s sake, any anticipatory pleasure being communicated here isn’t simply hoping THAT Democrats did wrong, but that those who HAVE done wrong might finally be held accountable. As already recounted in this thread, Democrats in the past 14 years alone have committed dozens of major moral, ethical, or legal violations with no REAL punishment to show for them, no matter how clearly they have been proven.

Sandy Berger’s parole for stealing TOP SECRET documents from the national archives is a perfect example. To provide scope, if a military member accidentally mislaid a SECRET level document, exposing it to POTENTIAL compromise, they could be court-martialed and given a prison term. This man, no longer in a position to have a valid security clearance, INTENTIONALLY TOOK documents of a higher (more dangerous to the U.S. if exposed) classification, and even then didn’t return all of them, but claims to have destroyed some. And he is sentenced to probation, community service, and a $50k fine. Why? Because he was Clinton’s NSA.

White House Travel Office
Vince Foster
Ron Brown

And those are just a few of Clinton’s scandals. The last time the Democrats tried to crucify Republicans over unethical behavior, it was the House Bank/Post Office scandal. It was soon uncovered that while some Republicans were overdrawing their accounts regularly, it was far more often Democrats that were illegally laundering campaign contributions. And suddenly noone was talking about it any more.

So you see, there’s a pattern, and some folks would LOVE to see that pattern end. Republicans were just fine with Foley resigning, with Cunningham being punished. Democrats just don’t admit to the wrongs they do; it’s always an administrative error, an oversight, an accident. Private citizens don’t get to explain their way out of crimes with those words. So any “happiness” you detect over this is the hope of justice done.

Well, ok, and the hope of getting back control of the Senate, like that matters so very much.

Freelancer on November 15, 2006 at 5:04 PM

So Jack boy decides to plea bargain…big surprise there. Yawning, yawning….

honora on November 15, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Honora, you are the perfect democrat. You don’t care about any issue unless it can be used against a Republican.

Democrats are never held to the higher standards that any Republican is because the electorate just doesn’t expect much from any lib.

DannoJyd on November 16, 2006 at 8:20 AM