Jump to content

Talk:Abscam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.206.249.124 (talk) at 20:47, 21 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Inconsistency

I'm not sure what the correct form is for pointing out an inconsistency, but in the article for abscam it says the conviction of Richard Kelly was overturned in 1982 thanks to an entrapment defense.

But in entrapment the statement "the defense of entrapment was unsuccessful in the Abscam operation in which several members of the United States Congress were convicted of accepting bribes." says that entrapment was unsuccessful in all cases.

I don't know which is correct. I'm cross posting this to the abscam talk page.

Kelly's obituary, in the New York Times of 26 August 2005, clears it up. The conviction was overturned in Federal District Court, but reinstated in higher courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/politics/26kelly.html . I'll edit the article to incorporate this.TypoBoy (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article already says this. I added the cite to the Times. TypoBoy (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Bob Guccione incorrectly utilized the term "tried to entrap" - the use would indicate that the FBI was trying to commit a crime (entrapment). I'm fairly certain, or at least hopeful, that this wasn't the intent of the original writer. If it was the intent, I would suggest that a source be utilized to back up any allegations that the FBI was trying to commit a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.151.203 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murtha Changes & Additions

The references cited in the piece about Murtha are right wing propaganda from a known right wing propaganda web site, CNS News, owned by right winger Brent Bozell. See wikipedia article: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cybercast News Service (also CNSNews.com) is a conservative news website operated by the Media Research Center. It was founded on June 16, 1998 under the name "Conservative News Service"; "Conservative" was changed to "Cybercast" in 2000 after the MRC was unable to trademark the name "Conservative News Service."[1]. CNS sees its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin" by covering stories that mainstream news organizations ignore. "In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues." [2] Cybercast News Service's leadership consists of President Brent Bozell and Editor-in-Chief David Thibault, who became top editor in April 2005. Its editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who also worked as the chief of radio operations for the Republican National Committee in 2004.[3] CNS itself has been accused of having its own bias. ConWebWatch, a website set up to challenge possible biases in politically conservative news sources, accuses CNS, among others, of engaging in the same tactics as the "liberal media" they criticize. In reality, these sites are no less slanted or arrogant than they accuse the "mainstream" media of being. They demonstrate time and again that, despite promoting themselves with words like "fairness," "responsibility," "accuracy" and "balance," their real goal is to attack and discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with them, as well as to promote their own political views -- the same exact thing they accuse the "liberal" media of doing. [4] Similar to FOX News, CNS trumpets its focus on presenting news in a non-biased manner [5]. Despite these claims, CNS's motto is "The Right News. Right now."[6] CNS' commentaries [7] tend to echo Republican talking points[8

As such, it is not fair and responsible to let such patently biased descriptions of Murtha be published at wikipedia without a disclaimer.

See Murtha's details at PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/corruption/history.html

See video at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/video/2005/FBIAbscamMurtha.wvx

--209.248.136.146 09:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well as http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200601\POL20060113d.html Bigbadkeeper 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This Murtha section tries desperately to link the congressman to Abscam (using the conservative MRC for its evidence) and seems like a huge distraction to me. If you want specific cases, talk about Harrison Williams -- but geez, Murtha's involvement is barely worthy a paragraph.--Idols of Mud 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Murtha down then. The way I am looking at this it that it is a work in progress. There should be a section on each individual involved. Right now there are a ton of things on Murtha and that is easily found.

Of course the reason for the information about Murtha is from the conservative press digging into his past. However he is one of those involved that is in congress “today” and that should raise the significance somewhat.

As far as “desperately” linking him to Abscam… he “is” linked and will always be “linked” since he was indicted. I think the “desperately” part is what you get from MRC and I doubt if there would be much argument that MRC wants to portray that Murtha slipped out of a conviction based on people in the right places.

That's just it...Murtha WASN'T "indicted." There is also evidence (pulled directly from the transcript in one of the sources) of Mr. Murtha directly turning down money when offered it. People who don't have their facts straight shouldn't be editing Wiki articles.Ray Ash 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the information of what Don Bailey said or claimed is a little too much for Murtha’s section. In context, with all other persons implicated, and with detailed information, it may not look as extreme but this article has not evolved to that point yet, in my opinion.

Like I say, if anyone wants to, tone Murtha down until we get more on others, do so, however, I’d like to see all the others elevated instead... since this was such an important event that seems to have been overlooked by wikipedia and bloggers in general.

Look at the “conclusion” and see how nuts the politician became doing their best to ensure this wouldn’t happen again, at least as easily. And it continues on today. We are talking about thousands of pages of details how a sting operation can/should be conducted. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to know when they are being bribed but they have enough loopholes now that at the very minimum would give attorneys a big fat paycheck (besides tying up the courts for years) defending such scoundrels.

Another thing that I think needs (isn’t there yet) to be clarified is the attempt at rewriting of history. I think the general consensus of why all these thousand and thousand pages of sting guidelines that congress made the attorney generals rewrite over and over again leaves one with the sense that the general public was very concerned about sting operations and how they were handled. That just wasn’t true.

Read the papers released by the FBI from the Freedom of Information Act and it is clear the public highly supported the FBI’s sting operation. Would it be the same today? Maybe, maybe not, but back then the public fully supported the actions and history shows the ones most concerned about the sting operations was the congress which even has ripples today.

I know that I am doing a lot of rambling here, but the bottom line to me is that we need to identify all 31, their involvement, details about each, and what eventually happened to them post Abscam. --209.248.136.146 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of additions and formatting. I made a few changes. A lot of "wikilinks" needs to be added... especially in the 'conclusion.'

I really question if 'Similar Sting Operation on Tennessee State Lawmakers' is even a fit there... I'd like to see it gone or moved down to the "See Also" area. Anyone else for that???

Sorry but I would have done more with formatting and wikilinks but I didn't have time... maybe someone can pick this up soon.

This is a much bigger event in history as it shows here. I'd like to see a 'simple' list of those convicted and if at all possible all 31 names.

There are some interestings things about the owner of the house the FBI leased... a reporter (NY Post, I think). I think you can get to it from some of the external links --209.248.136.146 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the second quote from Bailey in the Jack Murtha section. I think that it was made plain enough that Bailey had issues with Murtha's role in the issue, but the second quote I think was a bit too far outside of the NPOV guidelines. --68.58.103.190 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Murtha section of this article, attempting to clarify the language, reduce redundancy, provide appropriate references, and move closer to NPOV. It seems reasonable that we would want a section that objectively relates the fact of Murtha's tangential involvement in the scandal, as well as the fact that there is partisan speculation pertaining to his involvement, which does not parrot any partisan argument but rather simply presents the event. There were already references in the section, but they linked directly out of the article rather than to a reference section. Also, the references presented highly partisan arguments. I attempted to reformat the references so that they would link to a reference section, but apparently the reference section must be independently created. I do not know how to do this. Brrryan 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going back in to remove the one remaining un-sourced assertion in the section. I tried to find a source for it but could not. It's been there for some time with the citation needed tag. Also I changed the references in the section back to external links, linking directly out of the article. Previously I had gotten the indication that external links directly out of the article (as opposed to a reference section at the end of the article) were against Wikipedia policy, but now my understanding is that this is acceptable. I had tried to establish the links as footnotes to an end-article reference section but I attained no success in the attempt. Finally I acknowledge the (far) above comment that CNS is somewhat of a right-wing opinion generator, but the link is to a straightforward video and the presentation of info in the Wikipedia article I think avoids bias. Similar with the American Spectator links-- yes the Spectator is agenda-driven, but the articles linked to are nonetheless the most thorough I have located.Brrryan 10:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison A. Williams

Thought if we were going to have a whole section dedicated to Jack Murtha, we might as well start expanding to include other politicos who were involved as well. Most of the articles I linked to on the NYT site are mostly buried, but the relevant information to the citation should be there. --AdmiralKit 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a comment with an external link to a reference on the talk page of the Harrison A Williams page, relevant to Abscam. I had never heard of either before, not being a USA-ian, but found the reference's info interesting and thought I'd see what Wikipedia had on the subjects.40.0.96.1 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Thompson

It's been over 2.5 years since I added the section on Harrison A. Williams, and nobody else has been added to the detailed descriptions. I've remedied this with Rep. Frank Thompson. All of the info I described is validated within the external sources cited, though I realize I've not done a bang-up job of identifying which fact is tied to which article. I don't know how to do those little citation number things, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralKit (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murtha

The Murtha section is largely based on the video, or I should say someone's interpretation of the video, which is original research. I have tagged the article where sources need to be added and OR removed. I'll give it a couple days but I am going to remove all the OR after that. Hopefully someone can fix this, but as is, this section is in violation of WP policies. --IvoShandor (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia City Councilmen

Who were the Philadelphia City Councilmen involved? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABSCAM tapes - Murtha: "Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," http://spectator.org/archives/2006/07/12/the-rest-of-murthas-fbi-tape

FBI Videotape - Murtha was guilty as sin and he was a treasonous SOB until the day he died. Good Riddance to treasonous rubbish! http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/FBIAbscamMurtha.asx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.196.241 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summary and article inconsistent

The article's lead section claims, without a citation, that, "The operation initially targeted trafficking in stolen property but was converted to a public [officials] corruption investigation." However, the Operation section does not mention stolen property or trafficking; it seems to imply that the operation was, from the beginning, an investigation into corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.145.26 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab scam"

I was surprised to read, in the lede, that "Abscam" was a contraction of "Abdul scam", because I remember the extensive coverage at the time, which invariably said it stood for "Arab scam". A search of nytimes.com found this brief but helpful piece from 21 August 1980:

Etymology of "Abscam" Undergoes Revision
What exactly does Abscam stand for?
When law enforcement authorities first revealed the Federal Bureau of Investigation's undercover operation, they said that Abscam, its code name, stood for "Arab scam," or swindle.
Yesterday Judge George C. Pratt, who is presiding over the first Abscam trial in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, said that it was clear to him that "Abscam" was a contraction of "Abdul scam," a reference to Abdul Enterprises Ltd., the fictitious business that the undercover investigators invented as their front.
Thomas P. Puccio, the prosecutor in the trial and one of the supervisors of the operation, later said that the judge was right. However, Mr. Puccio had made no effort before yesterday to correct news reports that said "Abscam" was based on "Arab scam."
The issue came up in court after Judge Pratt announced that he had received a complaint from the American-Arab Relations Committee that the trials "reflect poorly on the Arab people and perpetuate the old prejudices against the Arabs, even though they had no part in the charade concocted by the F.B.I."

It seems clear that the feds were embarrassed, and rightly so, about the casual bigotry of the name they chose for their operation. I'm glad they changed it. But let's tell the full truth here. After all, money talks and bullshit walks, as a wise man said. Or anyway, a man.

I have changed the lede to include this. TypoBoy (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some further searches of the Times archive provide more evidence of the name change. The earliest reference to the Abscam operation is an article titled "High Officials Are Termed Subjects Of a Bribery Investigation by F.B.I.", published 3 February 1980, which says that the operation was "Code-named Abscam -- short for 'Arab Scam' ". The earliest reference to "Abdul scam", on the other hand, is the article I quote in full above, dated 21 August 1980. TypoBoy (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who was involved? Who was convicted?

This article does not make clear who was involved, and who was convicted. That information should be included.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abscam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The first four words of Williams's reply were 'No, no, no, no" And so what? If his last words were "Thank you very much for the bribe." then that makes him GUILTY. This whole section feels wrong and stupid. WTF does the opinion of a "linguistics expert" have to do with anything, anyways. My neighbor is a pet groomer, and she says he's GUILTY. This feels very much like POV pushing; like some Editor, somewhere, thought that what's-his-name got a raw deal and so they through the kitchen sink into the Article so that all the world would know that someone thought he wasn't guilty. He asked for a pardon. BOO HOO HOO. That doesn't make him NOT GUILTY. If the Article can't provide substantive information that gives the interested reader some reason to believe that his case is somehow special, and that his guilty verdict is worth questioning, then the Article should zap the whole idea of his possible innocence, and let him be lumped into the same group with all the other guilty politicians.68.206.249.124 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abscam&oldid=984742994"