Friday, June 24, 2005

We've got mail

Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 (both large PDFs) from Sen. McCain's hearings on the Abramoff/Scanlon/Reed/DeLay/Norquist scandals involving $82 billion in bilked fees from six Native American tribes.

These are treasure troves. I've gone through the first one -- it's pretty damning for all of them, but particularly Ralph Reed, who is claiming to be "vindicated" by them. Absolute, 1984-esque, up is down, black is white, right is wrong, nonsense.

So, what's your favorite email exchange, and on what page of which document? Help us find some juicy tidbits...


  • Most of this is old news, albeit very interesting. Here are two things that remain unexamined in the Great Indian Lobbying Wars:

    The role of GOP operative Roger Stone, whose clout derives from Dick Cheney and other party heavyweights. Stone represented two competing Tribes simultaneously without their knowledge; his finger prints have been all over the BIA, which he helped to staff after the 2000 election recount. Why has Stone flown under the radar?

    The role of Christopher Dodd in Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts to reopen the Tigua casino. E-mails released by Senate Indian Affairs Committee last fall show an extensive campaign to get Dodd on board, yet when the scandal broke, Bob Ney got caught holding the bag and Dodd skated, saying he knew nothing about it. In the same e-mails, Abramoff and Scanlon indicated that Hillary Clinton was standing by to assist their legislative remedy for the Tigua. IG

    By Anonymous The Observer, at 6:57 AM  

  • The Observer is right, and our non Government is becoming just like the Mexican Government, But after all that is the plan isn't it?

    By Blogger Fred Dawes, at 2:06 PM  

  • On exibit B, page 1727406-7 (pgs 9-10 of the PDF), there is an error in the redacting. The same phrase is repeated in an email and a reply. In the original, the name Dan Morgan is redacted, but not redacted in the reply. Who's Dan Morgan? The Washington Post staff writer?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:50 PM  

  • The reference to Dan Morgan appears to have somthing to do with a check for $500,000. Here's a piece Dan Morgan Wrote about Frist, including a $500,000 investment loss suffered by a campaign fund controlled by Frist. Coincidence?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home