Re: Lipstick on a Bailout

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:50 pm

Fraud & conspiracy.......if nothing else Franks, Waters, Lacy, Meeks, could certainly be convicted of conspiracy and fraud for statements they made during House hearings about the accounting practices and management of the GSE's way back in 2004.

So if it happened 4 years ago, why are we only now making an issue of it? Maybe because no one knew then that what was being represented was not the way it really was? If you didn't know back then that what was being said wasn't the way it was, then why do you think that Franks, Waters, Lacy, or Meeks knew it was bogus back then?

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:53 pm

You left out the fact that his guilty plea included corrpution of a "public officials" along with the common knowledge of everyone here that when a defendent pleads guilty to one crime, many others are dropped by the prosecution.

Well, it was Sam and you who used Abramoff as your example. If the record is such that he doesn't fit your argument, it's not my fault.

I don't believe for a second that you believe Abramoff didn't puchase congressmen with the $85 million he fleeced from American Indians. You're not that stupid Frank.

Yes, he slopped hundreds of thousands of dollars onto Congressional candidates' campaigns- just in primary election campaigns. But it appears that it was legal- unless you have evidence that there was more and that it was illegal.

Or maybe I am just more stupid than you think.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:24 pm

And apparently that's just the tip of the iceberg:

Here are Abramoff's seven tribal clients, according to Morris' analysis, complete with their pre-Abramoff and post Abramoff contributions:

1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $285,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (9/2000 - 2003): $401,500

2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $61,320
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $48,560
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $64,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP(9/2000 - 2003): $162,590

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 3/2002): $24,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 3/2002): $15,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (3/2002 - 6/2003): $18,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (3/2002 - 6/2003): $11,500

5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 7/2002): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 7/2002): $400,200
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (7/2002 - 6/2004): $70,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (7/2002 - 6/2004): $216,708

6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1/2003): $35,470
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1/2003): $6,050
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1/2003 - 12/2003): $250
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1/2003 - 12/2003): $0

7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1995): $4,600
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1995): $31,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1995 - 2004): $409,273
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1995 - 2004): $884,927

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10924

The $50,000 gambling spree Abramoff treated Bob Ney to- and for which apparently was not considered prosecutable- was chicken feed compared to the increased zillions of dollars Abramoff's clients gave to Congressional campaigns after Abramoff became their lobbyist.

And once again, this was all legal.

by **Stephanie** Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:00 pm

ziggy wrote:
Fraud & conspiracy.......if nothing else Franks, Waters, Lacy, Meeks, could certainly be convicted of conspiracy and fraud for statements they made during House hearings about the accounting practices and management of the GSE's way back in 2004.

So if it happened 4 years ago, why are we only now making an issue of it? Maybe because no one knew then that what was being represented was not the way it really was? If you didn't know back then that what was being said wasn't the way it was, then why do you think that Franks, Waters, Lacy, or Meeks knew it was bogus back then?

Because four years ago Franks, Waters, Lacy & Meeks had the evidence before them. They had the sworn testimony of the regulators who uncovered the fraud. I did not.

Four years ago I was back in RI raising my family and doing the things that most stay at home moms do. I wasn't glued to C-Span watching Congressional hearings each and every day.

They knew, I did not.

by Aaron Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:41 am

ziggy wrote:
Yes, he slopped hundreds of thousands of dollars onto Congressional candidates' campaigns- just in primary election campaigns. But it appears that it was legal- unless you have evidence that there was more and that it was illegal.

Is guilty plea is evidence enough for me Frank. But then I don't think politicans walk on water.

by ziggy Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:39 pm

Stephanie wrote:Well no investigation no getting rid of the bums. Those Massholes will reelect Frank until he's pushing daisies, and I'm sure the same can be said about the constituents of Dodd & many of the others.

Perhaps "we" deserve this.

And until we change the way election campaigns are financed, that is not going to change.

Legal bribery breeds legal crooks.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:05 am

Campaign contributions don't cover crimes by Congressmen.

accessory
n. a second-string player who helps in the commission of a crime by driving the getaway car, providing the weapons, assisting in the planning, providing an alibi, or hiding the principal offender after the crime. Usually the accessory is not immediately present during the crime, but must be aware that the crime is going to be committed or has been committed. Usually an accessory's punishment is less than that of the main perpetrator, but a tough jury or judge may find the accessory just as responsible.

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:04 am

Campaign contributions don't cover crimes by Congressmen.

But they make "legal" bribery that would otherwise be illegal. Legal bribery breed legal crooks.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:10 am

The only one talking about legal bribes here is you Frank and I think you're doing it to confuse the issue. Whether it's because it's been your work for the past 20 years or because you just want to excuse government workers, I'm not sure, but yor are attempting to confuse the issue.

I'm not talking about campaign contributions and if I'm not mistaken, I don't think Stephanie is either. What we are talking about is criminal acts by CEO's and other members of financial institutions and members of Congress who have covered those criminal acts up but then you already know that!!!

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:27 am

No. A few days ago Stephanie and maybe OC were talking about how many dollars has been showered on this and that Congressman by the lobbyists and executives of various financial institutions. And she had refreneces to specifc amounts of money. If it had been illegal bribery, she would not have had those specific dollars.

And you said here only a couple days ago that campaign contributions provided the motive for Congressmen to provide cover for corrupt financial service executives. And I agreed with that. So we agree that campaign contributions provide the motive for curruption. And again, it is all legal.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:37 am

And while the motive may be legal, the crime is not. And accessory is certainly a crime Frank.

You should have been a politician. You'd give Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both a run for their money on spin.

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:38 am

Aaron wrote:This has nothing to do with campaign finance laws, other then political donations was the motivation for Dodd, Frank and others to committ the crimes and COVER up for Wall Streets lies to begin with.

We have stated this over and over and you've confused the issue by interjecting campaign finance laws into the conversation in your efforts to excuse government employees for their crimes.

I am not "excusing" anyone. On the contrary, I blame every Comgressman who accepts the campaign finance laws for what those laws are- legal cover for corruption.

If I give Congressman Jones a new car to do my bidding for me and he accepts it, both of us have committed a quid-pro-crime crime of offering and accepting a bribe. But if I give Congressman Jones $$$$$$ for his re-election campaign, then it is quite legal. And so I can enjoy the corruption my legal bribe buys me, but without the penalties we would both incur if I gave him the car instead.

But it is still corruption- whether it is illegal or not.

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:44 am

Aaron wrote:And while the motive may be legal, the crime is not. And accessory is certainly a crime Frank.

You should have been a politician. You'd give Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both a run for their money on spin.

You have not shown that any crime or accessory to a crime has taken place by Frank or Dodd or any other Congressman in the issue at hand. A couple days ago I posted several definitions of both bribery and corruption here. And none of those definitions require that something illegal take place for bribery and corruption to occur. And you have yet to show anything illegal by any Congressman. But you still admit that campaign contributions are the motive for corruption. So who is really spinning?

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:49 am

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT FRANK.

I'm talking about specific crimes committed by individuals at financial institutions, those the FBI is currently investigating.

I belive that SPECIFIC CRIMES have also been committed by members of Congress and I believe the FBI should investigate those crimes as well.

I DO NOT BELIEVE that the motive behind committing these crimse is a reason for them to NOT be investigated as you seem to be suggesting.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:51 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:And while the motive may be legal, the crime is not. And accessory is certainly a crime Frank.

You should have been a politician. You'd give Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both a run for their money on spin.

You have not shown that any crime or accessory to a crime has taken place by Frank or Dodd or any other Congressman in the issue at hand. A couple days ago I posted several definitions of both bribery and corruption here. And none of those definitions require that something illegal take place for bribery and corruption to occur. And you have yet to show anything illegal by any Congressman. But you still admit that campaign contributions are the motive for corruption. So who is really spinning?

It's not my job to show it Frank and I'm not alone in my belief. Many share that belief, including those responsible for investigating said crimes.

I posted the defination of accessory earlier and I'm pretty confident that crime did occur, which is why Congress SHOULD be investigated.

And if they have nothing to hide, they should welcome this investigation, don't you AGREE!!!

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:00 am

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT FRANK.

I can see that you want to avoid that, yes. But I am not going to avoid talking about campaign contributions. Because they are at the heart fo what drives 21st century corruption at almost all levels of government.

And if they have nothing to hide, they should welcome this investigation, don't you AGREE!!!

Yes. And I welcome it. And as far as I know so does Congress. They have nothing to fear because their asses are covered by the laws that allow them to accept millions in legal bribes with impunity.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:08 am

We're talking about two different subjects.

accessory
n. a second-string player who helps in the commission of a crime by driving the getaway car, providing the weapons, assisting in the planning, providing an alibi, or hiding the principal offender after the crime. Usually the accessory is not immediately present during the crime, but must be aware that the crime is going to be committed or has been committed. Usually an accessory's punishment is less than that of the main perpetrator, but a tough jury or judge may find the accessory just as responsible.

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:15 am

But first you have to show that crimes have been committed. Otherwise all you have is legal corruption motivated by millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

And even if actual crime is shown here- you have admitted that it is motivated by campaign contributions.

So the underlying motivation for the corruption- whether criminal or not- is the millions of dollars of legalized bribery.

by SamCogar Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:19 am

Zig doesn't think it is illegal for politicians to take bribes ..... anymore than he thinks it is illegal for WV teachers to strike.

And he will weazelword and attempt to confuse the discussion in any way he can in order to prove himself right.

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:24 am

Zig doesn't think it is illegal for politicians to take bribes .....

And it's not, as long as it's done under the guise of legal campaign contributions.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:50 am

So in America BEFORE the police can investigate a private citizen has to "SHOW THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED."

Funny, where I come from if the PO PO has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, they investigate to determine for themselves if indeed a crime has been committed.

Then if they believe one has been committed, they turn it over to a prosecuting authority, who handles it from there.

Is it just with Congressmen that a private citizen has to show a crime was committed BEFORE an investigation begins Frank?

by ziggy Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:44 pm

You have already declared that crimes have been committed- even before there has been an investigation.

I am willing to let an investigation decide if there is cause to bring charges and to declare that crimes have been committed. Why aren't you?

In the meantime the money still flows to corrupt Congressmen- in the millions of dollars to each of their campaigns- and it's all legal. Their whoreing political asses, corrupted by legal bribery, are covered.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:26 pm

What I have declared is my opinion, same as you, which in my opinion doesn't stink nearly as bad as your does on most occasions, but not all. I'm willing to concede there are times that mine probalby stinks worse but it is a small minority of the time and even then, I know why it stinks but there is this stubborn streak in me that won't allow me to acknowlege said stinkyness.

And you really should stop degrading whores by comparing them to politicians. They've done nothing to be spat upon in such a manner.

by SamCogar Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:34 pm

ziggy wrote:You have already declared that crimes have been committed- even before there has been an investigation.

I am willing to let an investigation decide if there is cause to bring charges and to declare that crimes have been committed. Why aren't you?

YADA, ..... YADA, ...... YADA

Sure, you are willing to agree to that in your above post ........ but in your next post you will be claiming that an investigation can't be instigated unless it is declared that crimes have been committed.

Thus, around in circles you will go, from one post to the next, with your asinine "circular reasoning" ..............

by posting the equivalent of this:

One can't declare that a crime has been committed before there has been an investigation.

followed by the equivalent of this:

One can't instigate an investigation before it is declared that a crime has been committed.

repeating said as often as you think it necessary ...... and all you accomplish for yourself is .......

.

by Aaron Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:09 pm

ziggy wrote:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT FRANK.

I can see that you want to avoid that, yes. But I am not going to avoid talking about campaign contributions. Because they are at the heart fo what drives 21st century corruption at almost all levels of government.

I don't want to avoid anything Frank but campaign contributions are not the subject of the current conversation much as you want them to be. The current conversation is criminal misconduct by members of congress. Get with the program man!!!!!

As for the subject of campaign contributions, no one as disagreed that they are the motivation for said criminal misconduct so you're talking in circles.

Typical.

Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content