Talk:Jack Abramoff

Archives

• Archive 1 Friday 12th August 2005 Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 1 I made some substantial edits to the page and archived the entire earlier talk since it was mostly to do items since dealt with.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

COPYVIO

This article and it's sister screed are embarrassments to wikipedia. They're essentially the same and both reflect the authors politocal hatred and zeal. Both also have severe irredemable copyright problems and are and embarrasment to wikipedia. They need to be deleted immediately. --John Henry 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Alot of this article DOES seem to be a blatent copyvio. Tyco, as below, was edited (the text was accurate, but half the news story was pasted in here). You cannot just wholesale paste in paragraphs of text from a news story, attribute a link, and it not be a copywrite violation. It's called Plagerism. [1] [2] --B.ellis 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyco

Almost the whole tyco section is a blatent rip from the WAPO article. I've removed part of it, as it needs to be re-written.--B.ellis 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned much of the CopyVio stuff up, hopefully. There is alot of non-essential stuff in this article about peripheral people, and not about Abramoff, however. It needs to be cleaned up more, as the article meanders alot here and there. --B.ellis 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some things you took out (outside the Tyco section), like in the "Early years" section and in the intro about DeLay. That material is not copyright infringement because it is properly sourced when directly quoted. --Howrealisreal 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be rewritten to not be a direct copy paste unless you are going to quote it. Just providing a link is not attribution, and copying entire paragraphs out of an article is plagiarism, not 'fair use' unless you are quoting. Also, if you are going to say 'the los angeles times reports' you need to source the times, not a secondary source (i.e. democracy now).

I modified the quote and attributed properly.

--B.ellis 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech from Tom DeLay is a direct quote (it's in quotations) so of course it is taken word-for-word from the source. I'll tweak the setup to the quote a little better as per your request. Here's the primary source for the other thing. --Howrealisreal 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I see something that is probable CopyVio I tend to chop it out first, and then rework it (I don't usually just leave it out, if the quote is accurate). Btw have you found a link for the franken quote, I can't find anything other than on blogs. Honestly I'm not sure what the relevence to an article on Abramoff is, really, anyway.

The "forced abortions" part was originally reported by Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998. It also appears in Al Franken's book The Truth (with jokes) in the "Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway" chapter. Since we've agreed that primary sources are key, i've change the attribution in the article. --Howrealisreal 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Indian tribes scandal

--Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC) This area is a mess, I have tried to clean it up a bit and structure it better. It may be best to create a new page on the tribes scam and point the Reed, Norquist etc pages to it.

Basically we need fewer facts and more context. At the moment the page is simply a list of transactions that may or may not have been legit with a strong implication that they were not legit.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole scandal to its own page. This makes much more sense since although Abramoff is a major player in that scandal there are several others who are significant players, in particular Ralph Reed. I am not doing this to hide the scandal, I think that people looking for info on it know that there is more than one player.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The email trail

This section does not appear to say very much that is already said. It should probably go.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it looks pretty good in the context of the tribes scandal article so I moved it there

Isn't abramoff conected to the murder of a florida man too?

RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND: ABC News reported on August 2, 2005 that Susan Ralston, Karl Rove’s long-time right-hand, testified before the grand jury. The National Journal reported, “If Karl Rove is Bush’s main man, then it’s Ralston who makes this White House go — because she’s indispensable to Rove.” According to Newsweek, Ralston was suggested to Rove by ethically-troubled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for whom she previously served as a top aide. [ABC The Note, 8/2/05; Newsweek, 4/20/05; National Journal, 6/18/05] Israel Hernandez Personal assistant to President Bush (2001-2005)

See the SunCruz scandal. Police state that Abramoff is a person of interest in that investigation. At the moment too busy reorging the Abramoff-Reed thing. --Gorgonzilla 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

timeline=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/01/AR2005050100091.html

of use http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34520-2004May17.html

Who first blew the wistle on Abramoff?

five federal agencies don't just start investigating a lobbyist at the same time for no reason.

Ronnie Earle started investigation?

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Cy1uxOMqo5MJ:makesmeralph.typepad.com/makesmeralph/2004/07/delay_ally_subj.html+abramoff+%22investigation+started%22+&hl=en

Ronnie Earle seems to be the guy

For over six months Earle and a grand jury investigated violations of Texas campaign finance law in the 2002 election. His ongoing investigation of two political action committees that spent a combined $3.4 million on 22 Republican Texas House races is now focused on a PAC founded by DeLay and directed by {Jack Abramoff]]. "This is an attempt to criminalize politics," claimes DeLay. "Ronnie Earle", he told reporters at his Feb. 24 press conference, is a "runaway prosecutor."

better pic need one that doesn't violated copyrights

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116389/

better info+can we use this pic?....please?

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0533/050817_news_abramoff.php

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123075/2112264/2116388/050407_Jack-Abramoff.jpg

new stuff

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0829lobbyist29.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3233abramoff_indict.html (Aug 26, 2005 editorial/analysis)

I don't see anything here about Abramoff's connection to extreme right-wing Israeli politics. I recall that he played a role in getting the law through Congress that reduced aid to the Palestinians after Arafat died. Also that he raised money to train sharpshooters among the settlers. -- RWM

The murder indictment

I updated the story from the piece in the Post [3]. However this will need ongoing revision, there are clearly details that have not been given. The prosecutors clearly are investigating a link to SunCruz. Although the target is almost certainly Kidan rather than Abramoff this cannot look good for either of them. --Gorgonzilla 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tag.

I have removed the speedy delation tag placed on this article by John Henry. Tag read {{db|COPYVIO - use of copyrighted image w/o citation of reason}}. This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The contested image has been removed pending confirmation of source.  BDAbramson ^talk 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read your link? Look on the right and you will find COPYVIOS as a reason for speedy deletion. Click on that link and you will be taken here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

on that page you will see the statement "Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" " Given Gorgonzilla has repeatedly infringed copyrights and for an extended period of time that clearly meets the qualification of BLATANT. Don't vandalize the tags again. --John Henry 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please allow me to clarify the deletion policy. A copvio is a reason to speedy the image, not the article containing the image. There has been no allegation that the text of the article is copied from another source, nor would this comport with the edit history.  BDAbramson ^talk 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please allow me to post text from the image page (click the image to see):

"This work is copyrighted and unlicenced. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, the individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this use qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. For each use of this image, please provide a detailed rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use.

Gorgonzilla used the image. As such, it was Gorgonzilla's COPYVIO not the uploaders'. Since you appear to be running cover for Gorgonzilla who thinks the image is of "Grover Norquist" - I've decided to report his extended crime to the image's owner. He is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to all producers of intellectual property everywhere. Wikipedia's cavallier attitude toward Gorgonzilla's crimes are similar embarrassments. --John Henry 04:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Please read WP:CSD. Thanks. Guettarda 04:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The same user tried to do the same at the Reed-Abramoff article as well. He also accused me of a 5th revert today which is odd, unless he is as I suspect LJS returned yet again and thinks that the 3RR applies to Wikipedia as a whole. I strongly suggest it is time to cfp the user and ask for a very long prohibition. --Gorgonzilla 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to delete important facts

The most significant fact about Abramoff at this point is the fact that he is under indictment for his involvement in a $30 million fraud. The murder of Boulis and the payments made by the company controlled by Abramoff and his partner to the three alleged killers is absolutely relevant.

Trying to delete these relevant facts is clearly an attempt at POV spin.

The same invididual then tried to delete all mention of the casinos article altogether. This despite the fact that it is one of the most significant political scandals in Washington today.

This looks to me like an attempt to eliminate this scandal from Wikipedia.--Gorgonzilla 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Can someone explain what aspects of the article are of disputed neutrality. Thanks. Guettarda 04:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User John Henry is an astroturf sock puppet who spends his time trying to bend wikipedia articles about current events to whatever the GOP talking points of the day are. He is clearly acting in bad faith and a cfp is about to be filed. --Gorgonzilla 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again - if the {{NPOV}} is going to remain on the article you need to outline the NPOV problems here, so that they can be discussed and sorted out. Thanks. Guettarda 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is a slight NPOV issue, as Abramoff also contributed to Democrats, including Daschle, Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Harry Reid, etc.

From WAPO: "Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation." [4]

To paint this as a republican only thing is less than ideal, it seems Abramoff was a crook hitting on both sides of the isle, but primarily lobbying the Repubs because they were the majority. --B.ellis 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is bias to paint this as Replublican... as Dems are a close second.

National Republican campaign groups received $1.24 million from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democratic groups took in $844,000 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.68.93 (talk • contribs)

I definitely agree that this is not just a republican thing, but are you sure those numbers are correct? I think they are probably higher on both sides, as per this Capital Eye report from the same group. The Contribution Summary sets the Democrat figure at $1,541,673 received, vs $2,912,088 for Republicans. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that this scandal is being 'painted as Republican' is dishonest and ignores facts about Abramoff which are certainly undisputable. He was chairman of the College Republican National Committee and worked for Reagan's 1980 campaign. The reason he got a job at Greenberg Traurig was because they needed someone in 2000 with Republican connections, the same reason Preston Ellis needed him in 1994. Abramoff's personal relationships with DeLay and other Republicans he had met in his student activist days. To point out that the firms Abramoff was associated with gave to both parties is taken completely out of context. Abramoff and his wife donated exclusively to Republicans, becoming a Bush 'Pioneer.' [5] In fact, between Michael Scanlon and SunCruz Casinos, there was only one donation to a Democrat, one Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) in the amount of $3,500 from SunCruz. Now, some of the tribes who were defrauded by Jack Abramoff made contributions to Democrats. But those contributions seem to be legal, as they were made toward the legal goals of the groups—Abramoff is accused of lobbying against them and then getting these tribes to give him money to lobby for them. --Djw bklyn 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

news on his ex-partner

Abramoff ex-partner pleads guilty to fraud charge

Speculation on guilty plea

(Moved this to Discussion after 15 December 2005)

Kidan is expected to plead guilty next week to federal conspiracy and wire fraud charges.

If the deal goes through, Kidan, who was looking at up to 30 years in prison, could now face a maximum of 10 years. That sentence could be reduced depending upon the extent of his cooperation as a witness, not only against Abramoff but also in the prosecution of the men charged in the murder of Boulis.

Lawyers for Kidan and prosecutors are finalizing the deal in which Kidan would plead guilty to one count each of conspiracy and wire fraud. A "change of plea" hearing has been set for Dec. 15. [6]

Remove fraudster cat

Removed fraudster criminal category until conviction. This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about people with indictments.--FloNight 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other than a very few exceptions, we do not have "accused criminal" categories, and merely accused persons should not be convicted by our categories. -Willmcw 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since he pled guilty today, the "Fraudster" cat has been restored.--RattBoy 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rightly so - he's now quite thoroughly an admitted criminal (if not yet a "convict"). BDAbramson T 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

can we use this?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/05/06/abramoff-inside.jpg

grazon 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mental health treatments?

This could use a bit of elaboration, methinks. What's he being treated for? --Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with my own suggestion, I've edited the page. "Mental health" is a bit of a broad category, and could be read to mean that Mr. Abramoff is seriously disturbed. He's actually being treated for stress, and an insanity plea is out of the question, so I thought this was more accurate and less potentially POV. Reference here. --Eric 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

useful links

to those of you working on this article, here is a Yahoo! search of *.gov for Jack Abramoff. Maybe these links will be of use to you as you work on this article. Kingturtle 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

they can run...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.fallout/index.html

Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, and Abramoff

The following paragraphs appear midway through the article. I'm concerned about its verifiability.

"In 1995 Abramoff worked for the Global Council of Islamic Banks, whose chairman, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, was under investigation for allegedly funding terrorism and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. [7]

"Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [8] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [9] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated."

The former paragraph has the ring of truth, though I'd be happier if it were sourced to something more mainstream than "TPMCafe." The latter paragraph sounds like wild a conspiracy theory, citing Casino Watch and Mad Cow Morning News.

I suggest removing, at least, the latter paragraph—unless someone can come up with better citations.

(Sorry, forgot to sign the above.)--RattBoy 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried removing that before, but it was replaced. Unless someone has better sources, I'll do it again soon.--Cuchullain 03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Education

Where did Abramoff go to law school? I'd like to know... Never mind, it's Georgetown. Google is my friend.

I'll edit the section accordingly.

Needs Revision in Light of 1/04/06 Guilty Plea

I reworked the first sentence in light of the second guilty plea today, but the restitution and other information now needs reworking, too. UncleFester 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobbyist works

Apparently, Abramoff was a former lobbyist for Channel One News. Should this be included in the article somewhere? --D-Day 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

    -Sure, that seems like a good idea.  There's no POV issue, and it's relavent information. --Rembrandt

Byron Dorgan

In the Indian tribes grand jury investigations section, the role of Senator Dorgan was listed first—with citations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee! This smacks of POV spin. Considering that Dorgan hotly disputes charges of "tit-for-tat" favors given to Abramoff, I moved his paragraph to the end, following those who certainly did receive donations from Abramoff. I also added some context and a reference to Dorgan's response.--172.131.44.81 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

I don't think the section should be called "Israel-Palestine," just "Israel," as it has not called Palestine anymore, and has not been for years. This is a fact, regardless of your views on a Palestinian State...this state has not been formed, therefore, in this article, it should be referred to as Israel.--152.163.100.7 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank is not part of Israel, it has never been annexed and the general internationally accepted usage is "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria," which is definitely POV. "Palestine" is also the generally accepted term for, at least, those portions of mandatory Palestine not annexed by Israel. Also, while the illegality of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank may be disputable, the illegality of the Jewish settlements there is not disputable. It is well-settled in international law that an occupying power cannot settle its nationals in occupied territory. Changes reverted.--64.18.236.129 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, it is not POV to state that Abramoff diverted funds to "Jewish settlers illegally occupying the Palestinian West Bank." Only the Israeli government and its apologists dispute the legality of these settlements; the international consensus is that they are illegal. It is informative that Abramoff diverted the money--probably, illegally-- for another illegal purpose supporting illegal settlements. Furthermore, it is not POV to point out, as Juan Cole does, that The Hill misreported the purpose of the sniper workshops. The IDF does not need private funding for sniper workshops. Finally, the quoted source, Newsweek, uses the spelling "Schmuel Ben-Zvi" not "Scahmua Benwvi"[10]--64.18.236.217 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are - you falsified your edit summary by calling it "Revert vandalism", you linked Belligerent military occupation, and you are only at this point identified as several random IP addresses with edits only on this article. You added the POV information initially, and several other people have edited out your POV at various times, which you consistently consider 'vandalism' and 'POV'. This article is not your personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll let someone else remove your latest reversion, and I won't say another word to you because I have no regard for editors who feel the need to do nothing but pick fights on every damnable Wikipedia article that mentions Israel or Palestine. It's not that I have a certain opinion about the conflict, I just don't like you. -Kwh 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, whoever you are, I didn't falsify my edit summary. I consider the extent and manner of the edit in question to be vandalism of a sort although I'll admit that was probably not the best choice of words. I only used it once, though, and I regret it--your point is taken.

Just what is wrong with linking Belligerent military occupation? The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is exactly that and I think that the fact Abramoff is helping equip Jewish paramilitaries in that occupied area is informative. Maybe that info can and should come out but let's hear a cogent argument to that effect, first. Also, so what if my identity is unknown? What difference does that make?

In any event, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue and your forbearance on revertings my reverts. You're right, this article is not my personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I don't think I've used it that way. I'm actually open to further edits to the section in question but I resent people just coming in and imposing their POV with nary a comment.--64.18.236.189 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors obviously don't like Juan Cole's remarks since they've deleted them several times. However, I think it is an important and accurate corrective to the information from The Hill. It's also been properly included in the article: "When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited."[11] --64.18.236.189 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will keep reverting unjustified edits to this section. If you have a problem with the language in the section then let's hash it out here but please stop the mindless, unexplained reverts. Also, can someone please explain to me why the spelling of Schmuel Ben-Zvi's name keeps getting changed even though it comes froma direct quote from Newsweek?--64.18.236.109 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, another unexplained, unjustified revert by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs). How do you know that Schmuel Ben-Zvi is an "IDF officer" and why do you keep changing the spelling of his name? A complaint about your behavior and numerous reverts/edits to this article has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal. We'll see how that works out.--DieWeibeRose 23:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

66.166.4.238 (talk · contribs) wrote "Connection to Israel-Palestine - replaced with just Middle East, so called 'Palestine' irrelevant." The use of "Israel-Palestine" is NPOV and relevant. It refers, in this context, to territory occupied by Palestinians and Israelis--most of which has never been annexed by Israel. "Palestine" is also the term used by the UN in reference to this territory.--DieWeibeRose 09:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Donations to Republicans and Democrats

A paragraph in the Intro reads:

Although Abramoff himself has long been an ardent Republican activist, Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [12]

"Sources linked to Abramoff" is a slippery phrase of limited value. The paragraph obscures the fact that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics website, Abramoff has not donated one red cent to Democrats or Democratic groups in the period covered. (One has to do a lot of digging to determine this fact—but the info's there, if one is willing to put in the time.) A search on "Abramoff" in www{dot}politicalmoneyline{dot}com yields the same results for the 2002-06 election cycles: he has given over $140,000 in the last three election cycles—all to Republicans or Republican groups.

In the Center for Responsive Politics website, "Sources linked to Abramoff" includes many Indian tribes, whose donations were not necessarily connected to Abramoff. (It also includes his wife, Pamela, and SunCruz Casinos—examples of direct links, none of which gave $$ to Dems or Dem groups.) Although the tribes' connections to Democrats could reasonably be included in the article, it is POV to muddy the waters by continually ignoring the fact that Abramoff's direct ties are entirely in the direction of one party. I'm editing the text to better reflect Abramoff's connections. If an editor wishes to revert it or significantly change it, I trust they'll explain their changes here.--RattBoy 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is also not true, and when I get time I'll back it up firmly with sources but I've seen it in several reputable locations that not only did 40 of 45 Dem Senators take Abramoff money, over a hundred Dems in the House did too. -- Jbamb 14:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that Dems received funding directly from Abramoff? In recent years?? If you have data that backs that up, please share it with us. The two reputable sources that I list have no record of it. (As long as you're doing research, you might want to check into the number of Dem Senators; my sources say that there are 44, not 45.)--RattBoy 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo. Though to be honest, I think seperating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd. If Capone's organization was giving donations, would you exclude them too? As far as I know, there is no one saying his lobbying firm is lilly white and Abramoff was a lone wolf. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Separating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd, I agree. However, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm drawing a distinction between his donations and the donations of Indian tribes that, while connected to him, do not answer to him.

To make the point clear, here's what I'm talking about. Let's look again at CapitalEye.org. Click on the Byron Dorgan entry. You'll find donations from a bunch of Indian tribes—Choctaw, Chippewa, and Cahuilla. Though connected to Abramoff, they're independent entities. They may have had their own reasons for donating to Dorgan, unrelated to Abramoff. Thus, it may be unfair to taint him by association withAbramoff.

In contrast, let's look at Tom DeLay: along with donations from the Cahuilla and Chitimacha groups, there are several donations directly from Abramoff. There's a clear money trail to DeLay, but at most a dotted line to Dorgan.

Representative Number One himself has not only donations from Jack & Pam A., but also one from SunCruz Casinos, Abramoff's little slush fund. That's why Rep. Ney is in deep doo-doo.

I looked at every one of the Dems listed in that (apparently comprehensive and trustworthy) website. Not one was listed as having received funding from Abramoff or the groups controlled by him.

Similarly, a search on "Abramoff" in www{dot}politicalmoneyline{dot}com , looking at the last three election cycles, not only doesn't show any Dems or Dem groups—it only lists 126 donations. So, based on this source, there's no way that 40 Dem senators and 100+ Dem reps have received contributions from this felon.

Again: if you have sources for information that are more robust than the sources I listed, I'd be interested in seeing what you find. Until then, the article should reflect the reality of Abramoff's donation history.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And true, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords is not technically a Democrat. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is to remove the disputed paragraph from the preamble and at the same time to remove the disputed tag: QED.Phase1 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is the information not relevant? In IMHO, a corrupt lobbyist's political donations are very important in assessing his/her place in politics and history. Since I've given citations that back up my contention (and neither Jbamb nor anyone else has yet rebutted them with contrary references), I strongly belive that the paragraph belongs in the article, without the disputed tag.

The [NPOV Article]says, in part:

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are 
perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in 
itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited
accordingly.

See also Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It doesn't endorse simply removing offending text to resolve a dispute. The paragraph is well referenced by two reputable sources. It belongs in the article.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the logic of trying to make Abramoff's $200,000 in personal donations to Republicans over 5 years significant, but not the millions in donations from his lobbying clients to both parties. Hello? He's a lobbyist who charged millions just for the access he could grant. Why would the Tribes spend this money to consult with him and then continue to donate thousands to other candidates if he did not direct the donation?

Anyways, as far as this dispute goes, that question is entirely rhetorical; the information in the disputed sentence is completely factual. I would simply remove the preceding clause:

Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwh (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can demonstrate that his lobbying clients donated money based on his recommendation, you might have a point. However, I doubt that you can demonstrate that he was the chief director of all the Indian tribes' donations. They had various projects, and a variety of advisors. Thus, the one-sided nature of his donations is the only meaningful measurement we can make of his connections. Given the partisan nature of the K Street Project and the fact that Abramoff was one of Bush's "Pioneer" fundraisers in 2004, his fundraising direction unquestionably points Republican.

By the way, "Democrat" is a noun. It's only used as an adjective by Republicans who dislike Democrats. The correct, NPOV, adjective is "Democratic." If I see "Democrat" used as an adjective in this article or elsewhere, I'll be forced to correct it.--RattBoy 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the text in dispute - it does not claim the clients donated based upon Abramoff's reccommendation. That's a separate argument (which I have an opinion on). With regards to the disputed text, it states a fact which is attributed to CRP. It's significant because he is a lobbyist, and part of what lobbyists do is direct their clients to make campaign contributions. There's no bias if you take out the "Although Abramoff…" part.

However, I would assert that this information is specifically relevant to the Tribes and the lobbying scandal, therefore it might not belong in the article 'preamble'. -Kwh 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, perhaps deliberately. I don't dispute that the Indian tribes' donations to Republicans and Dems might be relevant in the article; I believe that it should be balanced by citing the fact that Abramoff, clearly a partisan Republican (one of GW Bush's "Pioneers," who has been a sleepover guest at his White House at least three times!), has donated exclusively to Republicans (at least in recent years).--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rattboy - I resent the fact that you think I am missing anything deliberately. I'm only trying to make this the best article it can be and keep it from devolving into a partisan pie-fight. But here's my $64,000 question to you - if Abramoff's clients' donations to Democrats are not significant, why are Democrats returning some of them? -Kwh 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the implication. (I did use the word, "perhaps," so it's not a "fact."

In answer to your question: some Dems may be returning donations because they don’t want to be caught with their hands in the till. However, they may be doing so only to remove any appearance of impropriety.

As this scandal continues to unfold, some Dems may turn out to be as dirty as a pig wallowing in the Senate floor. Until such info comes to light, however, this is a Republican scandal. Those who wish to write about Dirty Dems would do well to visit the Dan Rostenkowski article.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why this should be omitted from the article:

Abramoff is a central figure in a series of high-profile political scandals directly linked to over 200 Republican members of Congress. Abramoff has never directly contributed any money to Democrats. [14] Some of Abramoff's clients have contributed money to some Democrats, however, there is no evidence that these independent contributions were linked to any corruption. For more information, see Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal.

It was originally deleted by User:69.116.90.247 [15]. When I tried to revert it, User:Phase1 erased it again claiming that "there is nothing anon about him". Why not log in when you make edits? And what is the point of not putting an overview of Abramoff's campaign contributions that are connected with the scandal in the preface of the article? --Howrealisreal 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. He HAS given money to Democrats, just not recently. And he's a lobbyist consultant. Don't you think as part of advising his clients in how to lobby Congress he might just tell them where to donate their money? Just a thought... -- Jbamb 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While possible, you'll need a source for your beliefs. Right now it seems that Abramoff's personal motives are aligned exclusively with the GOP. What other entities that he worked for do with their money is another story.It's total speculation to say what extent Abramoff played in those cases. While it is fair to say the lobbying problem (auctioning off public policy to the highest bidder) is equally as bad for Democrats and Republicans, this specific case seems to connect more strongly with the GOP. --Howrealisreal 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbamb, you have twice asserted that others' claims about this issue are untrue. In the former case, you disputed my well-referenced claims–without coming up with anything to support your statement. Again, in your paragraph above, you fail to back up your POV with a citation. While I accept it as possible that Abramoff may have donated to a Democrat someday in the past, I don't know of any such instance—and you haven't enlightened us. Would you please do the research and cite it prior to your next assertions of this nature?--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

RattBoy, there is a link at the end of the introduction to a wikipedia article discussing the corruption allegations (Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal). It is stated there that the corruption involves the indian tribes he represented. I'll concede that Abramoff personally gave money to Republicans, but that's not what the story is about. And in reponse to Howrealisreal, one can not say for sure what Abramoff's motivations were without asking him directly. However, I'd have no qualms wagering that Abramoff's interests were aligned exclusively with his own pocketbook. --Stolencdz 17:28, 8 January 2006 (CST)

Read carefully. Abramoff's scandals are not confined to the Indian tribes he represented. There’s also the little matter of Suncruz Casinos, the entity which apparently wined&dined Bob Ney—and which did not donate any money to any Democrat.

This article is about Jack Abramoff. In assessing who he is, one should look at his political affiliation and interests.

There are scandals re. his work on behalf of some of the Indian tribes he represented. Does that mean that all the tribes he represented are dirty, and that their donations are tainted (or even suspect)? I doubt it. Since we don't know the level of potential "dirt" associated with those donations, it's impossible to say whether the tribes' donations are more important than Abramoff’s personal donations. Therefore, both aspects of the story should be factually laid out.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction currently reads that Abramoff directly contributed to over 200 Republican congressmen. Is this figure correct? I have seen lists from many of the political contribution websites that are publicly available, but never bothered to count how many distinct names appeared. Furthermore, whenever I looked at such lists I saw contributions to Senators and the President. Where did the firgure 200 Congressmen come from? Thanks --Stolencdz 17:39, 8 January 2006 (CST)

I'm skeptical. The CapitalEye.org site lists 196 Republican entities that have received $$ from Abramoff and "sources linked to" him since 1999. That includes ten groups such as "National Republican Senatorial Cmte," as well as candidates who didn't win (and thus couldn't be correctly called "congressmen"). I suppose if one went back another decade, one might find 200 Republican individuals getting $$ from Abramoff and his associates (again, whatever that means). However, I very much doubt that as many as 200 Republican members of Congress received $$ directly from him.--RattBoy 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The CRP data shows direct contributions from Abramoff to 112 different entities in the election cycles 2000-2006. I think that CRP is also subtracting off the donations returned, since they show -$1000 ($1000 from) Frank Lobiando in 2006. The thing is, nothing in and of that is illegal or even unethical. It's the 'quid pro quo' which goes against Congressional ethics and may be illegal. -Kwh 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro removal by Phase1

The intro must be re-written. A paragraph or two that deals with abramof's life from zero to now. This is the second (and last) time i have reverted edits such as [16], keep an eye for it.-Achille.Carsten 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is good to note the current, succinct intro excludes the section that I previously had to edit out.Phase1 15:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I think this article needs a re-org to focus on the things of significance with regards to Abramoff. I'm going to try to form an outline on the main significant facts about Abramoff to create a better section layout from, and re-org the article to focus in on what is significant for a reader. Don't yell at me, I don't have all night to cover everything so please correct and add to this outline as appropriate, and bold the outline items so that they can be distinguished from discussion. As far as I can see, the significant things about Abramoff are: (Note: I put in a lot of quick notes below which could be considered very POV. These all need to be supported with facts and cites in the rewrite. I'm just trying to put things I have read in different places together to make more of a 'story'.) -Kwh 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Intro: He is a businessman and a political lobbyist, implicated
• 1980s - He was in the College Republicans with Reed and Norquist.
• 1986 - He cut his lobbyist teeth at the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) where he recruited a number of so-called useful idiots.
• 1994 - He rose in prominence as a lobbyist at Preston Gates following the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
• 1997 - Tom Delay, Northern Marianas lobbying.
  • Frank Murkowski, then Senator from Alaska, and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee writea a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. Then, and now, they are allowed to use the "Made in the USA" label.
  • So compelling was the case for change (91 percent of the workforce were immigrants, and were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage, were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, etc.), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski worker reform bill.
  • In the meantime, the Northern Marianas hires Jack Abramoff to lobby for them and paid him roughly $9 million to prevent this
  • As part of Abramoff's lobbying, Tom DeLay took a trip with his family and some staff members there in 1998. (On New Years Eve, there, is where DeLay made the famous comment of Abramoff: "one of my closest and dearest friends."
  • Abramoff funneled much of the money to his pet charities, including to Rabbi David Lapin for promoting ethics in government, and many DeLay charities.
  • At least two people who worked on Abramoff's team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget. (Safavian has recently been indicted relating to other lobby type problems with Abramoff).
  • By 2001, DeLay has succesfully stopped Murkowski's bill, and the Islands gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
  • this section needs more work, but I wanted to get something rolling here. Sholom 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• 1999-2000 - Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
  • Ralph Reed and Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped Abramoff with a pro-gambling campaign to prevent Internet Gambling from being federally outlawed.(!)
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on parts of the bill which allowed loopholes for dog, horse racing, and jai-alai. This enabled them to oppose the bill on the basis that it was 'pro-gambling' even though it was a bill to restrict internet gambling (and the bill was otherwise supported by Dobson, Focus on the Family)
  • eLottery Inc was Abramoff's client[17]
  • Money to Reed was laundered through Norquist's ATR, then through Robin Vanderwall, director of the Faith and Family Alliance, a "shell". Vanderwall was later convicted of soliciting minors via the Internet and is serving a seven-year term in Virginia state prison.
  • Tony Rudy, Delay's Chief of Staff, funneled inside information on the bill to Abramoff.
  • Abramoff funneled eLottery money through "Toward Tradition", which employed Rudy's wife
  • Shandwick Worldwide - hired by Abramoff to get letters opposing IGPA from Jeb Bush.
  • Florida man, Matthew Blair, told authorities in a plea bargain agreement that he was hired to get letters opposing the bill from Bush and others, but created a forgery when this failed.
  • Forged letter from Jeb Bush opposing IGPA circulated on House floor, caused confusion
  • Delay voted down on the bill, helped keep the bill off the floor for the rest of the session through procedural tricks (suspension calendar).
  • eLottery paid for part of the 2000 Delay Scotland golf trip, Tony Rudy was invited as well.
  • The bills sponsors gave it another shot by trying to attach it to an appropriations bill.
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on lobbying 10 conservative representatives in vulnerable districts
  • The representatives told Delay that their constituents were angry about the bill and did not want it passed; Rudy worked within Delay's office to 'trump up' the concerns (manufactured by Reed and Sheldon) and get Delay, Hastert to tell the caucus not to pursue the bill.
  • Abramoff later hired Rudy after he left Delay's office.
• 2000 - Delay Scotland golf trip (Remember that Delay's problems with not reporting this donation was one of the first things that brought Abramoff into the spotlight). Also, the Skyboxes. Need to focus specifically on JA's part in this
• 2000-2001 - He was part of the 2000 Florida Recount legal effort This is not currently mentioned
  • In 2001 moved to Greenberg Traurig. and poached some clients.
• 2000-2005 - He was investigated, indicted, and pled guilty to bank and wire fraud in the SunCruz case. Suncruz purchase deal was done in 2000.
  • (IIRC)He convinced a bank he was worthy of credit to make the Suncruz purchase by using transfers of lobbying cash ($23m) to represent assets which he did not have.
  • remove the last sentence and replace with the following three bullet points
    • He heard from another lawyer at his lawfirm that the owner of Suncruz needed to sell. Abramoff said that the knew of potential buyers. He concealed his own interest from his lawfirm, becuase, without full disclosure, it is unethical for a single lawfirm to represent both a buyer and a seller
    • He pleaded guilty to committing fraud by producing fraudlent documents that purported to show he came up with a $23m down payment
    • Although the seller, Boulis, needed to fully divest, Abramoff made a side deal with the Boulis in order to let him keep 10%
  • Dana Rohrabacher, Tony Rudy (Delay aid) helped him pull off the bank fraud by providing credit references.
  • Ney helped out with comments in the congressional record, by admonishing the previous owner (Boulis) and praising the purchase.
  • Delay may have helped out by giving Boulis a flag which had flown over Capitol, and one of Abramoff's financiers for the purchase came to a skybox fundraiser for Delay.
  • We need to put the full details on Boulis's murder at the Suncruz article, not here. Abramoff has not yet been implicated in the murder, only his associate Adam Kidan.
• 2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding.
  • Abramoff TribeScam outline:
    • Around 2001, JA went in search of a lobbying client who was naive and had a lot of money to spend.
    • Abramoff found the LA Coushattas, whose casino was in debt. ($30mil)
    • Abramoff gained the Coushattas trust, Coushatta needed help with LA people who wanted to shut them down.
    • Some of the Coushatta expressed doubts against trusting JA, JA exploited the intra-tribal (and inter-tribal) politics to discredit 'dissidents'. Excellent perspective from the tribehere.
    • In October 2001, JA convinced the Coushatta that TX legislature was going to allow indian gambling. Exploited tribal fears of Tigua and AL Coushatta casinos in Texas, stealing their revenue from gamblers commuting from TX.
      • This was the initial 'Phantom Menace' pitch to get the Coushatta to dish out $3.5mil in the first six months, to lobby against something which wasn't going to happen anyways.
    • Jena #1-In January 2002, Jena Choctaw submitted compact to get approval for a casino (in LA). [18]
      • Abramoff had Reed and Dobson do the first 'anti-gambling' crusade, resulting in first Jena shutdown. (Reed got $4mil altogether)
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Federal level (Dept. of Interior, indirectly through CREA ($225K), Gale Norton's former PAC, now run by Italia Federici to get access to Griles and Norton in Interior) and cash to Senators and Representatives to write letters to Interior to stop Jena.
      • Abramoff was on first-name basis with Griles, Griles arranged meetings between Coushatta and MS Choctaw chiefs (MS Choctaw also an Abramoff client, also opposed Jena) and Norton. Meetings occurred at CREA functions as well as officially, at Interior.
      • Vitter wrote letters to Interior, got 26 other house members to sign. Reed promoted Vitter in postcard campaign, who later won LA Senate race.
      • Senators Breaux, Lott, Cochran send letters to Interior.
      • March 6 - After all the letters have been written, Coushatta cut the checks to 61 members of Congress. Also, one check on the list makes the CREA->Norton link implicit: "Council for Republican Advocacy (Norton)."
      • March 7 - DoI rejects Jena compact.
    • Jena #2
      • After rejection, Jena hired their own lobbyists (Patton-Boggs) and tried again, this time with tacit support of Billy Tauzin and Breaux.
      • March 2002 - LA Rep. McCrery's chief of staff, Bob Brooks (who later went on a Scotland golf trip with Abramoff) writes up legislation to block Jena.
      • June 2002 - Strongly worded, Abramoff-written letter to Norton opposing Jena is signed and sent by Delay, Hastert, and Blunt.
      • more cash to CREA to get influence with Interior. Also, cash to CREA from Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan tribe? Why was this?)
      • Griles tries hard to influence Norton within Interior. He is challenged by Michael Rosetti, Counsel at Interior, 'who did not want Norton's decision process on the Jenas influenced by "outside people".'
      • Vitter tries to urge Interior to block Jena via language in Appropriations report.
      • December 2002 - Norton eventually allows Jena compact, but the tribe ultimately gets shot down by LA gov. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, who does not want any expansion of gambling.
    • Tigua
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Cornyn, cash to Reed, Dobson, Christian Coalition to defeat Tigua in TX. Funneled cash through bogus American International Center, Delaware shell corp, as well as through Grover Norquist orgs. Abramoff used Reed as cover, Reed went on 'anti-gambling' crusade, brought in numerous pastors and evangelical sources to lobby and 'propagandize'. Abramoff hid the fact that he was behind the Tigua defeat.
      • February 2002 - Abramoff knows through Reed that the Tigua casino is about to get shut down by Cornyn. Abramoff and Scanlon make a move to take on Tigua as clients.
      • Abramoff and Scanlon soak the Tigua (who historically donated to Democrats) for vastly inflated rates, because Abramoff looks like an extremely powerful lobbyist (by what he has been able to do for the Coushatta and others) and because he is the Tigua's last hope.
      • JA sells the Tigua on a massive, national political campaign. He is basically charging them enough for a presidential campaign. The actual work described in this campaign is not really ever started.
      • Abramoff starts shipping out Tigua cash to Delay, ARMPAC, Blount, Ney. Big payoff to Ney. This is to get a clause put into the Help America Vote Act to 'save' the Tigua from Cornyn. Delay, Blount, Ney, will use their power to make sure the amendment doesn't get debated too much. Dem. Sen Chris Dodd is allegedly supposed to help the bill pass the Senate. Per Dodd, someone from DNC (Democratic National Committee) and 2 Ney staffers approach Dodd, but he will not help. Abramoff emails Scanlon - "get our money back from that mother fucker who was supposed to take care of dodd" (Interesting fact to research here - Ney staffers went to Dodd because they were wondering whether the amendment (which Ney supported in the House) was going to pass the Senate. Ney claims he realizes he was 'duped' by Abramoff when he found out that Dodd was not going to support it. Who was the person from the DNC? was this the person Abramoff/Scanlon paid to try to coerce Dodd?)
        • Abramoff/Scanlon had to get a Democrat (Dodd) on-board because the Senate was a Democratic majority at the time, due to the Jim Jeffords 'flip'. It's also possible that Dodd was on the appropriate committee for 'reconciliation' of the bill amendments.
      • The bill will not pass, but nobody tells the Tigua. Abramoff gets the Tigua to pay for Ney's scotland golf trip. (w/Safavian, Reed, Abramoff)
      • Tigua get hosed, complain ... eventually this all gets investigated by SIAC.
  • Above details are on LA Coushatta and Tigua scams. Need details on JA's other tribal clients - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara.
  • He committed income tax fraud in the amount of millions of dollars in perpetrating that fraud.
  • He admitted to bribing "Representative #1" (Ney)
  • However, much of this detail belongs on the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal article
  • Need to get down to brass tacks on what money was given and who wrote letters/did favors - the 'quid-pro-quo'. The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients. - this should go to the scandal article
• 2003 - He was paid by Tyco to carry out an 'astroturf' grass-roots lobbying campaign (while at Greenberg Traurig), but allegedly defrauded Tyco (money paid, but work not done)

Things which are less significant/belong in an "Other" section:

• The "Red Scorpion" movie (but note the IFF connection).
• The "Channel One News" lobbying.
• Connection to Malaysia.
• Homeland Security contract? (I hadn't heard about this, not sure how significant it is)

Things which belong in an "Other investigations" section:

• 2002 - Connection to Guam.

-Kwh 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is a constructive rewrite. As regards your statement: "The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients":

I don't think that's necessarily very relevant to the scandal. Senators write letters on behalf of their constituents all the time.

Dorgan says, in his rebuttal to media stories inspired by the Republican National Committee, that he intervened on tribes' behalf months before receiving donations. It's easy to recognize that a Senator from North Dakota, a state with a high Native American population, would support schools and hospitals for them, merely as part of his constituent service. See http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=249313, linked twice in the Article. Time will tell whether or not any Dems are as dirty as DeLay and Ney or not. For now, emphasizing the "fact" that you list risks assisting RNC POV spin.--RattBoy 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant, and so is Dorgan's rebuttal, as well as any rebuttal Delay or Ney might make. One of the most critical things in distinguishing a 'quid-pro-quo' from a representative simply accepting support from constituents and then representing their concerns is the correlation of the money to the act. Example: this story from Sign On San Diego[19] implicates both Reid and Hastert by this sort of timing correlation, which they all (of course) deny. My personal opinion (as a citizen) is that this shouldn't be about who plays the best spin game. We all lose (those of us who are US citizens) if anyone gets a free pass on this. Every politician - any party - who's been playing this farcical 'see no evil, hear no evil' game of pretending that hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions from a single source isn't tied to a 'quid-pro-quo' has the chance to confess their 'sins' and beg forgiveness, or else they can all share the same fate. As far as the article goes, It's not assisting RNC POV spin if the facts speak for themselves. We have a duty to the truth. -Kwh 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to back up on that, just a little. I forgot which article I was discussing. On review, this particular article is about Abramoff himself, and his crime is defrauding the Tribes, bribing "Representative #1" (Ney) (specifically, conspiracy to corrupt public officials, mail fraud and tax evasion). Logically, most of the details on the tribal money debacle belong in Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal. I stand by my rant on campaign finance, though.-Kwh 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Time Magazine has a good overall/summary article on all of this. I would suggest that whoever (who has more time than I) re-writes use it as a resource. It's at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147156,00.html, although you need to be a subscriber to get web access.

Proposed rewrite -- Reinventing a Wheel anywhere?

OK, I'm new at this, so somebody help me out please? It seems to me that the entries for Jack Abramoff, and for the Abramoff Scandal, are almost completely overlapping. E.g., the above re-write is almost all the scandal part, right?

So, we're either reinventing a wheel over here, or over there they need to reinvent a wheel.

Somebody help me out here? What should we do? Sholom 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'abridged' version of the rewrite would be about Abramoff's life. The individual scandals can be broken out into their own (linked) articles. The idea is to eliminate the overlap, eventually. The reader can go to Jack Abramoff for a capsule biography of him, including a summary of the scandal, and then click to the scandal article to get the full meat and potatoes.-Kwh 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure how it works, practically, with an open-document situation like this, but your idea, if it can work, is sound (imho). Furthermore, are we to have one, or more than one, scandal articles? E.g., I've already written the SunCruz Casinos article, which is the longest treatment of it in Wikipedia. And here (above) we now have the summary. So, then, what goes into the generic Abramoff scandal article? (Note: Suncruz has nothing to do with lobbying, it was just -- for the most part -- an ordinary fraud case. But, even aside from that question: where do we go from here? Users are already simulateously working on this article and the Abramoff article and Abramoff scandal article -- in an uncoordinated independant fashion. So, where do we go from here? (Please note: two separate questions: (a) conceptually, how do we connect Abramoff article, Abramoff scandal article, and SunCruz Casinos article; and (b) how do we get a better handle on coordinating the Abramoff and Abramoff scandal articles?). (Also, I just learned that case matters! Note the difference between Abramoff scandal and Abramoff Scandal and SunCruz Casinos and Suncruz Casinos. Is there anyway to fix that? Sholom 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the insanity

I'll try and keep this as civilized as possible...

Abramoff's CLIENTS did also give money to Democrats, but it's totally irrelevant. He's a Washington DC Lobbyist.. Of course he's going to have clients who contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. That's not an imporant link.

This is a load of garbage designed to push a POV. Abramoff is a lobbying consultant. He's in trouble for getting access to his clients. It is simply unreasonable to believe that part of this influence buying for his clients makes his clients and firms donations irrelevant. -- Jbamb 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic scenario for those who lack the sense referred to as common

• I shop at JewelOsco. Therefore, I'm a client of JewelOsco.
• I am also a supporter of Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) and I went online and donated $100 to him last week.
• Let's suppose that a JewelOsco scandal erupts where it is revealed that at weekly board meetings, members of the board decapitate innocent baby kittens for their own entertainment....
• Let's suppose we have an article about the scandal: JewelOsco Kitten Slaughetering Scandal
• If someone wrote in the top paragraph "Democrat Bryon Dorgon has received donations from clients of kitten slaughterers", WOULDN'T YOU THINK THEY'RE BATSHIT INSANE?!

Jack Abramoff:

• Hated Democrats, and never had any dealings with any Democrats. Period.
• Never gave a single red penny to Democrats Period.
• Gave money to some 200 members of Congress. ALL OF THEM WERE REPUBLICANS.

Please stop the lying. This isn't the Fox News Channel: it's an encyclopedia. 202.76.188.214 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Give this a little more thought and come up with a more accurate scenario (though the use of analogies offends my senses):

• I am a conservative. I consistently vote for Republicans and donate to Republicans all over my state and across the nation.
• I work for an evil oil company that wants to drill for oil off the shore of Massachusetts. I use my employer's (ie, the company's; if you'd like the company can be owned by an indian tribe) to bribe every federal politician in Massachusets to push through a bill allowing my company to drill.

Now what has happened? I, a conservative person who has personally donated large - yet legal - sums of money to Republicans, have broken the law by bribing a bunch of Democrats. Am I saying that is what happened? No. I don't know exactly what happened. Nobody in the general public does. It is very possible that every Republican in the national government is driving a Mercedes personally delivered by Abramoff. Until we find out, however, it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and misleading to portray the situation otherwise. This is an encyclopedia. It's not Fox News, or the New York Times, or 202.76.188.214's personal blog. Until guilt is admitted or found, let's leave the conjecture to the pundits. --Stolencdz 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the opening paragraph is total conjecture. My analogy was supposed to demonstrate how ridiculously tenuous that link is. I completely agreee with you: let's not insinuate junk we don't know about. That's why I think the sentence about "well, abramoff's clients gave money to democrats, so you know, it's all fine, right?" (i'm paraphrasing) ought not be in the article: at the very least, not in the opening paragraph. That correlation doesn't have any place in the article at all IMO, but certainly not in the opening paragraph. It trivializes the link between Abramoff and the REPUBLICANS who he wrote checks to. I hope that explains it "more better" (to quote Shrub). I wish I could have worked something about decapitating kittens in there... 202.76.188.214 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. The intro paragraph is totally legit as of right now. It states that Abramoff has not donated to Democrats personally (based on the information that is available) in recent years, and that his scandal has also implicated his buisness partners who have donated to both Democrats and Republicans. What's wrong with that? The real question that I think you guys should be asking is: why Abramoff? I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street, each with their own political connections and motives, but yet Abramoff is the one that got snagged. It seems to me that Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg here, and that the lessons learned from this can easily be applied to all the other "super lobbyists" out there for either political party that we just don't know about yet.--Howrealisreal 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that my opposition to the opening paragraphs stems from a personal bias. I am a conservative-leaning individual who has been frustrated by the repeated references to "Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist, ..." (such a description implies that he lobbies *for* Republicans; if anything it should read 'Jack Abramoff, Indian lobbyist'). When I first encountered the article it read "Jack Abramoff, Republican attorney and 'super' lobbyist" and have struggled since then to establish a more nuetral openning.

And responding to HRiR's post, I agree. I was happy with the paragraph that explained his personal contributions and his clients contributions separately. It's been changed since but I'm fighting the urge to revert it for fear of unleashing all hell on myself. I've avoided giving my input to the rest of the article for two reasons: First, I expect I may tear what's left of my hair out as I edit our rumor after rumor. Second, I don't know enough detail about each particular incident to accurately assess what is a rumor.

But in the end we all seem to agree on the same point: An encyclopedia is a depository for facts. If we can all hold true to that credo, and look past our personal biases, we won't have any problems - and wikipedia will be stronger for it. --Stolencdz 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Abramoff is (or was) a Republican fundraiser and an activist Republican. Given DeLay's K Street Project, which essentially consisted of arm-twisting lobbying firms into hiring Republicans in top positions, I think it's completely factual to describe Abramoff as a "Republican lobbyist." Considering that his manifold scandals encompass far more than a few Indian tribes (see Mariana Islands[20], SunCruz Casinos, Guam, and Osama bin Laden)¹, calling him an "Indian lobbyist" would be incomplete and incorrect. I don't insist that the word, "Republican," appear in the initial sentence, as long as his partisan nature is clear from the text of the article.

I also agree with HRiR's post. I would be happy if the paragraph re. political contributions contained the following information:

• He has personally donated a bunch o bucks to Republicans, and
• Sources "linked to him" (again, whatever that means) have donated to Repubs and Dems in approximately a 2-to-1 ratio.
• It would also be appropriate, in IMHO, to note that he was one of Bush's "Pioneers," raising $100,000+ for his re-election campaign—but I don't insist that that be included.

An article which contains this information might not be kind to the Republican Party, but it would be factual and NPOV. From my point of view, the reason that this whole discussion has taken place, is that every time I tried to point out his partisan Republican history, some editor or other would revert it—ignoring my citations and claiming sans references that Abramoff had donated to Dems. If the description meets the above criteria, I'll go and find something else to whinge about. I think the article is pretty close to the criteria that I list; as it stands, it's pretty good.

(1) (I'm kidding about his purported bin Laden connections, which have a VinceFosteresque ring to them.)--RattBoy 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of Party Affiliation

The latest in this category is from 69.116.90.247, who deleted the word, "Republican," from the Intro. I restored it. I feel we've reached something approaching a consensus on this aspect of the Jack story. If they delete the info without any discussion on the Talk Page, I'll have to revert it.--RattBoy 11:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative #1 ?

The antecedents section says "whom many believe to be Bob Ney" and the indian tribes section says "but who is confirmed to be Bob Ney" Which one is it?32.97.110.142 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by Ney's lawyer.[21] I've changed the Antecedents section to reflect that fact.--RattBoy 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is it really important to include Abramoff's religion in the introduction? I don't see this as a typical practice. For example, no where in George W Bush's opening does it talk about his religion. Nor does it say 'Roman Catholic' in the openning of Ted Kennedy's. --Stolencdz 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Unless all references to Israel or Jack Abramoffs being Jewish are permanently removed, I will continue to edit this page FOREVER. The authors are obviously Jew haters, and are using Wikopedia as a weapon to both slander Jack Abramoff and by inference all other Jews. Why else would you have to write about his Jewish upbringing or his friend in the ultra orthodox city of Bietar Illit. Most educated antisemitic vermin like yourselves realize that you can't spill forth your venom by claiming that the Jews own the media and banks so you do it with subtleties like mentioning how he changes his "Yarmulke" at will in order to fool his clients. Or refer to him as a "SUPER ZIONIST using references from articles by other antisemites as if having been printed lends legitimacy to your slander.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.111.138 (talk • contribs)

• I also see little reason to reference his religion -- but I think there is one place where it is legitimately mentioned: he founded a private Jewish school (Eshkol), where he sent his kids, and used it to launder money. I would point out that almost all the mainstream press also takes this tack -- that is, specifically: ignoring his religion except when mentioning the school, and, even there, just mentioning it once. Thoughts? Sholom 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well if a random person intends to edit this page FOREVER if even the causual mention of Mr. Abramoffs religion or religion-related dealings remains on the page, I would think that section of the page should be protected :/. But if this religious school he founded really existed and if he really used it to launder money, it seems right to put that part in there at the very least, but those are just my thoughts :). Homestarmy 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Naturally you would, I bet you would like to see the UN protect Neo Nazi Concentration camps if they were built too. "CAUSUAL" Jew hater that you are. This edit by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs)

• • The school is called Eshkol Academy. What we do know, for sure, is that funds from at least one of Abramoff's "charitable organaizations" (specifically, the Capital Athletic Foundation) were used to help fund it (whether it was used as a pass through to launder money to other places is strongly suspected, but not proved anywhere). I think to ignore that it was a religious school is silly. However, I generally do agree that, otherwise, the article need not mention his religion. Sholom 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Stolencdz: It certainly shouldn't be in the introduction. Also, Sholom's change was necessary and a clear improvement. Some time ago, I also had made a related change [22] and my rationale was thus: The distinction I make is what I may call "inward" and "outward" religion.

I can't look into other people's heart, so, as a rule, the question how religious they are is none of my business, and does certainly not belong in an encyclopedia. That is inward religion. Wearing a yarmulke, a burqa, a rumāl or a "Jesus Loves you" badge are outward signs, and there's nothing wrong with noting them. I found it an interesting tidbit that Abramoff chose to remove the outward sign.

But if this is really encyclopedic is a different question altogether. I think Howrealisreal (above, 15:15, 9 January 2006) hit the nail on the head when he wrote "I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street". That's what we should turn our attention to! Common Man 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert war about a Juan Cole link

This link: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-al-arian-lobbyists.html has been added and reverted numerous times. I wonder what's the consensus about this? On the one hand, the charges are inflammatory. On the other, I was under the impression that Juan Cole was a recognized expert on the Middle East. Should the link stay or go?--RattBoy 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, Cole is a recognized expert. Even if "inflammatory," the "charges" are true and informative.--64.18.237.141 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is an opinion blogger and Professor of History. As the by-line on his site notes, these are "Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion". He is most definitely expert, but in this case, Professor Cole is rebutting the speculation from The Hill that the sniper classes are for the IDF. He is also commenting on the ME situation by posing the hypothetical that if a Muslim had sent sniper equipment to a Palestinian, they would be arrested, thrown in Gitmo, etc.

It needs to be given the weight of an opinion, not fact. (IIRC the text was "as Professor Cole points out," a phrasing which gives the opinion the weight of professorial research and fact; one does not 'point out' an opinion) I would argue that it would be better yet to cite and state the facts (Baytal Ilis is an Israeli settlement in the contested West Bank, Schmuel's "Kollel" was there, that's where JA sent the money.) Let the reader form the opinion. Beyond that we get into the arena of Middle East politics which is best left in articles about the Middle East. -Kwh 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Juan is a Jew basher, his entire article is conjecture. Why do you assume that he is an "expert" He has no way to verify the facts so he continues to make them up as he goes along. Abramoffs friend happens to be an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course.

Please substantiate your assertion that Juan Cole is a "Jew basher." How do you know Abramoff's friend is "an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course"? Source, please.--DieWeibeRose 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion & Israel- Striking a ballance

Calling Abramoff a "Super-Zionist" is clearly out-of-bounds.

Much of the other stuff you cite as well is far out-of-bounds and clearly anti-semitic.

However, I trust you will weild a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer in your edits and refrain from deleting legitimate references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.115.163 10:54, 11 January 2006 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I didn't know how to sign my name yet. I'm new. NiftyDude 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Pleaded" vs. "Pled"

Sometimes the opening sentence says he "pled" guilty; sometimes it says he "pleaded." Should editors be rv'ing this back and forth?

Dictionary.com gives "pleaded" as more common. However, I think "pled" is more elegant. I'm not bigtime invested in this, but it seems that editors oughta decide on one, and then spend their time on more substantive edits.

What do you-all think? "Pleaded" or "pled?"--RattBoy 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pled (in a legal context) is the more correct of the two. From [23]: The past tense is pleaded, pled, or plead (this last pronounced PLED), and the past participle, pleaded, pled, or plead (PLED). Pleaded, the regular weak verb form, is more frequent for both parts of speech, and the pled and plead past and past participle forms are labeled Colloquial by some dictionaries, Standard by others.

Plead not guilty and plead guilty are Standard idioms (His lawyer advised him to plead not guilty [guilty]), and the media almost always uses pled to report a defendant’s actions: The defendant pled [not] guilty.

• But check out all the newspaper reports -- they seem to only use "pleaded" (and, if so, then we ought to, no?) Sholom 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the case (google news results for "abramoff pled" are less than 100 while "abramoff pleaded" results are in the thousands). In that case, I guess pleaded should be used unless any specific guidelines are posted in the WP style guide.--216.165.33.63 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 'pled' sounds better. This sounds like a hung/hanged arguement to me. --Stolencdz 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 'pled' sounds better, too, but have been going with 'pleaded' b/c that's how all the news media seem to be reporting it.Sholom 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite!

I've been working on a rewrite here. Normally it's not good form to do a rewrite/re-org on a temporary page, but it's taken me a few days to get this far. Feel free to be bold and help me finish it. My method is start with the outline as a 'new view', then take some of the existing sentences from this and the scandal article to fill in the outline, and write my own stuff to fill in the blanks and make it into a story. You may notice that this article is getting very long; my method is to write out everything, then cut pieces out to go to other 'breakout' articles in a way that makes structural sense.

One thing you'll notice is that Abramoff's life, like Wikipedia, is extremely interlinked.

You'll also notice a link there to a Wikisource text where I am transcribing the contents of Abramoff's emails, memos, and checks (which are available from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee only as a bunch of poorly scanned print pages). The text of these documents will eventually be very useful to citation, so if you have any skill with OCR software, or can just type, please help out with transcription. Eventually I plan to upload the individual TIF images to Wikisource and link them to the individual pages shown there. -Kwh 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the rewrite out of user space to make clear that this is not intended to be a POV Fork. Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. -Kwh 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Transition Team

Air America keeps talking about how Abramoff was on Bush's transition team. I haven't found anything to corroborate that. JI

Well, we have the Texas Observer: "He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush “Pioneer,” delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant."

And Newsweek: "Yet Abramoff’s ties to the administration extended well beyond campaign checks. In 2001, Bush tapped the lobbyist as a member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues."

Hope this helps...--RattBoy 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, based on my research, Abramoff's initial contacts on the DoI had a lot to do with the Marianas Islands lobbying. Basically, CNMI had no inroads in the Clinton White House for many years; in 2001 Abramoff lobbied heavy in DoI on behalf of CNMI, and made contact with Griles. He also was lobbying on behalf of a few tribal clients, but the Coushatta/Tigua "TribeScam" was just getting started in 2001.

There's 1,001 sources that mention the same blurb that "he had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior." However, there's no source which really makes clear what JA did on the transition team, nor exactly how he got there. Why JA, why not someone else? That's what I want to know. Yes, he plunked money into a lot of campaign funds, but so did a lot of others. This link indicates that Norquist had something to do with it. This would be an interesting topic for research. -Kwh 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a historical document with sundry announcements from the White House in 2001, including announcements of many of the sub-cabinet level appointments, such as J. Steven Griles. A look at some of the names associated with Interior might give insight on what Abramoff was working on. -Kwh 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another useful bit of info - there were 474 people in all on the transition team, and "the vast majority of the members are industry lobbyists, corporate executives, trade association leaders and others with a pro-business agenda." However, this list from opensecrets claims to show 261 of the members who were also campaign contributors. Where's Abramoff? We do have William Jarrell, who worked alongside JA at Preston Gates, and also worked for DeLay, but that's 'sensible' since Jarrell also worked in the Dept of Interior during the Bush 41 Administration. This page also has a list of registered lobbyists on the transition team... again, where's Abramoff? (Note: there's a second list on that page showing lobbyists who are contributors which does include Abramoff, so don't get confused). So has Abramoff's appearance on these lists been censored (even from some highly critical sites), or is that much-repeated report in error? -Kwh 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to lock

Get the facts in and lock this thing. We've got people trying to spin it as hard as they can to the left, and others, notably John Henry, trying their absolute hardest to downplay the things. Just get the essential facts in there, like what he's charged with and who he's connected to and lock the article-otherwise, there's going to be fighting over this for weeks, and it's going to be vicious.-72.21 Same guy-a rewrite is pointless, this is extremely charged politically, and no version of events is going to be acceptable to everyone. The Republicans would like this article outright deleted, while the Democrats would like to paint this guy as the Devil Himself and George Bush's best friend. Just get it as objection as possible, and protect it.-72.210/UmlautBob

Comment moved to end-of-page. Also, I'd like to note that a rewrite is required to make the article readable and better organised, currently it is a mish mash of sections, w/ almost no hierarchy. I agree the article should steer away for political finger pointing and just present facts. Achille 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to Congress

My contention is that the artice says he contrubuted to several republican candidates, which is true, but he also contributed to severa democrat candidates, Debbie Stabenow is one, so why can't it just say he contributed to candidates without referencing which political party? Is that not the most objective way to write it. It is certainly not fair to mention only republicans.-unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Where do you find that he contributed to Stabenow? FEC records show he contributed solely to Republicans. There are also no allegations that Abramoff directed any money to any Dems. OTOH, Stabenow did, I believe, receive money from Abramoff's clients, but as I wrote above, I think it is unfair to tarnish every single recipient of any money from an Indian Tribe. I'll even go further, it looks like Levin and Stabenow both might be involved, but that's a different question, and pretty speculative. The bottom line, at least here, is that Abramoff did not donate to any Dem, nor did he direct any donation to any Dem. Sholom 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the Washinton Post artice here [24] Also, Den. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has acknowledged he did not properly report two fundraisers in Abramoff's sky box in 2002 and 2003. Montana Senators Max Baucus, a Democrat, returned $18,892, including $1,892 he had failed to report for use of Abramoff's skybox at a Washington, D.C., sports arena. Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat who sits on a congressional committee that oversees Indian tribes' issues with Sen Burns (a R who gave back money), returned $67,000 in Abramoff-related donations

According to Internal Revenue Service records, and substantiated by the Campaign Finance Analysis Project, forty of the forty-five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients. These recipients include: Charles Schumer ($29,550), Harry Reid ($68,941), Patty Murray ($78,991), Mary Landrieu ($28,000), John Kerry ($98,550), Ted Kennedy ($3,300), Tom Harkin ($45,750), Dick Durbin ($14,000), Barbara Boxer ($20,250), Hillary Clinton ($12,950) and Byron Dorgan ($79,300).

When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans. So, the statement that this is exclusively a “Republican scandal” is simply not true." source [25]

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total, I do concede that, but 66 percent is far from 100 percent. The Democrats were part of it too. -unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Just before someone else tears into you for this, you did say that "Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress", which is technically untrue. The indianz.com article said this money was from "Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients", which is a large set of people. Abramoff himself gave to about 90 candidates. (I don't have a separation of that for Senators vs. Representatives yet)

I agree with you, but there's still much interesting research to be done on how and why that money was contributed to each party. Also, for what it's worth, this amount may be dwarfed by the amount of 'soft money' which Abramoff funneled through non-profits and other hidden channels, and non-campaign money items like golf trips and skybox visits. -Kwh 03:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. 24.11.154.78, I'm sure you made your edits in good faith, but as Kwh points out, you appear to have misread the sources you provide. The fact is that Abramoff did not give money to Democrats. He gave money only to Republicans. This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere in this page. It appears that a consensus was reached at that point: the article should include the fact that Abramoff has donated money exclusively to Republicans. Since consensus has been reached that the information is factual and relevant, I'm reverting your edit again. If you have further research, please feel free to edit the article to reflect your information. But please take care to ensure that your edits accurately reflect the sources you cite.--RattBoy 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a distinction between money directly given from Abramoff to only Republicans and money given from clients, etc to both, why not include all of this in the article? So far all of the corrupt politicians linked with Abramoff have been Republicans, and there is much more to play out of this whole deal as more of the people Abramoff has fingered come out.--Paraphelion 11:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion - I think that this particular element is one of the least interesting things about Abramoff's life; there's tons more to talk about. Folks should remember that this particular article is titled "Jack Abramoff", so it is about a person and his life. These facts need to be fit into a context of describing his life. There can be other linked articles that dive to the level of detail of lists and how much money he gave to Person X and how much they gave back. That's my standpoint. -Kwh 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It may not be one of the most interesting things about Jacko's life, but it's noteworthy. Mentioning Abramoff without referencing his Republican partisanship is like writing about Brian Epstein, but ignoring his connection to the Beatles.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that intro paragraph a little clearer to draw the distiction between what Abramoff personally did with his money, and what his clients did with their money. --Howrealisreal 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will stop my edit. I guess there has been enough discussion so that if someone reads the article that is unfamiliar witht he scandal, they can read these discussions and infer what the specific facts are. It is all very confusing and I suspect it will be a while before all the facts are out. I just did not want to this to be directed at the Republican party in general, but rather negativity should only be imposed upon the individuals involved in wrongdoing, regardless of their political party. It does appear that only a few members of congress, who are all republicans, have been implicasted in actual scandelous activities thus far — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.154.78 (talk • contribs)

Gee, I guess there's little more that can be added to the Abramoff debate after the above erudite offering by 24.11.154.78. The latter wouldn't happen to reside in the immediate vicinity of the White House by any chance?Phase1 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty succinct (if not erudite) way of describing a proper NPOV perspective. Maybe you're reading it wrong. -Kwh 00:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's NPoV, as a Republican might wish it to be. 24.11 seems to think it's a minor scandal, not tainting the Republican Party on the whole. However, considering his direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Party, including Tom DeLay and George W. Bush—and considering that this whole scandal was a predictable result of the K Street Project—Abramoff's importance is that he's emblematic of the way that the Republican Party has been doing government since 1995.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that researching and gathering more info on how much the Abramoff scandal has to do with the K Street Project is an excellent idea, and will add a lot to the article! Thanks for volunteering. -Kwh 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cute. I didn't know I was "volunteering," but I might take you up on your suggestion anyway. I do recall reading that Greenberg Traurig hired Jacko in an effort to get more Republicans on staff—doubtless to curry favor with Tom DeLay and his gang. Here are some lynx, found by Googling "Abramoff 'K Street Project'":

WaPo, 1/3/06:

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was
initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP
vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade
associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless
relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

NPR: "In Washington, K Street is synonymous with the lobbying industry. The K Street Project, a Republican initiative to integrate lobbyists into the political power structure, had been linked to the current scandal with lobbyist Jack Abramoff." (I'm on dialup, so I'm not gonna try to download the audio.)

LA Times:

The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political
risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for
dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political
machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay
(R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and
business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to
support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for
top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached
deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What connection did he have to Bush? I really don't know. Jellonuts 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you might be joking. The name "Bush" appears numerous times on this page alone. Abramoff raised over $100,000 for the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004, making him one of Bush's elite "Pioneers." He had close ties to Karl Rove. Those are just two examples of the close ties between Abramoff and Bush. (See the rest of this page for other examples.)--RattBoy 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a loose definition of close ties. Bush is surrounded by hundreds (if not thousands) of people who gave big money to any number of his campaigns in the past, or otherwise have done or can do something for him. I would say that "close ties" means having a long working relationship, seeing eye-to-eye, having the same goals, and having trust. I would say that Bush has close ties to people like Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney. Harriet Miers has close ties to Bush[26]. I would say Abramoff has very close ties to Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist. But there's a paucity of facts to say that Bush has close ties to Abramoff. It doesn't mean it's not so, just that it hasn't been researched enough.-Kwh 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, your definition of "close ties" might be unnecessarily tight. However, the point I was making was not that he has "close ties" to Bush (though the manifold connections might indicate that he does, indeed). I was merely outlining (some of) his connections with Bush. If you re-read the history of this discussion, you'll see that I wrote of Jacko's "direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Republican Party, including DeLay and Bush." In my definition set, being a Bush "Pioneer" constitutes a "direct connection." (So would attending several parties as a guest at the White House. So might doing time on his transition team, if such a role by Abramoff can indeed be fleshed out.) See WaPo: Scandal Visits the White House, which speaks of the arrest of Safavian, Bush's top Procurement Director, and of Abramoff's efforts to get his personal assistant a plum job as Karl Rove's gatekeeper. See also USA Today. Scott McClellan might try to minimize the connections to Abramoff, but they're there, hiding in plain sight.--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a connection there, but what's the back-story, as far as it can be intuited from public sources? If you want to hang this around the Republicans' necks (and I think you do), you've got to show that they were knowledgeable and complicit in Jack's illegal activities. We know that Jack took a lot of the filthy lucre from bilking the tribes and gave it to Bush. We know that Safavian worked for Abramoff and later worked for the White House (but remember, he was charged for lying about the golf trip, so the arrest doesn't imply further wrongdoing other than that he tried to lie to protect himself/Jack/DeLay). The Ralston thing is interesting, but it could be just as easily explained as Jack planting a 'mole' in Rove's office; according to sources, Ralston would take Rove's messages and then call Norquist to get orders on which calls to put through.

Right now, the most direct connection is through K Street and Norquist. K Street was Gingrich's baby, Norquist nurtured it, DeLay adopted it, and Bush sent his representative to the Wednesday meetings when he was still running for the GOP Presidential nomination. According to some sources, Gingrich "made" Abramoff as a lobbyist.[27]

Karl Rove is the smartest political operative in the world. I don't believe for a second that Rove didn't fully vet Ralston before hiring her.

I don't "want to hang this around the Republicans' necks," unless that's where it belongs. Right now, the RNC appears to want to diffuse the scandal by highlighting any connection between Dems and anyone who's ever met Jack. Complicity on this part seems rife in the Mainstream Media, and I'd rather not see Wikipedia go along, as well, simply to get along.

As it stands now, the facts are that Abramoff is a card-carrying Republican. All his important contacts are with Republicans. Does that mean that all Republicans are dirty? Of course not. But it does indicate that there's a structural problem with the Leading Lights of the party, including DeLay and Rove. The Abramoff connection in K Street Project seems to describe his connections, and the potential impact on the Party, pretty accurately and in a NPoV fashion:

"Abramoff's associates gave donations to members of both parties, but two-thirds of the cash went to Republicans.[28]. However, according to Howard Dean, no Democrat has received money directly from Abramoff.[29]. Political analysts say that the scandal currently hurts the Republican Party more than the Democrats, but members of both parties have returned large cash contributions given to them by Abramoff (as to Republicans) or his clients in past campaigns. All of Abramoff's personal campaign contributions went exclusively to Republicans. [30]. The five people charged or directly implicated so far in this scandal are Republicans. [31]."

I'd like to see the Jacko Page do likewise.--RattBoy 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A big piece of the puzzle seems to be here:[32]

DeLay laid the groundwork for the K Street project by calling corporate lobbyists into his office after he was elected whip in 1995. He sat them down and pointed to their names in a ledger that included contributions they had made to Democrats and Republicans. Then he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that -- or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership.

That's why I think it needs more research, also a lot more of these facts need to be added to K Street Project. Critical questions: Did DeLay corrupt Abramoff, or vice-versa? How did Gingrich tap Abramoff (former B-movie producer) to be big lobbyist at PGE? Did Abramoff "go rogue" in 2001 when he jumped to GT and he and scanlon came up with a script for bilking Indians, or was he singing from the K Street hymnbook? -Kwh 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmmm..... FACT CHECK

From the article: Senator Byron Dorgan, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Abramoff, advocated for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of Abramoff (though not directly from Abramoff). According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Dorgan received at least $79,300 from Indian tribe clients and lobbying associates of Abramoff. [33] Dorgan strongly denies any connection, saying that he never met Abramoff and that he had long supported funding for Indian tribes.[34] Despite this, Dorgan announced in December 2005 that he would return donations totaling $67,000, in order to remove any remote possibility of a connection to the felonious lobbyist.[35]

Um... as the New York Times reported last week, donations to Dorgan were made by indian tribes BEFORE those clients were represented by Abramoff. Where's the connection? 130.126.220.138 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

www.crp.org revised their numbers to remove cash contributed by tribes prior to Abramoff representation. According to the revised numbers, Dorgan did in fact receive $28,000 from (at the time) clients of Abramoff. I can't quite understand why he returned so much more, but I guess you'd have to call Dorgan's office and ask why they returned $67,000. -Kwh 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute re: "Connection to Israel-Palestine"

Under the guise of NPOV, Leifern has removed references to the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. It is, in fact, POV to omit these references as Abramoff's, apparently, criminal diversion of funds is aggravated by sending them to illegal settlements in occupied territory. Who would dispute the relevance and significance of this aggravating circumstance if the funds had been instead diverted to Islamic Jihad?

The illegality of the settlements and the fact of occupation is recognized by both the UN and International Court of Justice.[36][37][38] Even the US gov't. does not claim the settlements are legal or that there is no occupation. Only Israel and its supporters--globally, a distinct and tiny minority--"dispute" the illegality of the settlements and the fact of its military occupation of the West Bank. Privileging this minority viewpoint is definitely POV.--DieWeibeRose 09:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks have covered some of this ground before but the pro-Israel POV keeps getting reinstated (see Talk:Jack_Abramoff#Israel-Palestine).--DieWeibeRose 09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff sent money to an individual, Schmuel (per his emails). If you read the primary source (his emails) it's not clear that he was not even clear on what they were being used for, only that he was helping out an old friend by paying for his Jeep, and he wasn't even clear on what 'kollel' was. I think this section is slowly getting to an actual NPOV. I can't understand why you think that the text (as of my writing this comment) is pro-Israel as it makes no mention of the disputed settlement/colony/whatever. -Kwh 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, will you please provide a URL for the e-mails you cite?--DieWeibeRose 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

They are the documents at indian.senate.gov described as "Exhibits released to the public as part of the Oversight Hearing on Lobbying Practices". Abramoff's communications with and about Schmuel are mixed in amongst numerous other emails. I did a little more reading and found that it appears that Abramoff was funding Schmuel out of some pity (Schmuel's parents died young, Schmuel was raised by his aunt and uncle and decided to go to Israel, was barely getting by in poverty and told story about how his community was afraid of 'terrorists' in Israel, he was trying to help by holding these security/'sniper' courses). Schmuel uses a lot of mixed Hebrew/English and it's not clear how much of this Abramoff actually understood.

At any rate, I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia article on Betar Illit. If anyone wants to battle it out as to the legality/illegality of this settlement, maybe it should go there. -Kwh 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Most of these statements are conjecture. Juans assumptions cannot be proved so I have removed them. PLEASE stick with the FACTS. Unless you can prove the statement PLEASE refrain from putting it into this article. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a newspaper.

• vast improvment over the previous efforts. We'll save the accolades until the finished product. But for now your on the right track.

• I read through the letters on his friend. It's not Encyclopedia material.Who knows how many friends or family members he gave hand-outs to. It really bares no relevance to the political crimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

The Secret of NIMH

Believe it or not, Abramoff did have a hand in the make of the film as a producer, so stop calling me a vandal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.29.75 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference which verifies your claim? Or should we simply take your word for it?--RattBoy 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes any reference will do. Time, newsweek, National enquirer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Just like the rest of the article we need "reliable" sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

early post

"Where is the discussion of his relationship to DeLay? That's the only reason this guy is in the news -- User:66.254.244.169."

lol

useful?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506Z.shtml

2000 Election Recount

The following sentence has a credibility problem:

Abramoff and his partners at Greenberg Traurig had not received $314,000 earned for successfully representing Bush in the 2000 elections which placed Bush in Oval Office [39].

The problem is that Abramoff was still at Preston Gates in late 2000 while the recount debacle was going on. Some of the 39 GT lawyers who were 'on the ground' in Florida would later work for Team Abramoff, but not yet. Also, although Abramoff acted like he ran Greenberg Traurig, his name was not 'on the door', therefore he's not accountable nor is he in control of everything the firm does. It's quite possible that he was responsible for forgiving the bill, and his bosses thought that was a good idea based on the amount of revenue Abramoff brought in, or it was done by 'the senior partners' to curry favor with the Administration... this sentence needs to make that more clear. KWH

Archives

• Archive 1 Friday 12th August 2005 Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 1 I made some substantial edits to the page and archived the entire earlier talk since it was mostly to do items since dealt with.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

COPYVIO

This article and it's sister screed are embarrassments to wikipedia. They're essentially the same and both reflect the authors politocal hatred and zeal. Both also have severe irredemable copyright problems and are and embarrasment to wikipedia. They need to be deleted immediately. --John Henry 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Alot of this article DOES seem to be a blatent copyvio. Tyco, as below, was edited (the text was accurate, but half the news story was pasted in here). You cannot just wholesale paste in paragraphs of text from a news story, attribute a link, and it not be a copywrite violation. It's called Plagerism. [40] [41] --B.ellis 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyco

Almost the whole tyco section is a blatent rip from the WAPO article. I've removed part of it, as it needs to be re-written.--B.ellis 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned much of the CopyVio stuff up, hopefully. There is alot of non-essential stuff in this article about peripheral people, and not about Abramoff, however. It needs to be cleaned up more, as the article meanders alot here and there. --B.ellis 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some things you took out (outside the Tyco section), like in the "Early years" section and in the intro about DeLay. That material is not copyright infringement because it is properly sourced when directly quoted. --Howrealisreal 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be rewritten to not be a direct copy paste unless you are going to quote it. Just providing a link is not attribution, and copying entire paragraphs out of an article is plagiarism, not 'fair use' unless you are quoting. Also, if you are going to say 'the los angeles times reports' you need to source the times, not a secondary source (i.e. democracy now).

I modified the quote and attributed properly.

--B.ellis 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech from Tom DeLay is a direct quote (it's in quotations) so of course it is taken word-for-word from the source. I'll tweak the setup to the quote a little better as per your request. Here's the primary source for the other thing. --Howrealisreal 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I see something that is probable CopyVio I tend to chop it out first, and then rework it (I don't usually just leave it out, if the quote is accurate). Btw have you found a link for the franken quote, I can't find anything other than on blogs. Honestly I'm not sure what the relevence to an article on Abramoff is, really, anyway.

The "forced abortions" part was originally reported by Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998. It also appears in Al Franken's book The Truth (with jokes) in the "Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway" chapter. Since we've agreed that primary sources are key, i've change the attribution in the article. --Howrealisreal 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Indian tribes scandal

--Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC) This area is a mess, I have tried to clean it up a bit and structure it better. It may be best to create a new page on the tribes scam and point the Reed, Norquist etc pages to it.

Basically we need fewer facts and more context. At the moment the page is simply a list of transactions that may or may not have been legit with a strong implication that they were not legit.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole scandal to its own page. This makes much more sense since although Abramoff is a major player in that scandal there are several others who are significant players, in particular Ralph Reed. I am not doing this to hide the scandal, I think that people looking for info on it know that there is more than one player.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The email trail

This section does not appear to say very much that is already said. It should probably go.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it looks pretty good in the context of the tribes scandal article so I moved it there

Isn't abramoff conected to the murder of a florida man too?

RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND: ABC News reported on August 2, 2005 that Susan Ralston, Karl Rove’s long-time right-hand, testified before the grand jury. The National Journal reported, “If Karl Rove is Bush’s main man, then it’s Ralston who makes this White House go — because she’s indispensable to Rove.” According to Newsweek, Ralston was suggested to Rove by ethically-troubled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for whom she previously served as a top aide. [ABC The Note, 8/2/05; Newsweek, 4/20/05; National Journal, 6/18/05] Israel Hernandez Personal assistant to President Bush (2001-2005)

See the SunCruz scandal. Police state that Abramoff is a person of interest in that investigation. At the moment too busy reorging the Abramoff-Reed thing. --Gorgonzilla 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

timeline=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/01/AR2005050100091.html

of use http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34520-2004May17.html

Who first blew the wistle on Abramoff?

five federal agencies don't just start investigating a lobbyist at the same time for no reason.

Ronnie Earle started investigation?

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Cy1uxOMqo5MJ:makesmeralph.typepad.com/makesmeralph/2004/07/delay_ally_subj.html+abramoff+%22investigation+started%22+&hl=en

Ronnie Earle seems to be the guy

For over six months Earle and a grand jury investigated violations of Texas campaign finance law in the 2002 election. His ongoing investigation of two political action committees that spent a combined $3.4 million on 22 Republican Texas House races is now focused on a PAC founded by DeLay and directed by {Jack Abramoff]]. "This is an attempt to criminalize politics," claimes DeLay. "Ronnie Earle", he told reporters at his Feb. 24 press conference, is a "runaway prosecutor."

better pic need one that doesn't violated copyrights

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116389/

better info+can we use this pic?....please?

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0533/050817_news_abramoff.php

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123075/2112264/2116388/050407_Jack-Abramoff.jpg

new stuff

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0829lobbyist29.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3233abramoff_indict.html (Aug 26, 2005 editorial/analysis)

I don't see anything here about Abramoff's connection to extreme right-wing Israeli politics. I recall that he played a role in getting the law through Congress that reduced aid to the Palestinians after Arafat died. Also that he raised money to train sharpshooters among the settlers. -- RWM

The murder indictment

I updated the story from the piece in the Post [42]. However this will need ongoing revision, there are clearly details that have not been given. The prosecutors clearly are investigating a link to SunCruz. Although the target is almost certainly Kidan rather than Abramoff this cannot look good for either of them. --Gorgonzilla 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tag.

I have removed the speedy delation tag placed on this article by John Henry. Tag read {{db|COPYVIO - use of copyrighted image w/o citation of reason}}. This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The contested image has been removed pending confirmation of source.  BDAbramson ^talk 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read your link? Look on the right and you will find COPYVIOS as a reason for speedy deletion. Click on that link and you will be taken here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

on that page you will see the statement "Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" " Given Gorgonzilla has repeatedly infringed copyrights and for an extended period of time that clearly meets the qualification of BLATANT. Don't vandalize the tags again. --John Henry 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please allow me to clarify the deletion policy. A copvio is a reason to speedy the image, not the article containing the image. There has been no allegation that the text of the article is copied from another source, nor would this comport with the edit history.  BDAbramson ^talk 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please allow me to post text from the image page (click the image to see):

"This work is copyrighted and unlicenced. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, the individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this use qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. For each use of this image, please provide a detailed rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use.

Gorgonzilla used the image. As such, it was Gorgonzilla's COPYVIO not the uploaders'. Since you appear to be running cover for Gorgonzilla who thinks the image is of "Grover Norquist" - I've decided to report his extended crime to the image's owner. He is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to all producers of intellectual property everywhere. Wikipedia's cavallier attitude toward Gorgonzilla's crimes are similar embarrassments. --John Henry 04:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Please read WP:CSD. Thanks. Guettarda 04:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The same user tried to do the same at the Reed-Abramoff article as well. He also accused me of a 5th revert today which is odd, unless he is as I suspect LJS returned yet again and thinks that the 3RR applies to Wikipedia as a whole. I strongly suggest it is time to cfp the user and ask for a very long prohibition. --Gorgonzilla 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to delete important facts

The most significant fact about Abramoff at this point is the fact that he is under indictment for his involvement in a $30 million fraud. The murder of Boulis and the payments made by the company controlled by Abramoff and his partner to the three alleged killers is absolutely relevant.

Trying to delete these relevant facts is clearly an attempt at POV spin.

The same invididual then tried to delete all mention of the casinos article altogether. This despite the fact that it is one of the most significant political scandals in Washington today.

This looks to me like an attempt to eliminate this scandal from Wikipedia.--Gorgonzilla 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Can someone explain what aspects of the article are of disputed neutrality. Thanks. Guettarda 04:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User John Henry is an astroturf sock puppet who spends his time trying to bend wikipedia articles about current events to whatever the GOP talking points of the day are. He is clearly acting in bad faith and a cfp is about to be filed. --Gorgonzilla 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again - if the {{NPOV}} is going to remain on the article you need to outline the NPOV problems here, so that they can be discussed and sorted out. Thanks. Guettarda 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is a slight NPOV issue, as Abramoff also contributed to Democrats, including Daschle, Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Harry Reid, etc.

From WAPO: "Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation." [43]

To paint this as a republican only thing is less than ideal, it seems Abramoff was a crook hitting on both sides of the isle, but primarily lobbying the Repubs because they were the majority. --B.ellis 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is bias to paint this as Replublican... as Dems are a close second.

National Republican campaign groups received $1.24 million from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democratic groups took in $844,000 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.68.93 (talk • contribs)

I definitely agree that this is not just a republican thing, but are you sure those numbers are correct? I think they are probably higher on both sides, as per this Capital Eye report from the same group. The Contribution Summary sets the Democrat figure at $1,541,673 received, vs $2,912,088 for Republicans. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that this scandal is being 'painted as Republican' is dishonest and ignores facts about Abramoff which are certainly undisputable. He was chairman of the College Republican National Committee and worked for Reagan's 1980 campaign. The reason he got a job at Greenberg Traurig was because they needed someone in 2000 with Republican connections, the same reason Preston Ellis needed him in 1994. Abramoff's personal relationships with DeLay and other Republicans he had met in his student activist days. To point out that the firms Abramoff was associated with gave to both parties is taken completely out of context. Abramoff and his wife donated exclusively to Republicans, becoming a Bush 'Pioneer.' [44] In fact, between Michael Scanlon and SunCruz Casinos, there was only one donation to a Democrat, one Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) in the amount of $3,500 from SunCruz. Now, some of the tribes who were defrauded by Jack Abramoff made contributions to Democrats. But those contributions seem to be legal, as they were made toward the legal goals of the groups—Abramoff is accused of lobbying against them and then getting these tribes to give him money to lobby for them. --Djw bklyn 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

news on his ex-partner

Abramoff ex-partner pleads guilty to fraud charge

Speculation on guilty plea

(Moved this to Discussion after 15 December 2005)

Kidan is expected to plead guilty next week to federal conspiracy and wire fraud charges.

If the deal goes through, Kidan, who was looking at up to 30 years in prison, could now face a maximum of 10 years. That sentence could be reduced depending upon the extent of his cooperation as a witness, not only against Abramoff but also in the prosecution of the men charged in the murder of Boulis.

Lawyers for Kidan and prosecutors are finalizing the deal in which Kidan would plead guilty to one count each of conspiracy and wire fraud. A "change of plea" hearing has been set for Dec. 15. [45]

Remove fraudster cat

Removed fraudster criminal category until conviction. This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about people with indictments.--FloNight 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other than a very few exceptions, we do not have "accused criminal" categories, and merely accused persons should not be convicted by our categories. -Willmcw 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since he pled guilty today, the "Fraudster" cat has been restored.--RattBoy 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rightly so - he's now quite thoroughly an admitted criminal (if not yet a "convict"). BDAbramson T 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

can we use this?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/05/06/abramoff-inside.jpg

grazon 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mental health treatments?

This could use a bit of elaboration, methinks. What's he being treated for? --Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with my own suggestion, I've edited the page. "Mental health" is a bit of a broad category, and could be read to mean that Mr. Abramoff is seriously disturbed. He's actually being treated for stress, and an insanity plea is out of the question, so I thought this was more accurate and less potentially POV. Reference here. --Eric 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

useful links

to those of you working on this article, here is a Yahoo! search of *.gov for Jack Abramoff. Maybe these links will be of use to you as you work on this article. Kingturtle 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

they can run...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.fallout/index.html

Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, and Abramoff

The following paragraphs appear midway through the article. I'm concerned about its verifiability.

"In 1995 Abramoff worked for the Global Council of Islamic Banks, whose chairman, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, was under investigation for allegedly funding terrorism and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. [46]

"Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [47] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [48] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated."

The former paragraph has the ring of truth, though I'd be happier if it were sourced to something more mainstream than "TPMCafe." The latter paragraph sounds like wild a conspiracy theory, citing Casino Watch and Mad Cow Morning News.

I suggest removing, at least, the latter paragraph—unless someone can come up with better citations.

(Sorry, forgot to sign the above.)--RattBoy 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried removing that before, but it was replaced. Unless someone has better sources, I'll do it again soon.--Cuchullain 03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Education

Where did Abramoff go to law school? I'd like to know... Never mind, it's Georgetown. Google is my friend.

I'll edit the section accordingly.

Needs Revision in Light of 1/04/06 Guilty Plea

I reworked the first sentence in light of the second guilty plea today, but the restitution and other information now needs reworking, too. UncleFester 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobbyist works

Apparently, Abramoff was a former lobbyist for Channel One News. Should this be included in the article somewhere? --D-Day 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

    -Sure, that seems like a good idea.  There's no POV issue, and it's relavent information. --Rembrandt

Byron Dorgan

In the Indian tribes grand jury investigations section, the role of Senator Dorgan was listed first—with citations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee! This smacks of POV spin. Considering that Dorgan hotly disputes charges of "tit-for-tat" favors given to Abramoff, I moved his paragraph to the end, following those who certainly did receive donations from Abramoff. I also added some context and a reference to Dorgan's response.--172.131.44.81 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

I don't think the section should be called "Israel-Palestine," just "Israel," as it has not called Palestine anymore, and has not been for years. This is a fact, regardless of your views on a Palestinian State...this state has not been formed, therefore, in this article, it should be referred to as Israel.--152.163.100.7 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank is not part of Israel, it has never been annexed and the general internationally accepted usage is "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria," which is definitely POV. "Palestine" is also the generally accepted term for, at least, those portions of mandatory Palestine not annexed by Israel. Also, while the illegality of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank may be disputable, the illegality of the Jewish settlements there is not disputable. It is well-settled in international law that an occupying power cannot settle its nationals in occupied territory. Changes reverted.--64.18.236.129 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, it is not POV to state that Abramoff diverted funds to "Jewish settlers illegally occupying the Palestinian West Bank." Only the Israeli government and its apologists dispute the legality of these settlements; the international consensus is that they are illegal. It is informative that Abramoff diverted the money--probably, illegally-- for another illegal purpose supporting illegal settlements. Furthermore, it is not POV to point out, as Juan Cole does, that The Hill misreported the purpose of the sniper workshops. The IDF does not need private funding for sniper workshops. Finally, the quoted source, Newsweek, uses the spelling "Schmuel Ben-Zvi" not "Scahmua Benwvi"[49]--64.18.236.217 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are - you falsified your edit summary by calling it "Revert vandalism", you linked Belligerent military occupation, and you are only at this point identified as several random IP addresses with edits only on this article. You added the POV information initially, and several other people have edited out your POV at various times, which you consistently consider 'vandalism' and 'POV'. This article is not your personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll let someone else remove your latest reversion, and I won't say another word to you because I have no regard for editors who feel the need to do nothing but pick fights on every damnable Wikipedia article that mentions Israel or Palestine. It's not that I have a certain opinion about the conflict, I just don't like you. -Kwh 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, whoever you are, I didn't falsify my edit summary. I consider the extent and manner of the edit in question to be vandalism of a sort although I'll admit that was probably not the best choice of words. I only used it once, though, and I regret it--your point is taken.

Just what is wrong with linking Belligerent military occupation? The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is exactly that and I think that the fact Abramoff is helping equip Jewish paramilitaries in that occupied area is informative. Maybe that info can and should come out but let's hear a cogent argument to that effect, first. Also, so what if my identity is unknown? What difference does that make?

In any event, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue and your forbearance on revertings my reverts. You're right, this article is not my personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I don't think I've used it that way. I'm actually open to further edits to the section in question but I resent people just coming in and imposing their POV with nary a comment.--64.18.236.189 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors obviously don't like Juan Cole's remarks since they've deleted them several times. However, I think it is an important and accurate corrective to the information from The Hill. It's also been properly included in the article: "When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited."[50] --64.18.236.189 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will keep reverting unjustified edits to this section. If you have a problem with the language in the section then let's hash it out here but please stop the mindless, unexplained reverts. Also, can someone please explain to me why the spelling of Schmuel Ben-Zvi's name keeps getting changed even though it comes froma direct quote from Newsweek?--64.18.236.109 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, another unexplained, unjustified revert by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs). How do you know that Schmuel Ben-Zvi is an "IDF officer" and why do you keep changing the spelling of his name? A complaint about your behavior and numerous reverts/edits to this article has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal. We'll see how that works out.--DieWeibeRose 23:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

66.166.4.238 (talk · contribs) wrote "Connection to Israel-Palestine - replaced with just Middle East, so called 'Palestine' irrelevant." The use of "Israel-Palestine" is NPOV and relevant. It refers, in this context, to territory occupied by Palestinians and Israelis--most of which has never been annexed by Israel. "Palestine" is also the term used by the UN in reference to this territory.--DieWeibeRose 09:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Donations to Republicans and Democrats

A paragraph in the Intro reads:

Although Abramoff himself has long been an ardent Republican activist, Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [51]

"Sources linked to Abramoff" is a slippery phrase of limited value. The paragraph obscures the fact that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics website, Abramoff has not donated one red cent to Democrats or Democratic groups in the period covered. (One has to do a lot of digging to determine this fact—but the info's there, if one is willing to put in the time.) A search on "Abramoff" in http://www.politicalmoneyline.com yields the same results for the 2002-06 election cycles: he has given over $140,000 in the last three election cycles—all to Republicans or Republican groups.

In the Center for Responsive Politics website, "Sources linked to Abramoff" includes many Indian tribes, whose donations were not necessarily connected to Abramoff. (It also includes his wife, Pamela, and SunCruz Casinos—examples of direct links, none of which gave $$ to Dems or Dem groups.) Although the tribes' connections to Democrats could reasonably be included in the article, it is POV to muddy the waters by continually ignoring the fact that Abramoff's direct ties are entirely in the direction of one party. I'm editing the text to better reflect Abramoff's connections. If an editor wishes to revert it or significantly change it, I trust they'll explain their changes here.--RattBoy 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is also not true, and when I get time I'll back it up firmly with sources but I've seen it in several reputable locations that not only did 40 of 45 Dem Senators take Abramoff money, over a hundred Dems in the House did too. -- Jbamb 14:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that Dems received funding directly from Abramoff? In recent years?? If you have data that backs that up, please share it with us. The two reputable sources that I list have no record of it. (As long as you're doing research, you might want to check into the number of Dem Senators; my sources say that there are 44, not 45.)--RattBoy 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo. Though to be honest, I think seperating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd. If Capone's organization was giving donations, would you exclude them too? As far as I know, there is no one saying his lobbying firm is lilly white and Abramoff was a lone wolf. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Separating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd, I agree. However, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm drawing a distinction between his donations and the donations of Indian tribes that, while connected to him, do not answer to him.

To make the point clear, here's what I'm talking about. Let's look again at CapitalEye.org. Click on the Byron Dorgan entry. You'll find donations from a bunch of Indian tribes—Choctaw, Chippewa, and Cahuilla. Though connected to Abramoff, they're independent entities. They may have had their own reasons for donating to Dorgan, unrelated to Abramoff. Thus, it may be unfair to taint him by association withAbramoff.

In contrast, let's look at Tom DeLay: along with donations from the Cahuilla and Chitimacha groups, there are several donations directly from Abramoff. There's a clear money trail to DeLay, but at most a dotted line to Dorgan.

Representative Number One himself has not only donations from Jack & Pam A., but also one from SunCruz Casinos, Abramoff's little slush fund. That's why Rep. Ney is in deep doo-doo.

I looked at every one of the Dems listed in that (apparently comprehensive and trustworthy) website. Not one was listed as having received funding from Abramoff or the groups controlled by him.

Similarly, a search on "Abramoff" in http://www.politicalmoneyline.com, looking at the last three election cycles, not only doesn't show any Dems or Dem groups—it only lists 126 donations. So, based on this source, there's no way that 40 Dem senators and 100+ Dem reps have received contributions from this felon.

Again: if you have sources for information that are more robust than the sources I listed, I'd be interested in seeing what you find. Until then, the article should reflect the reality of Abramoff's donation history.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And true, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords is not technically a Democrat. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is to remove the disputed paragraph from the preamble and at the same time to remove the disputed tag: QED.Phase1 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is the information not relevant? In IMHO, a corrupt lobbyist's political donations are very important in assessing his/her place in politics and history. Since I've given citations that back up my contention (and neither Jbamb nor anyone else has yet rebutted them with contrary references), I strongly belive that the paragraph belongs in the article, without the disputed tag.

The [NPOV Article]says, in part:

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are 
perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in 
itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited
accordingly.

See also Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It doesn't endorse simply removing offending text to resolve a dispute. The paragraph is well referenced by two reputable sources. It belongs in the article.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the logic of trying to make Abramoff's $200,000 in personal donations to Republicans over 5 years significant, but not the millions in donations from his lobbying clients to both parties. Hello? He's a lobbyist who charged millions just for the access he could grant. Why would the Tribes spend this money to consult with him and then continue to donate thousands to other candidates if he did not direct the donation?

Anyways, as far as this dispute goes, that question is entirely rhetorical; the information in the disputed sentence is completely factual. I would simply remove the preceding clause:

Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [52] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwh (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can demonstrate that his lobbying clients donated money based on his recommendation, you might have a point. However, I doubt that you can demonstrate that he was the chief director of all the Indian tribes' donations. They had various projects, and a variety of advisors. Thus, the one-sided nature of his donations is the only meaningful measurement we can make of his connections. Given the partisan nature of the K Street Project and the fact that Abramoff was one of Bush's "Pioneer" fundraisers in 2004, his fundraising direction unquestionably points Republican.

By the way, "Democrat" is a noun. It's only used as an adjective by Republicans who dislike Democrats. The correct, NPOV, adjective is "Democratic." If I see "Democrat" used as an adjective in this article or elsewhere, I'll be forced to correct it.--RattBoy 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the text in dispute - it does not claim the clients donated based upon Abramoff's reccommendation. That's a separate argument (which I have an opinion on). With regards to the disputed text, it states a fact which is attributed to CRP. It's significant because he is a lobbyist, and part of what lobbyists do is direct their clients to make campaign contributions. There's no bias if you take out the "Although Abramoff…" part.

However, I would assert that this information is specifically relevant to the Tribes and the lobbying scandal, therefore it might not belong in the article 'preamble'. -Kwh 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, perhaps deliberately. I don't dispute that the Indian tribes' donations to Republicans and Dems might be relevant in the article; I believe that it should be balanced by citing the fact that Abramoff, clearly a partisan Republican (one of GW Bush's "Pioneers," who has been a sleepover guest at his White House at least three times!), has donated exclusively to Republicans (at least in recent years).--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rattboy - I resent the fact that you think I am missing anything deliberately. I'm only trying to make this the best article it can be and keep it from devolving into a partisan pie-fight. But here's my $64,000 question to you - if Abramoff's clients' donations to Democrats are not significant, why are Democrats returning some of them? -Kwh 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the implication. (I did use the word, "perhaps," so it's not a "fact."

In answer to your question: some Dems may be returning donations because they don’t want to be caught with their hands in the till. However, they may be doing so only to remove any appearance of impropriety.

As this scandal continues to unfold, some Dems may turn out to be as dirty as a pig wallowing in the Senate floor. Until such info comes to light, however, this is a Republican scandal. Those who wish to write about Dirty Dems would do well to visit the Dan Rostenkowski article.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why this should be omitted from the article:

Abramoff is a central figure in a series of high-profile political scandals directly linked to over 200 Republican members of Congress. Abramoff has never directly contributed any money to Democrats. [53] Some of Abramoff's clients have contributed money to some Democrats, however, there is no evidence that these independent contributions were linked to any corruption. For more information, see Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal.

It was originally deleted by User:69.116.90.247 [54]. When I tried to revert it, User:Phase1 erased it again claiming that "there is nothing anon about him". Why not log in when you make edits? And what is the point of not putting an overview of Abramoff's campaign contributions that are connected with the scandal in the preface of the article? --Howrealisreal 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. He HAS given money to Democrats, just not recently. And he's a lobbyist consultant. Don't you think as part of advising his clients in how to lobby Congress he might just tell them where to donate their money? Just a thought... -- Jbamb 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While possible, you'll need a source for your beliefs. Right now it seems that Abramoff's personal motives are aligned exclusively with the GOP. What other entities that he worked for do with their money is another story.It's total speculation to say what extent Abramoff played in those cases. While it is fair to say the lobbying problem (auctioning off public policy to the highest bidder) is equally as bad for Democrats and Republicans, this specific case seems to connect more strongly with the GOP. --Howrealisreal 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbamb, you have twice asserted that others' claims about this issue are untrue. In the former case, you disputed my well-referenced claims–without coming up with anything to support your statement. Again, in your paragraph above, you fail to back up your POV with a citation. While I accept it as possible that Abramoff may have donated to a Democrat someday in the past, I don't know of any such instance—and you haven't enlightened us. Would you please do the research and cite it prior to your next assertions of this nature?--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

RattBoy, there is a link at the end of the introduction to a wikipedia article discussing the corruption allegations (Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal). It is stated there that the corruption involves the indian tribes he represented. I'll concede that Abramoff personally gave money to Republicans, but that's not what the story is about. And in reponse to Howrealisreal, one can not say for sure what Abramoff's motivations were without asking him directly. However, I'd have no qualms wagering that Abramoff's interests were aligned exclusively with his own pocketbook. --Stolencdz 17:28, 8 January 2006 (CST)

Read carefully. Abramoff's scandals are not confined to the Indian tribes he represented. There’s also the little matter of Suncruz Casinos, the entity which apparently wined&dined Bob Ney—and which did not donate any money to any Democrat.

This article is about Jack Abramoff. In assessing who he is, one should look at his political affiliation and interests.

There are scandals re. his work on behalf of some of the Indian tribes he represented. Does that mean that all the tribes he represented are dirty, and that their donations are tainted (or even suspect)? I doubt it. Since we don't know the level of potential "dirt" associated with those donations, it's impossible to say whether the tribes' donations are more important than Abramoff’s personal donations. Therefore, both aspects of the story should be factually laid out.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction currently reads that Abramoff directly contributed to over 200 Republican congressmen. Is this figure correct? I have seen lists from many of the political contribution websites that are publicly available, but never bothered to count how many distinct names appeared. Furthermore, whenever I looked at such lists I saw contributions to Senators and the President. Where did the firgure 200 Congressmen come from? Thanks --Stolencdz 17:39, 8 January 2006 (CST)

I'm skeptical. The CapitalEye.org site lists 196 Republican entities that have received $$ from Abramoff and "sources linked to" him since 1999. That includes ten groups such as "National Republican Senatorial Cmte," as well as candidates who didn't win (and thus couldn't be correctly called "congressmen"). I suppose if one went back another decade, one might find 200 Republican individuals getting $$ from Abramoff and his associates (again, whatever that means). However, I very much doubt that as many as 200 Republican members of Congress received $$ directly from him.--RattBoy 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The CRP data shows direct contributions from Abramoff to 112 different entities in the election cycles 2000-2006. I think that CRP is also subtracting off the donations returned, since they show -$1000 ($1000 from) Frank Lobiando in 2006. The thing is, nothing in and of that is illegal or even unethical. It's the 'quid pro quo' which goes against Congressional ethics and may be illegal. -Kwh 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro removal by Phase1

The intro must be re-written. A paragraph or two that deals with abramof's life from zero to now. This is the second (and last) time i have reverted edits such as [55], keep an eye for it.-Achille.Carsten 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is good to note the current, succinct intro excludes the section that I previously had to edit out.Phase1 15:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I think this article needs a re-org to focus on the things of significance with regards to Abramoff. I'm going to try to form an outline on the main significant facts about Abramoff to create a better section layout from, and re-org the article to focus in on what is significant for a reader. Don't yell at me, I don't have all night to cover everything so please correct and add to this outline as appropriate, and bold the outline items so that they can be distinguished from discussion. As far as I can see, the significant things about Abramoff are: (Note: I put in a lot of quick notes below which could be considered very POV. These all need to be supported with facts and cites in the rewrite. I'm just trying to put things I have read in different places together to make more of a 'story'.) -Kwh 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Intro: He is a businessman and a political lobbyist, implicated
• 1980s - He was in the College Republicans with Reed and Norquist.
• 1986 - He cut his lobbyist teeth at the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) where he recruited a number of so-called useful idiots.
• 1994 - He rose in prominence as a lobbyist at Preston Gates following the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
• 1997 - Tom Delay, Northern Marianas lobbying.
  • Frank Murkowski, then Senator from Alaska, and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee writea a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. Then, and now, they are allowed to use the "Made in the USA" label.
  • So compelling was the case for change (91 percent of the workforce were immigrants, and were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage, were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, etc.), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski worker reform bill.
  • In the meantime, the Northern Marianas hires Jack Abramoff to lobby for them and paid him roughly $9 million to prevent this
  • As part of Abramoff's lobbying, Tom DeLay took a trip with his family and some staff members there in 1998. (On New Years Eve, there, is where DeLay made the famous comment of Abramoff: "one of my closest and dearest friends."
  • Abramoff funneled much of the money to his pet charities, including to Rabbi David Lapin for promoting ethics in government, and many DeLay charities.
  • At least two people who worked on Abramoff's team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget. (Safavian has recently been indicted relating to other lobby type problems with Abramoff).
  • By 2001, DeLay has succesfully stopped Murkowski's bill, and the Islands gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
  • this section needs more work, but I wanted to get something rolling here. Sholom 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• 1999-2000 - Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
  • Ralph Reed and Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped Abramoff with a pro-gambling campaign to prevent Internet Gambling from being federally outlawed.(!)
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on parts of the bill which allowed loopholes for dog, horse racing, and jai-alai. This enabled them to oppose the bill on the basis that it was 'pro-gambling' even though it was a bill to restrict internet gambling (and the bill was otherwise supported by Dobson, Focus on the Family)
  • eLottery Inc was Abramoff's client[56]
  • Money to Reed was laundered through Norquist's ATR, then through Robin Vanderwall, director of the Faith and Family Alliance, a "shell". Vanderwall was later convicted of soliciting minors via the Internet and is serving a seven-year term in Virginia state prison.
  • Tony Rudy, Delay's Chief of Staff, funneled inside information on the bill to Abramoff.
  • Abramoff funneled eLottery money through "Toward Tradition", which employed Rudy's wife
  • Shandwick Worldwide - hired by Abramoff to get letters opposing IGPA from Jeb Bush.
  • Florida man, Matthew Blair, told authorities in a plea bargain agreement that he was hired to get letters opposing the bill from Bush and others, but created a forgery when this failed.
  • Forged letter from Jeb Bush opposing IGPA circulated on House floor, caused confusion
  • Delay voted down on the bill, helped keep the bill off the floor for the rest of the session through procedural tricks (suspension calendar).
  • eLottery paid for part of the 2000 Delay Scotland golf trip, Tony Rudy was invited as well.
  • The bills sponsors gave it another shot by trying to attach it to an appropriations bill.
  • Reed and Sheldon focused on lobbying 10 conservative representatives in vulnerable districts
  • The representatives told Delay that their constituents were angry about the bill and did not want it passed; Rudy worked within Delay's office to 'trump up' the concerns (manufactured by Reed and Sheldon) and get Delay, Hastert to tell the caucus not to pursue the bill.
  • Abramoff later hired Rudy after he left Delay's office.
• 2000 - Delay Scotland golf trip (Remember that Delay's problems with not reporting this donation was one of the first things that brought Abramoff into the spotlight). Also, the Skyboxes. Need to focus specifically on JA's part in this
• 2000-2001 - He was part of the 2000 Florida Recount legal effort This is not currently mentioned
  • In 2001 moved to Greenberg Traurig. and poached some clients.
• 2000-2005 - He was investigated, indicted, and pled guilty to bank and wire fraud in the SunCruz case. Suncruz purchase deal was done in 2000.
  • (IIRC)He convinced a bank he was worthy of credit to make the Suncruz purchase by using transfers of lobbying cash ($23m) to represent assets which he did not have.
  • remove the last sentence and replace with the following three bullet points
    • He heard from another lawyer at his lawfirm that the owner of Suncruz needed to sell. Abramoff said that the knew of potential buyers. He concealed his own interest from his lawfirm, becuase, without full disclosure, it is unethical for a single lawfirm to represent both a buyer and a seller
    • He pleaded guilty to committing fraud by producing fraudlent documents that purported to show he came up with a $23m down payment
    • Although the seller, Boulis, needed to fully divest, Abramoff made a side deal with the Boulis in order to let him keep 10%
  • Dana Rohrabacher, Tony Rudy (Delay aid) helped him pull off the bank fraud by providing credit references.
  • Ney helped out with comments in the congressional record, by admonishing the previous owner (Boulis) and praising the purchase.
  • Delay may have helped out by giving Boulis a flag which had flown over Capitol, and one of Abramoff's financiers for the purchase came to a skybox fundraiser for Delay.
  • We need to put the full details on Boulis's murder at the Suncruz article, not here. Abramoff has not yet been implicated in the murder, only his associate Adam Kidan.
• 2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding.
  • Abramoff TribeScam outline:
    • Around 2001, JA went in search of a lobbying client who was naive and had a lot of money to spend.
    • Abramoff found the LA Coushattas, whose casino was in debt. ($30mil)
    • Abramoff gained the Coushattas trust, Coushatta needed help with LA people who wanted to shut them down.
    • Some of the Coushatta expressed doubts against trusting JA, JA exploited the intra-tribal (and inter-tribal) politics to discredit 'dissidents'. Excellent perspective from the tribehere.
    • In October 2001, JA convinced the Coushatta that TX legislature was going to allow indian gambling. Exploited tribal fears of Tigua and AL Coushatta casinos in Texas, stealing their revenue from gamblers commuting from TX.
      • This was the initial 'Phantom Menace' pitch to get the Coushatta to dish out $3.5mil in the first six months, to lobby against something which wasn't going to happen anyways.
    • Jena #1-In January 2002, Jena Choctaw submitted compact to get approval for a casino (in LA). [57]
      • Abramoff had Reed and Dobson do the first 'anti-gambling' crusade, resulting in first Jena shutdown. (Reed got $4mil altogether)
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Federal level (Dept. of Interior, indirectly through CREA ($225K), Gale Norton's former PAC, now run by Italia Federici to get access to Griles and Norton in Interior) and cash to Senators and Representatives to write letters to Interior to stop Jena.
      • Abramoff was on first-name basis with Griles, Griles arranged meetings between Coushatta and MS Choctaw chiefs (MS Choctaw also an Abramoff client, also opposed Jena) and Norton. Meetings occurred at CREA functions as well as officially, at Interior.
      • Vitter wrote letters to Interior, got 26 other house members to sign. Reed promoted Vitter in postcard campaign, who later won LA Senate race.
      • Senators Breaux, Lott, Cochran send letters to Interior.
      • March 6 - After all the letters have been written, Coushatta cut the checks to 61 members of Congress. Also, one check on the list makes the CREA->Norton link implicit: "Council for Republican Advocacy (Norton)."
      • March 7 - DoI rejects Jena compact.
    • Jena #2
      • After rejection, Jena hired their own lobbyists (Patton-Boggs) and tried again, this time with tacit support of Billy Tauzin and Breaux.
      • March 2002 - LA Rep. McCrery's chief of staff, Bob Brooks (who later went on a Scotland golf trip with Abramoff) writes up legislation to block Jena.
      • June 2002 - Strongly worded, Abramoff-written letter to Norton opposing Jena is signed and sent by Delay, Hastert, and Blunt.
      • more cash to CREA to get influence with Interior. Also, cash to CREA from Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan tribe? Why was this?)
      • Griles tries hard to influence Norton within Interior. He is challenged by Michael Rosetti, Counsel at Interior, 'who did not want Norton's decision process on the Jenas influenced by "outside people".'
      • Vitter tries to urge Interior to block Jena via language in Appropriations report.
      • December 2002 - Norton eventually allows Jena compact, but the tribe ultimately gets shot down by LA gov. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, who does not want any expansion of gambling.
    • Tigua
      • Abramoff funneled cash to Cornyn, cash to Reed, Dobson, Christian Coalition to defeat Tigua in TX. Funneled cash through bogus American International Center, Delaware shell corp, as well as through Grover Norquist orgs. Abramoff used Reed as cover, Reed went on 'anti-gambling' crusade, brought in numerous pastors and evangelical sources to lobby and 'propagandize'. Abramoff hid the fact that he was behind the Tigua defeat.
      • February 2002 - Abramoff knows through Reed that the Tigua casino is about to get shut down by Cornyn. Abramoff and Scanlon make a move to take on Tigua as clients.
      • Abramoff and Scanlon soak the Tigua (who historically donated to Democrats) for vastly inflated rates, because Abramoff looks like an extremely powerful lobbyist (by what he has been able to do for the Coushatta and others) and because he is the Tigua's last hope.
      • JA sells the Tigua on a massive, national political campaign. He is basically charging them enough for a presidential campaign. The actual work described in this campaign is not really ever started.
      • Abramoff starts shipping out Tigua cash to Delay, ARMPAC, Blount, Ney. Big payoff to Ney. This is to get a clause put into the Help America Vote Act to 'save' the Tigua from Cornyn. Delay, Blount, Ney, will use their power to make sure the amendment doesn't get debated too much. Dem. Sen Chris Dodd is allegedly supposed to help the bill pass the Senate. Per Dodd, someone from DNC (Democratic National Committee) and 2 Ney staffers approach Dodd, but he will not help. Abramoff emails Scanlon - "get our money back from that mother fucker who was supposed to take care of dodd" (Interesting fact to research here - Ney staffers went to Dodd because they were wondering whether the amendment (which Ney supported in the House) was going to pass the Senate. Ney claims he realizes he was 'duped' by Abramoff when he found out that Dodd was not going to support it. Who was the person from the DNC? was this the person Abramoff/Scanlon paid to try to coerce Dodd?)
        • Abramoff/Scanlon had to get a Democrat (Dodd) on-board because the Senate was a Democratic majority at the time, due to the Jim Jeffords 'flip'. It's also possible that Dodd was on the appropriate committee for 'reconciliation' of the bill amendments.
      • The bill will not pass, but nobody tells the Tigua. Abramoff gets the Tigua to pay for Ney's scotland golf trip. (w/Safavian, Reed, Abramoff)
      • Tigua get hosed, complain ... eventually this all gets investigated by SIAC.
  • Above details are on LA Coushatta and Tigua scams. Need details on JA's other tribal clients - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara.
  • He committed income tax fraud in the amount of millions of dollars in perpetrating that fraud.
  • He admitted to bribing "Representative #1" (Ney)
  • However, much of this detail belongs on the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal article
  • Need to get down to brass tacks on what money was given and who wrote letters/did favors - the 'quid-pro-quo'. The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients. - this should go to the scandal article
• 2003 - He was paid by Tyco to carry out an 'astroturf' grass-roots lobbying campaign (while at Greenberg Traurig), but allegedly defrauded Tyco (money paid, but work not done)

Things which are less significant/belong in an "Other" section:

• The "Red Scorpion" movie (but note the IFF connection).
• The "Channel One News" lobbying.
• Connection to Malaysia.
• Homeland Security contract? (I hadn't heard about this, not sure how significant it is)

Things which belong in an "Other investigations" section:

• 2002 - Connection to Guam.

-Kwh 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is a constructive rewrite. As regards your statement: "The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients":

I don't think that's necessarily very relevant to the scandal. Senators write letters on behalf of their constituents all the time.

Dorgan says, in his rebuttal to media stories inspired by the Republican National Committee, that he intervened on tribes' behalf months before receiving donations. It's easy to recognize that a Senator from North Dakota, a state with a high Native American population, would support schools and hospitals for them, merely as part of his constituent service. See http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=249313, linked twice in the Article. Time will tell whether or not any Dems are as dirty as DeLay and Ney or not. For now, emphasizing the "fact" that you list risks assisting RNC POV spin.--RattBoy 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant, and so is Dorgan's rebuttal, as well as any rebuttal Delay or Ney might make. One of the most critical things in distinguishing a 'quid-pro-quo' from a representative simply accepting support from constituents and then representing their concerns is the correlation of the money to the act. Example: this story from Sign On San Diego[58] implicates both Reid and Hastert by this sort of timing correlation, which they all (of course) deny. My personal opinion (as a citizen) is that this shouldn't be about who plays the best spin game. We all lose (those of us who are US citizens) if anyone gets a free pass on this. Every politician - any party - who's been playing this farcical 'see no evil, hear no evil' game of pretending that hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions from a single source isn't tied to a 'quid-pro-quo' has the chance to confess their 'sins' and beg forgiveness, or else they can all share the same fate. As far as the article goes, It's not assisting RNC POV spin if the facts speak for themselves. We have a duty to the truth. -Kwh 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to back up on that, just a little. I forgot which article I was discussing. On review, this particular article is about Abramoff himself, and his crime is defrauding the Tribes, bribing "Representative #1" (Ney) (specifically, conspiracy to corrupt public officials, mail fraud and tax evasion). Logically, most of the details on the tribal money debacle belong in Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal. I stand by my rant on campaign finance, though.-Kwh 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Time Magazine has a good overall/summary article on all of this. I would suggest that whoever (who has more time than I) re-writes use it as a resource. It's at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147156,00.html, although you need to be a subscriber to get web access.

Proposed rewrite -- Reinventing a Wheel anywhere?

OK, I'm new at this, so somebody help me out please? It seems to me that the entries for Jack Abramoff, and for the Abramoff Scandal, are almost completely overlapping. E.g., the above re-write is almost all the scandal part, right?

So, we're either reinventing a wheel over here, or over there they need to reinvent a wheel.

Somebody help me out here? What should we do? Sholom 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'abridged' version of the rewrite would be about Abramoff's life. The individual scandals can be broken out into their own (linked) articles. The idea is to eliminate the overlap, eventually. The reader can go to Jack Abramoff for a capsule biography of him, including a summary of the scandal, and then click to the scandal article to get the full meat and potatoes.-Kwh 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure how it works, practically, with an open-document situation like this, but your idea, if it can work, is sound (imho). Furthermore, are we to have one, or more than one, scandal articles? E.g., I've already written the SunCruz Casinos article, which is the longest treatment of it in Wikipedia. And here (above) we now have the summary. So, then, what goes into the generic Abramoff scandal article? (Note: Suncruz has nothing to do with lobbying, it was just -- for the most part -- an ordinary fraud case. But, even aside from that question: where do we go from here? Users are already simulateously working on this article and the Abramoff article and Abramoff scandal article -- in an uncoordinated independant fashion. So, where do we go from here? (Please note: two separate questions: (a) conceptually, how do we connect Abramoff article, Abramoff scandal article, and SunCruz Casinos article; and (b) how do we get a better handle on coordinating the Abramoff and Abramoff scandal articles?). (Also, I just learned that case matters! Note the difference between Abramoff scandal and Abramoff Scandal and SunCruz Casinos and Suncruz Casinos. Is there anyway to fix that? Sholom 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the insanity

I'll try and keep this as civilized as possible...

Abramoff's CLIENTS did also give money to Democrats, but it's totally irrelevant. He's a Washington DC Lobbyist.. Of course he's going to have clients who contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. That's not an imporant link.

This is a load of garbage designed to push a POV. Abramoff is a lobbying consultant. He's in trouble for getting access to his clients. It is simply unreasonable to believe that part of this influence buying for his clients makes his clients and firms donations irrelevant. -- Jbamb 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic scenario for those who lack the sense referred to as common

• I shop at JewelOsco. Therefore, I'm a client of JewelOsco.
• I am also a supporter of Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) and I went online and donated $100 to him last week.
• Let's suppose that a JewelOsco scandal erupts where it is revealed that at weekly board meetings, members of the board decapitate innocent baby kittens for their own entertainment....
• Let's suppose we have an article about the scandal: JewelOsco Kitten Slaughetering Scandal
• If someone wrote in the top paragraph "Democrat Bryon Dorgon has received donations from clients of kitten slaughterers", WOULDN'T YOU THINK THEY'RE BATSHIT INSANE?!

Jack Abramoff:

• Hated Democrats, and never had any dealings with any Democrats. Period.
• Never gave a single red penny to Democrats Period.
• Gave money to some 200 members of Congress. ALL OF THEM WERE REPUBLICANS.

Please stop the lying. This isn't the Fox News Channel: it's an encyclopedia. 202.76.188.214 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Give this a little more thought and come up with a more accurate scenario (though the use of analogies offends my senses):

• I am a conservative. I consistently vote for Republicans and donate to Republicans all over my state and across the nation.
• I work for an evil oil company that wants to drill for oil off the shore of Massachusetts. I use my employer's (ie, the company's; if you'd like the company can be owned by an indian tribe) to bribe every federal politician in Massachusets to push through a bill allowing my company to drill.

Now what has happened? I, a conservative person who has personally donated large - yet legal - sums of money to Republicans, have broken the law by bribing a bunch of Democrats. Am I saying that is what happened? No. I don't know exactly what happened. Nobody in the general public does. It is very possible that every Republican in the national government is driving a Mercedes personally delivered by Abramoff. Until we find out, however, it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and misleading to portray the situation otherwise. This is an encyclopedia. It's not Fox News, or the New York Times, or 202.76.188.214's personal blog. Until guilt is admitted or found, let's leave the conjecture to the pundits. --Stolencdz 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the opening paragraph is total conjecture. My analogy was supposed to demonstrate how ridiculously tenuous that link is. I completely agreee with you: let's not insinuate junk we don't know about. That's why I think the sentence about "well, abramoff's clients gave money to democrats, so you know, it's all fine, right?" (i'm paraphrasing) ought not be in the article: at the very least, not in the opening paragraph. That correlation doesn't have any place in the article at all IMO, but certainly not in the opening paragraph. It trivializes the link between Abramoff and the REPUBLICANS who he wrote checks to. I hope that explains it "more better" (to quote Shrub). I wish I could have worked something about decapitating kittens in there... 202.76.188.214 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. The intro paragraph is totally legit as of right now. It states that Abramoff has not donated to Democrats personally (based on the information that is available) in recent years, and that his scandal has also implicated his buisness partners who have donated to both Democrats and Republicans. What's wrong with that? The real question that I think you guys should be asking is: why Abramoff? I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street, each with their own political connections and motives, but yet Abramoff is the one that got snagged. It seems to me that Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg here, and that the lessons learned from this can easily be applied to all the other "super lobbyists" out there for either political party that we just don't know about yet.--Howrealisreal 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that my opposition to the opening paragraphs stems from a personal bias. I am a conservative-leaning individual who has been frustrated by the repeated references to "Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist, ..." (such a description implies that he lobbies *for* Republicans; if anything it should read 'Jack Abramoff, Indian lobbyist'). When I first encountered the article it read "Jack Abramoff, Republican attorney and 'super' lobbyist" and have struggled since then to establish a more nuetral openning.

And responding to HRiR's post, I agree. I was happy with the paragraph that explained his personal contributions and his clients contributions separately. It's been changed since but I'm fighting the urge to revert it for fear of unleashing all hell on myself. I've avoided giving my input to the rest of the article for two reasons: First, I expect I may tear what's left of my hair out as I edit our rumor after rumor. Second, I don't know enough detail about each particular incident to accurately assess what is a rumor.

But in the end we all seem to agree on the same point: An encyclopedia is a depository for facts. If we can all hold true to that credo, and look past our personal biases, we won't have any problems - and wikipedia will be stronger for it. --Stolencdz 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Abramoff is (or was) a Republican fundraiser and an activist Republican. Given DeLay's K Street Project, which essentially consisted of arm-twisting lobbying firms into hiring Republicans in top positions, I think it's completely factual to describe Abramoff as a "Republican lobbyist." Considering that his manifold scandals encompass far more than a few Indian tribes (see Mariana Islands[59], SunCruz Casinos, Guam, and Osama bin Laden)¹, calling him an "Indian lobbyist" would be incomplete and incorrect. I don't insist that the word, "Republican," appear in the initial sentence, as long as his partisan nature is clear from the text of the article.

I also agree with HRiR's post. I would be happy if the paragraph re. political contributions contained the following information:

• He has personally donated a bunch o bucks to Republicans, and
• Sources "linked to him" (again, whatever that means) have donated to Repubs and Dems in approximately a 2-to-1 ratio.
• It would also be appropriate, in IMHO, to note that he was one of Bush's "Pioneers," raising $100,000+ for his re-election campaign—but I don't insist that that be included.

An article which contains this information might not be kind to the Republican Party, but it would be factual and NPOV. From my point of view, the reason that this whole discussion has taken place, is that every time I tried to point out his partisan Republican history, some editor or other would revert it—ignoring my citations and claiming sans references that Abramoff had donated to Dems. If the description meets the above criteria, I'll go and find something else to whinge about. I think the article is pretty close to the criteria that I list; as it stands, it's pretty good.

(1) (I'm kidding about his purported bin Laden connections, which have a VinceFosteresque ring to them.)--RattBoy 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of Party Affiliation

The latest in this category is from 69.116.90.247, who deleted the word, "Republican," from the Intro. I restored it. I feel we've reached something approaching a consensus on this aspect of the Jack story. If they delete the info without any discussion on the Talk Page, I'll have to revert it.--RattBoy 11:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative #1 ?

The antecedents section says "whom many believe to be Bob Ney" and the indian tribes section says "but who is confirmed to be Bob Ney" Which one is it?32.97.110.142 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by Ney's lawyer.[60] I've changed the Antecedents section to reflect that fact.--RattBoy 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is it really important to include Abramoff's religion in the introduction? I don't see this as a typical practice. For example, no where in George W Bush's opening does it talk about his religion. Nor does it say 'Roman Catholic' in the openning of Ted Kennedy's. --Stolencdz 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Unless all references to Israel or Jack Abramoffs being Jewish are permanently removed, I will continue to edit this page FOREVER. The authors are obviously Jew haters, and are using Wikopedia as a weapon to both slander Jack Abramoff and by inference all other Jews. Why else would you have to write about his Jewish upbringing or his friend in the ultra orthodox city of Bietar Illit. Most educated antisemitic vermin like yourselves realize that you can't spill forth your venom by claiming that the Jews own the media and banks so you do it with subtleties like mentioning how he changes his "Yarmulke" at will in order to fool his clients. Or refer to him as a "SUPER ZIONIST using references from articles by other antisemites as if having been printed lends legitimacy to your slander.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.111.138 (talk • contribs)

• I also see little reason to reference his religion -- but I think there is one place where it is legitimately mentioned: he founded a private Jewish school (Eshkol), where he sent his kids, and used it to launder money. I would point out that almost all the mainstream press also takes this tack -- that is, specifically: ignoring his religion except when mentioning the school, and, even there, just mentioning it once. Thoughts? Sholom 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well if a random person intends to edit this page FOREVER if even the causual mention of Mr. Abramoffs religion or religion-related dealings remains on the page, I would think that section of the page should be protected :/. But if this religious school he founded really existed and if he really used it to launder money, it seems right to put that part in there at the very least, but those are just my thoughts :). Homestarmy 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Naturally you would, I bet you would like to see the UN protect Neo Nazi Concentration camps if they were built too. "CAUSUAL" Jew hater that you are. This edit by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs)

• • The school is called Eshkol Academy. What we do know, for sure, is that funds from at least one of Abramoff's "charitable organaizations" (specifically, the Capital Athletic Foundation) were used to help fund it (whether it was used as a pass through to launder money to other places is strongly suspected, but not proved anywhere). I think to ignore that it was a religious school is silly. However, I generally do agree that, otherwise, the article need not mention his religion. Sholom 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Stolencdz: It certainly shouldn't be in the introduction. Also, Sholom's change was necessary and a clear improvement. Some time ago, I also had made a related change [61] and my rationale was thus: The distinction I make is what I may call "inward" and "outward" religion.

I can't look into other people's heart, so, as a rule, the question how religious they are is none of my business, and does certainly not belong in an encyclopedia. That is inward religion. Wearing a yarmulke, a burqa, a rumāl or a "Jesus Loves you" badge are outward signs, and there's nothing wrong with noting them. I found it an interesting tidbit that Abramoff chose to remove the outward sign.

But if this is really encyclopedic is a different question altogether. I think Howrealisreal (above, 15:15, 9 January 2006) hit the nail on the head when he wrote "I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street". That's what we should turn our attention to! Common Man 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert war about a Juan Cole link

This link: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-al-arian-lobbyists.html has been added and reverted numerous times. I wonder what's the consensus about this? On the one hand, the charges are inflammatory. On the other, I was under the impression that Juan Cole was a recognized expert on the Middle East. Should the link stay or go?--RattBoy 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, Cole is a recognized expert. Even if "inflammatory," the "charges" are true and informative.--64.18.237.141 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is an opinion blogger and Professor of History. As the by-line on his site notes, these are "Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion". He is most definitely expert, but in this case, Professor Cole is rebutting the speculation from The Hill that the sniper classes are for the IDF. He is also commenting on the ME situation by posing the hypothetical that if a Muslim had sent sniper equipment to a Palestinian, they would be arrested, thrown in Gitmo, etc.

It needs to be given the weight of an opinion, not fact. (IIRC the text was "as Professor Cole points out," a phrasing which gives the opinion the weight of professorial research and fact; one does not 'point out' an opinion) I would argue that it would be better yet to cite and state the facts (Baytal Ilis is an Israeli settlement in the contested West Bank, Schmuel's "Kollel" was there, that's where JA sent the money.) Let the reader form the opinion. Beyond that we get into the arena of Middle East politics which is best left in articles about the Middle East. -Kwh 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Juan is a Jew basher, his entire article is conjecture. Why do you assume that he is an "expert" He has no way to verify the facts so he continues to make them up as he goes along. Abramoffs friend happens to be an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course.

Please substantiate your assertion that Juan Cole is a "Jew basher." How do you know Abramoff's friend is "an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course"? Source, please.--DieWeibeRose 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion & Israel- Striking a ballance

Calling Abramoff a "Super-Zionist" is clearly out-of-bounds.

Much of the other stuff you cite as well is far out-of-bounds and clearly anti-semitic.

However, I trust you will weild a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer in your edits and refrain from deleting legitimate references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.115.163 10:54, 11 January 2006 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I didn't know how to sign my name yet. I'm new. NiftyDude 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Pleaded" vs. "Pled"

Sometimes the opening sentence says he "pled" guilty; sometimes it says he "pleaded." Should editors be rv'ing this back and forth?

Dictionary.com gives "pleaded" as more common. However, I think "pled" is more elegant. I'm not bigtime invested in this, but it seems that editors oughta decide on one, and then spend their time on more substantive edits.

What do you-all think? "Pleaded" or "pled?"--RattBoy 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pled (in a legal context) is the more correct of the two. From [62]: The past tense is pleaded, pled, or plead (this last pronounced PLED), and the past participle, pleaded, pled, or plead (PLED). Pleaded, the regular weak verb form, is more frequent for both parts of speech, and the pled and plead past and past participle forms are labeled Colloquial by some dictionaries, Standard by others.

Plead not guilty and plead guilty are Standard idioms (His lawyer advised him to plead not guilty [guilty]), and the media almost always uses pled to report a defendant’s actions: The defendant pled [not] guilty.

• But check out all the newspaper reports -- they seem to only use "pleaded" (and, if so, then we ought to, no?) Sholom 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the case (google news results for "abramoff pled" are less than 100 while "abramoff pleaded" results are in the thousands). In that case, I guess pleaded should be used unless any specific guidelines are posted in the WP style guide.--216.165.33.63 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 'pled' sounds better. This sounds like a hung/hanged arguement to me. --Stolencdz 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 'pled' sounds better, too, but have been going with 'pleaded' b/c that's how all the news media seem to be reporting it.Sholom 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite!

I've been working on a rewrite here. Normally it's not good form to do a rewrite/re-org on a temporary page, but it's taken me a few days to get this far. Feel free to be bold and help me finish it. My method is start with the outline as a 'new view', then take some of the existing sentences from this and the scandal article to fill in the outline, and write my own stuff to fill in the blanks and make it into a story. You may notice that this article is getting very long; my method is to write out everything, then cut pieces out to go to other 'breakout' articles in a way that makes structural sense.

One thing you'll notice is that Abramoff's life, like Wikipedia, is extremely interlinked.

You'll also notice a link there to a Wikisource text where I am transcribing the contents of Abramoff's emails, memos, and checks (which are available from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee only as a bunch of poorly scanned print pages). The text of these documents will eventually be very useful to citation, so if you have any skill with OCR software, or can just type, please help out with transcription. Eventually I plan to upload the individual TIF images to Wikisource and link them to the individual pages shown there. -Kwh 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the rewrite out of user space to make clear that this is not intended to be a POV Fork. Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. -Kwh 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

LOCK THE PAGE

In order for your antisemitic diatribe to remain without criticism you have to show us that you really are a jew hating fascist by turning the wikopedea article into your own personal rag and LOCK the page down.

The readers will see it for what it is.

Well, alrighty then.--MONGO 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Transition Team

Air America keeps talking about how Abramoff was on Bush's transition team. I haven't found anything to corroborate that. JI

Well, we have the Texas Observer: "He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush “Pioneer,” delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant."

And Newsweek: "Yet Abramoff’s ties to the administration extended well beyond campaign checks. In 2001, Bush tapped the lobbyist as a member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues."

Hope this helps...--RattBoy 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, based on my research, Abramoff's initial contacts on the DoI had a lot to do with the Marianas Islands lobbying. Basically, CNMI had no inroads in the Clinton White House for many years; in 2001 Abramoff lobbied heavy in DoI on behalf of CNMI, and made contact with Griles. He also was lobbying on behalf of a few tribal clients, but the Coushatta/Tigua "TribeScam" was just getting started in 2001.

There's 1,001 sources that mention the same blurb that "he had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior." However, there's no source which really makes clear what JA did on the transition team, nor exactly how he got there. Why JA, why not someone else? That's what I want to know. Yes, he plunked money into a lot of campaign funds, but so did a lot of others. This link indicates that Norquist had something to do with it. This would be an interesting topic for research. -Kwh 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a historical document with sundry announcements from the White House in 2001, including announcements of many of the sub-cabinet level appointments, such as J. Steven Griles. A look at some of the names associated with Interior might give insight on what Abramoff was working on. -Kwh 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another useful bit of info - there were 474 people in all on the transition team, and "the vast majority of the members are industry lobbyists, corporate executives, trade association leaders and others with a pro-business agenda." However, this list from opensecrets claims to show 261 of the members who were also campaign contributors. Where's Abramoff? We do have William Jarrell, who worked alongside JA at Preston Gates, and also worked for DeLay, but that's 'sensible' since Jarrell also worked in the Dept of Interior during the Bush 41 Administration. This page also has a list of registered lobbyists on the transition team... again, where's Abramoff? (Note: there's a second list on that page showing lobbyists who are contributors which does include Abramoff, so don't get confused). So has Abramoff's appearance on these lists been censored (even from some highly critical sites), or is that much-repeated report in error? -Kwh 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to lock

Get the facts in and lock this thing. We've got people trying to spin it as hard as they can to the left, and others, notably John Henry, trying their absolute hardest to downplay the things. Just get the essential facts in there, like what he's charged with and who he's connected to and lock the article-otherwise, there's going to be fighting over this for weeks, and it's going to be vicious.-72.21 Same guy-a rewrite is pointless, this is extremely charged politically, and no version of events is going to be acceptable to everyone. The Republicans would like this article outright deleted, while the Democrats would like to paint this guy as the Devil Himself and George Bush's best friend. Just get it as objection as possible, and protect it.-72.210/UmlautBob

Comment moved to end-of-page. Also, I'd like to note that a rewrite is required to make the article readable and better organised, currently it is a mish mash of sections, w/ almost no hierarchy. I agree the article should steer away for political finger pointing and just present facts. Achille 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to Congress

My contention is that the artice says he contrubuted to several republican candidates, which is true, but he also contributed to severa democrat candidates, Debbie Stabenow is one, so why can't it just say he contributed to candidates without referencing which political party? Is that not the most objective way to write it. It is certainly not fair to mention only republicans.-unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Where do you find that he contributed to Stabenow? FEC records show he contributed solely to Republicans. There are also no allegations that Abramoff directed any money to any Dems. OTOH, Stabenow did, I believe, receive money from Abramoff's clients, but as I wrote above, I think it is unfair to tarnish every single recipient of any money from an Indian Tribe. I'll even go further, it looks like Levin and Stabenow both might be involved, but that's a different question, and pretty speculative. The bottom line, at least here, is that Abramoff did not donate to any Dem, nor did he direct any donation to any Dem. Sholom 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the Washinton Post artice here [63] Also, Den. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has acknowledged he did not properly report two fundraisers in Abramoff's sky box in 2002 and 2003. Montana Senators Max Baucus, a Democrat, returned $18,892, including $1,892 he had failed to report for use of Abramoff's skybox at a Washington, D.C., sports arena. Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat who sits on a congressional committee that oversees Indian tribes' issues with Sen Burns (a R who gave back money), returned $67,000 in Abramoff-related donations

According to Internal Revenue Service records, and substantiated by the Campaign Finance Analysis Project, forty of the forty-five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients. These recipients include: Charles Schumer ($29,550), Harry Reid ($68,941), Patty Murray ($78,991), Mary Landrieu ($28,000), John Kerry ($98,550), Ted Kennedy ($3,300), Tom Harkin ($45,750), Dick Durbin ($14,000), Barbara Boxer ($20,250), Hillary Clinton ($12,950) and Byron Dorgan ($79,300).

When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans. So, the statement that this is exclusively a “Republican scandal” is simply not true." source [64]

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total, I do concede that, but 66 percent is far from 100 percent. The Democrats were part of it too. -unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Just before someone else tears into you for this, you did say that "Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress", which is technically untrue. The indianz.com article said this money was from "Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients", which is a large set of people. Abramoff himself gave to about 90 candidates. (I don't have a separation of that for Senators vs. Representatives yet)

I agree with you, but there's still much interesting research to be done on how and why that money was contributed to each party. Also, for what it's worth, this amount may be dwarfed by the amount of 'soft money' which Abramoff funneled through non-profits and other hidden channels, and non-campaign money items like golf trips and skybox visits. -Kwh 03:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. 24.11.154.78, I'm sure you made your edits in good faith, but as Kwh points out, you appear to have misread the sources you provide. The fact is that Abramoff did not give money to Democrats. He gave money only to Republicans. This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere in this page. It appears that a consensus was reached at that point: the article should include the fact that Abramoff has donated money exclusively to Republicans. Since consensus has been reached that the information is factual and relevant, I'm reverting your edit again. If you have further research, please feel free to edit the article to reflect your information. But please take care to ensure that your edits accurately reflect the sources you cite.--RattBoy 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a distinction between money directly given from Abramoff to only Republicans and money given from clients, etc to both, why not include all of this in the article? So far all of the corrupt politicians linked with Abramoff have been Republicans, and there is much more to play out of this whole deal as more of the people Abramoff has fingered come out.--Paraphelion 11:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion - I think that this particular element is one of the least interesting things about Abramoff's life; there's tons more to talk about. Folks should remember that this particular article is titled "Jack Abramoff", so it is about a person and his life. These facts need to be fit into a context of describing his life. There can be other linked articles that dive to the level of detail of lists and how much money he gave to Person X and how much they gave back. That's my standpoint. -Kwh 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It may not be one of the most interesting things about Jacko's life, but it's noteworthy. Mentioning Abramoff without referencing his Republican partisanship is like writing about Brian Epstein, but ignoring his connection to the Beatles.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that intro paragraph a little clearer to draw the distiction between what Abramoff personally did with his money, and what his clients did with their money. --Howrealisreal 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will stop my edit. I guess there has been enough discussion so that if someone reads the article that is unfamiliar witht he scandal, they can read these discussions and infer what the specific facts are. It is all very confusing and I suspect it will be a while before all the facts are out. I just did not want to this to be directed at the Republican party in general, but rather negativity should only be imposed upon the individuals involved in wrongdoing, regardless of their political party. It does appear that only a few members of congress, who are all republicans, have been implicasted in actual scandelous activities thus far — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.154.78 (talk • contribs)

Gee, I guess there's little more that can be added to the Abramoff debate after the above erudite offering by 24.11.154.78. The latter wouldn't happen to reside in the immediate vicinity of the White House by any chance?Phase1 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty succinct (if not erudite) way of describing a proper NPOV perspective. Maybe you're reading it wrong. -Kwh 00:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's NPoV, as a Republican might wish it to be. 24.11 seems to think it's a minor scandal, not tainting the Republican Party on the whole. However, considering his direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Party, including Tom DeLay and George W. Bush—and considering that this whole scandal was a predictable result of the K Street Project—Abramoff's importance is that he's emblematic of the way that the Republican Party has been doing government since 1995.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that researching and gathering more info on how much the Abramoff scandal has to do with the K Street Project is an excellent idea, and will add a lot to the article! Thanks for volunteering. -Kwh 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cute. I didn't know I was "volunteering," but I might take you up on your suggestion anyway. I do recall reading that Greenberg Traurig hired Jacko in an effort to get more Republicans on staff—doubtless to curry favor with Tom DeLay and his gang. Here are some lynx, found by Googling "Abramoff 'K Street Project'":

WaPo, 1/3/06:

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was
initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP
vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade
associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless
relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

NPR: "In Washington, K Street is synonymous with the lobbying industry. The K Street Project, a Republican initiative to integrate lobbyists into the political power structure, had been linked to the current scandal with lobbyist Jack Abramoff." (I'm on dialup, so I'm not gonna try to download the audio.)

LA Times:

The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political
risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for
dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political
machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay
(R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and
business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to
support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for
top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached
deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What connection did he have to Bush? I really don't know. Jellonuts 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you might be joking. The name "Bush" appears numerous times on this page alone. Abramoff raised over $100,000 for the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004, making him one of Bush's elite "Pioneers." He had close ties to Karl Rove. Those are just two examples of the close ties between Abramoff and Bush. (See the rest of this page for other examples.)--RattBoy 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a loose definition of close ties. Bush is surrounded by hundreds (if not thousands) of people who gave big money to any number of his campaigns in the past, or otherwise have done or can do something for him. I would say that "close ties" means having a long working relationship, seeing eye-to-eye, having the same goals, and having trust. I would say that Bush has close ties to people like Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney. Harriet Miers has close ties to Bush[65]. I would say Abramoff has very close ties to Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist. But there's a paucity of facts to say that Bush has close ties to Abramoff. It doesn't mean it's not so, just that it hasn't been researched enough.-Kwh 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, your definition of "close ties" might be unnecessarily tight. However, the point I was making was not that he has "close ties" to Bush (though the manifold connections might indicate that he does, indeed). I was merely outlining (some of) his connections with Bush. If you re-read the history of this discussion, you'll see that I wrote of Jacko's "direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Republican Party, including DeLay and Bush." In my definition set, being a Bush "Pioneer" constitutes a "direct connection." (So would attending several parties as a guest at the White House. So might doing time on his transition team, if such a role by Abramoff can indeed be fleshed out.) See WaPo: Scandal Visits the White House, which speaks of the arrest of Safavian, Bush's top Procurement Director, and of Abramoff's efforts to get his personal assistant a plum job as Karl Rove's gatekeeper. See also USA Today. Scott McClellan might try to minimize the connections to Abramoff, but they're there, hiding in plain sight.--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a connection there, but what's the back-story, as far as it can be intuited from public sources? If you want to hang this around the Republicans' necks (and I think you do), you've got to show that they were knowledgeable and complicit in Jack's illegal activities. We know that Jack took a lot of the filthy lucre from bilking the tribes and gave it to Bush. We know that Safavian worked for Abramoff and later worked for the White House (but remember, he was charged for lying about the golf trip, so the arrest doesn't imply further wrongdoing other than that he tried to lie to protect himself/Jack/DeLay). The Ralston thing is interesting, but it could be just as easily explained as Jack planting a 'mole' in Rove's office; according to sources, Ralston would take Rove's messages and then call Norquist to get orders on which calls to put through.

Right now, the most direct connection is through K Street and Norquist. K Street was Gingrich's baby, Norquist nurtured it, DeLay adopted it, and Bush sent his representative to the Wednesday meetings when he was still running for the GOP Presidential nomination. According to some sources, Gingrich "made" Abramoff as a lobbyist.[66]

Karl Rove is the smartest political operative in the world. I don't believe for a second that Rove didn't fully vet Ralston before hiring her.

I don't "want to hang this around the Republicans' necks," unless that's where it belongs. Right now, the RNC appears to want to diffuse the scandal by highlighting any connection between Dems and anyone who's ever met Jack. Complicity on this part seems rife in the Mainstream Media, and I'd rather not see Wikipedia go along, as well, simply to get along.

As it stands now, the facts are that Abramoff is a card-carrying Republican. All his important contacts are with Republicans. Does that mean that all Republicans are dirty? Of course not. But it does indicate that there's a structural problem with the Leading Lights of the party, including DeLay and Rove. The Abramoff connection in K Street Project seems to describe his connections, and the potential impact on the Party, pretty accurately and in a NPoV fashion:

"Abramoff's associates gave donations to members of both parties, but two-thirds of the cash went to Republicans.[67]. However, according to Howard Dean, no Democrat has received money directly from Abramoff.[68]. Political analysts say that the scandal currently hurts the Republican Party more than the Democrats, but members of both parties have returned large cash contributions given to them by Abramoff (as to Republicans) or his clients in past campaigns. All of Abramoff's personal campaign contributions went exclusively to Republicans. [69]. The five people charged or directly implicated so far in this scandal are Republicans. [70]."

I'd like to see the Jacko Page do likewise.--RattBoy 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A big piece of the puzzle seems to be here:[71]

DeLay laid the groundwork for the K Street project by calling corporate lobbyists into his office after he was elected whip in 1995. He sat them down and pointed to their names in a ledger that included contributions they had made to Democrats and Republicans. Then he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that -- or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership.

That's why I think it needs more research, also a lot more of these facts need to be added to K Street Project. Critical questions: Did DeLay corrupt Abramoff, or vice-versa? How did Gingrich tap Abramoff (former B-movie producer) to be big lobbyist at PGE? Did Abramoff "go rogue" in 2001 when he jumped to GT and he and scanlon came up with a script for bilking Indians, or was he singing from the K Street hymnbook? -Kwh 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmmm..... FACT CHECK

From the article: Senator Byron Dorgan, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Abramoff, advocated for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of Abramoff (though not directly from Abramoff). According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Dorgan received at least $79,300 from Indian tribe clients and lobbying associates of Abramoff. [72] Dorgan strongly denies any connection, saying that he never met Abramoff and that he had long supported funding for Indian tribes.[73] Despite this, Dorgan announced in December 2005 that he would return donations totaling $67,000, in order to remove any remote possibility of a connection to the felonious lobbyist.[74]

Um... as the New York Times reported last week, donations to Dorgan were made by indian tribes BEFORE those clients were represented by Abramoff. Where's the connection? 130.126.220.138 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

www.crp.org revised their numbers to remove cash contributed by tribes prior to Abramoff representation. According to the revised numbers, Dorgan did in fact receive $28,000 from (at the time) clients of Abramoff. I can't quite understand why he returned so much more, but I guess you'd have to call Dorgan's office and ask why they returned $67,000. -Kwh 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute re: "Connection to Israel-Palestine"

Under the guise of NPOV, Leifern has removed references to the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. It is, in fact, POV to omit these references as Abramoff's, apparently, criminal diversion of funds is aggravated by sending them to illegal settlements in occupied territory. Who would dispute the relevance and significance of this aggravating circumstance if the funds had been instead diverted to Islamic Jihad?

The illegality of the settlements and the fact of occupation is recognized by both the UN and International Court of Justice.[75][76][77] Even the US gov't. does not claim the settlements are legal or that there is no occupation. Only Israel and its supporters--globally, a distinct and tiny minority--"dispute" the illegality of the settlements and the fact of its military occupation of the West Bank. Privileging this minority viewpoint is definitely POV.--DieWeibeRose 09:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks have covered some of this ground before but the pro-Israel POV keeps getting reinstated (see Talk:Jack_Abramoff#Israel-Palestine).--DieWeibeRose 09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff sent money to an individual, Schmuel (per his emails). If you read the primary source (his emails) it's not clear that he was not even clear on what they were being used for, only that he was helping out an old friend by paying for his Jeep, and he wasn't even clear on what 'kollel' was. I think this section is slowly getting to an actual NPOV. I can't understand why you think that the text (as of my writing this comment) is pro-Israel as it makes no mention of the disputed settlement/colony/whatever. -Kwh 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, will you please provide a URL for the e-mails you cite?--DieWeibeRose 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

They are the documents at indian.senate.gov described as "Exhibits released to the public as part of the Oversight Hearing on Lobbying Practices". Abramoff's communications with and about Schmuel are mixed in amongst numerous other emails. I did a little more reading and found that it appears that Abramoff was funding Schmuel out of some pity (Schmuel's parents died young, Schmuel was raised by his aunt and uncle and decided to go to Israel, was barely getting by in poverty and told story about how his community was afraid of 'terrorists' in Israel, he was trying to help by holding these security/'sniper' courses). Schmuel uses a lot of mixed Hebrew/English and it's not clear how much of this Abramoff actually understood.

At any rate, I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia article on Betar Illit. If anyone wants to battle it out as to the legality/illegality of this settlement, maybe it should go there. -Kwh 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Most of these statements are conjecture. Juans assumptions cannot be proved so I have removed them. PLEASE stick with the FACTS. Unless you can prove the statement PLEASE refrain from putting it into this article. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a newspaper.

Rambling debate involving anon user 62.0.181.94 and others

Most of below was posted by an anonymous user from the IP 62.0.181.94 with others replying. Unfortunately, much of it is unsigned. I'm trying to group it together below to keep things contained in one place. --StuffOfInterest 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Jew haters?

• AH! Praise Thee HEPTOR, FINALLY A VOICE OF SANITY.

You must be Jewish, because a few of the gentiles contributing to this page, namely, Dave(Mongo), Kate(Kwh), Der Nazi Rose,(DieWeibeRose) and a few other Jew-hating, Israel bashing Neo Nazis antisemites on this site have been using this page to recreate the third riech by taking every opportunity to mention Abramoffs Jewish and Israel affliation.

And Kate, you're getting soft. Your rewrite, Abramoff "Factor" has no mention of Jews or Israel. C'mon. Lets get some of the dirty kikes that you hate so much. Lets drag them by their sidelocks Kate! Jesus will love you for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.230.57 (talk • contribs)

• The anon who wrote the above has been blocked for severe incivility. Radiant_>|< 12:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets block ALL the Jews

Well, Well "RADIANT" Are you planning to block ALL of the Jews and Jew loving gentiles for calling nazis NAZIS! -

Shame on you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets not erase comments!

Just because we don't like them.Sorry about the name mix up. So.... Whats this? No Jews!? No Israel bashing!?, won't Jesus send you to a fiery river of hell for all eternity if you don't remind us that Abramoff is a Jew. The editors of this article (Better now?) are getting soft. Hittler is spinning around in his grave!! C'mon show us your true colors!!! Lets bash the Jewboy!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs)

So just to get it straight, you're accusing folks of being Nazis, but you're complaining because the article is actually somewhat balanced and is not bashing Abramoff for being Jewish/ -Kwh

Somewhat balanced, how about being TOTALLY BALANCED! Or is that a scary concept?

And it's not FOLKS Its the writers and editors of this article.

Yes lets get it straight

Yes, WE are accusing you of being Jew haters and Israel Bashers and you have chosen to use the Jack Abramoff page as a forum for doing so. If you go back to the history of the article you will see that this is true.

It's difficult for the modern bigot/rascist to show his true colors because everyone is sensitive to being "politically correct" but it sure came out in the article. At any rate the sarcasm was used to evoke a reponse.

SO, If you aren't an antisemite you'll respond by distancing yourself from adding anything that has to do with Jacks being a Jew, or A Yarmulka wearing Jew, or a Super Zionist, or an orthodox Jew and the like.

Got it now.

Our Answer to KWH's note to HAZ*** Stirring up trouble? OH YOU BETCHA!!!

• kwh WROTE:

This commenter is trying to stir up trouble. I've been trying to find consensus in a dispute between people who want to make Jack Abramoff out as the kingpin of Zionism and Palestinian oppression, and other folks who take an equally severe position that any mention of Abramoff's Orthodox Jewish faith or connection with Israel is anti-semitic. My position is that I think that the connection of Israel and Palestine to this individual (Jack Abramoff) is tangential in the extreme, and both parties should go argue their differences out on pages topical to Israel and Palestine. There's more important things to discuss on this article. This particular IP commenter attacked me claiming I am a person named "Kate" and made recriminations that I am anti-semitic, as are some "cabal" of editors of this article. All I can say is that my name's not Kate and I haven't attended any of the cabal meetings recently because it conflicts with my mah-jongg club. It's just insane. -Kwh 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Our answer:

Haz, I am said commentor. Its really cute that KWH Isn't part of the "cabal" I am sure that the writers and editors of this article will now distance themselves from the fact that the article had horrible references to Jacks being Jewish, an orthodaox yarmulka wearing Jew, a super zionist, and all the like. It's in the history of the article. When we removed the jew-hating comments, these editors bounced us from the WIK until we wrote Jimmy and the board. Its true we were sarcastic, But we were making a point... NO JEW-HATING or ISRAEL BASHING WILL BE TOLORATED.

How insane is that? Not very.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, our anon friend: How'bout signing your posts? You seem very happy to bash others for the fact that they disagree with you. How'bout standing behind what you write, so that others can judge where it's coming from?

I don't always agree with Kwh (as a glance through this talk page might show), but it's clear that, on balance, Kwh is an editor who's trying to find a way to make this a good encyclopedic article. Can we say the same about you?--RattBoy 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well Ratboy, does it really help you to know that my name is Joe and I live in Dogwood Montana. Or do you need details as to my RACE, CREED or COLOR to help you make your "judgment.

Or, or.... is it really PRE judgment that your after? We have another word for that.

Do I really have to know who any of you CB Radio handle name users are. It's enough that I see the content of your writing to know just who and what you are. AND If there are any ANTISEMITIC, JEW-HATING , ISRAEL Hating comments HERE in this article, they will be addressed. And Jimmy Wales and the WIK board WILL help to see that they are REMOVED. Permanently.

Eshkol Academy

It's closing had nothing to do with the "Indian Issue".

Jack backed out of it because of differences between him and the school board that had to do with curriculum and school policy regarding sports.

Don't make it into something that it isn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment"

Actually, if you would research the facts of the matter, Jack was ipso facto using the school as a "laundering" operation for lobbying funds. His "Tribal Legacy Program" planned to write insurance policies on tribe members over 75 years old, with Eshkol as the beneficiary. This took advantage of the non-profit status of the school since the premium would be paid with non-profit funds, the policy 'payout' would exceed the premium, and the net cash in-flow from the dying Native Americans would be used to pay Greenberg Traurig lobbying fees out of Eshkol. This was Jack's last stab at soaking the Tigua for even more cash, since they couldn't even afford to pay him anymore. All the details on this can be found around pages 96-116 of this document. There are numerous other locations in Abramoff's emails where he talks about using cash from the school to support his lobbying activities and projects.

Also, even this article from Washington Jewish Week says virtually the same thing as the article: "[Abramoff] closed the school after two years, shortly after he became a subject of a congressional investigation." You removed the phrase "The Eshkol Academy closed in 2004 after questions were raised in the press about Abramoff's financial dealings with Indian tribes."

Please provide a source for your assertion that Eshkol was closed because of "differences with the school board." -Kwh 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Answer:

I will say that you might be correct on the some aspects of the money laundering issue. However, Supporting activities and projects is NOT money Laundering. And I know for a FACT that Jack has some very complex and undetectable ways of "laundering" money.

• THIS IS NOT OUR REASON FOR BEING HERE.

OUR only reason for being here is to make sure that JEWS AND ISRAEL are not being slandered.

If Jack is a criminal and you have an opinion, go put him into your virtual stockade. ON YOUR OWN WEB PAGE.

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. keep repeating this as if it were a mantra.

Take it Easy

Some people posting here need to take it easy with handing out the title Nazi because the mention that somebody is Jewish. While I agree that it should not be mentioned if it is not applicable, in this situation I think it is for 2 reasons. First the only reason I came to this page was to check if Abramoff was Jewish because it has been reported that pictures of him and Pres. Bush were taken at the White House Hannuka party 2 years in a row and was curious if it was a coincidence. Secondly the whole Eshkol Academy situation and his foundiong it brings his religion to the public eye. PS don't even think about calling me a Jew hater since I am jewish. Zzz345zzz

• Ha. THE WORLDS BIGGEST Jew haters have always been Jewish SELF HATERS.

But we have to put up with those. We don't have to put up with the gentiles.

I am not saying that you are one, I don't know you. But by your own admition, you BEING A JEW HAD SOME INTEREST IN KNOWING IF jACK IS JEWISH. Innocent Children or high school students don't have to be spoon fed the antisemitic crap that the writers and editors of this article are trying to feed them. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not DER STRUM OR MEIN KAMPF. It's not their personal soapbox for venting their Jew hatred.

Jacks being a Jew and mention of the Academy really has no relevance here. As did the comments about him being a Yarmulka wearing , orthodox Jewish SUPER ZIONIST. That was obvious Jew hatred..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Interesting that the only distinction between both groups is race.

• "THE WORLDS BIGGEST Jew haters have always been Jewish SELF HATERS."? That is an ignorant statement based on nothing but your own feelings. I agree that he shouldn't have been called "Yarmulka wearing , orthodox Jewish SUPER ZIONIST", but since this is a biographical article about a person who has started an orthodox school and regularly attends White house hannuka functions, I think that mentioning that he is indeed jewish should be required. No commentary on this fact is needed other than mentioning the school and the w. house events. Sorry if I didnt get the memo that if anybody except for ourselves mentioned our religion we start labeling them Nazis and anit-semites. Zzz345zzz PS sign your posts ( its 3 ~ in a row with no spaces)

Answer

• I don't want to show the gentiles our "dirty" laundry, but It is not an ignorant statement.

Just on a cursory level the bible (Torah) begins with Esau works its way down to Dotan and Aviram and I can think of the likes of the Haskala movement on down to Israel Zangvil all the way to Shindler and finally the countless left wing leaders like Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Shulamit Aloni herself who, embarrassingly makes disparaging remarks about the Jewish faith.

Do we really have to teach gentile high school students that there are Jews commiting crimes. They aren't being informed about the Hafetz Chaim. Or the countless rightous and honest Jews.

It wouldn't hurt the Jewish people by down playing the fact that Jack is a Jew. When in fact he wasn't acting in accordance with Jewish LAW or the Torah's morality.

He said horrible things about the downtrodden native americans which goes directly against the Torah reminding us that WE WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT and downtrodden once too. But the article doesn't mention that there are MILLIONS of Jews who would never say such things. Students can't always tell the difference. I'm not saying that we have to sugar coat the issue. Just don't add fuel to the fire.

BEFORE WE BEGIN DELETING SENTANCES on the REFACTOR PAGE

If Daniel Lapin denies making the Abramoff/Delay intro and it is ALLEGED. WHY IS IT IN AN encyclopedia and not in your personal BASH JACK THE JEW website.

Please remove it. STICK WITH FACTS PLEASE.

( Yes, Yes, We know that Jack is a criminal. We know that he is Jewish and that it was the Jews who slayed Jesus. )

kwh, STOP ERASING MY COMMENTS on the REFACTOR PAGE

Do you really have a hard time understanding that this encyclopedia DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. SHEEESH!

• :By using the History button at the top of your browser window, you can see that it was an editor named "Journalist" who removed your sentences. [78]

However, this editor did this with good reason. Please review the Wikipedia policy at Civility. Your intention may be positive if you only intend to make sure that Jewish people are not slandered, but you are straining some of the base principles of civility and Etiquette which this community hold highly. Please take some time to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -Kwh 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Civility you say.

Hm, I can see the double standard coming from a mile away.

Go take a look at this Wikopedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_solution And you'll see how Jews are treated by gentile civility.

It is a Chutzpah to speak of civility when these writers here are using the Abramoff page as a forum to slander Jack Abramoff as a Jew, therefore by inference, the Jewish people and Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

Civility and why I am so upset

The Nazi party, in their Civility, sipped their imported Chinese tea out of the finest tea cups with their pinkies extended as they planned our slaughter and the world in its CIVILITY stood by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_solution

Jews are rascists

You already pointed out your own double standard:

"But we have to put up with those. We don't have to put up with the gentiles."

So far you are the only racist here, self exposed. 66.98.131.108

• This line is taken out of context and you know it.

Living with self hating Jews is just something that we must accept. They are so afraid of what gentiles say and think of them that they go buy themselves "Hanukka Bushes", intermarry and make self loathing remarks.

But do we really have to put up with those same remarks from gentiles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

• Uh, Which race would that be ?

The human race? And go look up what a double standard is.

What context? The fact remains there are a group of people, those who hate Jews, who you tolerate only some of due their race. This is called racism. One standard for Jews, one standard for gentiles. Two standards. Double standard. And nice try attributing it to Kwh. 66.98.131.108

• No, you're mistaken. For example, African Americans will often refer to each other with names that would get ANYONE ELSE a good beating at best. No African American will say that another African American is a racist for calling him the "N" word.

I can give a little more slack to self-hating Jews becuase I understand that their self loathing stems from their wish to blend in with gentiles in order to escape persecution.

Kwh Begs Pardon

• :Beg your pardon, but that comment was posted by User:66.98.131.108,[79] and personally I think it is somewhat out of line. If you continue to accuse me personally of everything and sundry under the sun, I am going to ask that you be banned from Wikipedia for personal attacks. -Kwh 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry i wasn't trying to conceal my IP 66.98.131.108

• There, I edited my comments above so that you aren't attacked personally.

But just for the sake of argument Kwh, Which one of us do you want banned. There are allot of us. Maybe too many. Around six million in Israel another six million in the USA. Maybe four or five of us in China. We would like to know. Maybe Jimmy would like to know too.

• Calling me a RASCIST IS a personal attack. Shouldn't you have yourself BANNED from the Wik.

• Yes, it's not him. I stand corrected.

Go ban yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

Go ahead and look it up, since you obviously don't know what it means.66.98.131.108

The Secret of NIMH

Believe it or not, Abramoff did have a hand in the make of the film as a producer, so stop calling me a vandal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.29.75 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference which verifies your claim? Or should we simply take your word for it?--RattBoy 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes any reference will do. Time, newsweek, National enquirer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Just like the rest of the article we need "reliable" sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .